Science > Physics > Draft: "Why We Should Teach About Creationism in Science Classes"
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Cygnus X-1" |
| Date: |
09 Mar 2005 09:59:03 PM |
| Object: |
Draft: "Why We Should Teach About Creationism in Science Classes" |
Still trying to track down some references (and pointers from those in
the group would be appreciated). References are linked on the web site
version (see bottom of the main page).
=======
Why We Should Teach About Creationism in Science Classes
W.T. Bridgman, Ph.D.
cygnusx1@mac.com
"Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy",
http://homepage.mac.com/cygnusx1/
Draft
In recent years, the proponents of teaching "Intelligent Design" and
it's precursor "Scientific Creationism" have redoubled their efforts to
impose their pseudo-science in the classrooms of our public schools.
Yet, in all the turmoil created by these battles in the school boards
and courts, there is one solution that has been overlooked, or perhaps
avoided. In the true spirit of turning a problem into an opportunity,
if we wish to improve the critical thinking skills of our students,
"Scientific Creationism" provides many examples of a pseudo-science
that can be analyzed in detail to teach students why it just doesn't
work.
My particular field is astrophysics, and over the past ten years I've
examined a number of claims by the "Young Earth Creationists" (YEC) who
object to modern cosmology's evidence that the universe is on the order
of 14 billion years old. Creationist "theories" such as claims that
the speed of light was significantly higher in the recent past (to
solve the light-travel time of seeing galaxies billions of light-years
away in a less than ten-thousand year old universe) have errors so
obvious that they can be addressed by students with a high school (or
advanced middle school) understanding of physics or mathematics. YEC
claims using general relativity might have to be dealt with in
undergraduate to graduate-level physics classes, but nonetheless will
better prepare future physicists for dealing with these issues. Many
amateur and professional scientists have analyzed creationist claims
and the results are available through a number of resources such as
Talk.Origins.
In college level physics classes, many Creationist claims can be
examined directly. Gigabytes of astrophysical data are already freely
available online to support such a project. For primary and secondary
education, curriculum developers need to be able to convert the
analyses of pseudo-science claims into workable lesson plans and then
deliver the resources and necessary training to the schools and
teachers. This is not an easy task, but the price of NOT doing it is
the loss of American leadership in science and engineering. I have
done some work from the astrophysical side of the problem, but
geologists and biologists need to take a similar approach.
Advocates of "Creation Science" and "Intelligent Design" fear such an
approach. While it's not received much attention, some have publicly
admitted that their 'theory' (actually a hypothesis) has had no success
in the laboratory. That's why they fall back to "teaching the
controversy" as it is an easy way to avoid this problem while they try
to maneuver other components of their agenda into the classroom (this
is why the Discovery Institute describes it as the "Wedge Strategy").
"Intelligent Design", as a real scientific theory, failed a century
ago, and belongs in the dustbin of failed theories with the
luminiferous aether and the plumb-pudding model of the atom. The claim
that "Evolution is a theory, not a fact" is just playing games with
words. Electromagnetism is a theory. Quantum mechanics is a theory.
Even gravity is a theory. I've yet to see anyone demonstrate a useful
better antenna design, a better semiconductor component design, or
develop a trajectory to send a spacecraft through the Solar System
without using these "theories". We've sent spacecraft to distant
regions of our own Solar System, but I've yet to see a Biblical
geocentrist compute the trajectory to send a spacecraft to the Moon or
Mars. This might be an important issue for human crews in the
not-to-distant future.
Creationists like to claim that we can't "know" what's happening or
what happened in distant regions of the cosmos or far back in time,
yet physicists have done this from the time of Galileo with great
success. Newton's theory of gravity was explaining how planets and
stars move in empty space nearly three centuries before machines and
humans could travel in space to test it. Einstein's revision to that
theory was explaining observations in the distant cosmos years before
some of the predictions could be tested in Earth-based experiments
and decades before it's effects were incorporated into the Global
Positioning System (GPS). Quantum theory was explaining atomic
behavior in rarefied regions of distant space and the incredible
high-density structure of stellar remnants such as white dwarf and
neutron stars decades before the conditions could be even partially
reproduced in the laboratory, even before it became a key component in
the development of microelectronics. When astrophysicists discovered a
deficit in the number of neutrinos emitted from the Sun in the late
1960s, called the Solar Neutrino Problem, Creationists touted this as
evidence that the Sun was not powered by nuclear reactions and the 4.5
billion year age of the Sun was not possible. Real scientists checked
their calculations and concluded that a neutrino mass (up to that time,
the neutrino was assumed to be massless), far smaller than was possible
to measure at the time, could explain the deficit. In recent years,
we've been able to confirm this effect in Earth-based experiments.
