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 (5,644 Views)
TexasShadow
Member Avatar
Jane
Quote:
 
Nature's laws point to ID. How so? Why? What leads to you to that claim? What is the basis of your assumption?


because they couldn't exist without ID. period.
you either agree with that or you don't.
if you don't agree, then you tell me how these laws came into existence in the first place.
if you want to say they just popped into existence on their own, that's fine with me, but it doesn't make sense to me, so I don't buy it.
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
Jane, you're just repeating your assumption. You are not explaining how you arrive at it or why it is true--why it is any more true than claiming the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the cause.

How'd the laws of physics we know come into existence in the first place? They didn't come into or pop into existence. They simply exist. In order for those laws to come into existence, as you claim, there would have to be laws of physics that allowed that to happen. But those are the same laws of physics.

Again this is all about the three counter arguments presented that neither you nor Teryt want to address. You just keep repeating your assumption.

I'm not asking do you have this assumption, not asking do you agree with it or not, I'm asking you to explain how you arrive at it, what is the basis of it, the existence of your claimed relationship between the laws of physics and a designer.

To answer you either accept ot not, you are saying it is a matter of faith. And that is why it, a personal religious belief, should not be taught in a biology class.
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
A quick post before I scoot out - which 3 questions? I thought I answered your 3 questions yesterday.
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
Three counter arguments to your "shear compleity of things" argument. Every time you present that, one of the three counter arguments has been posted to show that is a poor argument. You ignore them, and just repeat "shear compleity of things".

Listen, basically, you and Jane are presenting the Argument From Personal Astonishment, also know as "the Argument From Complexity, or the Argument From Ignorance, or the Argument From Incredulity."
Quote:
 
It has the form:

    * I don't understand how this could arise naturally.
    * Therefore it couldn't have.

...Here's an example from The Blind Watchmaker:

    * I am a Bishop, well educated in classical literature and theology.
    * I have never been to the Arctic, or seen a wild polar bear.
    * But off the top of my head, I can't see why polar bears are white.
    * So Evolution can't explain it.



If you had a scientific explanation, you could tell us how you arrived at your conclusion, what evidence supports it, what the relationship between complexity and designer is, and explain how it is testable against observation, experiment or prediction, and how it can be falsified and how enhanced. That is science.

Your answer, it implies a designer and you either accept that or not, is not science, but religion. Now, that's all fine and dandy in a discussion of philosophy, but the question here is, should your religious answer be taught along side evolution in a biology class? The answer to that is resoundingly no--unless you want to change the definition of science to something it is not.
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
 
TexasShadow
Member Avatar
Jane
well, chris, I arrive at my conclusions because I am a rational being. I put 2 and 2 together and come up with 4.
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
Jane, you certainly do draw rational conclusions from your assumptions. So did Aquinas. So did Augustine. You all come up with 4 and can explain how 2 and 2 is 4. But you presume 2 unquestioningly, unskeptically. Sure, 2 is 1 and 1. Explain 1.

I am not here disputing any of that. Just that that is religion, not science. And it is not rational to teach religion in science classes, just as you would not teach science (evolution) in religion classes.

That is also how mathematics works. Read Euclid, given a few assumptions, postulates, such as a line is the shortest distance between two points, a whole mathematics of geometry follows. But you can change those assumptions, as Decartes did, and you have the new geometry of curved space. Both are equally rational, equally true.

All these and your and Teryt's Cities of God are possible because of deductive logic.

Science is based in inductive logic. If your consludions were inductive you could explain them.
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
 
TexasShadow
Member Avatar
Jane
Quote:
 
And it is not rational to teach religion in science classes, just as you would not teach science (evolution) in religion classes.


well, you're preaching to the choir, here, because I don't want religion taught in science class either.
but when a kid asks "how did it all start?", a teacher should be able to handle the question without bias. as I said, I'd be satisfied with a "we don't know", but I don't see anything to kick about saying "some folks think there is a God and that He did it."
If that's tooooo religious for atheists, too bad. :)
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
There's atheism again. Your own Church, Jane, accepts evolution. What's evolution got to do with atheism? Jane, science simply does not study or say anything about the supernatural. That is not atheism.

The intellectually honest answer to "how'd it all start?" in the science and the religion classroom is a great big "I don't have a clue and no one else does either". The science teacher would then next say "now let's study evolution which has nothing to do with that question" and the religion teacher, well, what would the religion teacher say next and remain intellectually honest? What, "the Bible says this, but we know no one really knows, so what's that about?"? The question and know-nothing answer doesn't mean much to the science teacher, but it leaves the religion teacher in a quandry.
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
Quote:
 
Listen, basically, you and Jane are presenting the Argument From Personal Astonishment, also know as "the Argument From Complexity, or the Argument From Ignorance, or the Argument From Incredulity."
My votes for "Argument from Incredulty!" It just sounds better! :clap:

I'm basically clewless here - think I'll go watch a mindless video. :popcorn:
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
And here I thought you'd address the counter arguments to complexity at last.
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
You have your belief system & I have mine. You claim mine is invalid, I claim it isn't (I might add - both according to the thought environments we have chosen to surround ourselves with). You claim, based upon your beliefs of how science works, that yours should be taught in biology class exclusively, and that mine shouldn't even have an honest mention as a reply to a student's honest questioning (upon pain of termination for the teacher).

I too, believe in much of evolution (the micro adaptability part) - and also that it must have a designer.

So I'm done. But let me just ask, who is taking the exclusive, extreme & radical position here (no reply needed or expected)?
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
Baloney, teryt. This is not a matter of my belief system. Much as you would like to make it so.

This is about what science is defined to be, not by me or you, but scientists. That definition, as your friend pointed out, is restricted to materialism, restricted to the natural world.

Therefore, what is taught in the science classroom ought to be restricted likewise. Just common sense.

Now you come along and say ID is science. Asked to show where it is scientific, you cannot. Asked why you accept ID, you answer some things in the universe are too complex, but given three counter arguments to complexity, one of which shows evolution explains the supposed improbability, you ignore it and instead turn to personal belief. In fact your argument, like that of ID's founders and leaders, is based on religion.

I have no argument with your personal belief.

But you don't teach religion in science classrooms. It wouldn't make sense.
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
Let me say something really classy here: Double baloney to you too sir! Your belief system (strict materialism scientific method) works for you - and it seems above reproach, so let someone more capable than I try.
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
Teryt, we were not arguing belief systems, yours or mine. We were arguing whether ID should be taught in science classes. To qualify, it must be shown to be science. That has not been done by ID's founders and leaders, or by you. Why? Because ID is a belief system, a religious belief system, a spiritualistic belief system. Science, on the other hand, is defined as materialistic, exercised through the scientific method. To make ID materialistic by following scientific method would remove its spiritualistic foundations, just as mixing religion and politics does. And your emotional response does not change that. Now if you'd like to discuss personal beliefs, fine, I'm willing, but it's a whole different ball game.
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
Science is your belief system. Hafta believe in something!

(and you said "baloney" 1st - I can't take stuch strong, emotional language)
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