How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 Philosophy 101
 Vestibular Reply   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  ]
 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Vestibular Reply

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


150 posted 12-24-2008 02:31 AM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Bob,

I forgot to challenge you on your statement about research being in favor of Neo-Darwinian evolution ... Could you site me any studies where transition of one complex system to another has been demonstrated scientifically? (such as how a light-sensitive spot becomes an eye, step by step, etc...)  As I recall it was Michael Behe's contention that his years in the halls of dogmatic Darwinism saw no such research.  I think intelligent design and Darwinism are both inferential in nature, if not heavily scientific.  I just think one is more reasonable and intuitive than the other, given the astonishing complexity of micro-biology revealed in recent years.  No one has really come up with a reason why Paley's argument was flawed.  Of course his argument for design would hold whether evolution is true or not.  But is there really scientific validity to the theory of common ancestry, or is it more of a strange mix of a light smattering of science and heavy philosophy?  Theories of gradualism had their beginnings in Greek speculation, not in test tubes.  

It seems to me that forbidding ID in schools is groundless, given the nature of Darwinism as currently supported, understood, and taught.  Though it would be interesting what ID could do if it had the same kinds of support and grants ... now, at the very least, it's the kettle and the pot.  ID may not have established itself as bonfide and pure science ... but it has debunked evolution pretty well, though dogmatists will ever hold true.


Stephen
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


151 posted 12-24-2008 03:00 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K

Dear DRS,

         My mistake, I’d thought somehow you were a reincarnation of the late Dr. Seuss, whose real last name was, I think, Geisler.  I wasn’t reading closely enough, and I paid the price.  I disagree with you about subtlety and nuance, having spent a at least a little time with the Tao te Ching and having been well rewarded for my troubles.  I’ve started nibbling at Confucius and I find myself well over my head almost immediately, but fascinated.  Neither are gray.

     Communism is I think atheistic because it is a variation also on Materialism as a philosophy.  

     If you’re going to talk about it, though, it might be useful to stay clear about your subject.  Communism itself  does not worship the State, and in fact seeks to cause the state to wither away.  This is Marxist theory.  It’s also supposed to happen in industrialized countries where Capitalism is the primary economic system.  Instead, thanks to the Germans in WWI, it got its launch in Russia, which was a feudal society just beginning to venture into Democracy, and a country that was virtually unindustrialized at all.
What happened there was some odd mixture of Marxism with additional theory by Lenin and later additions by Stalin.  I doubt if Marx would have recognized his child at all.  

     The appeal that the Russian (later Soviet) model had was largely to agrarian countries with a government of authoritarian oligarchies.  The folks who felt the appeal were those on the bottom.  If you were on the bottom in a situation like that, I suspect you would have found some of those solutions appealing as well.

     The notion of a historical dialectic is hardly specific to Marx, and it is a good one.  We make use of it in this country all the time without calling it that, so nobody gets their feathers ruffled.  But when we talk about “the pendulum” of history swinging between left and right and everybody nods their heads sagely, that’s another way of talking about the dialectic.  Hopefully everybody learns a little something during each swing, so the whole tea party reaches a new point of progress — if you don’t mind me mixing my metaphors too much.  One extreme, the other extreme, then some sort of synthesis out of the two from which the whole cycle starts again.  There’s your pendulum theory, and that’s the dialectic in dialectical materialism.  It’s basically a reasonably practical way of looking at history — possibly right, possibly wrong, but likely there’s at least something to it.  It’s useful as bricks.

     As for the 100,000,000 dead, don’t expect me to celebrate them or defend them.

     As for Christianity, I think it’s a religion and it acts like one.  When you say it “becomes pitted” your use of the passive voice leaves out any possibility of understanding how that happens, doesn’t it.  It just somehow “becomes pitted.”  And somehow out of this “conflicts arise.”  From the way you talk, nobody does anything to anybody, there are simply happenings in a world without cause or effect.  Given the passivity of such a universe, it’s impossible to discuss actions within it, because nobody actually does anything.
Questions within that universe are questions I can’t tackle for you; there’s no responsibility there.  I would point out that militant atheism seems as much a valid religious position as fundamentalist Christianity, though, since both of them as going about the process of attempting to convert the unbelievers.  I find the practice noxious no matter who does it, but no more noxious in atheists than in Muslims or in Baptists or Mormons.