We've even discovered properties in the atomic nucleus based on
cosmological constraints. Cosmology isn't just something that happens
'out there' - it has often provided guidance on physical phenomena
years before controlled laboratory experiments were possible. There
have been no similar successes or utility from Creation "science" or
"Intelligent Design". Cosmology has real implications for our
technology and life on Earth.
Since the dawn of the atomic age in WWII, science has enjoyed the
grateful generosity of taxpaying public. Scientists have used this
generosity to unlock the tiniest secrets of the atom to the most
distant regions of the cosmos and has generated useful products and
methodologies in the process.
In spite of all this advancement, the American scientific community has
left behind an intellectual vacuum in the education system that
crackpots and con-artists have been all too willing to fill. The
scientific community has ignored this growing problem and now it
threatens to infect our society. Our nation would not be the first to
take this self-destructive path. Stalin dismissed Darwinian selection
in favor of Lysenko's theories on adaptation, allowing the political
process, instead of the scientific process, define the science. When
they applied Lysenko's ideas to Soviet agriculture, crop failures
ensued. This was the reason for the U.S. grain sales to the Soviet
Union in the 1970s. Their resulting inability to feed their own people
was a contributor to their collapse. The Nazis despised "Jewish
Physics" and touted their own "Aryan Physics". The famous "Einstein
Letter", advocating the development of the atomic bomb, was sent to FDR
in August of 1939. At that time, all the research with nuclear energy
weren't much more than tabletop experiments. The only indication that
the energy release would extrapolate to levels necessary for an atomic
bomb were the successes at that time of explaining the energy
production in the Sun and other stars. "Aryan Physics" touted the
superiority of experimentalists over the 'extrapolations' of theorists,
and (thankfully) may have hindered their own thinking on such a weapon
..
And we don't need to limit the debunking to creationism. There are a
plethora of pseudo-science claims with their adherents, many who post
their ramblings on the World Wide Web. A perusal of Crank dot Net
yields a cornucopia of pseudoscientific claims from free-energy scams
to "proofs" that relativity is wrong, with a broad range of
sophistication. Teaching students how to analyze these claims with
real science gives them a valuable tool not only for their professional
future but also for their role as citizens in a
technologically-advanced society.
I've raised this issue with scientists and teachers who express
reluctance to address debunking pseudo-science in the classroom.
However, the scientific community can no longer afford the luxury of
letting this battle play out in the courts and hoping for the best.
Over the past five years, this problem as grown from a single state to
challenges all over the United States. The approach I propose gives
the scientific community the chance to take control of the issue rather
than continuing in this guerilla war strategy of the Creationists.
The scientific community holds all the cards in this debate, it's time
we play them.
---
Acknowledgements: The author would like to express appreciation to all
those who reviewed drafts of this document and provided citations.
======
Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy
http://homepage.mac.com/cygnusx1
cygnusx1@mac.com
"They're trained to believe, not to know. Belief can be manipulated.
Only knowledge is dangerous." --Frank Herbert, "Dune Messiah"
.
|
|
| User: "jonathan" |
|
| Title: Re: Draft: "Why We Should Teach About Creationism in Science Classes" |
13 Mar 2005 06:05:27 AM |
|
|
"Cygnus X-1" <cygnusx1@mac.com> wrote in message
news:0001HW.BE55303700A09208F02845B0@news.radix.net...
Still trying to track down some references (and pointers from those in
the group would be appreciated). References are linked on the web site
version (see bottom of the main page).
