<meanybawd@excite.com> wrote:

If not God, who? Good question. Since the idea of a supernatural,
intelligent designer creating the universe and everything in it is just
too difficult a concept, let's assume that blind time and chance was
capable of making everything there is, complete with an appearance of
intelligent design.

Oh, you don't need to assume it: such organic follows logically -

indeed, mathematically

- from the observed facts about reproduction,
variation, and the interaction of organisms with their physical
environment in accordance with the ordinary laws of thermodynamics.

The universe itself is known to self-organise in virtue of gravity and
nuclear forces, generating wuite simply all the elements and structures
we see.

The origination of th euniverse is not knowable to us, but you
can allow that time and chance happeneth to all, according to the laws
of both physics and logic.

What further interpretation you make of that is up to you.

On 1 Feb 2005 16:32:17 -0800,

If not God, who? Good question. Since the idea of a supernatural,
intelligent designer creating the universe and everything in it is just
too difficult a concept, let's assume that blind time and chance was
capable of making everything there is, complete with an appearance of
intelligent design.

There's nothing difficult about the concept. In fact, it is patheticly
childish.

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 07:28:07 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> said in
alt.atheism:

Do they take their children to the doctor? Why? Modern medicine is
built on the truths of evolutionary biology. By contrast, "intelligent
design" can't be scientifically tested or used to predict how cells
will behave. It's faith called by another name...

They'll tell you (and some have, in alt.atheism) that medicine doesn't
depend on "the theory of evolution". Doctors just cure illness.
Whatever happens to bacteria, they're still bacteria.

The frightening thing is that some doctors believe it.

stoney wrote:

On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 03:55:14 -0500, Jason Spaceman
<notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote:

http://www.philly.com/mld/dailynews/news/opinion/10784680.htm?1c

From the article:
------------------------------------------------------
THE LATEST strategy in the anti-evolution, anti-science movement is
something called "intelligent design." It's espoused by a handful of
folks with Ph.D.s after their names, not to mention the

know-nothings'

champion, U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum. It boasts its own "think tank," a
right-wing law center to defend it and textbooks with all the
trappings of real science.

But it's a fig leaf to cover another naked attempt to teach the
biblical account of Adam and Eve in the public schools, which is
unconstitutional.

The prime example is just up the road in Dover, Pa., near York. Two
weeks ago, school administrators (science teachers refused to do it)
read a statement to biology students that the theory of evolution

"is

not a fact," and touted intelligent design as an "explanation of the
origin of life."

The American Civil Liberties Union has, of course, filed suit. We

can

only hope that the courts will again affirm that in public schools,

we

don't teach religious beliefs. We teach science.

Yet we have taught science so poorly that vast numbers of adult
Americans don't understand the difference nor the dangerous
ramifications of their ignorance.

Proponents of "intelligent design" use scientific-sounding jargon to
argue that the structure of life is so "irreducibly complex" that an
outside force had to create it. They're careful not to name that

force

God - a ploy to circumvent repeated Supreme Court decisions against
teaching creationism. (If not God, who? Maybe it was aliens, they
smile.)

The Dover case is the first to posit "intelligent design" as a theory
equal to the theory of evolution. Given the widespread scientific
illiteracy among Americans, "ID" proponents could very well pull it
off. They already have succeeded in persuading a significant number

of

Americans that there is a scientific controversy over evolution when
the controversy is all political. Evolution is the scientific
consensus for how life came to be.

Yes. The gullibility of such people is a fact worth pondering.

Yet in most states - most recently in Georgia - at least a few school
boards continue to make a distinction between the "theory" of
evolution and fact, revealing how little they know about scientific
concepts.

Yes. Ignorance and gullibility often go hand in hand.

Stupidity, alas, is contagious: Polls show that a third of Americans
don't believe in evolution. Another third believe creationism ought

to

be taught alongside it. Can they possibly understand the predictable
results of this naive attempt at fairness?

