Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Campfire Soapbox. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Dumbing Down Of America, 2
Topic Started: May 12 2006, 11:46 AM (5,651 Views)
teryt
Member Avatar
Missing in Action Member
cmoehle
May 31 2006, 10:55 PM
teryt "30,000+ messages - how do you do it!?"

Another diversion from the substance of the topic.


""Anyway, the communication itself is getting almost more complicated than the subject..."

Suggestion: Try focusing on the sustance over digressing on style. Such as "So what's all this got to do with the credibility of ID?"

Interesting - you see "another diversion," I see an attempt at small talk to lighten things up.

Yes, there does seem to be a styles thing going on here. I'll take my 100% of the two way communication accountability for that.

Tell ya what I will do here. I've got a friend who is into biology, and who introduced me to ID. I'll ask him to provide some scientific info & see what he comes up with.
My Boast is Christ :pray:
Soon to have MBA (I'll perhaps be smart then)
Recovering Perfectionist
Christian Hedonist

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
So now what is your point? Are we talking about educational theory now?

What does any of that have to do with evolution? Or, "So what's all this got to do with the credibility of ID?"

In order for ID to be taught in SCIENCE class, it must be shown to be not religion but science. Its founders and leaders--Johnson, Dembski and Behe--have quite CLEARLY stated it is religion.

Next, it would need to show itself to have some practical value to the education of our children.

Arguing about textbooks and educational theories and linguistics and rhetoric and what all else including at times, it seems, the kitchen sink, is not furthering your cause of wedging it into the SCIENCE classroom.

Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
teryt
Member Avatar
Missing in Action Member
Agreed. I was just defending my observation, from your "debunking."

See other message above - gotta scoot & teach a night class (using spaced repetition, multi-sensory & participatory methods).
My Boast is Christ :pray:
Soon to have MBA (I'll perhaps be smart then)
Recovering Perfectionist
Christian Hedonist

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
Cafe is a great place to chat...
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
Earlier I alluded to "irreducible mystery". This is where I came across it:

Quote:
 
I have to admit that, even when physicists will have gone as far as they can go, when we have a final theory, we will not have a completely satisfying picture of the world, because we will still be left with the question "why?" Why this theory, rather than some other theory? For example, why is the world described by quantum mechanics? Quantum mechanics is the one part of our present physics that is likely to survive intact in any future theory, but there is nothing logically inevitable about quantum mechanics; I can imagine a universe governed by Newtonian mechanics instead. So there seems to be an irreducible mystery that science will not eliminate.


From Steven Weinberg's A Designer Universe?.

Today I read the next paragraph:

Quote:
 
But religious theories of design have the same problem. Either you mean something definite by a God, a designer, or you don't. If you don't, then what are we talking about? If you do mean something definite by "God" or "design," if for instance you believe in a God who is jealous, or loving, or intelligent, or whimsical, then you still must confront the question "why?" A religion may assert that the universe is governed by that sort of God, rather than some other sort of God, and it may offer evidence for this belief, but it cannot explain why this should be so.



Science readily admits it address how?, and not why?


When will religion give up the conceit it addresses why?
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bikemanb
Member Avatar
Liberal Conservative
Quote:
 
When will religion give up the conceit it addresses why?


It won't, because by inflating our worth in the universe as God's special science project; it allows us to not face up to the immensity of the universe on a time and space continuum and our own and our solar systems insignificance in the grand scope of things.

We are needy children trying to identify our lot in the universe and the immensity frightens the pants off of us.
Bill, Rita and Chloe the Terror Cat

For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged, by better information or fuller consideration, to change opinions, even on important subjects, which I once thought right but found to be otherwise.

Benjamin Franklin
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abradf2519
Member
Eric:
Quote:
 
Just kidding. I don't see either order or chaos - I see the universe as it is. A manifestation across billions of years and billions of light years, made up of billions of galaxies and hundreds of trillion stars all following the simple mathematical descriptions we call the "laws of nature."


And here is where your philosophy falls short. You cannot answer the question.

Billions of people who look at the universe, see intelegence and order. Its obvious to them. IMHO, it is the meter that God moves to show us he is real.

But you and others cannot see it, because of a "theory". An idea unproven has binded you and others to the simple fact that the world was designed by some intelegence.

You or others may even believe in God. But then you dismiss the obvious as "religion", religating it to something unknown, almost not real, mythical, and not as truthfull as science. You talk about truth as if it were 2 separate things, truth, and "TRVTH". But there is only truth, and there is no such thing as "TRVTH".

Order requires intelegence. You say there is no proof of that, you think that order can come out of an unintelegent happening. Crash your RV into a tree 5,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times, and one of those times, you might have order! I think not. What you will really have is 5,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 different ways your RV can come apart. Maybe, if you are lucky, 2 of the times the RV will come apart the same exact way, but you will NEVER have order.

There is NO WAY that this extremely complex world could have come forth without intelegence. To think otherwise is ignoring reality.
Alan
Milan, New York, USA
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abradf2519
Member
cmoehle
May 31 2006, 08:10 PM
Quote:
 
But religious theories of design have the same problem. Either you mean something definite by a God, a designer, or you don't. If you don't, then what are we talking about? If you do mean something definite by "God" or "design," if for instance you believe in a God who is jealous, or loving, or intelligent, or whimsical, then you still must confront the question "why?" A religion may assert that the universe is governed by that sort of God, rather than some other sort of God, and it may offer evidence for this belief, but it cannot explain why this should be so.


I would ask the Steven Weinberg why it is necessary to name the designer? Just because he wants to know? He suggest that unless you say the designer is God or something else, ID has no credibility, but he does not say why.