      As for your notions of the necessity of Christianity or Jesus Christ to impose restraint on humanity, I respectfully suggest that Hammurabi had an effective set of laws before either.  Moses also predated both of them.  The Chinese and the Japanese managed very nicely with codes that had no mention of Christianity or Jesus and so do most of the folks in India today.  I would suggest that you might want to go back to some of that “recorded history” and read a bit more deeply into the details.  Christianity has much to be proud of; being the unique civilizing  force on humanity is not one of the things it can lay claim to.

     You misread my comments about science quoted by you below”


"You distort the position of science if you say that science says it has an answer for everything.  What they say is we don't have that answer YET.  The implication is that sometime in the future the answer will come if we simply retain our faith in the Scientific Method.  In the fullness of time, that answer WILL COME." BK


And this is your response:

quote:

This is classic. The distinction is invisible. Scientists say that eventually, given enough time (absolutely anything is possible - see the list of faerie tales), the "Scientific Method" (may Its Holiness be ever exalted, and Its enemies perish) if worshipped faithfully, and not allowed to be profaned by heresies and the superstitions of the unenlightened, the mystery of an autonomous, self-existent, strictly material cosmos will be revealed. On that great day, the clouds will part, the scales will be lifted from all eyes, and the sky will reflect the sacred Periodic Tables as far as from East to the West. DRS




     You quote my blurb about science accurately enough, but you leave out my comments that suggest that religions like Christianity and Judaism do the same thing by putting of answers to ultimate questions to after death or end time or when the messiah returns or comes for the first time.  I make a point of suggesting that the strategy in each situation is the same.  

     Why is it that you would heap scorn upon one of these examples and let the others pass unremarked upon, when my point was that they were doing identical things.  Did you miss my point?  Or were you loathe to see the similarities and to speak of the others in the same scathing terms you reserved for science?  Or were you embarrassed to give science the same bland pass that you gave the other religions?

Yours sincerely, Bob Kaven
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


152 posted 12-24-2008 09:21 AM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Bob,

As for me (I can't reply for the scholar) ... I do see similarities.  Again, nothing wrong with religion as religion, requiring a degree of faith, or believing the unseen.  (mind you its not all unseen-  The design inference is a strong one, and prayers are still answered)  What I would like to see more than anything else is an admittance of the faith element in what the Dirt Road S. refers to as "scientism" ... that there is a quasi-scientific religion going on.  If you are more existentially humble than the scientists I'm speaking of, then perhaps the DRS is barking up the wrong tree?  


Stephen
Dirt Roads Scholar
Junior Member
since 12-19-2008
Posts 12
Southern America


153 posted 12-24-2008 12:13 PM       View Profile for Dirt Roads Scholar   Edit/Delete Message     View IP for Dirt Roads Scholar

Bob,



I can't decide if this is a shade of  'pale smoke', 'fuzzy sheep', 'ash essence', 'moth grey', 'fog', 'thin ice', or 'arctic cotton'. The possibilities are endless. A grey belt in origami might help, but sadly, I lack credentials in that cutting edge martial art. I'm taking large bites from the bread of life. It leaves a definitive space, and is invigorating.



I'm gratified for the corroboration that Communism is just fine, if it's defined correctly, and done right (without interference from fascists for instance). Of course the oppressed proletariat finds it attractive, in that crafted light, and are in good company with anointed, visionary, useful intellectualoids... mostly inhabiting the regrettably un-communist West. I only mention it because, to this proletarian, socialism of all stripes (communist, Marxist, fascist, totalitarian, etc....) looks, sounds, and acts in a distinctly religious manner. And in a purely pragmatic sense, any difference between them is negligible in its felt effects on the peasants.



Your disinterested glance at an insignificant 100 million sacrificial dead to the Bolshevik man-god brings to mind a Black editor at our newspaper here, whose very life is contingent upon outrage over slavery in America, 150 years dead and gone. I asked him about Black and Arab slave holders in Darfur and Sudan today, he said that it was their tough luck. I didn't even mention white female slavery in and around the EUtopian environs.