Anything's possible. But in practice, such understanding is the
exception rather than the rule. Those who are ignorant and gullible
tend to not understand such things. This is the nature of ignorance
and gullibility.

Do they take their children to the doctor? Why? Modern medicine is
built on the truths of evolutionary biology. By contrast,

"intelligent

design" can't be scientifically tested or used to predict how cells
will behave. It's faith called by another name...

Yes. Faith is a common characteristic of a significant number of
people.

Are anti-evolution parents prepared to have their children shut out

of

careers in a host of sciences, from biology to chemistry, geology,
zoology, archaeology, anthropology, astronomy, or atomic physics - or
to undercut the scientific advances that extend their lives and

reduce

their pain?

I think they are preparing to try to shut "evolutionists" out of these
fields, and to "win them back" for God. It's about faith again.

To argue that evolution is a "theory, not a fact" is to misunderstand
the basics of the scientific method itself. That, in turn,
misunderstands the underpinnings of modern life: why airplanes can
fly, how germs cause disease, how to protect ourselves from natural
disasters.

Misunderstanding and ignorance and gullibility all seem to be
travelling companions.

Without the scientific method, we can't test drugs for efficacy, food
for disease-causing bacteria, or determine whether the "Star Wars
initiative" actually works. All the better to manipulate data to
conform to political ideology or religious belief.

Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not
seen.

Maybe that's the religious right's real, not-so-intelligent design

for

American society.

By Carol Towarnicky, Daily News, Feb. 01, 2005

Yes, it seems that way.

The question is, when will the pro-science camp begin to take seriously
the idea that the psychology of faith itself is a subject worthy of
scientific investigation? And that we are far behind where we should
be in the study of this sort of thinking? When will they stop worrying
about offending religious sensibilities and open the floodgates of
research into this phenomenon? Just griping and moaning about the
influence of anti-scientific faith in our society doesn't seem to be
working. At least, not so far.

Perhaps the pro-science camp has fallen into its own trap of faith:
the faith that dogmatic religious folks will suddenly start to "see
reason" on their own, if only we just keep repeating the same facts a
little while longer. Repeating those same facts that have been
rejected by them up to now. This plan certainly takes a lot of faith
that human nature is suddenly going to change. Perhaps the religious
crowd doesn't hold a monopoly on faith after all.

I'd put my own "faith" in accelerated scientific research into the
nature of dogmatic religious thinking, but what do I know? Perhaps
those who imagine that fundies will somehow "see reason" spontaneously
are right after all. Anything is possible, right?

I guess we'll have to wait and see which course of action is the right
one (if we think we have the time, and can afford to wait, and if we
are willing to face the consequences of guessing wrong, that is).

DV

stoney wrote:

On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 03:55:14 -0500, Jason Spaceman
<notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote:

http://www.philly.com/mld/dailynews/news/opinion/10784680.htm?1c

From the article:
------------------------------------------------------
THE LATEST strategy in the anti-evolution, anti-science movement is
something called "intelligent design." It's espoused by a handful of
folks with Ph.D.s after their names, not to mention the

know-nothings'

champion, U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum. It boasts its own "think tank," a
right-wing law center to defend it and textbooks with all the
trappings of real science.

But it's a fig leaf to cover another naked attempt to teach the
biblical account of Adam and Eve in the public schools, which is
unconstitutional.

The prime example is just up the road in Dover, Pa., near York. Two
weeks ago, school administrators (science teachers refused to do it)
read a statement to biology students that the theory of evolution

"is

not a fact," and touted intelligent design as an "explanation of the
origin of life."

The American Civil Liberties Union has, of course, filed suit. We

can

only hope that the courts will again affirm that in public schools,

we

don't teach religious beliefs. We teach science.

Yet we have taught science so poorly that vast numbers of adult
Americans don't understand the difference nor the dangerous
ramifications of their ignorance.

Proponents of "intelligent design" use scientific-sounding jargon to
argue that the structure of life is so "irreducibly complex" that an
outside force had to create it. They're careful not to name that

force

God - a ploy to circumvent repeated Supreme Court decisions against
teaching creationism. (If not God, who? Maybe it was aliens, they
smile.)

The Dover case is the first to posit "intelligent design" as a theory
equal to the theory of evolution. Given the widespread scientific
illiteracy among Americans, "ID" proponents could very well pull it
off. They already have succeeded in persuading a significant number

of

Americans that there is a scientific controversy over evolution when
the controversy is all political. Evolution is the scientific
consensus for how life came to be.

Yes. The gullibility of such people is a fact worth pondering.

Yet in most states - most recently in Georgia - at least a few school
boards continue to make a distinction between the "theory" of
evolution and fact, revealing how little they know about scientific
concepts.

Yes. Ignorance and gullibility often go hand in hand.

Stupidity, alas, is contagious: Polls show that a third of Americans
don't believe in evolution. Another third believe creationism ought

to

be taught alongside it. Can they possibly understand the predictable
results of this naive attempt at fairness?

Anything's possible. But in practice, such understanding is the
exception rather than the rule. Those who are ignorant and gullible
tend to not understand such things. This is the nature of ignorance
and gullibility.

Do they take their children to the doctor? Why? Modern medicine is
built on the truths of evolutionary biology. By contrast,

"intelligent

design" can't be scientifically tested or used to predict how cells
will behave. It's faith called by another name...

Yes. Faith is a common characteristic of a significant number of
people.

Are anti-evolution parents prepared to have their children shut out

of

careers in a host of sciences, from biology to chemistry, geology,
zoology, archaeology, anthropology, astronomy, or atomic physics - or
to undercut the scientific advances that extend their lives and

reduce

their pain?

I think they are preparing to try to shut "evolutionists" out of these
fields, and to "win them back" for God. It's about faith again.

To argue that evolution is a "theory, not a fact" is to misunderstand
the basics of the scientific method itself. That, in turn,
misunderstands the underpinnings of modern life: why airplanes can
fly, how germs cause disease, how to protect ourselves from natural
disasters.

Misunderstanding and ignorance and gullibility all seem to be
travelling companions.

Without the scientific method, we can't test drugs for efficacy, food
for disease-causing bacteria, or determine whether the "Star Wars
initiative" actually works. All the better to manipulate data to
conform to political ideology or religious belief.

Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not
seen.

Maybe that's the religious right's real, not-so-intelligent design

for

American society.

By Carol Towarnicky, Daily News, Feb. 01, 2005

Yes, it seems that way.

The question is, when will the pro-science camp begin to take seriously
the idea that the psychology of faith itself is a subject worthy of
scientific investigation? And that we are far behind where we should
be in the study of this sort of thinking? When will they stop worrying
about offending religious sensibilities and open the floodgates of
research into this phenomenon? Just griping and moaning about the
influence of anti-scientific faith in our society doesn't seem to be
working. At least, not so far.

Perhaps the pro-science camp has fallen into its own trap of faith:
the faith that dogmatic religious folks will suddenly start to "see
reason" on their own, if only we just keep repeating the same facts a
little while longer. Repeating those same facts that have been
rejected by them up to now. This plan certainly takes a lot of faith
that human nature is suddenly going to change. Perhaps the religious
crowd doesn't hold a monopoly on faith after all.

I'd put my own "faith" in accelerated scientific research into the
nature of dogmatic religious thinking, but what do I know? Perhaps
those who imagine that fundies will somehow "see reason" spontaneously
are right after all. Anything is possible, right?

I guess we'll have to wait and see which course of action is the right
one (if we think we have the time, and can afford to wait, and if we
are willing to face the consequences of guessing wrong, that is).

DV

The question is, when will the pro-science camp begin to take seriously
the idea that the psychology of faith itself is a subject worthy of
scientific investigation? And that we are far behind where we should
be in the study of this sort of thinking? When will they stop worrying
about offending religious sensibilities and open the floodgates of
research into this phenomenon?