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 (5,660 Views)
teryt
Member Avatar
Missing in Action Member
cmoehle
May 24 2006, 04:03 AM
Teryt "Chris, inflamatory & premature statements such as "ID is . . . a two faced lie," really does nothing to further open conversation, does it?"

Why do you choose to quote me out of context, the context that gives the standard ID lie?

Let's restore the context: "When they are talking to Christians, they assume the designer is Christ....If they talk to scientists, the designer is unknown...."

When ID proponents like Johnson, Dembski and Behe speak to Chistians they say one thing and to scientists another. That is indeed two-faced--and inflammatory on their part.

What's premature about that? That's what they do.


"I am purposely not being specific, because I'm no expert on the subject of ID or evolution - my response has has always been to address a different level, namely:

Give ID some time."

But you were demanding an answer, twice. Can't you be more specific in your question?


Would you give IDOID some time, too?

You placed this statement by itself, at the bottom of the page: "ID is, as you have pointed out, a two-faced lie. " Right? I'm not seeing how that is out of context.

"Premature" as there hasn't been 1/100th of the energy put into ID as there has been to evolutionary theory.

So I don't know how much more I can say about it. I really am not in the position to defend ID. My position, again, is:
Quote:
 
Give ID some time. (Evolutionary theory has had significant time expended on it.) Start teaching evolution in schools as one answer, but not the only one, and be open to some other ideas (which the opposite is the height of human arrogance), such as ID.


Did you read my link to the "Dodo" article? That takes a faily nuetral stance, and the author's idea is to pokes holes in both ID & evolution. Could Evolutionists become Dodos?
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
 
DocInBird
Member
teryt
May 23 2006, 09:49 PM

Reminds me of one of my old physics professors. When he would start some calculation or formulae, he would always say, "And if the universe is an orderly place (under his breath he would add 'and it is'), then if this is true, then the following must also be true." There seems to be something to that. The inverse would be chaos & insanity in sort of reverse: that is, if you did the same thing but always got different results - now that would drive you insane! LOL

So I wonder how the universe got so orderly . . . ;) (wink wink LOL)

LOL, that reminds me of one of my physics profs. Of course both profs are right. We don't have enough data yet to decide.

When my mother was in school, they taught her that there could not every be anything smaller than a molecule. When I was in elementary school, they taught that there could never be anything smaller than an atom. By the time I went to college, they were talking about sub-atomic particles. Then I read a book by Fennyman on Quantum Physics. Oh my!

There again, we don't have enough data. I gave a guest lecture on the topic of quantum physics last week, and it was great fun. I could "prove" using quantum mechanics that two things could be in the same place at the same time, but I could not cause it to happen on command. I could "prove" that there could be other dimensions or universes, but I could not connect to them. And then I talked about the religion that predicted this a looooong time ago.

Obviously there are things that we can observe, but cannot control. Could the design have come from one of these? I don't know. Do you remember the old Farside cartoon where the student says, "Teacher, may I be excused? My brain is full."?

After that particular lecture, I sat with faculty members from several departments and we talked about it over a couple of bottles of good brandy. Lots of interesting ideas, but no firm decision.
--doc
Just Doc and Orson (German Shepherd) wandering around North America.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
DocInBird
Member
Eric, we really don't know anything until there is evidence. Do we? I certainly hope that it does not come in the form of Cthulhu and Yog-Sothoth, but it might. I will not know until I see the evidence. That makes me an agnostic. I know well about the fiction you reference. I doubt that they were the doers. Hey you. If you do not know whether Cthulhu and Yog-Sothoth are going to cause the destruction of the earth, then you are agnostics too. Want more proof? Many of us do.
--doc
Just Doc and Orson (German Shepherd) wandering around North America.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
teryt
May 23 2006, 11:16 PM
cmoehle
May 24 2006, 04:03 AM
Teryt "Chris, inflamatory & premature statements such as "ID is . . . a two faced lie," really does nothing to further open conversation, does it?"

Why do you choose to quote me out of context, the context that gives the standard ID lie?

Let's restore the context: "When they are talking to Christians, they assume the designer is Christ....If they talk to scientists, the designer is unknown...."

When ID proponents like Johnson, Dembski and Behe speak to Chistians they say one thing and to scientists another. That is indeed two-faced--and inflammatory on their part.

What's premature about that? That's what they do.


"I am purposely not being specific, because I'm no expert on the subject of ID or evolution - my response has has always been to address a different level, namely:

Give ID some time."

But you were demanding an answer, twice. Can't you be more specific in your question?


Would you give IDOID some time, too?

You placed this statement by itself, at the bottom of the page: "ID is, as you have pointed out, a two-faced lie. " Right? I'm not seeing how that is out of context.

"Premature" as there hasn't been 1/100th of the energy put into ID as there has been to evolutionary theory.

