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 (5,648 Views)
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
Invite her to the forum! ;) Best of luck to her, we need more studying this field if they are to compete for jobs and we as a nation to compete for keeping those jobs here.

(Please, if you get a chance, critique my brief summary of what you're saying about order, WAP and possibilities here. Knock it apart where it needs knocking, I want to understand this better.)
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
cmoehle
Jun 1 2006, 09:18 PM
Eric, here's where I am with getting my head around what you're saying about order.

Demski's main argument for ID is the probability of the design perceived is so miniscule it had to be designed.

The WAP says, simplyfying, observed conditions in the universe must be those that allow the observer to exist

Both assume a universe that is special.

But modern physics posits 10 to the 500th, give or take a few trillion, possible universes all with their own laws, particles and constants (c.f., Leonard Susskind).

This universe is not special.

My head hurts! :ohmy:

Sounds good to me.

This part about "probability of design" is the weakest. Coming up with all these huge numbers to show how the odds of these systems developing "randomly" is fatuous. The IDers are looking at what the universe is like now and ASSUMING that this is the ONLY way the universe can be. False, false and false!

Probability of design assumes there was a design; something that has yet to be observed. There is no design, only function.

I've used the analogy of the archer and grassy field before, but it is so applicable here that I'll trot it out one more time.

An archer fires an arrow randomly into a large, grassy field. Not surprisingly, the arrow hits a blade of grass.

An IDer comes along and marvels at the odds of the arrow hitting that particular blade and comes to the conclusion that only by god directing the arrow's flight could that single blade have been hit.

The odds, the probability, can only be calculated before the archer lets fly. After the arrow landed, the probabilty of that blade being hit goes to 1.0 because it was hit. The probability of humans arising 13 billion years after the universe sprang into being is, likewise, 1.0 - because we are here. There was no intial design, no plans or requirements and no need for us to be here. We just am.
Posted ImageEric
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ngc1514
Member Avatar
Member
TexasShadow
Jun 1 2006, 09:20 PM
Quote:
 
Science is not decided in the voting booth or by government fiat.


sure it is, ever since schools were invented. the ones who pay for the schools get to say what is taught in them.
Places like Yale and Harvard are controlled by whoever pays their bills.
today, lots of folks are home schooling because they don't like the way our schools are teaching.

I wasn't talking about what's taught in schools as science. I was talking about science as it's practiced in the field BY scientists. Aberrations like Lysenko are thrown on the scrap heap of science not because he was a loon, but because he was demonstrably wrong.
Posted ImageEric
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ngc1514
Member Avatar
Member
TexasShadow
Jun 1 2006, 09:28 PM
Tonight I was watching the Rise of Man on the Discovery channel.
The narrator tells a story while actors act out the story.
This is the story, told as if it really happened, with moving pictures and everything.


This is the same Discovery Channel that hosts "The World's Strangest UFO Stories?"

Quote:
 
Discovery Channel :: Episode :: The Great Alien Conspiracy
... free newsletter. site search, On Air (et/pt): JUN 03 2006 @ 01:00 PM. DSC — World's Strangest UFO Stories. The Great Alien Conspiracy. ...

Discovery Channel :: Episode :: Did Aliens Build the Pyramids?
... free newsletter. site search, On Air (et/pt): JUN 03 2006 @ 02:00 PM. DSC — World's Strangest UFO Stories. Did Aliens Build the Pyramids? ...


No wonder people are so confused about science!




Posted ImageEric
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TexasShadow
Member Avatar
Jane
Quote:
 
No wonder people are so confused about science!


yes, and it begins with poor teaching in our schools.

so when it comes down to it, mentioning ID along with evolution is most likely not going to cause any harm at all, so it's much ado about nothing.
Posted Image "A conclusion is the place where you got tired of thinking."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
ID is much ado about nothing--know nothing. So why make a bad situation worse?
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
cmoehle
Jun 2 2006, 05:46 PM
ID is much ado about nothing--know nothing. So why make a bad situation worse?

Your unwavering stance (apparently to show ID is nothing worth teaching or even mentioning in school) on this makes me wonder if there is a deeper motive . . . :dunno:
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
 
ngc1514
Member Avatar
Member
teryt
Jun 2 2006, 01:58 PM
cmoehle
Jun 2 2006, 05:46 PM
ID is much ado about nothing--know nothing. So why make a bad situation worse?

Your unwavering stance (apparently to show ID is nothing worth teaching or even mentioning in school) on this makes me wonder if there is a deeper motive . . . :dunno:

It's up to ID to show itself worth teaching. So far, it hasn't.
Posted ImageEric
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
teryt
Member Avatar
Missing in Action Member
ngc1514
Jun 2 2006, 06:29 PM
teryt
Jun 2 2006, 01:58 PM
cmoehle
Jun 2 2006, 05:46 PM
ID is much ado about nothing--know nothing. So why make a bad situation worse?

Your unwavering stance (apparently to show ID is nothing worth teaching or even mentioning in school) on this makes me wonder if there is a deeper motive . . . :dunno:

It's up to ID to show itself worth teaching. So far, it hasn't.

Therefore, based on that assumption, it probably never will in your mind.
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
 
ngc1514
Member Avatar
Member
TexasShadow
Jun 2 2006, 01:16 PM
Quote:
 
No wonder people are so confused about science!


yes, and it begins with poor teaching in our schools.

so when it comes down to it, mentioning ID along with evolution is most likely not going to cause any harm at all, so it's much ado about nothing.

So, the solution you suggest is to teach something completely NONSCIENTIFIC in science class to end the confusion. Just throw endless "viewpoints" as Teryt likes to say at the kiddies.

Yeah, that'll work.

The kids don't know much about science because teachers and schoolboards are afraid to take the kids into a 6 month biology class that spends the time looking at WHY evolution is the standard model. They are afraid to say that evolution is the theory that makes sense of the zoosphere around us.

A few of the bright kids will learn it later in life. Most of the rest will worry about who the next American Idol will be and complain about the dumbing down of America....



Posted ImageEric
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
teryt
Member Avatar
Missing in Action Member
Well then, we agree to disagree. And I'm not even sure we agree about what we disagree on. You seem to see agendas with promoting ID. I see agendas for only teaching evolution as THE big answer, and not even mentioning ID. Both sides seem to be suspicious of the other's motives.

So how did Jane put it? - a "stand off." Oh that's right, we don't even agree on this because you advocate that you have "won," because we haven't played by your rules - feels like: :fryingpan:

So let's not confuse the kiddies by giving them other "viewpoints." Geez - what would that do!?
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
Stand off?

Why do you seek to instill only suspicion of evolution? And not substantiate ID?

Did your freind explain how ID employs scientific method?
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
cmoehle
Jun 2 2006, 07:36 PM
Stand off?

Why do you seek to instill only suspicion of evolution? And not substantiate ID?

Did your freind explain how ID employs scientific method?

I've asked him, and am awaiting a reply.

Look, I don't seek to place suspicion on evolution, other than a healthy suspicion we should have for all things. And the points you & Eric have made have not gone unnoticed. I "feel" like there is a headlong rush to push anything else out of the public conciousness other than evolution.

I have not tried to substantiate ID, because that is not my field of expertise. I beleive ID has some merits, based upon my limited knowledge of it & my observation of the universe. I also beleive evolution has some merits based upon my limited knowledge & observation of the same. I can see no harm in at least mentioning evolution is school. :floorrollin:
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
Ah, but that is largely what you've tried to do. What's interesting is science does that itself. Difference is suspicion in science is skepticism, in religion discredit. Right? To question a religious doctrine is to attack the religion and its followers. Questioning science is what science is about. Because of that, Evolutionary Theory has advanced beyond the Darwinism Creationists seek to discredit. ID, on the other hand, is the same teleological argument it was centuries ago.

The argument here has not been to push ID from public consciousness, just to keep non-scientific, non-materialistic theories out of the science classroom. A philosophy or comparative religion class, or better, a civics class would be fine.

Why, if, as you admit, you know so little about ID, do you seek to give it a place in the science classroom?

Would you seek the same for evolution in a Bible class with the same fervor, raising suspicion of the Bible and even God to accomplish it?
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
cmoehle
Jun 2 2006, 08:18 PM
Questioning science is what science is about. Because of that, Evolutionary Theory has advanced beyond the Darwinism Creationists seek to discredit. ID, on the other hand, is the same teleological argument it was centuries ago.

Your questions are perhaps best answered by a rebuttal of the notion that ID has not advanced further than the centuries old teleological argument (TA). But this is not the case, as we have the advantage of seeing down to the subatomic level. This shows much more complexity than any teleologist or Darwinist imagined. It inludes the very makeup & reproduction of cells according to an intricate & elaborate plan (DNA) for not only each organism, but also for individual cells.

So to say ID "is the same teleological argument it was centuries ago" is just not accurate.

As we have drilled down into the mico world, the notion of the TA has certainly not been discreditied by the complexity we have found. But it has raised questions of how these things could come about in a purely evolutionary way.

Good & simple outline of the teleological argument here:
My Webpage

Quote:
 
Although there are variations, the basic argument can be stated as follows:

1. X is too (complex, orderly, adaptive, apparently purposeful, and/or beautiful) to have occurred randomly or accidentally.
2. Therefore, X must have been created by a (sentient, intelligent, wise, and/or purposeful) being.
3. God is that (sentient, intelligent, wise, and/or purposeful) being.
4. Therefore, God exists.


Personally, and from what I understand of ID, it only proposes #1 & 2.

BTW - Just because it may be a non sequitur argument as stated in this link, doesn't mean it is. (e.g., just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get me!)
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
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Soapbox · Next Topic »
Add Reply