Hammurabi's laws were only written on a stone. Those, like socialist-engineering merely arranges external circumstances, designed by other men, to either punish or reward behavior. If we were dealing with innately ‘good’ men, that might have a snowball's chance, but that concept only resides in the theoretical section of utopian elitist brains, and has proven invariably, and spectacularly lethal in practice. Christianity is primarily an internal restraint, whether you warrant the fact or not. It strikes me as the height of presumptuousness to occupy an unmerited safe, protected, prosperous environment, and proceed to disdain the lofty perch provided by better men. It amuses me to picture a freshly minted, ivy league journalism 'school', theoretical Marxist sitting in a dank cellar lockup as the guest of Chavez or El Papa's little brother, quoting Derrida and Foucault to the other political prisoners. Government schools and academia pump these ignorant compliant drones out like so many barrels of tasteless gruel.



It's not so much the deferring of the "answer" - science claims it will come, Christians claim it has come - it's what's done in the meantime. We will operate on some premise or another. The motivations and actions of a materialist, or any other false religion will differ radically from those of a Christian. I would assume you believe otherwise, but everyone isn't going to be collectively right. Not even everyone, except Christians. There will be one Truth, and all the others false. If you choose to believe there are a multiplicity of answers, it's not from reason or logic that notion appeals. Certitude is out of fashion, and makes the sheeple anxious.



"Heap scorn" in "scathing terms"? Mockery for sure, but scathing scorn would imply some sort of emotional hatred I don't possess, on a subject that might deserve it if its apologists were any more than comical priests. I've no animus for “science” at all. It's the fundamental jihadist radical religious cult of Scientism, and the science fetishists that dearly deserve much more heaping scorn than currently comes their way. But the tide, it is a'turning.




"But in the end, science does not provide the answers most of us
require. Its story of our origins and of our end is, to say the least,
unsatisfactory. To the question, "How did it all begin?", science
answers, "Probably by an accident." To the question, "How will it all
end?", science answers, "Probably by an accident." And to many people,
the accidental life is not worth living. Moreover, the science-god has no
answer to the question, "Why are we here?" and, to the question, "What
moral instructions do you give us?", the science-god maintains silence."
Neil Postman


What we have at the moment in the Designed vs. Accidental view of
origins, is a crucial front in what has been termed the 'Culture War' -
and I don't believe "war" is too provocative a word to use. The competing
worldviews in conflict here have distinct, and antithetical consequences
attendant to their victory. Regardless of protestations to the contrary,
the combatants are not (if in fact they ever were) involved in a
'scientific' debate. The fight is strictly religious, and has very nearly
ceased to be a debate at all - and that, by design. We are Balkanized
groups in a struggle for supremacy.
On the one hand are the fundamentalist Atheistic materialist relativists,
and on the other Christianity. The implications are stark: Man is either
an autonomous, strictly mechanistic, un-caused accident of blind
impersonal self-existant chaos, accountable to no one and nothing but
himself - Or he is a created being with a soul and a conscience, designed
for relationship with his Creator, and subject to His immutable Truth. It
is not beyond the ken of any average human to comprehend what the likely
fruit of each of those two religions will be. History has already judged
the costs, benefits, and lethality of each.
But if 'morality' (whatever that may mean to a relativist) along with
reality, is re-made anew each morning, neither history, logic, reason,
common sense, nor indeed the ideological term formerly known as empirical
science, have any bearing on the issue. For the proponents of Atheocracy,
as long as materialist religious dogma rules the day, collateral damage
is excused by the notion that, 'we meant well'. One hundred million and
counting, formerly animated pieces of meat are merely grist for the
insatiable sacrifices demanded by the man-god. No scheme is too heinous,
foolish, or deadly, as long as it 'feels' good - and 'good' and 'evil'
are interchangeable or meaningless depending only on the whims of 'smart'
monkeys.
It remains to be seen if history will repeat, and that as debate is
stifled and censored the bullets begin to fly. If the historical myth
makers and revisionists are 'right'(?) those murderous Christian
jihadists will force everyone to bow to their God or die. Or it could be
that if the courts inexplicably fail to impose Atheocracy on us by fiat,
that the Darwiniacs will find the evangelical fervor to force those
counter-revolutionary Christians to convert or die instead, as has
already happened in the continuing utopian failures of
Communism/socialism. More likely though, the godless will merely have
weakened and effeminized the will of Judeo-Christian Western civilization
to the point where all any of us really have left is the choice to submit
to Islam or die.
I for one, have no illusions about what is at stake in this fight, and am
compelled to engage in it to the best of my ability, within the
constraints of a transcendent set of values. Those constraints leave me
at a great disadvantage, but in the end, better to die free than live in
bondage to 'well-meaning' amoral sociopathic utopian cultists.