So I don't know how much more I can say about it. I really am not in the position to defend ID. My position, again, is:
Quote:
 
Give ID some time. (Evolutionary theory has had significant time expended on it.) Start teaching evolution in schools as one answer, but not the only one, and be open to some other ideas (which the opposite is the height of human arrogance), such as ID.


Did you read my link to the "Dodo" article? That takes a faily nuetral stance, and the author's idea is to pokes holes in both ID & evolution. Could Evolutionists become Dodos?

Amazing, even after I put it back in context, you deny it. The context is the lie. What do you call telling one group of people the designer is unknown but turning around and telling another group it is the Christian God and the theory is grounded in Christ?


If your sole reason for accepting ID over evolution is it's premature to decide, do you feel the same way about abiogenesis, panspermia, IDOID and other theories?



OK, I read about the cartoon, Dodos. Its point is that ID could win out over evolution because IDers are better communicators than scientists.

It used to be popular to buy snake oil. People like to jump on bandwagons. Remember the hula hoop craze! Such fads come and go in cycles, dying out to commonsense till the next emotional revival. All the while science advances.
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
As an additional comment on the populism of ID. Adults may fall for it, but it seems children don't.

How Children Learn About God and Science
Quote:
 
A new review of scientific studies supports the idea that children do not take all the teachings of parents and teachers at face value.

Most parents would hope and expect as much—nobody wants an automaton.

But the study revealed an interesting sidebar that is tougher to explain. Among things they can't see, from germs to God, children seem to be more confident in the information they get about invisible scientific objects than about things in the spiritual realm....


Is this why Creationists are so adament about wedging ID into the 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
 
DocInBird
Member
Chris, my discussion with terryt has been interesting. I started off dissing the organizations promoting ID, by promoting Pang Gu (the Chinese god of myth, that created the world), and whose believers outnumber those believing in the Christian creation myth by far.

What he said to me was that he was not interested in the who, but the how. It didn't matter if an alien from a different universe, a quantum link to different reality, or Brahma himself did it. Was there evidence of any intelligence in the design of the universe?

On this, I had to call myself an agnostic -- I do not have enough evidence to make a decision.

Right now I will stand with Sagan in his brilliant answer to Jonny Carson, when asked if he believes in "god".
--doc
Just Doc and Orson (German Shepherd) wandering around North America.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
Doc, I find my discussion with Teryt interesting as well. And I am curious if he is as accepting of other theories and myths for the same reason he accepts ID.

Isn't Sagan's God that of the Declaration? Nature's God, the Laws of Nature? That speaks to how not who. I would agree, to some it's not very emotionally satisfying.

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
 
DocInBird
Member
If you really want go be scared, think of the GAIA hypothesis -- that the earth will defend herself against our assaults. There are some pseudo-religious cults that believe that AIDS is god's vengence. What would earth's vengence be like?

Just wandering in the middle of the night. I'm a little nervous about tomorrow's lecture.
--doc
Just Doc and Orson (German Shepherd) wandering around North America.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ngc1514
Member Avatar
Member
Quote:
 
I don't ignore the questions, I just don't respnd to them in the way you perhaps would like.  If you can ask slanted questions (i.e. biased in favor of your opinion - the particular filter through which you see the universe, which is natural & we all do), then I suppose that I can too.


Been thinking about your response and (of course!) it raised a few questions.

Slanted questions: do you think the slant exists in the mind of the questioner or the answerer or both?

Let's go back to the question that - based on the message to which you responded - prompted your reply:

Quote:
 
Are you willing to entertain the notion that the "particular being" in Creationism might have been a creation of the Intelligent Designer in ID? The "I AM" of the Old Testament and the "Logos" of the New are just among the created things along with the ebola virus, dog poop and mosquitos?


I don't see where you responded in any fashion whatsoever.

How is it biased?

The question was raised by your comment:

Quote:
 
I don't think of them as the same. Creationism has a particular being in mind, whereas ID doesn't. Kapeche?


Do you think the question is a logical question based on your comment about creationism and ID using two different beings? Do you think some aspects of religion and/or ID should be left unexplored and unquestioned?

And I never asked whether you believed A or B, but only if you would be willing to entertain the notion. I know evolutionary biologists who are willing to entertain the notion that yes, Genesis might be correct in in that it's a message from god and not a science textbook. In other words, they are bible believing Christians who do not attempt to describe the physical universe around them in terms of their religious teachings.

Quote:
 
Hmmm, I don't know that I ever claimed ID was "a scientific theory on par with evolution."  No, I don't think I claimed that. 

Great! We then agree that ID should be kept out of the science classrooms.

Quote:
 
However, I guess this would tend to erode into evoltions hold on certain things like irreducibly complex structures.

Care to take a shot at defining "irreducibly complex structures" in scientific terms?

Quote:
 
Me thinks you guys maybe protesteth too much - in that ID might eventually be shown (i.e., in scientific terms) to have some solid merit.  And this may tend to erode some widely held evolutionary beliefs - perhaps the ones that don't have such an "irrefutable" scientific basis.  Do you think this is at all remotely possible?


