“Intelligent Design”

[ 23 August 2005: Message edited by: SamuelC ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug:
Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New "Intelligent Falling" Theory

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug:
I prefer this critique, since it makes these people look like the idiots they are.

Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New "Intelligent Falling" Theory

---

That is hilarious...!!!

Supernatural Selection(animation)

Great Moments in Intelligent Design (animation)

Intelligent Attraction

Creationist Argument Generator

[ 07 September 2005: Message edited by: M. Spector ]

quote:

---

"For small creatures such as we the vastness is bearable only through love. - Carl Sagan

---

quote:

---

"For many years I have lived with a secret, in a secrecy imposed on all specialists and astronauts. I can now reveal that every day, in the USA, our radar instruments capture objects of form and composition unknown to us." - former colonel and astronaut Gordon Cooper

---

Excerpt:

quote:

---

The creationists’ fondness for ‘gaps’ in the fossil record is a metaphor for their love of gaps in knowledge generally. Gaps, by default, are filled by God. You don’t know how the nerve impulse works? Good! You don’t understand how memories are laid down in the brain? Excellent! Is photosynthesis a bafflingly complex process? Wonderful! Please don’t go to work on the problem, just give up, and appeal to God. Dear scientist, don’t work on your mysteries. Bring us your mysteries for we can use them. Don’t squander precious ignorance by researching it away. Ignorance is God’s gift to Kansas.

---

quote:

---

posted by ToadProphet: I find it a little disconcerting how the evolution camp has been so intolerant and rather contemptuous within this debate. Neither provides a satisfactory theory of our existence. ... Instead of attacking either side, IMO we should try to seek compromise and tolerance of other views. Focus less on the content that we should teach our children and more on the attitudes of respect and tolerance of what we may disagree with.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ToadProphet:

I find it a little disconcerting how the evolution camp has been so intolerant and rather contemptuous within this debate.
-snip-
Instead of attacking either side, IMO we should try to seek compromise and tolerance of other views.

---

Except that the "Intelligent Design" (read Creationist) side is not in the least interested in seeking compromise, they're seeking Dominion.

[ 18 September 2005: Message edited by: Transplant ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Transplant:

Except that the "Intelligent Design" (read Creationist) side is not in the least interested in seeking compromise, they're seeking Dominion.

[ 18 September 2005: Message edited by: Transplant ]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ToadProphet:
Just as religion, science is based on a few core assumptions, or beliefs, which can be toppled rather easily if one wishes.

---

Then topple them for us.

Actually science, when done properly, eschews assumption in favour of a rigorous process of observation, experimentation and peer review.

What you're attempting to establish here is the same kind of false equivalence that's making a mockery out of journalism: the idea that any two points of view deserve equal time even when one of those points of view is demonstrably false.

Personally I have no problem with ID being part of a religious studies curriculum or even a philosophy curriculum. But as Rabelais points out above, we're talking about science class. ID has no place there because it's. not. science.

[ 18 September 2005: Message edited by: pogge ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hephaestion:

The day that Sunday Schools start allowing the teaching of The Origin of the Species in church, I'll at least *listen* to these crackpots and their arguments for "equal access". Until then...

---

Exactly Heph.

I think the principal objection of the evolution 'camp' is that proponents of intelligent design - which, let's not fuck around, is recycled creationism - are pushing to have their, ahem, theory, presented as an alternative explanation of origins IN SCIENCE CLASS.

If people want to believe we came out of a big red dog's arse that's fine, but when they try to peddle it as science, then we have a problem. You can do your own research, and my guess is, you need to, but there isn't a SINGLE published paper in support of intelligent design. By 'published' I mean in a respected peer-reviewed journal with some passing knowledge of scientific method.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ToadProphet:
I find it a little disconcerting how the evolution camp has been so intolerant and rather contemptuous within this debate.

Neither provides a satisfactory theory of our existence..

Can you support this astonishing remark?

I thought not.

Just as religion, science is based on a few core assumptions, or beliefs, which can be toppled rather easily if one wishes.

The thing is, scientific assumptions are testable; experimentally verifiable; reproducible, etc. So put your money where your mouth is and topple some scientific assumptions.

Still waiting.

Many a notable physicist over the years has held that 'God' is at the end of their equations. What God is and his/her/its/* role was entirely subjective, of course, but it is relevant that it allowed for a more expansive worldview. If I wanted to stick Taoism, Buddhism, Christiantity, etc, etc, alongside a scientific worldview I could do so without needing to choose a side.
I see little difference between scientific and religious fundementalism.

Since there are a growing number of scientists questioning the current paradigm I suspect the times are indeed a-changing..

Huh? What's this about 'growing number of scientists'? Can you support that, since it runs contrary to everything I know.

Nope. Didn't think so.

Instead of attacking either side, IMO we should try to seek compromise and tolerance of other views. Focus less on the content that we should teach our children and more on the attitudes of respect and tolerance of what we may disagree with.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rabelais:
It's science class.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Merowe:
I particularly like the 'focus less on the content'. Irritating stuff, content. Really muddies the picture, eh? And why SHOULD we respect ignorance? You're welcome to your opinions, but if you're going to hold one on evolution the least you can do is actually study more than the trace quantities you seem to be in command of. I'm sorry if I'm rude, but sweet Jesus!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ToadProphet:

Science disproves religion with science...

---

Ah, maybe that's because the proponents of Intelligent Design want it taught in, ah, science classes?

I don't hear anyone complaining about them teaching it in religion classes.

I also don't hear anyone clamoring to teach science in religion classes.

The conflict only arises when the ID proponents want ID taught in science classes, and in that case, don't ya think the burden is on the ID proponents to prove that ID is based on, well, science?

And as for the claim that there is "a growing number of scientists questioning the current paradigm", please tell me how many of them are biologists?

quote:

---

Science disproves religion with science and vice-versa.

---

quote:

---

What's the solution? Dunno. But I think one can only be found by exercising tolerance towards other's views. Ignorance, IMHO, is the belief that there is one and only worldview that fits all.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Transplant:
The conflict only arises when the ID proponents want ID taught in science classes, and in that case, don't ya think the burden is on the ID proponents to prove that ID is based on, well, science?

---

quote:

---

And as for the claim that there is "a growing number of scientists questioning the current paradigm", please tell me how many of them are biologists?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ToadProphet:

*blink* sorry, a tad confused. Not entirely sure why you are referring to biologists. Regardless, I'm not advocating an anti or pro-science position. Merely stating that there is more than one worldview, and wether or not we're compelled to agree with it I think it's in our own best interest to be tolerant of it.

---

I've no issue with multiple worldviews, indeed no selfrespecting postmodernist can rest content with only one. But you do seem to be pushing the idea that as explanations of natural history, biblical myths are as credible as scientific theories.

Biblical myths are wonderful, useful things in many ways, principally as social and ethical guides, and historical documents which illuminate points in the past by which we can judge such progress as we may or may not have made in civilization since then.

But we can't unlearn the knowledge that has accrued to us since the Enlightenment and its eventual displacement of religions hegemony over the factical world. Well, I suppose we could, but what would be the point? If you like, roll the clock back a few centuries, I don't care to argue that our quality of life is so much better when all is said and done.

But still, I won't be going to the doctor any time soon to have a couple of pints of blood cupped to relieve a fever.

I couldn't find anything on Sheldrake specifically addressing evolution. I'm open if you'll bounce some to me. But c'mon, it's a done deal. The weight of evidence, verifiable EVIDENCE, is staggering, basically irrefutable, cross-disciplinary, mutually supporting, it's actually become common sense in the modern era.

http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html#intro
(that's all I had saved, there's far better out there)

quote:

---

Originally posted by ToadProphet:
Take a look at Rupert Sheldrake, he does a convincing job of blowing up Darwin without resorting to a creationist viewpoint.

---

Uh, no. Aside from his work on telepathy Sheldrake's theories involve the inheritance of acquired characteristics which would put him more in agreement with Darwin than the bulk of modern biologists. Darwin's theories on the actual mechanism of inheritance were the weakest part of his body of work and have been discredited.

But if Sheldrake has "blown up" the theory of natural selection you'll have to show me some evidence.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ToadProphet:

Not entirely sure why you are referring to biologists.

---

Because you wrote:

quote:

---

Since there are a growing number of scientists questioning the current paradigm I suspect the times are indeed a-changing

---

None of the scientists that I've seen put forth as proponents of ID have been biologists, they have been physicists, political scientists, economists and the like.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ToadProphet:
Frankly, I consider myself a curious bystander in the debate. I'm more interested in the philosophy of both than the message they convey.

---

As an engineer I'm more narrow-minded; I prefer that bridges and buildings don't collapse on me.

It'd be nice to live in a world where all opinions are equally valid, but the natural world isn't set up that way. Teaching ID in philosophy or religion classes is fine; but in science classes we have to be teaching science ... its hard to believe that people are arguing about this using computers (which only exist because some people care about science - there have always been a lot of interesting theories about magical ways of communicating, but I don't want my children studying them in their science classes).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Merowe:
But you do seem to be pushing the idea that as explanations of natural history, biblical myths are as credible as scientific theories.

---

quote:

---

I couldn't find anything on Sheldrake specifically addressing evolution. I'm open if you'll bounce some to me.

---

quote:

---

Would you seriously tilt at such a windmill? On the strength of a handful of Biblical literalists who think God made the world seven thousand years ago or whatever?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by retread:
As an engineer I'm more narrow-minded; I prefer that bridges and buildings don't collapse on me.

---

quote:

---

And what's this about two sides; the first nations also have our creation myths, as I'm sure the Hindu's and Buddhists and everyone else does; if you let in intelligent design, you have to let in all our myths. It might even be interesting, so long as you don't mind that your children are going to have huge gaps in their science education.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Serendipity:
But does it have to be in science class?

---

All the great minds that came up with scientific theories - indeed, the Method itself! - were taught creation as per the bible; most of them continued, long past school age, to believe in God. It didn't turn them into idiots. Nothing that has ever been taught in schools - and a great many untrue things have been taught - has turned intelligent people into idiots.

quote:

---

What will happen if both evolution and ID are presented, with all the data available to each: history, observations, field notes, experimental results and explanations?

---

If you teach creationism in schools (hopefully giving equal time to every religion's creationism), its quite possible that not many students will believe it. However, because of the alternative physics, geology and biology you're introducing, you'll effectively cut the amount of time spent on those topics in half (and yes I'm assuming the alternative theories are wrong - again, note how well your computer works and how few building crash to the ground). The folks designing your bridges will either have to spend twice as long in school, or build bridges with only half the knowledge they currently have.

Its the same reason we shouldn't be teaching "Intelligent Falling" in class - its not necessarily harmful in itself, but it takes time away from studying science.

quote:

---

But "intelligent design" doesn't have any history, observations, field notes, experimental results or explanations available to it.

---

Only a few students will ever go on to build anything, including bridges and influenza vaccines. And they will be the ones able to sort out facts from crap. The people who build things do that anyway. The people who built bridges in Rome, in China, in South America - everywhere, always - paid attention to the stones or logs or whatever they had to work with, and observed how material behaves, and did a pretty okay job, regardless of their religion. (Well, maybe they mixed the blood of a virgin into the mortar, just in case...)

quote:

---

Originally posted by retread:
If you teach creationism in schools (hopefully giving equal time to every religion's creationism), its quite possible that not many students will believe it.

---

quote:

---

a small price to pay for only teaching what we absolutely know to be true.

---

The point about objectivity in science isn't that the experimenter and experiment doesn't effect the outcome (that's been a given since the early 1900's), its that there is an objective reality that we're studying. If you walk off a cliff, its not your subjective beliefs that make you fall, its the objective universe that decides upon the path of your body. How much we can know about that objective reality is a question scientists tend to leave to others - though the underlying paradigm is that science makes (hopefully) increasingly accurate models. No truth, but our approximations are getting better. Maybe in a few million years we'll be at the point where we can usefully speculate on what the limits to human knowledge are.

quote:

---

To be honest, asolutism makes my stomach churn. If you could conclusively point to any absolute I will toss my entire library and be the first disciple in the 'Church of the Retread'

---

That, currently, seems to be one of the Bible Kooks' strongest weapons. Specifically, they get to say "Well, since we can't possibly ever know anything for certain, that means that any old theory is as good as any other, and therefore the theory that the universe was created by a benevolent, if narcissistic, superhero who lives in space belongs right there alongside decades of meticulous study of evolution."

We all heard of the marvelles of the ancient world- the architecture, exact astronomy, mathematics, geometry that would go hand-to-hand with philosophy and mysticism (religion) of the times. A living world would be an intelligent one, meaning predominantly non-chaotic. Everything seems to be ordered perfectly to function as it is functioning. The Earth’s tilt, the planet distances, the atom structure, etc.-all makes lot of sense, because it is intelligent.
Every design is intelligent, unless it’s a useless crap. Universe however is pretty ordered and well crafted to accommodate the all complexity of the evolution and variety of its forms.

quote:

---

Not sure why the debate keeps heading back to the classroom as I don't think anyone is actually advocating that.

---

PS I wonder what's really behind this agenda. I used to think the purpose was to raise more pliant cannon-fodder for the crusades, but now i'm starting to see a credible link with climate-change denial.

[ 19 September 2005: Message edited by: nonesuch ]

quote:

---

the first nations also have our creation myths

---

I have often wondered if some babblers would be so dismissive and condescending if the debate was not about Christianity, but about First Nations' beliefs.

I teach at a First Nations school, and there is usually a discussion in Social Studies and Science classes regarding "creation" issues. I find that, although not in the curriculum, it doesn't hurt to acknowledge different beliefs about creaton, even in a science class.

I have seen many students and parents extremely angry when the "Land Bridge" theory is presented. But if their beliefs are given time and acknowledgement, many of the hard feelings disappear, and each side learns more.

For evangelical creationists (who have simply rebranded themselves as 'intelligent design theorists') the fact that you call it a 'creation myth' is offensive in itself.

They want 'special myth' status: they want their myth to be taken literally and accepted literally. But they want all other myths to remain myths. Some ID theorists will allow themselves leeway with dates and methods, but the movement is driven by politico-religious ideology, and if you fail to recognize that, you've missed the point entirely.

[ 19 September 2005: Message edited by: brebis noire ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by dackle:
...If I had railed against the "fairy tales" of First Nations as having no place in education and their proponents being a bunch of idiots, how many here would agree with me?

---

quote:

---

If I had railed against the "fairy tales" of First Nations as having no place in education and their proponents being a bunch of idiots, how many here would agree with me?

---

I would, if you gave these myths the same gravitas and credibility that ID proponents give the Christian myths.

If you're presenting it as part of a genuine, truly open-minded and inclusive inquiry into the nature of things then I doubt many here would have a problem with that. It's when there's a clear attempt to favour one myth over another, or myths over science and objective facts, that we get a bit concerned.

quote:

---

Originally posted by retread:
As an aside, that's one reason why the whole post-modernist critic of science isn't taken seriously by most scientists - post modernism has contributed nothing useful to the way science is actually done (ie no alternative theories in any science, nor any alternative methodologies). Like creationism, its seen as an irrelevant distraction, full of abstract criticism but without any scientific successes of its own to suggest its practicioners know something others don't.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by nonesuch:
...PS I wonder what's really behind this agenda. I used to think the purpose was to raise more pliant cannon-fodder for the crusades, but now i'm starting to see a credible link with climate-change denial...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
That, currently, seems to be one of the Bible Kooks' strongest weapons. Specifically, they get to say "Well, since we can't possibly ever know anything for certain, that means that any old theory is as good as any other, and therefore the theory that the universe was created by a benevolent, if narcissistic, superhero who lives in space belongs right there alongside decades of meticulous study of evolution."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by nonesuch:

You're a bit behind in your reading. That is exactly what the US religious right is advocating - have already introduced it in several states and launched at least one lawsuit against universities that won't admit students of ID science courses.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by venus_man:
I see the First Nations views (at leas the ones I’m aware of) as being scientific and humanistic, on their own way. Its how we present them is what makes them sound either dogmatically and regressive or intriguing and progressive. I believe it’s culturally enhancive for the students to comprehend their own culture and its traditions as regards to the origins and evolutions of the universe. The accent, on my opinion, needs to be made on synthesis of the traditional views and modern ones, rather then emphasizing and concentrating on differences. This way we won’t have a psychological disengagement of students from their culture and history. Show then the beauty and greatness of their ancestral views and their modern equivalents that don’t substitute or reject but to a degree confirm and reinforce those views.

---

First Nations children have as much right as any other children to be taught the truth about evolution, and indeed about all things scientific. Science doesn't have to be sugar-coated so that it somehow (wrongly) "confirms and reinforces" any cultural creation myths they may have been exposed to.

quote:

---

Originally posted by dackle:
I have seen many students and parents extremely angry when the "Land Bridge" theory is presented.

---

As a science teacher, it is important for you to understand the sociological effects of knowledge. The anger from students and parents should be acknowledged, not simply assuaged. And do a little more research into the flaws in the land bridge theory.

quote:

---

If I had railed against the "fairy tales" of First Nations as having no place in education and their proponents being a bunch of idiots, how many here would agree with me?

---

[ 19 September 2005: Message edited by: chubbybear ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
Utter condescending white liberal nonsense!

First Nations children have as much right as any other children to be taught the truth about evolution

---

Do you know the 100% truth about evolution or know someone who does? I doubt it.

quote:

---

Science doesn't have to be sugar-coated so that it somehow (wrongly) "confirms and reinforces" any cultural creation myths they may have been exposed to.

---

Sounds like the Christian missionary talk, that would condemn native myths as nonsense. It's not true. They are nice and do represent the cultural and philosophical gems, that make lots of sense. May be not for you, but we are all different.

quote:

---

They can learn about their cultural myths in school, but not in science class. How they reconcile their myths with modern scientific knowledge (if indeed they want to reconcile them) is up to each individual. It's not the job of the science teacher.

---

If we are all free to come up with nice little stories about how the world works, and those stories are all equal, what about my story that says the Jews (or gays, or natives, or the bicyclists) poison the world through their existence?

A myth may be adopted by a religion, or a nation-state, or other entity. That doesn't mean that its implications are acceptable, much less true.

Women didn't arise from Adam's rib. To prefer that story to the story which refers one to the X or Y chromosome, is to reveal oneself as an idiot.

Science is superior to myth, and contains within it a dynamic which allows for ever-closer approximation to reality.

quote:

---

If you're presenting it as part of a genuine, truly open-minded and inclusive inquiry into the nature of things then I doubt many here would have a problem with that. It's when there's a clear attempt to favour one myth over another, or myths over science and objective facts, that we get a bit concerned.

---

All I'm suggesting is that the automatic response to ID as being stupid/evil, doesn't always play out in the real world. I'm suggesting that if we don't show respect for other's cultural beliefs, how can we expect respect for ours?

I'm not saying teach ID, but there has to be a solution to the debate other than I'm right and you're wrong. Somrthing both sides engage in.

quote:

---

As a science teacher, it is important for you to understand the sociological effects of knowledge. The anger from students and parents should be acknowledged, not simply assuaged. And do a little more research into the flaws in the land bridge theory.

---

I'm not a science teacher. What is the generally accepted theory for the existance of First Nations people? I'm guessing there are many answers to this question.

quote:

---

I'm not sure what the point of this is. It's seems unnecessarily provocative. I think if you were calling the religion of traditional First Nations people's 'fairy tales' and railing against it, then you shouldn't be teaching at a First Nation's school

---

I wasn't being provocative. I was only pointing out that I don't think we'd be having this discussion if the relgion in question wasn't Christianity. Most of my students are Christian. I would never rail against their culture, or religion either traditional or Christian.

quote:

---

Really? I think it depends on the science teacher job description.

---

And this is where the rubber meets the road. In Alberta, the First Nations schools, the Public schools, and the Catholic Schools all teach the same biology course. This is where the community standards kick in. I'm sure each of the above systems have different standards with regard to the teaching of evolution vs. creationism. Just like the language classes can range from French to Blackfoot to Cree depending on the community.

Some have argued that French is a more valuable language to learn for our students with regard to career potential, yet we continue to offer Blackfoot instead. I wouldn't say our Grads are any worse off.

The same may prove to be true if other culture's creation stories were presented.

Sorry for the mini rant, but I cringe whenever I think of someone telling First Nations people their stories are cute, but *we* have the "truth".

It probably explains why most of my students are Christian.

As far as the land bridge question is involved, it should be taught (or not) on the basis of science, like everything else in a science class. Cultural senstivity shouldn't come into it. Of course, every science course needs the constant qualifier that everything in science (even gravity) is just a theory, and is only our current understanding. At home I teach my beliefs about things like the land bridge; I don't want the schools to do so in a science class (even a native school). On the other hand, the whole land bridge theory and its conflict with our creation myths would be a good topic for a social studies course.

quote:

---

Sorry for the mini rant, but I cringe whenever I think of someone telling First Nations people their stories are cute, but *we* have the "truth".

---

When I'm comparing religions and their beliefs, I always try to include the Norse.

Why? Because I think that most of us would have no problem whatsoever in declaring Thor, Odin, Loki, etc., to be mythologies.

Then the question becomes "so why should I regard Jesus, Allah, or The Great Provider" any differently? Because I know some Christians and I don't know any Norsemen?

quote:

---

Eureka!
Give kids a little credit for spotting that minor detail. ID will be about as effective in turning science-minded students against science as Reefer Madness was in turning young people of my generation against pot.

---

quote:

---

Because I think that most of us would have no problem whatsoever in declaring Thor, Odin, Loki, etc., to be mythologies.

---

Don't be so sure, Whitey.

For example, Thor's hammer may be mythical, but Odin's horse Slepnir did have seven legs. Because otherwise, how could he have travelled a thousand leagues in only one day?

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:
People who think that science and myth are "the same" often do not understand that their position is utterly reactionary.

---

quote:

---

If we are all free to come up with nice little stories about how the world works, and those stories are all equal, what about my story that says the Jews (or gays, or natives, or the bicyclists) poison the world through their existence?

---

quote:

---

A myth may be adopted by a religion, or a nation-state, or other entity. That doesn't mean that its implications are acceptable, much less true.

---

quote:

---

Women didn't arise from Adam's rib. To prefer that story to the story which refers one to the X or Y chromosome, is to reveal oneself as an idiot.

---

And this is where I have the issue. Prior to calling those who don't hold your worldview 'idiots' it was fun debate and possibly one could gain something from it.
Lately I've been doing a lot of reading on Vedic philosophy and sciences. A part of that worldview states that we descended from spirit and devolved to matter (I'm really not doing it justice). Now, not to say I've adopted that worldview but would I be an idiot for doing so? Further, if I applied Vedic science to many of your beliefs I could 'prove' them wrong.
This isn't an invitation to debate Vedic theory, btw. Besides, next week it will be something different entirely that I'm on to. I'm awfully flgihty.

quote:

---

Science is superior to myth, and contains within it a dynamic which allows for ever-closer approximation to reality.

---

Fan-frikkin-tastic!!! We live in the age where we've finally determined the REAL objective reality. *phew*

quote:

---

Myth involves the endless repitition of what someone believed two or three thousand years ago.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:
Science is superior to myth, and contains within it a dynamic which allows for ever-closer approximation to reality.

Myth involves the endless repitition of what someone believed two or three thousand years ago.

---

quote:

---

Same goes to British in India, who would dismiss the few millennia old teachings as superstitious while miserable findings of (some of) their scientists were held as truth. I don’t take these claims seriously, because frankly they are ignorant of the fact that European mentality is not the Olympus of truth, and that ancient races posses dip knowledge and understanding of the surrounding world.

---

You should read the writings of those who brought India out of the British Empire and made it an independent country. Generally, they all recognised that the old myths left their country incredibly weak, unable to compete with those powers which taught and learned science.

The same lesson was learned in China; you might read Johnathan Spence's book "The Memory Palace of Matteo Ricci" for an understanding of that.

quote:

---

...but then again science contains superstitions as well and one of them is a false sense of superiority...

---

Science contains no sense of superiority. There may be scientists who have a sense of superiority, but science by itself is just a way of examining things.

That method has a remarkable history of success in determining why things happen. The reason for that success is the scientific method has no pre-determined answers. All answers to questions are arrived at by methods that can be duplicated by others, and thus checked for accuracy.

In addition, answers are always subject to further evidence. While some see this as a weakness, in fact it is the greatest strength of science. Scientists can be wrong, and answers arrived at through the scientific method can shown to be wrong.

But it is the nature of science to bring the truth to the surface, no matter what the failings or prejudices of 'scientists' may be.

That is why science has been so successful in determining the mechanics of the natural world.

Mythology serves a great purpose. In my view, that purpose is to explain ourselves to ourselves, and in that it has had success (as well as failure).

People need their 'stories' to survive. It is the way in which culture is passed from generation to generation. One of the characteristics of industrial society is the destruction of the stories, leaving people fragmented, isolated from each other and the world they live in.

quote:

---

That method has a remarkable history of success in determining why things happen.

---

And predicting them.

Even folk-wisdom, when it gets it right, is science. eg:

Red sky at night,
Sailors' delight.
Red sky in morning,
Sailor, take warning!

... is science of a sort. An observation is matched with a conclusion.

Mythologies, eg: the sun is carried across the sky each day by a rider and a chariot, have no similar uses for prediction.

Anyway, it's awesome that we live in a world where even the most anti-science neophobe can criticize science to his heart's content while at the same time carrying a cell phone, enjoying the benefits of vaccination, drinking clean water, and a million other things (including the obvious: typing on a computer).

If push came to shove and we all had to choose, once and for all, between:

1. aspirin for headache
2. exorcism for headache
3. trephination for headache
4. burning of sacrifice for headache

quote:

---

Originally posted by maestro:

Science contains no sense of superiority. There may be scientists who have a sense of superiority, but science by itself is just a way of examining things.

---

Agree. I meant to say that. Pardon the wording.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:

Generally, they all recognised that the old myths left their country incredibly weak, unable to compete with those powers which taught and learned science.

---

I am not against cooperation between cultures, and you right there were some positive British influences on India after all, but the level of selfishness and disrespect of native traditions, mythology and philosophies of India led to mass murders in this country and ideological enslavement of its people. They were attacked by the army, Christian missionaries and some scientists who barely discovered atom and electricity- the force that Indian mythology (if only properly studied) talked about and understood 3 thousand years ago (at least). The subject of mythology is rather lengthy and requires its own discussion. Simply labeling it as an old crap only demonstrates the level of incompetence in the subject.

[ 19 September 2005: Message edited by: venus_man ]

If somebody wants to use that to say native people are just immigrants or whatever, that person is a jerk.

[ 19 September 2005: Message edited by: Contrarian ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:

Mythologies, eg: the sun is carried across the sky each day by a rider and a chariot, have no similar uses for prediction.

---

quote:

---

Anyway, it's awesome that we live in a world where even the most anti-science neophobe can criticize science to his heart's content while at the same time carrying a cell phone, enjoying the benefits of vaccination, drinking clean water, and a million other things (including the obvious: typing on a computer).

---

I tried to be an anti-science neophobe but the pay for a wannabe-hack-philosipher is shite!

quote:

---

If push came to shove and we all had to choose, once and for all, between:

---

Well, the statement assumes that there is no role in belief in the treatment of ailments. I for one wouldn't rule it out, and if it is the case, then one's worldview would certainly play a large part in healing.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
Usually when you Norse evangelists come to the door I pretend I'm not home. I get so sick of "Have you welcomed Odin into your heart...?"

---

"...with his spearpoint?!"

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
If push came to shove and we all had to choose, once and for all, between:

1. aspirin for headache
2. exorcism for headache
3. trephination for headache
4. burning of sacrifice for headache

---

My ancestors had all kinds of natural remedies and cultural beliefs, too, but that isn't going to stop me from trying to find a rationalistic explanation for it, because for me, that's fun. And if I wanted to take a science class, that's what I'd expect to be taught.

quote:

---

Originally posted by chubbybear:
I do not completely discount the teachings of my ancestors, who also use many powerful herbal remedies.

---

One of those powerful herbal remedies was willow bark, wasn't it? From which apirin was synthesized?

edited to add: darn, I'm slow today

[ 19 September 2005: Message edited by: fern hill ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rabelais:
Ther herbal remedies would work through a mechanism that could be explained through scientific principles

---

quote:

---

That is the issue here, right? What gets taught in a science class? I know if I were a parent, I'd be pretty goddamn upset if my kids weren't learning natural explanations for biological events in a biology class.

---

"First nations people boiled the willow bark to provide pain relief. Chemists later identified the active ingredient and used it to formulate acetylsalicyclic acid, which we now knowsuppresses the production of prostaglandins and thromboxanes by inhibiting an enzyme known as cyclooxygenase."

quote:

---

They were attacked by the army, Christian missionaries and some scientists who barely discovered atom and electricity- the force that Indian mythology (if only properly studied) talked about and understood 3 thousand years ago (at least).

---

Okay, I'll bite. Where can I read up on three thousand year old derivations of Maxwell's Equations and Quantum Electro Dynamics?

quote:

---

Originally posted by retread:
Okay, I'll bite. Where can I read up on three thousand year old derivations of Maxwell's Equations and Quantum Electro Dynamics?

---

In the case of Boehm and Schroedinger, they were inspired philosophically as they worked on quantum mechanics. Inspiration is always useful - in fact every working scientist brings their own philosophy to their science. But there's a huge gap between philosophical inspiration and scientific theories. If for instance Maxwell's equations are emboddied in the Vedic literature, why weren't they discovered by the generations of Indian scholars who've been studying them for those thousands of years? And if you say the Vedic writings actually contained quantum mechanics and not electro-magnitism, why was the link only found by two Europeans with only a superficial understanding of the Vedic writings?

But the connections themselves were extremely weak and unconvincing. For example, Robert Oppenheimer claimed to have intuited a connection between the Vedas and the atomic bomb: he referred to the bomb as "brighter than a thousand suns", a Vedic quote.

But in the Vedas, that quote refers to Buddha. So, is Oppenheimer saying the bomb and buddha are the same? Well, no. He just liked the poetic image, and applied it to the result of e=mc2.

quote:

---

But neither Boehm nor Schroedinger made any contributions to the understanding of electromagnitism, so presumably the three thousand year old understanding of it didn't help them in this regard. Its possible that Maxwell and Feynman were also so inspired, but I haven't heard that they were.

---

quote:

---

In the case of Boehm and Schroedinger, they were inspired philosophically as they worked on quantum mechanics. Inspiration is always useful - in fact every working scientist brings their own philosophy to their science. But there's a huge gap between philosophical inspiration and scientific theories.

---

quote:

---

If for instance Maxwell's equations are emboddied in the Vedic literature, why weren't they discovered by the generations of Indian scholars who've been studying them for those thousands of years?

---

quote:

---

And if you say the Vedic writings actually contained quantum mechanics and not electro-magnitism, why was the link only found by two Europeans with only a superficial understanding of the Vedic writings?

---

quote:

---

Again, I think philosophy and myth are very important, they shape our lives. But they're not science, and we do a disservice to the wisdom they hold by pretending they're full of forgotten scientific truths - and though they belong in school, it shouldn't be as part of the science program.

---

quote:

---

then let's take Aristotle's or Descrates philisophical and religous assumptions out of science and see what happens, shall we?

---

Neither Aristotelian nor Cartesian assumptions are necessary to modern science. Anyway, Descartes' philosopical and religious assumptions have nothing to do with those of Aristotle;
science could hardly be based on both.

Of course, the history of philosophy includes numerous attempts which were more or less successful at describing the world; so it should not be surprising that some, such as the subject/object dichotomy, approximate a modern scientific understanding.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:
Neither Aristotelian nor Cartesian assumptions are necessary to modern science. Anyway, Descartes' philosopical and religious assumptions have nothing to do with those of Aristotle;
science could hardly be based on both.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug:

Just admit the Flying Spaghetti Monster to your stomach, and all will be well. RAmen.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug:
[IMG]Just admit the Flying Spaghetti Monster to your stomach, and all will be well. RAmen.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ToadProphet:

Nope. My real concern, frankly, was that the debate continually descends into intolerance and name calling.

---

Well, one thing I notice is that, yes, many other groups do have their own religious or myth-based ideas about how life came to be how it is--but of all the groups with such beliefs, *only one* is trying to have theirs put in science class. And, gee, only that one is being ridiculed by pro-science people. Odd co-incidence, that.

In fact, there is considerable evidence that that particular one is not merely seeking respect for their worldview. To the contrary, they seek dominance, and among themselves seem to routinely accept the idea that belief in science, the scientific method etc. must be destroyed; their most common specific target is the theory of evolution, but it is part of a general campaign. And while any movement will tend to be somewhat fragmented and variable, the bunch pushing "intelligent design" are less so than most--there seems to be a coherent network with definite shared political objectives who work together and push their aims. "Intelligent design" is not itself even a real worldview--it was deliberately concocted as a palatable-sounding creationism, something that might stand a chance of unseating evolution, given enough political push behind it.

So. Faced with this orchestrated campaign with the explicitly (if generally only in private) stated aim of destroying the scientific attitude and secularism, you want pro-science people to play nice and be the tolerant ones. Sort of like Democrats when faced with rabid neo-con Republicans.
Well, I suppose this value of civility over all else is one worldview. But as long as you're cool with lots of them, here's mine: People come and try to destroy my worldview using bullshit propaganda, I don't do the tolerant thing, I rhetorically kick the snot out of them. You got a problem with that, you think that when the intellectual brownshirts come we should be snivelling "Why can't we just get along?", fine. You can go ahead and snivel. But I'm gonna stomp me some intellectually dishonest would-be theocrat butt.

[ 20 September 2005: Message edited by: Rufus Polson ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by ToadProphet:

So... remove just one of those assumptions. *poof* you no longer have constants since you don't have an objective reality.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rufus Polson:

Whoa! You mean all you have to do to make science invalid is dispense with objective reality? Well, hey, no problem then--not like you'd have to give up anything fundamental, eh?
Of course, with no objective reality, that means your post doesn't really exist and I can ignore it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:

For example, Thor's hammer may be mythical, but Odin's horse Slepnir did have seven legs.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rufus Polson:
Well, I suppose this value of civility over all else is one worldview. But as long as you're cool with lots of them, here's mine:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rufus Polson:
Well, I suppose this value of civility over all else is one worldview. But as long as you're cool with lots of them, here's mine: People come and try to destroy my worldview using bullshit propaganda, I don't do the tolerant thing, I rhetorically kick the snot out of them. You got a problem with that, you think that when the intellectual brownshirts come we should be snivelling "Why can't we just get along?", fine. You can go ahead and snivel. But I'm gonna stomp me some intellectually dishonest would-be theocrat butt.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rufus Polson:
But as long as you're cool with lots of them, here's mine: People come and try to destroy my worldview using bullshit propaganda, I don't do the tolerant thing, I rhetorically kick the snot out of them. You got a problem with that, you think that when the intellectual brownshirts come we should be snivelling "Why can't we just get along?", fine. You can go ahead and snivel. But I'm gonna stomp me some intellectually dishonest would-be theocrat butt.

---

quote:

---

Excuse me, Mr. House, but could we not get ridiculous? Sleipnir had eight legs.

---

You are right! I forgot, because he moves those babies so fast you can't even see them all.

quote:

---

Originally posted by chubbybear:
Lumbering gangs of mathematicians, ornithologists, anthropologists and biologists swaggering down the alleyways, belching ethanol and hurling didactic criticisms on anyone who gets in their way. Woe to anyone who brushes against their lab coats done up to the collar in a rakish fashion, as warned by Eleanor Hazzinuff, Phd: "Look mate, see this bulge in me pocket? It an HP48GS, and it's loaded!"

---

However, for only $39.99* I'll send you my instructional videos of science-fu, and you and your loved ones will never again fear to walk the halls of knowledge.

quote:

---

Darwinian natural selection can produce an uncanny illusion of design. An engineer would be hard put to decide whether a bird or a plane was the more aerodynamically elegant.

So powerful is the illusion of design, it took humanity until the mid-19th century to realise that it is an illusion. In 1859, Charles Darwin announced one of the greatest ideas ever to occur to a human mind: cumulative evolution by natural selection. Living complexity is indeed orders of magnitude too improbable to have come about by chance. But only if we assume that all the luck has to come in one fell swoop. When cascades of small chance steps accumulate, you can reach prodigious heights of adaptive complexity. That cumulative build-up is evolution. Its guiding force is natural selection.

---

http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/dawkins_explains_evolution

The most important idea in this, I think, is the suggestion that truly RANDOM selection would never produce anything. But selection isn't random, it is "test-driven", with each intermediate state necessarily being able to reproduce itself, before the next departure can occur.

quote:

---

"Look mate, see this bulge in me pocket? It an HP48GS, and it's loaded!"

---

Real (Science) Men calculate using Reverse Polish Notation.

Real (Science) Women are even tougher than that.

quote:

---

Lumbering gangs of mathematicians, ornithologists, anthropologists and biologists swaggering down the alleyways, belching ethanol and hurling didactic criticisms on anyone who gets in their way.

---

When I was first studying geology, I developed a (drastically oversimplified, wildly caricatured, gleefully unfair, and essentially rubbish) theory of the Hierarchy of Sciences.

At the top are the physicists, because they deal in Fundamental, Really Ultimate Truths which can be expressed (and only expressed, in some cases) mathematically, that is to say elegantly.

(In this sense, you could say that the mathematicians should be at the top; but they've transcended, as skdadl might say, mere matter, and aren't scientists at all, properly speaking. Scientists are to mathematicians roughly as primates are to God).

They look down on the chemists, who work with messes, bangs, and smells, but can console themselves that they deal at least in Penultimate Truths, unlike...

... the biologists, who (except for those social-climbing biochemists and molecular geneticists) don't really deal in laws or Truths at all, but are closer to being taxonomers.

But at least they get to wax lyric or poetic once in a while, being taxonomers of actual Living Creatures. The geologists are stuck mucking about (ha, ha) with mere dead (or never-living) matter.

The geologists have no one to look down on but the engineers. And what consolation is there in feeling superior to a bunch of plumbers? I ask you.

I'll stand firmly behind this classification, unless challenged on it.

[ 20 September 2005: Message edited by: 'lance ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:

Evolution is directed selection; directed not by God, but by what works.

---

Hmmm...Let's assume and consider:

Well then, where is the direction of evolution originates from, or say an initial impulse? Matter, where does it acquire the reproductive quality. If it never had it before it would never have it after. It has to have an initial ability to develop and, in fact, evolve. But then again, you say -it works or whatever works. Where is the measure coming from. Trial and error? True, that’s an old and viable concept and mechanics of karma. Just take a few balls and bounce them around though, do they learn how to behave better? No, for they have no intelligence and no ability to understand and move ahead.

Once again though-is there an infinity? The logic says-yes. Infinity is seems to be a dialectical category that requires finite, in order to be such. Is there a centre of infinity? Everything seems to have a centre of some sort, a point of presence surrounded by the elements of self (it could be something as small as atom for instance), that is indeed an evolutionary entity. But the centre of the infinity, could there be only one centre of the infinity? No, of course not. Then it wouldn’t be an infinity if it had a well defined centre. Infinity then in each point of itself would contain a centre, but no circumference, simply because its infinite. So this infinity somehow contains everything within itself. It’s also an ancient kabalistic thought.

So then in each part of itself infinity must contain an infinity, all that ever existed or will exist. Since everything is moving and alive, this infinity represents unlimited potentials contained within every atom of space. Just imagine such a reservoir of energy. Impossible to imagine, because the sun is only a fraction of what infinity is. Therefore its more on the quantum level rather then physical matter.

Now take a single unit, say human being. We are as human beings are right now at the point of evolution (or discovering, living through the infinity, because of actions, forms and choices we’ve made plus a necessity and strive- the driving forces of the evolution.

Now-is infinity chaotic? Perhaps in the latent or yet unknown for us states of matter, but its actual functionality and mechanics seems to follow certain laws. Chemistry and physics provide plenty of such. These laws making sure that all visible universe stays intact and as it is. How did they appear, the laws. Of course they are part of infinity, or atom. Spiral movement, dip and rising like night and day or attraction and repulsion.
But infinity also means unlimited possibilities and growth. Does infinity dies? How could it? It can dip for sometime and arise again with a better awareness of itself. Isn’t this also a human evolution? So that self-containing, unlimited, untimely potential for life development with all its laws, energy and complexity is infinity that also could be God, the ultimate source.

[ 20 September 2005: Message edited by: venus_man ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by 'lance:
Real (Science) Men calculate using Reverse Polish Notation.
Real (Science) Women are even tougher than that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chubbybear:
Lumbering gangs of mathematicians, ornithologists, anthropologists and biologists swaggering down the alleyways, belching ethanol and hurling didactic criticisms on anyone who gets in their way. Woe to anyone who brushes against their lab coats done up to the collar in a rakish fashion, as warned by Eleanor Hazzinuff, Phd: "Look mate, see this bulge in me pocket? It an HP48GS, and it's loaded!"

---

quote:

---

Is there a centre of infinity? Everything seems to have a centre of some sort, a point of presence surrounded by the elements of self (it could be something as small as atom for instance), that is indeed an evolutionary entity. But the centre of the infinity, could there be only one centre of the infinity? No, of course not. Then it wouldn’t be an infinity if it had a well defined centre.

---

quote:

---

So that self-containing, unlimited, untimely potential for life development with all its laws, energy and complexity is infinity that also could be God, the ultimate source.

---

And of course there are also finite regions without a center. Consider a sphere ... its surface has no center (unless we're talking about the surface of the earth, whose center is Toronto ).

quote:

---

So that self-containing, unlimited, untimely potential for life development with all its laws, energy and complexity is infinity that also could be God, the ultimate source.

---

Unfortunately this doesn't really help - the question is of course, what caused that self-contained, unlimited potential for life to come about. And then what caused whatever caused that, and so on. All you've done is define something which 'must' have been first (a human concept, there's no inherent reason why there must be an unmoved mover, so to speak), as was done in the middle ages by a philosopher whose name escapes me at the moment - an argument whose flaws are discussed in many history of philosophy texts.

[ 21 September 2005: Message edited by: retread ]

Then again, you are already implying some meaning to numbers, dimensions etc. Where do numbers get their meaning, and, in fact, existence? What is number 1 represent? A line, one dimension. Why? Just because? It has to get its meaning from somewhere. Since nothing comes from nothing, it gets its meaning from the infinity that, by definition, already contains all possible meanings. According to neo-platonosts-“ One (or infinity)above any definition and therefore not a category, but a principle of any categorialization”. That could be equal to zero, but not as a center or a measurement base, rather as something that contains all possibilities and maenaings of numbers and dimensions.
According to Plato:” …line cannot be defined as the set of points because any such definition involves some apriori principle of linearity.” Here Platon give the new concept, concept of continuum, and also the means by which the creative energy of these Numbers makes the kosmos. “Continuum is composed of elements which presupposes their participation in that continuum: so any point of line has the idea of direction of a whole manifold.”

“So that self-containing, unlimited, untimely potential for life development with all its laws, energy and complexity is infinity that also could be God, the ultimate source.”

quote:

---

Defined center would establish a defined circumference or size.

---

And I never said the numbers *were* distances, the example works whether you consider the numbers as numbers or as distances. Thinking of the set of real numbers as representing units of distance measurement from the zero point just reifies the example a bit.

quote:

---

Originally posted by venus_man:
Intersting. Let's see.

---

quote:

---

Where do numbers get their meaning, and, in fact, existence?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by aRoused:
retread: Anselm of Canterbury's ontological argument?

---

quote:

---

some infinities are bigger than others. For instance, the set of integers is twice as big as the set of even integers, though both are of course infinite.

---

Not true. The definition of the same size is the ability to specify a one to one map between the sets of objects. The integers and the integers times 2 can be mapped like that therefor they are the same size.

It does look paradoxical, and yes, infinity makes my head hurt sometimes.

I don't quite recall off the top of my head whether aleph null (the integers) is the same size as aleph one (the real numbers). I suspect not.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jrootham:

Not true. The definition of the same size is the ability to specify a one to one map between the sets of objects. The integers and the integers times 2 can be mapped like that therefor they are the same size.

---

But feel free to start another.

[ 23 September 2005: Message edited by: Albireo ]