Cordially, DRS    


Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


154 posted 12-24-2008 04:44 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K

Dear Stephanos,

          My sense is that Science is as much a faith based position as Christianity or Judaism.  It speaks of promises to be delivered upon in the future if only the adherent will stay the course of the true believer in the present.  I think of it as a religious position, as I think of atheism as a religion, all of them insisting on belief in some article of faith.

     This doesn't mean that I think that each of them don't have contributions to make, and profound contributions at that.  I think that problems come from the notion  that each of these positions get from time to time that theirs is the only correct position, and that they have the right to impose their position on others by force if necessary.  At that point, their rights and my nose must part company in some hopefully polite fashion.

     But yes, I agree that much of the framework of science is as faith based as any other religious position.  Which ones and how, we may have some discussions on.  Those holding the position that DRS calls (and I have called from time to time) "Scientism" would likely disagree with me about that because the notion of faith itself is anathema to their basically materialist position, so some sort of linguistic fix or translation or patch would probably be necessary for the discussion to go forward.  Possibly not even then.  But I agree.

     All of these are basically religious positions because they require a faith that the basic position will lead mankind into the light in the future.

     Mr. Scholar disagrees with me because he says that Christianity's promise has already been fulfilled.  I respectfully suggest that he believes that to be true, and that he believes the promises are true, but that he can't know except ultimately by faith or reason assisted by faith
until he dies.  And he's unlikely to be in a hurry to check that promise out for all sorts of great reasons.

     "Everybody wants to go to heaven; nobody wants to die."

     I have actually seen discussion of development of eyes from areas of sensitivity to light to full blown eyes, and I can't for the life of me remember where.  I'd love to plunk it down right in front of you, simply because you're acting like such a smarty about it.  If I do run across it, I'll try to get it to you.  I suspect that even if I did send it, though, it wouldn't really matter.  I've never actually understood what there is about evolution that means anything at all negative about God or Christianity unless you pretend that everything in the Bible is supposed to be perfectly clear and understandable, and that all that perfect clarity and understanding has already happened.  

     There are sections of the Bible, of the Torah for that matter, that are just there, compressed beyond understanding, and folks have been theorizing about them for thousands of years, back and forth.  

     From your point of view, simply understanding goodness that unimaginable may well be beyond the ability of language to capture or human minds to hold, and the notion that we not only can but have is almost blasphemous.  A pint glass can only hold so much of the ocean at one time.

     We may be able to read the Bible as well as an ordained priest for our purposes, maybe, but we still need to spend a lifetime learning and even then we only scratch the surface.

     I suspect that the contradiction between evolution and religion is something created by mankind, and is something that doesn't bother God's goodness at all.  The bickering is your basic waste of time and goodwill and serves only to sow discord and ill feeling.  I'm reading a biography of Moses Miamonides at this point and have come to some interesting passages which, when I have more time, I'll talk with you about, but which seem to bear upon the relationship of science and religion.

Best to your and your wife and kids,  Sincerely, Bob Kaven  

Re, eyes:  
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye

[This message has been edited by Bob K (12-24-2008 05:31 PM).]

Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


155 posted 12-24-2008 07:26 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K

Dear Stephanos,

          By the way, if you'll look again, you didn't forget to challenge me on my statement about research being in favor of neo-Darwinian evolution.  I made no such statement.  I suggested that what should be taught was the theory most commonly accepted and best researched.
I'm not up enough on the science generally to give you much of a run for your money on biochemistry.  I did my best to give you some stuff on eye evolution, which was pretty much as I remembered it and — as I said before — pretty much beside the point.  I think the whole discussion about intelligent design is trying to defend man's understanding of God.  That's pretty much downright silly.  We do the best we can, assuming there is a God, and not understanding some of the details isn't something we shouldn't get all worked up about.  The perfection is supposed to be God's and not ours, and certainly not our understanding, which ranges from genius, which still shouldn't be enough, to idiot, which may.  If my experience with idiots is any guide, there are a fair number of pretty decent idiots running around.

     Why shouldn't intelligent design be taught as science?

     Because the overwhelming majority of scientists think that it's not science.  As you can see from the first link above, apparently thanks to Behe, one can now see evolution as a falsifiable theory, which is much better, much more scientific, and which opens it to modification and change.  Unfortunately one can't say the same of intelligent design, which is designed to be an alternative to evolution, near as I can tell, but seems to lack the element of falsifiability.  Also, it's level of acceptance in the scientific community is low.  It hasn't earned equal time.  

     Perhaps there will be some research surge that will raise its level of validity, and it will earn its place in the classroom.  That would solve the problem neatly.

     Sincerely, Bob Kaven


     Perhaps out of place, though I don't think so, but a merry Christmas to you and your family.  I believe you are fortunate in each other.  May your love keep you warm through the year.

BK

[This message has been edited by Bob K (12-24-2008 09:09 PM).]

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


156 posted 12-25-2008 08:34 AM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

To Bob, (and all) Merry Christmas to you and your family.  Some days are not fit for debate, but rather sharing simple good will.  

Stephen


Dirt Roads Scholar
Junior Member
since 12-19-2008
Posts 12
Southern America


157 posted 12-26-2008 09:50 AM       View Profile for Dirt Roads Scholar   Edit/Delete Message     View IP for Dirt Roads Scholar

I like you Bob. You are considerably more reasonable than most of those with viewpoints one degree or another in opposition to Christianity. Your most sterling and admirable quality, in my opinion, is that you admit to a leap of faith to ultimately embrace your position. That is nearly unheard of in my experience. The god of "Reason" is most often appealed to, with no basis for why one person's notion, that whatever happens to be rattling around between their ears constitutes 'reason', somehow supercedes someone else's contrary apprehension of reason.
To use a favorite of the religious anti-theists de jour, the "theory most commonly accepted" has had many different contenders over time; a flat earth for instance. One question I have great difficulty getting a comprehensible response to is: Given mandatory attended 'public' schools, with court ordered censorship of any challenges to the aforementioned "commonly accepted", "theory" on the origin of the universe, and life in it, why is that not a violation of the vaunted shibboleth of 'separation of church and State'? If you teach a captive audience of children, to the legal exclusion of any problems or limitations of the 'theory', that the universe "has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference." (Dawkins), and that those same children are nothing more than inexplicably animate random collections of purposeless chemicals cobbled together for no ultimate reason, as the accidental progeny of chaos..... might there be some 'unintended' consequences down the road?
It intrigues me that scientists insist that they are anything but intelligently designed, but that I'm somehow obligated to take them seriously. You might at least expect from them the courtesy to wipe the mud from their Birkenstocks before they track them all over the philosophy department.
blessings, DRS



Darwinian 'McCarthyism'

"This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically
considered."
Cobb County School System biology textbook sticker

U.S. District Judge Clarence Cooper ruled that the sticker "conveys an impermissible message of [religious] endorsement and tells some citizens that they are political outsiders while telling others they are political insiders."

My impression is that there are likely stars and crescent moons festooning Judge Cooper's black robes, and that he likely keeps a tall
pointy hat and wand to match, for ceremonial occasions. He should garner serious
consideration for the Moonbat of the Year award.
If there is anyone denigrated as 'political outsiders' by the legal censorship of factual disclaimers in textbooks it would be those heretics who dare challenge the orthodox Darwinian fundamentalists who have
blacklisted free inquiry. DRS

*******************************************
Veritas Vos Liberabit  


Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


158 posted 01-05-2009 09:47 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

BobK,

Sorry its taken so long.  I've wanted to respond to a couple of points in your replies for some time.  Here goes ...

quote:
I have actually seen discussion of development of eyes from areas of sensitivity to light to full blown eyes, and I can't for the life of me remember where.  I'd love to plunk it down right in front of you, simply because you're acting like such a smarty about it.  If I do run across it, I'll try to get it to you.  I suspect that even if I did send it, though, it wouldn't really matter.