Then he says religion can not explain why a particular God is true and others are not. This is not true. I can explain why I think the designer is Jesus. Can I prove it scientificly? No, but I can prove it logically.

He sounds like he is defending an illogical philosophy.

Quote:
 
Science readily admits it address how?, and not why?


When will religion give up the conceit it addresses why?


If religion is supposed to answer "why", why then do you think we are conceited when we do?

You seem to be unfair.
Alan
Milan, New York, USA
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
"I would ask the Steven Weinberg why it is necessary to name the designer?"

You quoted him, he already answered you: "If you don't, then what are we talking about?" Nothing?


"He suggest that unless you say the designer is God or something else, ID has no credibility, but he does not say why."

You quoted him, he already answered you: "then you still must confront the question "why?""


"If religion is supposed to answer "why", why then do you think we are conceited when we do?"

Because you don't. Ironically, you, too, have just revealed who you think the designer is, confirming again ID is religion.


"You seem to be unfair. "

Seems rather personal. But I'll bite. How am I unfair? Or can you tell us why God designed the universe?
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ngc1514
Member Avatar
Member
TexasShadow
May 31 2006, 05:02 PM
I'm tired of arguing this. :)
Looks like a stand-off to me. :)

It's only a stand-off if you accept that in hundreds of textbooks and magazines I've seen Christianity called "only a myth."

Stand-off? You make all sorts of claims about how evolution is taught as something other than theory and, with the full resources of the 'Net at your beck and call, can't point to a single instance.

Sounds like you made a wild exaggeration and got called on it. Not sure how they term that in your part of the country, but we don't call it a "stand-off" here.

Posted ImageEric
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ngc1514
Member Avatar
Member
abradf2519
May 31 2006, 10:38 PM


Quote:
 
And here is where your philosophy falls short. You cannot answer the question.


Umm... Alan... I answered the question. Just didn't do so under the constrictions you attempted to impose. You put it as either-or and I showed there was another alternative.

As long as you are accusing others of not answreing questions, how about this one that's been asked of you more than once: How would you falsify intelligent design?

Quote:
 
Billions of people who look at the universe, see intelegence and order. Its obvious to them. IMHO, it is the meter that God moves to show us he is real.


Billions of people who look at the universe can't differentiate out Zuben El Genubi from Zubeneschamali. [spelling flame]Oh... it's nice, if you are going to talk about intelligence to occasionally spell it correctly. [/spelling flame] Science is not done by public acclaim or popularity. Those same billions (and, apparently you, as well) can't give a definition of "order" that points to intelligence in the universe.

Care to give it a try?



Quote:
 
But you and others cannot see it, because of a "theory". An idea unproven has binded you and others to the simple fact that the world was designed by some intelegence.


He claims, without any evidence to demonstrate this to be true. He makes a major pronouncement about evolution being "unproven" even though it's been pointed out to him - multiple times - that theories are never proven true, only false. It's like pouring water into a sieve. And, as much as I hate to disabuse you, Alan, your claiming it to be a "simple fact" doesn't come close to making it so.

Quote:
 
Order requires intelegence. You say there is no proof of that, you think that order can come out of an unintelegent happening. Crash your RV into a tree 5,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times, and one of those times, you might have order! I think not. What you will really have is 5,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 different ways your RV can come apart. Maybe, if you are lucky, 2 of the times the RV will come apart the same exact way, but you will NEVER have order.


Alan, we've already discussed non-deterministic systems and the theory of chaos. We've also touch on the difference between living and non-living systems in regards to modifications of environment. Crashing an RV into a tree is a non-deterministic system and the results are those expected by Chaos Theory.

We will have order after the crash if I get to mark where everything falls and then point to the positions of the rubble as evidence. This is analogous to your argument.

Go crash god into a tree and let me know what happens.

Posted ImageEric
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
teryt
Member Avatar
Missing in Action Member
It does little good to call other's ideas arrogant & narrow-minded.
My Boast is Christ :pray:
Soon to have MBA (I'll perhaps be smart then)
Recovering Perfectionist
Christian Hedonist

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TexasShadow
Member Avatar
Jane
let's lighten up, guys. this isn't an earth-shaking issue and there's no prize for winning the debate.
Posted Image "A conclusion is the place where you got tired of thinking."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
teryt
Member Avatar
Missing in Action Member
TexasShadow
Jun 1 2006, 04:06 PM
let's lighten up, guys. this isn't an earth-shaking issue and there's no prize for winning the debate.

Amen to that.
My Boast is Christ :pray:
Soon to have MBA (I'll perhaps be smart then)
Recovering Perfectionist
Christian Hedonist

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
"let's lighten up, guys"

Lighten what up?

That evolutionary theory is scientific and thus taught in biology classes for at least practical purposes is not earth-shaking--most everyone understands that.

That id is religion, thinly disguised creationism, and the designer believed to be God, and thus not taught in biology classes is not earth-shaking either--not even the founders and leaders of the movement advocate that.

But, now, the notion religion really does not answer why? is fairly earth-shaking.

And I'm still trying to get my head around this notion of order! Now I look around me and see order. Some of it man-made. Some of it perceived--shells arranged in size on a beach. But fundamentally it is all described by the laws of nature, and there is nothing else, no disorder, and thus no design, or designer, no purpose. Unless you claim a designer designed the laws of nature. But what for and why? And, just as with saying there is order, what does it add to say that? By Occam's Razor the supernatural is superfluous.

So we can to some degree know how through science. But nothing will tell us why?
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Soapbox · Next Topic »
Add Reply