=======
Why We Should Teach About Creationism in Science Classes
W.T. Bridgman, Ph.D.
cygnusx1@mac.com
"Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy",
http://homepage.mac.com/cygnusx1/
Draft
In recent years, the proponents of teaching "Intelligent Design" and
it's precursor "Scientific Creationism" have redoubled their efforts to
impose their pseudo-science in the classrooms of our public schools.
Yet, in all the turmoil created by these battles in the school boards
and courts, there is one solution that has been overlooked, or perhaps
avoided. In the true spirit of turning a problem into an opportunity,
if we wish to improve the critical thinking skills of our students,
"Scientific Creationism" provides many examples of a pseudo-science
that can be analyzed in detail to teach students why it just doesn't
work.
My particular field is astrophysics, and over the past ten years I've
examined a number of claims by the "Young Earth Creationists" (YEC) who
object to modern cosmology's evidence that the universe is on the order
of 14 billion years old.
Of course they object to the current state of cosmology.
This is simply because even the leading cosmologists
understand there's a crisis in the current model that
needs a fundamental rewrite. Mr astrophysics, please
explain to me the 'cosmic coincidence' problem and
it's explanation within the standard model???
You can't.
Mr astrophysics, your big bang model is linear in
nature, with a beginning and a demand for a
specific ending. Well, everyone...everyone...everyone
in the world intuitively understands that everything
....everything in the universe is cyclic in nature.
So to must be the universe.
So your 'astrophysics' is missing something rather
basic. They are searching for the voids your ideas
leave in abundance. Before looking at them, look
in the mirror first.
NOTIFICATION AND CALL FOR PAPERS
1st Crisis In Cosmology Conference (CCC-I):
Challenging Observations and the Quest
for a New Picture of the Universe
http://www.cosmology.info/about.htm
Creationist "theories" such as claims that
the speed of light was significantly higher in the recent past
According to the Princeton Physics Dept, and one of the
founders of inflationary theory, all the fundamental constants
change/evolve over time. So yes the idea that the speed
of light has changed over time reflects the very latest
cosmology.
http://wwwphy.princeton.edu/~steinh/royalsoc/steinhardt.pdf
A Quintessential Introduction to Dark Energy
"Should we believe, as most cosmologists suggest, that this is the
last missing piece of the puzzle and our understanding of the universe
is virtually complete? Or have we just uncovered a deep dark secret
that will revolutionize our whole view of the universe and our place
in it? I must confess to my own prejudice that the latter seems
more likely."
Paul J Steinhardt
Dept of Physics, Princeton University
http://feynman.princeton.edu/~steinh/
(to
solve the light-travel time of seeing galaxies billions of light-years
away in a less than ten-thousand year old universe) have errors so
obvious that they can be addressed by students with a high school (or
advanced middle school) understanding of physics or mathematics.
No serious theologian touts a ten thousand year old universe.
Pointing to the absurdities of one-off theories does nothing
at all to support the standard model. Your attempt to silence
different views by ridiculing the worst the other side has
to offer is a cheap-shot, and intellectually dishonest.
The approach I propose gives
the scientific community the chance to take control of the issue rather
than continuing in this guerilla war strategy of the Creationists.
The scientific community holds all the cards in this debate, it's time
we play them.
The notions of intelligent design will not go away, but are quite
likely to grow into a chorus of ideas. All embracing what
objective science fails to grasp, that our existence and future
lies in the hands of something mysterious and wonderful.
Something your dated and myopic science cannot even fathom.
If mathematics can show that the creation of a cloud, a galaxy
a universe and even an emotion all owe their existence to
a single, common and universal self organizing force, wouldn't you
wonder if it were intelligent in nature?
An Introduction to Complex Systems
Torsten Reil, Department of Zoology, University of Oxford
torsten.reil@zoology.oxford.ac.uk
"The study of complex systems has gained increasing attention in recent
years, in such diverse disciplines as economics, life science, sociology,
physics and chemistry. The multidisciplinary approach taken by its
students has revealed a surprisingly high degree of applicability of the
concepts to the different fields. Behaviour of biological systems seems
to be mirrored in that of economic ones; likewise, ideas gained from
studying physical systems were found to provide new insights
about social systems such as democracy."
http://users.ox.ac.uk/~quee0818/complexity/complexity.html
All of our basic views are about to change.