On the contrary it would matter, if it were more than a demostration of how creatively some can imagine it to have happened.  The large number of morphological overhauls required to get from this point to that, are not to be demonstrated either in the fossil record, or by reproducing the changes.  David Berlinski pointed out that for a man to jump off of his sofa and flap his arms and land three feet foward, might be a reasonable inference to the gradual evolution toward the flight of an eagle.  Yes, reasonable in the barest sense, but utterly wrong.  That, I feel certain, is the kind of inferences we have going on in connecting mind boggling complexities by way of one or two "intermediaries".

I just recently noticed you posted a link about this very thing.  I will certainly look again.  

quote:
I've never actually understood what there is about evolution that means anything at all negative about God or Christianity unless you pretend that everything in the Bible is supposed to be perfectly clear and understandable, and that all that perfect clarity and understanding has already happened.


I'm in agreement here Bob.  Were Darwinian Evolution (as an explanation for the origin of species) true, I don't think it would eliminate the cry of design.  Chesterton told us that a slow miracle is just as much of a miracle as an instantaneous one.  Two Caveats:  1) Philosophic naturalism/atheism is catching quite a symbiotic ride on the back of scientific theories of gradualism, which need not be atheistic in implication, but are often presented that way (Dawkins et al).  2)  For me, I don't think the evidence even for pure and theologically neutral evolution is forthcoming.


quote:
From your point of view, simply understanding goodness that unimaginable may well be beyond the ability of language to capture or human minds to hold, and the notion that we not only can but have is almost blasphemous.  A pint glass can only hold so much of the ocean at one time.

     We may be able to read the Bible as well as an ordained priest for our purposes, maybe, but we still need to spend a lifetime learning and even then we only scratch the surface.


Couldn't have put it half so good myself.    

quote:
I'm reading a biography of Moses Miamonides at this point and have come to some interesting passages which, when I have more time, I'll talk with you about, but which seem to bear upon the relationship of science and religion.


Look forward to hearing it.  I am reading a book by John Lennox right now along the same lines.  Fascinating interface, these two.


quote:
I think the whole discussion about intelligent design is trying to defend man's understanding of God.  That's pretty much downright silly.


It is pretty much silly, perhaps.  And yet, I don't think that's all there is to it.  David Berlinski is quite an entertaining and intellectual agnostic who has much to say in doubt of the hegemony of neo-darwinian orthodoxy.  I'm glad his shrewd agnosticism flows beyond the stream of religion.  There are many irreligious (or those who don't consider evolution as any threat to theism) who consider Neo-Darwinism to be pseudo-science.

  
quote:
Why shouldn't intelligent design be taught as science?

     Because the overwhelming majority of scientists think that it's not science.  As you can see from the first link above, apparently thanks to Behe, one can now see evolution as a falsifiable theory, which is much better, much more scientific, and which opens it to modification and change.  Unfortunately one can't say the same of intelligent design, which is designed to be an alternative to evolution, near as I can tell, but seems to lack the element of falsifiability.


I agree with most of this.  The only problem is that Intelligent Design already offers very valid criticisms which identify Neo-Darwinian Evolution as unscientific.  And the insights of ID (and most interestingly, the responses from the other table) have shown that Evolution as presently taught is indeed unfalsifiable.  It is a truism that things change, and that organisms survive ... one discovers that that's pretty much all that is there.  If ID is in the same boat ... If we're truly clueless about the how (from a scientific perspective at least), then let's hear it all.  Presently there is a hegemony which assures consensus, not so much based upon scientific superiority, but upon a kind of  tradition ... and yes perhaps even upon a kind of philosophic naturalism.  But one thing is for certain, even the thoughtful and valid criticisms from the ID side cannot be brought into the classroom and discussed with impunity.  


Stephen
  
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> Philosophy 101 >> Vestibular Reply   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors