| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Therion Ware" |
| Date: |
07 Oct 2006 07:25:44 AM |
| Object: |
The Times, 7 Oct 2006, ID on the Letters Page |
It says here (in the letters page):
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,59-2392177,00.html
Science v faith: they need not fear each other
Sir, Science cannot make a statement either way on the supernatural.
It is no less scientific to say that an Airbus A380 requires
intelligence to design than to state that the independent wing control
of the damselfly (including supination and pronation timing) shows
evidence of design.
To give the impression to students in the UK that it is somehow off
limits even to discuss this (letter, Oct 3) is tantamount to
brainwashing our next generation with the philosophy of humanism. All
that Truth in Science wishes to see is an honest opening out of the
origins debate in our schools and universities.
That there has been such a heated response to the DVD Unlocking the
Mystery of Life, sent to every secondary school in the country, shows
that there is an issue, there is a debate and there are obvious
philosophical consequences.
We need to teach our children how to think, not what to think. To
suggest that design cannot be scientifically verified is nonsense. The
exquisite nature of nano-mechanisms in living creatures has led to the
growth of the discipline known as biomimetics, copying nature to
advantage in engineering.
I am eager that more students should work at the interface between
life sciences and engineering and understand design in nature.
ANDY C. McINTOSH
Professor of Thermodynamics and Combustion Theory
University of Leeds
Sir, The best place, possibly the only place, for creationism and
other faith-associated issues to be analysed is in the theatre of
science. The earlier this begins the better: in primary school
preferably, secondary school certainly.
For some reason science seems to be in fear of faith and seeks to
distance itself from its religious and philosophical manifestations.
It trivialises them. This is a futile position, for it permits
unreasoned doctrines to prosper and encourages the untenable and
discouraging view that personal belief and faith have no place in
science.
The public image of science is mostly formed from reports on the
leading edge of research — the asking process — where argument, debate
and disagreement are manifest. This brief and fluid research period is
totally faith based, with all those working in this field having
notional, speculative views of the way things are. Their researches
are designed to substantiate their beliefs.
I see no compelling reason to distinguish this “faith” from that felt
in respect of religious objectives. Disputes may be every bit as
heated, and based on as little “factual” evidence as some religious
confrontations. Many pursue false “gods” and fall by the wayside, but
never without facing their critics in the pursuit of their belief.
It is only by constant questioning, challenging and reinterpretation
in the light of new information that understanding progresses. The
British Centre for Science Education should embrace this
inquisitorial, correctional philosophy without fear. Science is not
for the faint hearted.
DR MIKE SNOW
Former senior research scientist
Medical Research Council
Sir, Truth in Science (report, Sept 29) is seeking to enable school
science students to follow the evidence for and against evolution
wherever it leads.
We are commited to truthfulness and good science, and invite our
critics to identify the alleged “scientific errors” of our website.
Where convinced they occur, we will correct them.
DR RICHARD BUGGS
Scientific panel
Truth in Science
Tonbridge, Kent
--
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".
attrib: Pauline Réage. Cine To DVD? http://www.video2cd.co.uk
.
|
|
| User: "Geoff" |
|
| Title: Re: The Times, 7 Oct 2006, ID on the Letters Page |
08 Oct 2006 01:56:45 PM |
|
|
"Therion Ware" <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote in message
news:iglei2lu41mttu9astbocdr70apju7etm3@4ax.com...
Sir, Science cannot make a statement either way on the supernatural.
It is no less scientific to say that an Airbus A380 requires
intelligence to design than to state that the independent wing control
of the damselfly (including supination and pronation timing) shows
evidence of design.
Sure does. It's called natural selection. It takes considerably longer than
the 15 years it took to develop the Airbus A380.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Geoff" |
|
| Title: Re: The Times, 7 Oct 2006, ID on the Letters Page |
08 Oct 2006 04:07:23 PM |
|
|
"Geoff" <geoff@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:deOdnUdmzZE_nrTYnZ2dnUVZ_q6dnZ2d@comcast.com...
"Therion Ware" <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote in message
news:iglei2lu41mttu9astbocdr70apju7etm3@4ax.com...
Sir, Science cannot make a statement either way on the supernatural.
It is no less scientific to say that an Airbus A380 requires
intelligence to design than to state that the independent wing control
of the damselfly (including supination and pronation timing) shows
evidence of design.
Sure does. It's called natural selection. It takes considerably longer
than the 15 years it took to develop the Airbus A380.
Oh, and it's frightfully unintelligent. Stupid really. If the engineers that
designed the Airbus showed one millionth the incompetence that evolution
does, planes would be dropping out of the sky every minute.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bobby Bryant" |
|
| Title: Re: The Times, 7 Oct 2006, ID on the Letters Page |
07 Oct 2006 11:42:30 AM |
|
|
In article <iglei2lu41mttu9astbocdr70apju7etm3@4ax.com>,
Therion Ware <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> writes:
It says here (in the letters page):
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,59-2392177,00.html
Science v faith: they need not fear each other
Sir, Science cannot make a statement either way on the supernatural.
It is no less scientific to say that an Airbus A380 requires
intelligence to design than to state that the independent wing control
of the damselfly (including supination and pronation timing) shows
evidence of design.
I'm pretty sure that sentence doesn't say what he meant it to say.
--
Bobby Bryant
Reno, Nevada
Remove your hat to reply by e-mail.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: The Times, 7 Oct 2006, ID on the Letters Page |
07 Oct 2006 01:44:51 PM |
|
|
In article <iglei2lu41mttu9astbocdr70apju7etm3@4ax.com>, autodelete@city-
of-dis.com says...
It says here (in the letters page):
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,59-2392177,00.html
Science v faith: they need not fear each other
Sir, Science cannot make a statement either way on the supernatural.
Sir, you cannot demonstrate that there is any such thing as the
supernatural and therefore are cordially invited to shut your gob.
It is no less scientific to say that an Airbus A380 requires
intelligence to design than to state that the independent wing control
of the damselfly
It certainly is less scientific, to the point of not being science at
all, since Airbus A380s do not breed with each other and possess no
hereditary mechanisms to produce offspring which receive mutations
resulting in new species of vehicles arising independent of any
intelligent redesign. ID creationism assiduously ignores this rather
obvious distinction between self-replicating or living organisms and all
manner of non-replicating objects. Even many defenders of evolution fail
to see that his is one of the most decisive and common sense objection to
all "watchmaker" style arguments. Granted, there are many other
objections that I can understand why many people take other routes. But
the primary problem with the whole watchmaker business is that Paley's
watch does not contain within it the mechanisms to reproduce a new watch.
For, if it did, then one could easily see that, if the mechanisms were to
go slightly wonky, that a completely new type of watch could arise which
hadn't been intended or "designed" at all.
(including supination and pronation timing) shows
evidence of design.
No, it shows evidence of adaptation by initial, self-replicating, finite
state molecular machines which are able to read or write data on a tape
called DNA almost precisely the way that Turing described.
To give the impression to students in the UK that it is somehow off
limits even to discuss this
It's not off limits so much as simply stupid and dreadfully bad science.
What is off limits is the religious idiocy that inspired the pseudo-
science of ID creationism, at least as far as falsely teaching its
undemonstrated propositions as though they were science.
(letter, Oct 3) is tantamount to
brainwashing our next generation with the philosophy of humanism.
And by your same argument, all teaching would be brainwashing and you
would happily brainwash them in the pseudo-science which you would put in
its place. It's not brainwashing, but an exposition of those facts about
the world which you, for all your efforts, cannot make disappear,
regardless of how vigorously you distort them.
That there has been such a heated response to the DVD Unlocking the
Mystery of Life,
It's a moronically abysmal production and while most would merely be too
bored with it to watch for any length, it provided a hearty belly-laugh
to those of us who actually know enough science to instantly grasp the
shabbiness of the exposition.
sent to every secondary school in the country, shows
that there is an issue, there is a debate and there are obvious
philosophical consequences.
We need to teach our children how to think, not what to think.
Actually, we both know that you desire quite the opposite, because your
religion would utterly disappear if children started applying critical
thinking to it. At best, what you want is very selective "critical
thinking" that nitpicks to death anything not conforming to your
preconceived biases and searches for endless apologies for anything that
justifies your biases. It is that dishonest attitude which has held
theology back from making any serious progress toward bettering the human
condition for all the millenia of its invention.
To
suggest that design cannot be scientifically verified is nonsense.
Such nonsense that you can't generate one credible scientific paper that
isn't immediately laughed to the scorn that it deserves.
The
exquisite nature of nano-mechanisms
Things had to be somehow, and it happens that things are made of atoms
which are themselves have certain functions we choose to conceptualize as
"nano-machines". Think of atoms as the tinker toys we started with.
It's not surprising that some tinker toys could get spotaneously
assembled into complex configurations and with enough mixing, self-
replicating patterns are bound to arise.
in living creatures has led to the
growth of the discipline known as biomimetics,
Which is the complete opposite of what you propose with ID. They
actually study nature and discover how natural selection through adaptive
random variation has solved problems and adapt it to engineering. You
propose that engineers design to begin with, making no recourse to the
storehouse of knowledge that billions of years of interacting atoms have
built up in their random wanderings.
copying nature to
advantage in engineering.
Which would not actually be engineering at all, any more than copying
homework problems counts as solving a problem for yourself.
I am eager that more students should work at the interface between
life sciences and engineering and understand design in nature.
Your utter inability to think critically suggests that students would do
well to stay away from your questionable tutelage.
<remaining laughably dishonest letters snipped for brevity>
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: The Times, 7 Oct 2006, ID on the Letters Page |
10 Oct 2006 03:25:53 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 08:25:44 +0100, Therion Ware
<autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote in alt.atheism
It says here (in the letters page):
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,59-2392177,00.html
Science v faith: they need not fear each other
Sir, Science cannot make a statement either way on the supernatural.
It is no less scientific to say that an Airbus A380 requires
intelligence to design than to state that the independent wing control
of the damselfly (including supination and pronation timing) shows
evidence of design.
To give the impression to students in the UK that it is somehow off
limits even to discuss this (letter, Oct 3) is tantamount to
brainwashing our next generation with the philosophy of humanism. All
that Truth in Science wishes to see is an honest opening out of the
origins debate in our schools and universities.
That there has been such a heated response to the DVD Unlocking the
Mystery of Life, sent to every secondary school in the country, shows
that there is an issue, there is a debate and there are obvious
philosophical consequences.
We need to teach our children how to think, not what to think. To
suggest that design cannot be scientifically verified is nonsense. The
exquisite nature of nano-mechanisms in living creatures has led to the
growth of the discipline known as biomimetics, copying nature to
advantage in engineering.
I am eager that more students should work at the interface between
life sciences and engineering and understand design in nature.
ANDY C. McINTOSH
Professor of Thermodynamics and Combustion Theory
University of Leeds
All three are the usual 'liars for jesus.'
[]
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kleuskes & Moos" |
|
| Title: Re: The Times, 7 Oct 2006, ID on the Letters Page |
07 Oct 2006 03:10:30 PM |
|
|
Therion Ware schreef:
<snip>
ANDY C. McINTOSH
Professor of Thermodynamics and Combustion Theory
University of Leeds
<snip>
DR RICHARD BUGGS
Scientific panel
Truth in Science
Tonbridge, Kent
Ah... Neither is a biologist, so their sayso is just as worthwhile
(scientifically) as mine. Science _is_ a meritocracy, after all. They
don't have any and neither have I. However, the guys know how to
_FORMULATE_ and make it sound big and all eggheaded and such...
Whatch this:
<quote http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/site/content/view/36/47/>
OCR A-Level Biology
[...]
2 Specification Aims
2.1 Spiritual, Moral, Ethical, Social and Cultural Issues
These specifications provide an opportunity for candidates to
appreciate:
* a sense of awe and wonder at the scale and impact of natural
processes and phenomena;
* the role of biology in describing the structure and functioning of
the natural world;
* the importance of animals, plants and microorganisms to life on
earth;
* the place of mankind in the natural world;
* the moral, ethical, social and cultural implications of some of the
applications of biology and technology.
</quote>
That's all folks... No Science. On another page
<quote http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/site/content/view/55/65/>
Summary
The evidence of fossils, along with the study of horse embryos,
indicates that the horse series is a genuine record of biological
change over time. Evolutionary scientists point to this as evidence of
Darwinian evolution. However, non-evolutionary scientists say that this
simply records changes within the horse basic type and that there is
little evidence to suggest that horses developed from a non-horse
ancestor. Since the magnitude and type of change represented by the
horse series can be accommodated by both evolutionary and
non-evolutionary theories it cannot, therefore, distinguish between
them. At best, in terms of the origins debate, the horse series is
neutral data.
</quote>
You'd *allmost* believe it's all scientific and such... It's worth a
read.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kleuskes & Moos" |
|
| Title: Re: The Times, 7 Oct 2006, ID on the Letters Page |
07 Oct 2006 03:19:13 PM |
|
|
Therion Ware schreef:
DR MIKE SNOW
Former senior research scientist
Medical Research Council
Quite an active fellow, too.
<quote
http://www.rationalist.org.uk/newhumanist/issue02summer/creationism.shtml>
Irreducible bio-engineering: flight
Flight is one of the clearest examples of irreducible mechanisms on a
macro scale. An aeroplane has an irreducible number of parts necessary
for flight. An aeroplane requires a set of wings for lift, wing flaps
and rear rudder for control and engines for propulsion. Engineers spent
over one hundred years of intense research designing the first
aeroplane because a flying machine could not be evolved from any land
machine.
</quote>
Surprizingly he seems to be on the payroll of "Creation Ministries
International"
<quote http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3490>
He says: "My career in mathematics and science has led me very much to
the view that the world and the Universe show powerful evidence of
design. As a result, I am often asked both in the UK and abroad to
speak on the subject of origins."
</quote>
And eventhough a great deal of (apparantly) bona fide publications are
cited, not one of them is actually about evolution. Can anybody with a
sufficiently impressive set of letters write these fellows a "amicus"
letter spelling it out? They're just as qualified as i am on the
subject.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jeffrey Turner" |
|
| Title: Re: The Times, 7 Oct 2006, ID on the Letters Page |
07 Oct 2006 01:33:07 PM |
|
|
Therion Ware wrote:
ANDY C. McINTOSH
Professor of Thermodynamics and Combustion Theory
University of Leeds
<snip>
The public image of science is mostly formed from reports on the
leading edge of research — the asking process — where argument, debate
and disagreement are manifest. This brief and fluid research period is
totally faith based, with all those working in this field having
notional, speculative views of the way things are. Their researches
are designed to substantiate their beliefs.
I see no compelling reason to distinguish this “faith” from that felt
in respect of religious objectives. Disputes may be every bit as
heated, and based on as little “factual” evidence as some religious
confrontations. Many pursue false “gods” and fall by the wayside, but
never without facing their critics in the pursuit of their belief.
I can hardly wait to see the fundies acknowledge that their "God" is
false because their "speculative views of the way things are" are shown
to not comport with reality.
--Jeff
--
"The fetters imposed on liberty at home have
ever been forged out of the weapons provided
for defence against real, pretended, or
imaginary dangers from abroad."
James Madison
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steven J." |
|
| Title: Re: The Times, 7 Oct 2006, ID on the Letters Page |
07 Oct 2006 08:16:38 AM |
|
|
Therion Ware wrote:
It says here (in the letters page):
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,59-2392177,00.html
Science v faith: they need not fear each other
Sir, Science cannot make a statement either way on the supernatural.
It is no less scientific to say that an Airbus A380 requires
intelligence to design than to state that the independent wing control
of the damselfly (including supination and pronation timing) shows
evidence of design.
The designers of the A380 can be identified, located, described in
detail, and, if necessary, given IQ tests. The proponents of
"intelligent design" are quite insistent that none of these things can
be done regarding the "Intelligent Designer" of damselfly wings. One
can point out not only the designers of aircraft, but describe the
design process and the manufacturing process for turning designs into
actual aircraft. But the only evidence for "intelligent design" of
damselflies is a collection of arguments against the possibility of
evolving such organisms (bad arguments leaning heavily on personal
incredulity, but that is another matter). Such arguments are, at most,
arguments for some unknown mechanism or process producing damselflies,
not evidence for "design," which would require some theory of the
Designer's methods and/or goals.
To give the impression to students in the UK that it is somehow off
limits even to discuss this (letter, Oct 3) is tantamount to
brainwashing our next generation with the philosophy of humanism. All
that Truth in Science wishes to see is an honest opening out of the
origins debate in our schools and universities.
Would it not be more reasonable to conduct that debate in science
journals and conferences first, to see if there's actually a theory of
ID that could be taught, and enough evidence to justify teaching it?
But then, of course, that debate already happened, a century ago and
more, and did not turn out terribly well for the ID side.
That there has been such a heated response to the DVD Unlocking the
Mystery of Life, sent to every secondary school in the country, shows
that there is an issue, there is a debate and there are obvious
philosophical consequences.
If they'd sent holocaust-denial videos, or, for that matter, videos
arguing for a Tychonian geocentric solar system, there would have been
an equally, if not more, heated response. Certainly there is an issue:
should creationists be allowed to package religious doctrine, dolled up
with assorted lies and arguments from ignorance, as "science?"
We need to teach our children how to think, not what to think. To
suggest that design cannot be scientifically verified is nonsense. The
exquisite nature of nano-mechanisms in living creatures has led to the
growth of the discipline known as biomimetics, copying nature to
advantage in engineering.
Well, if you're teaching children how to think, perhaps it would be
well to start with teaching them to identify arguments from ignorance,
god-of-the-gaps arguments, false dichotomies, and arguments depending
on undefined or inconsistently defined terms. You could use ID texts
for examples.
The laws of physics, of course, are the same for living things as for
nonliving things, for evolution as for engineers, so certainly there
are examples for engineering in biology. Of course, one aspect of
copying nature is found in genetic algorithms, which copy the process
of replication, mutation, and selection to produce designs, without the
programmers specifying how the selection criteria should be satisfied.
Mutation and selection can produce design.
I am eager that more students should work at the interface between
life sciences and engineering and understand design in nature.
ANDY C. McINTOSH
Professor of Thermodynamics and Combustion Theory
University of Leeds
Sir, The best place, possibly the only place, for creationism and
other faith-associated issues to be analysed is in the theatre of
science. The earlier this begins the better: in primary school
preferably, secondary school certainly.
Science isn't done in primary schools (at least in the U.S.; I suppose
the UK may be different, yet I doubt it). Very little science is done
in secondary schools. The "theatre of science" is the world of
testable hypotheses, experiments and peer-reviewed research. One
wonders why the author seems determined to have creationism and "other
faith-based issues" studied in the venue least suited for it (we don't
let children decide whether to drink, or even whether to go to school;
why would one think they are qualified to decide between scientific
theories, or between scientific theories and pseudoscientific
apologetics?).
For some reason science seems to be in fear of faith and seeks to
distance itself from its religious and philosophical manifestations.
It trivialises them. This is a futile position, for it permits
unreasoned doctrines to prosper and encourages the untenable and
discouraging view that personal belief and faith have no place in
science.
Strictly speaking, what is encouraged is the view that untestable ideas
have no place in science, and neither do ideas that are accepted on
faith that the evidence against them doesn't matter.
The public image of science is mostly formed from reports on the
leading edge of research - the asking process - where argument, debate
and disagreement are manifest. This brief and fluid research period is
totally faith based, with all those working in this field having
notional, speculative views of the way things are. Their researches
are designed to substantiate their beliefs.
Their researches are designed to *test* their beliefs. Thus far,
creationism and ID seem unable or unwilling to come up with ways to
test ID, or even express it clearly enough for someone else to test it.
But then, the ideas of common descent and natural selection as a major
mechanism of evolution and adaption are no longer "cutting edge;" they
are long-standing, well-tested and well-developed theories supported by
multiple lines of evidence. "Cutting edge" science doesn't usually get
taught in science classes, so even if ID fell into this category, there
would be little reason to advocate teaching it just yet.
I see no compelling reason to distinguish this "faith" from that felt
in respect of religious objectives. Disputes may be every bit as
heated, and based on as little "factual" evidence as some religious
confrontations. Many pursue false "gods" and fall by the wayside, but
never without facing their critics in the pursuit of their belief.
It is only by constant questioning, challenging and reinterpretation
in the light of new information that understanding progresses. The
British Centre for Science Education should embrace this
inquisitorial, correctional philosophy without fear. Science is not
for the faint hearted.
DR MIKE SNOW
Former senior research scientist
Medical Research Council
Sir, Truth in Science (report, Sept 29) is seeking to enable school
science students to follow the evidence for and against evolution
wherever it leads.
So far, "evidence ... against evolution" has consisted of (actual or
alleged) unsolved questions in evolutionary theory, and assorted errors
of science and logic. As for the evidence for evolution, the people at
"Truth in Science" seem unable to follow that evidence where it leads;
should we trust them to teach other people how to do so?
We are commited to truthfulness and good science, and invite our
critics to identify the alleged "scientific errors" of our website.
Where convinced they occur, we will correct them.
Now that is a nicely phrased promise: somehow convince people who've
already shown themselves unreasonable in evaluating evidence that
they're mistaken, and they'll replace the error with something they
find reasonable.
DR RICHARD BUGGS
Scientific panel
Truth in Science
Tonbridge, Kent
--
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".
attrib: Pauline Réage. Cine To DVD? http://www.video2cd.co.uk
-- Steven J.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ron O" |
|
| Title: Re: The Times, 7 Oct 2006, ID on the Letters Page |
07 Oct 2006 02:16:36 PM |
|
|
Therion Ware wrote:
It says here (in the letters page):
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,59-2392177,00.html
Science v faith: they need not fear each other
Sir, Science cannot make a statement either way on the supernatural.
It is no less scientific to say that an Airbus A380 requires
intelligence to design than to state that the independent wing control
of the damselfly (including supination and pronation timing) shows
evidence of design.
These guys can't even be honest with themselves. Note how he carefully
does not claim that the damselfly shows intelligent design. He knows
that he can't say that so what is the rest of the letter worth.
Ron Okimoto
SNIP:
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
