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 (5,629 Views)
abradf2519
Member
Chris "We can measure the activity of the brain."

Can we measure what I am thinking about?

Nope.
Alan
Milan, New York, USA
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
abradf2519
Jun 16 2006, 04:12 PM
Chris:"Alan "Your analogy is flawed."

Could you bother yourself to explain how."

Huh? Tery explained it. I agree with his explination.

Ignoring Eric's counter argument. Explanation would sure help to understand what you mean by an otherwise empty claim.
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
abradf2519
Jun 16 2006, 04:14 PM
Chris "We can measure the activity of the brain."

Can we measure what I am thinking about?

Nope.

Actually, yes, not just the activity, but the patterns and locations. I worked for a cog psych prof who measure early language learning that way.

You can also apply signals from the brain to command motors. Useful for quadriplegics to achieve independent mobility.
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
Daily there are stories in the main stream scientific literature that evidence, question, debate, enhance various aspects of evolutionary theory.

There's one in the headlines now: Ducklike Fossil Points to Aquatic Origins for Modern Birds: "Fossils of those avians that gave rise to the modern bird lineage "are relatively rare in the Cretaceous," explains Matthew Lamanna of the Carnegie Museum of Natural History, co-author of a paper detailing the finds, published today in Science. But "when we mapped ecology onto our evolutionary tree, a pattern became apparent that species leading up to modern birds are mostly aquatic," Lamanna notes."

And what do we see about Intelligent Design? The same old politically motivated arguments against evolution, and not one word explaining, detailing, discussing ID itself.

Here's one from the home of ID, the Center for Science and Culture: Jeff Schwartz, Jeff Schwartz, Darwinism, Intelligent Design, and the Increasingly Byzantine Conspiracy to Establish a Theocracy.

It starts out inventing attacks on ID supporters:
Quote:
 
    I think it was George Patton who said, "If everybody's thinking the same thing, then nobody's thinking." And I believe that's the problem with this Darwinian thinking that puts all the eggs in one basket.

Oh, those ignorant people who criticize Darwinism ... this guy's probably a Christian fundamentalist, right? Determined to ignore science and establish a theocracy.


George Patton is dead. His was a political statement, having, obviously, nothing to do with ID.

Couldn't the writer find a real instance of a scientist attacking IDers?

The article goes on:
Quote:
 
No. Jeffrey Schwartz is a noted anthropologist at the University of Pittsburgh. Moreover,

    In criticizing Darwin, Dr. Schwartz does not dispute his theory that humans, animals and plants evolved from other species. In fact, one of his books, "The Red Ape," argues that orangutans, not chimpanzees, are the closest evolutionary relatives of human beings.

    He does take issue with two key parts of traditional Darwinian thinking, though -- gradualism and adaptation.

He's not the only one. Numerous scientists question key points of contemporary Darwinian theory....


Of course he's not the only one. All scientists doing research into evolution do that, that's what science is about.

So why the deception? The trickery? Because it leads into accusation:
Quote:
 
Do you hear about them in the mainstream media? In your high school science classroom? Not likely. Rather than playing by its own rules--survival of the fittest--Darwinism has claimed protected status and is being coddled along, its life artificially prolonged.


Sorry, but you do hear about it in the main stream media all the time. I see articles every day. And, yes, evolutionary theory is pointed out as just that, a theory in the classroom.

So why the lies?

Quote:
 
I know, it's confusing. The fundamentalist Christian conspiracy to challenge Darwinism (Schwartz) and promote intelligent design (Schwartz) just gets more complicated every day.


Conspiracy theory about conspiracies?

So, uh, what did they say about ID? Any new discoveries? Any new disputes?

No, nothing at all. As vacuous as any other ID claim.


And here's an editorial by a pastor, Theories of evolution vs. intelligent design:
Quote:
 
Q. What is a good way to explain evolution vs. intelligent design to our 14-year-old daughter? We know how we feel, but we want her to be able to make up her own mind. -- K. J. R., Plantation

A. Asking the right questions between the two theories is our path.

The evolution universe suggests that development of all things is the result of natural selection and survival of the fittest as proposed by Darwin. This hypothesis considers some organizational laws of physics, chemistry, biology -- the building blocks -- that make "evolution" possible.

Then we must ask, where did these laws or principles come from? How is the "origin" question addressed by this theory?

The intelligent design school of thought proposes that natural selection is an intelligently guided process. Adherents believe there is a more complex interconnected system that is constantly expanding the universe.

The precise organization of forces that sustain the universe could not just be happening randomly.

Since events are not independent, how can we accept a random force? What is this guiding, organizing design process? I call it God. They call it intelligent design.


He gets the natural selection part right. Evolution is thus not random.

But he gets the "survival of the fittest as proposed by Darwin" wrong. Darwin never proposed that, it was Herbert Spencer proposing a Darwinian-like social theory. Evolutionary theory is about genes, changes in alleles, not society.

Then, in a typical bait and switch, he asks the origins question--evolutionary theory does not concern origins.

Next he contradicts himself. He said evolution was the result of natural selection, the result of "some organizational laws of physics, chemistry, biology -- the building blocks -- that make "evolution" possible." In the bait and switch he says the opposite: "The precise organization of forces that sustain the universe could not just be happening randomly....Since events are not independent, how can we accept a random force?"" Hey, it's either not random or it is.

Not only that, but he begs the question: "What is this guiding, organizing design process? I call it God. They call it intelligent design." Well, if everything requires a "guiding, organizing design process" then what "guiding, organizing design process" is responsible for God or ID?

Science would keep asking. Religion settles for answers that are nothing more than assumptions.
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
Thanks for keeping us so informed, and resolidifying your beliefs & opinions with us.
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
This thread itself does that. Asked what does ID say, I get little response. Asked what would you teach of ID, I get just mention it. But just like the two ID articles, there's plenty of attacking science in attempts to undermine it. Just no substance to what ID is. I think this leads to an obvious conclusion about ID, it's vacuous. A conclusion not based on belief or opinion, but facts, seen here in this thread and dozens of articles like the two above.
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
I'm willing to wait.
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
Oh, I'm willing to wait, too, until ID says something worth listening to and teaching in 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
So we'll both be waiting, albeit for different reasons.
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
ID wedges into India, and the cleric is upset: Hindu cleric wants probe into allegations ice shrine in Kashmir doctored.
Quote:
 
“If found to be true that Shiva lingam has been raised manually or mechanically, to me it appears to be an act of sacrilege hurting the feelings of the devotees,” Mahant (cleric) Deependra Giri said in a statement that called for an independent judicial inquiry.


:floorrollin:
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
I wonder if it is circumcised? :ohmy:

BTW - you have too much reading time on your hands!
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
Yeah, just read this, right on topic too...

Semi-Intelligent Design]Semi-Intelligent Design
Quote:
 
It used to be that there was a whole lot of education that went into becoming a scientist.

To be a scientist you actually had to study stuff. And not just easy stuff like "Who is the President of the United States?" (Hint: She was in Earth Girls Are Easy and A League of Their Own).

As a scientist, you were expected to know chemical formulas such as H-2-0 (water) or 2-Pac (rapper).

People considered scientists to be experts and consulted them on important matters like what kind of hangover you'd get if you mixed lemonade and Jagermeister or how to set up a crystal meth lab.

But alas, Frodo, that was in the olden times...

These days anyone can weigh in as a scientific expert, especially in places like Kansas where "intelligent design" is now a mandatory part of the science curriculum.

The last time the educational bar was set this low was when the Scarecrow got a degree from the Wizard of Oz.

Supporters of intelligent design argue that the universe is so complex that it had to be designed by a superior being (like Rush Limbaugh or Barbra Streisand) or super-intelligent aliens (like Henry Kissinger or Salma Hayek).

Intelligent design enthusiasts want their views to be presented as an alternative to the science of evolution. The idea here is that one theory is just as good as another, regardless of any supporting evidence. Kind of like Ashlee Simpson being advanced as an alternative to Melissa Etheridge.

Hey, we get it. The universe is amazingly intricate. So is the plot line in Lost - that doesn't mean it was designed by aliens...although Tom Cruise might give you and argument on that.

Comparing the two sides of this debate seems to favor evolutionary theory...

First off, Charles Darwin had a beard; a good thing when you want to be taken seriously as a scientist.

And Darwin's beard wasn't some scruffy beard like your grandmother has. Darwin's bushy beard spoke to his stature as a scientist. It was as if he were saying, "If I wasn't an expert in my field, I couldn't walk around looking like the lead singer of ZZ Top, could I?"

In contrast, the evangelical preachers who promote intelligent design usually sport shiny suits and ties with huge knots.

If the knot in your tie is the roughly the size of a St. Bernard's head, it is very difficult to be taken seriously on any topic, let alone the origins of the universe.

Secondly, Darwin's book has a weighty title: On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life.

The textbook used for teaching intelligent design is Of Pandas and People. Let's face it, you can't possibly hope to be taken seriously if your science book has a title with that kind of alliteration.

However, the main problem with the view that the universe was created by a superior being is: who created the superior being that created the universe? And who created the superior being who created that superior being?

This is what's known in scientific circles as an infinite regret. As in, "I regret ever trying to have an intelligent discussion with a religious zealot."

Still, the creationists might be right...

The world is a magnificent and complex place. We marvel at the color and symmetry of a leaf in autumn. We feel humble when we gaze up at a star-filled night sky. We watch in awe as a sunrise unfolds in wisps of clouds and a symphony of pastels.

There is only one conclusion to be drawn from the beauty and intricacy of the universe: god is gay.

Since the universe is so well-designed, it's unlikely that only one gay god was involved. Think about it. There are five consultants on Queer Eye for the Straight Guy.

It's time we started teaching children that creating the universe was too important a task to be assigned to just one god. You pretty much need a grooming guru and a culture vulture at a bare minimum.

So, come on, Kansas. Get with the program. One theory's just as good as another, isn't it?


Actually read some others, but that one was intelligently designed, don't you think, with wit and charm!
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
But I can't grow a beard!
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, it's interesting that you are waiting for ID to develop into something.

Last night I finished reading Frank Sulloway's "Why Darwin Rejected Intelligent Design", in Intelligent Thought. Did you know that the prevailing theory at Darwin's time was creation science, specifically intelligent design? Darwin himself accepted it. If you read his Beagle journals you can see plainly he initially interpreted the evidence in light of the then prevailing theory. It wasn't until he returned and studied the evidence more closely, along with others, that he found creationist ID simply could not explain the evidence, and gradually pieced together natural selection as a new theory.

Sulloway concludes, "In so doing, most of them [evolutionary biologists] realized, just as Darwin had, not only that intelligent design fails to explain anything that cannot be fully explained by natural selection but also--and far more damningly--that whatever this theory does claim to explain, it explains badly or not at all."

So, what exactly are you waiting for?
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
"Teryt, it's interesting that you are waiting for ID to develop into something."

Oh, I already think it's something, it's you that don't. And we've already established that it doesn't seem to fit the current definition of science, so it's no wonder it got rejected.

I'm just waiting for ID researchers to see if they can formulate their studies into something that the metaphysicals can more readily accept. (Then again, IDers are waiting for the evolutionists missing link.)

(Too bad about Neanderthal DNA not matching up with human DNA, because that would have shown something in the missing link area. But Neanderthals being a seperate species actually goes towards the Gap Theory.)
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
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Fully Featured & Customizable Free Forums
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Soapbox · Next Topic »
Add Reply