Not at all. At least not until some evidence for the designer can be presented in scientific terms and be falsifiable.
Posted ImageEric
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
teryt
Member Avatar
Missing in Action Member
Chris stated:
Quote:
 
Amazing, even after I put it back in context, you deny it. The context is the lie. What do you call telling one group of people the designer is unknown but turning around and telling another group it is the Christian God and the theory is grounded in Christ?


If your sole reason for accepting ID over evolution is it's premature to decide, do you feel the same way about abiogenesis, panspermia, IDOID and other theories?
I don't deny anything here, Chris. This is what one person said/did - not me! Maybe HE was two-faced in what he said. Maybe I did take it out of context & misunderstood that what you were saying ("ID is . . . a lie") was about him & not ID in general (did I finally get that right?).

It's just the way you presented that statement - standing by itself at the very bottom of the page - that drew my attention. Media people often do this, that is, putting an inflamatory remark in a place of prominance to draw attention, to sensationalise the piece. If you weren't doing this, then my bad - I think we "spent" enough time on that! :banghead:

As far as those other theories, I have no problem bringing things like that up in the classroom. As I've stated a few times, I just want to see more open discussion in the classroom, instead of what I view as this tunnel vision focus on evolution as the only proven fact (instead of being presented as a theory).

Again, I really don't know all that much about this topic (or anything else for that matter), but I just keep trying to make the above point!

ERIC: I find the communication with you to be circular, and you likely think the same toward me. Sorry if what I said didn't help our clarity. (Please see above)
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
Quote:
 
My point here is that IS what some textbooks put forth.  THAT is what many parents get upset about!

The the argument should be with the publishers of the textbooks and the school boards who make the purchasing decisions. But it still boils down that parents get upset because their particular form of religious beliefs are left out of the books. ID and creationism are left out of science text books because they are not science.
Quote:
 
And hey, we all have our "beliefs" don't we!?

Actually, no. Logical Empiricism has no beliefs as most understand the term. Well, that's not strictly true, but I'll leave it as a class exercise to determine why.
Quote:
 
Did you read the article on the Dodo?

Yes and.. so what? The article was about social, educational and religious movements and not about the science behind evolutionary theory and the lack of science behind ID. As the title to this thread reads - it's just another form of dumbing down America to serve the purposes of a small group of vocal fundamentalists. Science is not done in public school classrooms and the only ones to suffer will be the children who, along without being able to read, write or do math will now, also, not have a clue about the universe in which they live.

Posted ImageEric
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ngc1514
Member Avatar
Member
teryt
May 23 2006, 11:49 PM
So I wonder how the universe got so orderly . . . ;)  (wink wink LOL)

Were [it - added in edit] not, we wouldn't be here to observe it.

Look up the weak anthropic principle.

How about a definition of "orderly" in relation to the universe.
Posted ImageEric
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
teryt
Member Avatar
Missing in Action Member
Please see my last post. I have nothing I think I can add for clarity here.
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
I'm still curious, Teryt, what does ID offer over, say, IDOID, to be taught in the science classroom? Both have the potential over time to be supported by evidence. Would you thus argue both should be taught along with evolution? Or should we wait until the evidence is in?
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
 
abradf2519
Member
cmoehle
May 23 2006, 04:41 PM
Alan, appluading Teryt's response: "Good response! I agree completely."

With what? That evoution does not address the beginning of life, as you have claimed? But what's that, evolution doesn't address the beginnings of life, yet here are ID advocates like Johnson, Dembski and Behe presenting a theory of beginnings to counter evolution. What's the sense of that? Why are they arguing with evolution then? Why are you?

ID is one theory that competes with competing theories abiogenesis and evolution. These 2 areas of scientific research were split into two because abiogenesis became more and more indefencable as time went on. Evolutionary scientists feeling the pressure from creationist critisizm did this.

Evoluiton still has serious problems also. Since it is considered the only game in town, ID'ers have no choice but to critisize it to get people to concider ID.

Quote:
 
Or are you applauding this "However, I guess this would tend to erode into evoltions hold on certain things like irreducibly complex structures"? Why do you cling to debunked theories? See for instance, Behe's Empty Box, Review: "Darwin's Black Box, The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution" by Michael J. Behe. Did you know that Behe stole the idea of Irreducible Complexity from "Nobel Prize winner H. J. Muller [3], who invented irreducible complexity in 1939" and that "Muller argued in some detail that evolution would routinely cause such systems."--longer explanation here: How Can Evolution Cause Irreducibly Complex Systems?.


I don't agree that the theories were debunked. I am a person that doesn't just agree with something just because it was written or said by someone smarter than me. Sometimes these people are just trying to fool me.
Alan
Milan, New York, USA
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create a free forum in seconds.
Learn More · Register for Free
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Soapbox · Next Topic »
Add Reply