Your defense of the error-filled and grossly
incomplete status quo is the source of Dark-Age
thinking that needs to be attacked. Not those that
attempt to find solutions to the basic questions that
objective methods leave unanswered.
Jonathan
---
Acknowledgements: The author would like to express appreciation to all
those who reviewed drafts of this document and provided citations.
======
Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy
http://homepage.mac.com/cygnusx1
cygnusx1@mac.com
"They're trained to believe, not to know. Belief can be manipulated.
Only knowledge is dangerous." --Frank Herbert, "Dune Messiah"
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chris Devol" |
|
| Title: Re: Draft: "Why We Should Teach About Creationism in Science Classes" |
13 Mar 2005 02:09:42 PM |
|
|
"jonathan" <Write@Instead.com> wrote in message
news:42343305$1_2@127.0.0.1...
"Cygnus X-1" <cygnusx1@mac.com> wrote in message
news:0001HW.BE55303700A09208F02845B0@news.radix.net...
Still trying to track down some references (and pointers from those in
the group would be appreciated). References are linked on the web site
version (see bottom of the main page).
=======
Why We Should Teach About Creationism in Science Classes
W.T. Bridgman, Ph.D.
cygnusx1@mac.com
"Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy",
http://homepage.mac.com/cygnusx1/
Draft
In recent years, the proponents of teaching "Intelligent Design" and
it's precursor "Scientific Creationism" have redoubled their efforts to
impose their pseudo-science in the classrooms of our public schools.
Yet, in all the turmoil created by these battles in the school boards
and courts, there is one solution that has been overlooked, or perhaps
avoided. In the true spirit of turning a problem into an opportunity,
if we wish to improve the critical thinking skills of our students,
"Scientific Creationism" provides many examples of a pseudo-science
that can be analyzed in detail to teach students why it just doesn't
work.
My particular field is astrophysics, and over the past ten years I've
examined a number of claims by the "Young Earth Creationists" (YEC) who
object to modern cosmology's evidence that the universe is on the order
of 14 billion years old.
Of course they object to the current state of cosmology.
This is simply because even the leading cosmologists
understand there's a crisis in the current model that
needs a fundamental rewrite. Mr astrophysics, please
explain to me the 'cosmic coincidence' problem and
it's explanation within the standard model???
You can't.
Mr astrophysics, your big bang model is linear in
nature, with a beginning and a demand for a
specific ending. Well, everyone...everyone...everyone
in the world intuitively understands that everything
...everything in the universe is cyclic in nature.
So to must be the universe.
So your 'astrophysics' is missing something rather
basic. They are searching for the voids your ideas
leave in abundance. Before looking at them, look
in the mirror first.
NOTIFICATION AND CALL FOR PAPERS
1st Crisis In Cosmology Conference (CCC-I):
Challenging Observations and the Quest
for a New Picture of the Universe
http://www.cosmology.info/about.htm
Creationist "theories" such as claims that
the speed of light was significantly higher in the recent past
According to the Princeton Physics Dept, and one of the
founders of inflationary theory, all the fundamental constants
change/evolve over time. So yes the idea that the speed
of light has changed over time reflects the very latest
cosmology.
http://wwwphy.princeton.edu/~steinh/royalsoc/steinhardt.pdf
A Quintessential Introduction to Dark Energy
"Should we believe, as most cosmologists suggest, that this is the
last missing piece of the puzzle and our understanding of the universe
is virtually complete? Or have we just uncovered a deep dark secret
that will revolutionize our whole view of the universe and our place
in it? I must confess to my own prejudice that the latter seems
more likely."
Paul J Steinhardt
Dept of Physics, Princeton University
http://feynman.princeton.edu/~steinh/
(to
solve the light-travel time of seeing galaxies billions of light-years
away in a less than ten-thousand year old universe) have errors so
obvious that they can be addressed by students with a high school (or
advanced middle school) understanding of physics or mathematics.
No serious theologian touts a ten thousand year old universe.
Pointing to the absurdities of one-off theories does nothing
at all to support the standard model. Your attempt to silence
different views by ridiculing the worst the other side has
to offer is a cheap-shot, and intellectually dishonest.
The approach I propose gives
the scientific community the chance to take control of the issue rather
than continuing in this guerilla war strategy of the Creationists.
The scientific community holds all the cards in this debate, it's time
we play them.
The notions of intelligent design will not go away, but are quite
likely to grow into a chorus of ideas. All embracing what
objective science fails to grasp, that our existence and future
lies in the hands of something mysterious and wonderful.
Something your dated and myopic science cannot even fathom.
If mathematics can show that the creation of a cloud, a galaxy
a universe and even an emotion all owe their existence to
a single, common and universal self organizing force, wouldn't you
wonder if it were intelligent in nature?
An Introduction to Complex Systems
Torsten Reil, Department of Zoology, University of Oxford
torsten.reil@zoology.oxford.ac.uk
"The study of complex systems has gained increasing attention in recent
years, in such diverse disciplines as economics, life science, sociology,
physics and chemistry. The multidisciplinary approach taken by its
students has revealed a surprisingly high degree of applicability of the
concepts to the different fields. Behaviour of biological systems seems
to be mirrored in that of economic ones; likewise, ideas gained from
studying physical systems were found to provide new insights
about social systems such as democracy."
http://users.ox.ac.uk/~quee0818/complexity/complexity.html
All of our basic views are about to change.
Your defense of the error-filled and grossly
incomplete status quo is the source of Dark-Age
thinking that needs to be attacked. Not those that
attempt to find solutions to the basic questions that
objective methods leave unanswered.
Jonathan
Thanks for posting the info. The "Crisis in Cosmology" conference looks
quite interesting.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cygnus X-1" |
|
| Title: Re: Draft: "Why We Should Teach About Creationism in Science Classes" |
13 Mar 2005 09:43:44 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 07:05:27 -0500, jonathan wrote
(in article <42343305$1_2@127.0.0.1>):
"Cygnus X-1" <cygnusx1@mac.com> wrote in message
news:0001HW.BE55303700A09208F02845B0@news.radix.net...
Of course they object to the current state of cosmology.
This is simply because even the leading cosmologists
understand there's a crisis in the current model that
needs a fundamental rewrite. Mr astrophysics, please
explain to me the 'cosmic coincidence' problem and
it's explanation within the standard model???
You can't.
Are you totally clueless as to how many 'crises' have existed in
physics and astronomy in the past 300 years?
If 100 years ago you asked the top physicists of the day how atoms were
built, they wouldn't be able to answer either. Maxwell's
electromagnetism and Newton's mechanics predicted atoms which collapsed
in less than a millionth of a second and blasts of gamma radiation if
you lit a match.
Now THAT'S a CRISIS.
I'm sure some people of the day, offended by Darwin's ideas, thought
this was punishment for the arrogance of scientists and evidence that
atoms were really angels.
Yet we solved the crisis, without invoking Divine intervention.
Predictions of Maxwell's electromagnetism and Newton's mechanics in
their realms of applicability are still widely used, we just need to
used different tools as we move to the scale of molecules and smaller.
So it will be with the current 'crisis'.
Clearly you would fail even this basic scientific history question:
1. List the specific problems that astronomers and physicists were
trying to solve in the year 1900.
2. Which of them have been solved?
3. Which problems required new physics that wasn't known in 1900?
Which required more powerful tools (calculators, computers, better
experimental measurements) to reach a solution?
4. Which of them are still open?
5. Repeat steps 1-4 for the years 1800, 1700 or another year at
least 50 years ago.
6. Is it reasonable to expect that the problems that exist today
will be any different?
Those who do not learn from history...
Mr astrophysics, your big bang model is linear in
nature, with a beginning and a demand for a
specific ending. Well, everyone...everyone...everyone
in the world intuitively understands that everything
...everything in the universe is cyclic in nature.
So to must be the universe.
So your 'astrophysics' is missing something rather
basic. They are searching for the voids your ideas
leave in abundance. Before looking at them, look
in the mirror first.
NOTIFICATION AND CALL FOR PAPERS
1st Crisis In Cosmology Conference (CCC-I):
Challenging Observations and the Quest
for a New Picture of the Universe
http://www.cosmology.info/about.htm
Creationist "theories" such as claims that
the speed of light was significantly higher in the recent past
According to the Princeton Physics Dept, and one of the
founders of inflationary theory, all the fundamental constants
change/evolve over time. So yes the idea that the speed
of light has changed over time reflects the very latest
cosmology.
http://wwwphy.princeton.edu/~steinh/royalsoc/steinhardt.pdf
Either you didn't read the sentence or you can't do even basic math.
Creationist claims "the speed of light was significantly higher in the
recent past" means c greater by factors of millions over the past few
thousand years. This is clearly in conflict with numerous observations
and experiments.
Changes on the order of ~1% over the past 10-15 billion years, and
possibly factors of billions prior to the time of baryogenesis (which
predates the cosmic microwave background), have yet to be ruled out by
existing experiments and observations.
To compare the claims of the YEC c-decay advocates to the *real* work
in modern cosmology is at best ignorant and at worst a lie.
solve the light-travel time of seeing galaxies billions of light-years
away in a less than ten-thousand year old universe) have errors so
obvious that they can be addressed by students with a high school (or
advanced middle school) understanding of physics or mathematics.
No serious theologian touts a ten thousand year old universe.
Pointing to the absurdities of one-off theories does nothing
at all to support the standard model. Your attempt to silence
different views by ridiculing the worst the other side has
to offer is a cheap-shot, and intellectually dishonest.
Define 'serious theologian'. There's a number of people at places like
ICR and AiG who are calling themselves theologians AND claiming the
literal <10,000 year old universe.
I'm not trying to silence different views, I'm just insisting their
work be subject to the same testing and scrutiny as real scientists.
The approach I propose gives
the scientific community the chance to take control of the issue rather
than continuing in this guerilla war strategy of the Creationists.
The scientific community holds all the cards in this debate, it's time
we play them.
The notions of intelligent design will not go away, but are quite
likely to grow into a chorus of ideas. All embracing what
objective science fails to grasp, that our existence and future
lies in the hands of something mysterious and wonderful.
Something your dated and myopic science cannot even fathom.
If mathematics can show that the creation of a cloud, a galaxy
a universe and even an emotion all owe their existence to
a single, common and universal self organizing force, wouldn't you
wonder if it were intelligent in nature?
All of our basic views are about to change.
Your defense of the error-filled and grossly
incomplete status quo is the source of Dark-Age
thinking that needs to be attacked. Not those that
attempt to find solutions to the basic questions that
objective methods leave unanswered.
Jonathan
Whether you like it or not, God has made the laws of the universe
neutral. That is part of the test. When humans commit good or evil,
it is they who commit it. They can't blame it on evolution, or
gravity, or any other scapegoat. Science creates understanding. It is
the fault of the person if they use that knowledge for evil.
As I mention in another part of this thread, the lesson Christians
should learn from evolution are:
1) humility;
2) the hope that humanity can change (after all, that's what evolution
means).
I suspect God's real plan is far greater than you can comprehend, far
larger than what can fit in a 2000 year old book, and that is what
really frightens you.
Tom
--
Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy
http://homepage.mac.com/cygnusx1
cygnusx1@mac.com
"They're trained to believe, not to know. Belief can be manipulated.
Only knowledge is dangerous." --Frank Herbert, "Dune Messiah"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chris Devol" |
|
| Title: Re: Draft: "Why We Should Teach About Creationism in Science Classes" |
13 Mar 2005 10:40:27 PM |
|
|
"Cygnus X-1" <cygnusx1@mac.com> wrote in message
news:0001HW.BE5A72A0000504FAF03055B0@news.radix.net...
Whether you like it or not, God has made the laws of the universe
neutral. That is part of the test. When humans commit good or evil,
it is they who commit it. They can't blame it on evolution, or
gravity, or any other scapegoat. Science creates understanding. It is
the fault of the person if they use that knowledge for evil.
As I mention in another part of this thread, the lesson Christians
should learn from evolution are:
1) humility;
2) the hope that humanity can change (after all, that's what evolution
means).
I suspect God's real plan is far greater than you can comprehend, far
larger than what can fit in a 2000 year old book, and that is what
really frightens you.
Tom
See, here's what I don't get. You repeat the assertion you made to me, that
"God has made the laws of the universe....", and when I asked you if you
really believe that, you said yes.
So you believe that God made the laws of the universe. That's INTELLIGENT
DESIGN, which you say you believe in.
So what is your problem with others who also believe in Intelligent Design,
and are trying to give it a scientific framework? Aren't you being a bit
hypocritical?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Isaak" |
|
| Title: Re: Draft: "Why We Should Teach About Creationism in Science Classes" |
14 Mar 2005 11:54:08 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 04:40:27 GMT, "Chris Devol" <eat@joes.pub> wrote:
So you believe that God made the laws of the universe. That's INTELLIGENT
DESIGN
No, it isn't, at least not in the sense of the people promoting
intelligent design. "Intelligent design" means "the hypthesis that
evolution is wrong."
God making the laws of the universe is not intelligent design in the
dictionary sense of the words, either. Design is an evolutionary
process, not a magical fiat.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chris Devol" |
|
| Title: Re: Draft: "Why We Should Teach About Creationism in Science Classes" |
14 Mar 2005 02:25:49 PM |
|
|
Mark Isaak" <eciton@earthlinkNOSPAM.next> wrote in message
news:b2kb31lo9s2koo9coibcq6omkmh08g06jk@4ax.com...
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 04:40:27 GMT, "Chris Devol" <eat@joes.pub> wrote:
So you believe that God made the laws of the universe. That's INTELLIGENT
DESIGN
No, it isn't, at least not in the sense of the people promoting
intelligent design. "Intelligent design" means "the hypthesis that
evolution is wrong."
Got the old tapeworm running, eh?
God making the laws of the universe is not intelligent design in the
dictionary sense of the words, either. Design is an evolutionary
process, not a magical fiat.
Gibber Jabber, blab and blather, bloviate as if you matter......
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cygnus X-1" |
|
| Title: Re: Draft: "Why We Should Teach About Creationism in Science Classes" |
14 Mar 2005 10:55:23 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 23:40:27 -0500, Chris Devol wrote
(in article <%A8Zd.10127$cN6.8862@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>):
"Cygnus X-1" <cygnusx1@mac.com> wrote in message
news:0001HW.BE5A72A0000504FAF03055B0@news.radix.net...
Whether you like it or not, God has made the laws of the universe
neutral. That is part of the test. When humans commit good or evil,
it is they who commit it. They can't blame it on evolution, or
gravity, or any other scapegoat. Science creates understanding. It is
the fault of the person if they use that knowledge for evil.
As I mention in another part of this thread, the lesson Christians
should learn from evolution are:
1) humility;
2) the hope that humanity can change (after all, that's what evolution
means).
I suspect God's real plan is far greater than you can comprehend, far
larger than what can fit in a 2000 year old book, and that is what
really frightens you.
Tom
See, here's what I don't get. You repeat the assertion you made to me, that
"God has made the laws of the universe....", and when I asked you if you
really believe that, you said yes.
So you believe that God made the laws of the universe. That's INTELLIGENT
DESIGN, which you say you believe in.
So what is your problem with others who also believe in Intelligent Design,
and are trying to give it a scientific framework? Aren't you being a bit
hypocritical?
'Intelligent Design' as claimed by those trying to push their agenda
into the school system claims that God actively 'tinkers' in the
experiment, designing organisms and/or their components. I don't
believe that at all and there is certainly no experimental or
observational evidence supporting it. At most a supreme being set the
initial conditions, back in the earliest instances of the Big Bang -
then let the experiment run. If the multi-verse theory is correct, the
other universes may be populated by similar experiments and their
'controls'. Like the bumpersticker: "God is Why. Evolution is How."
And don't try to claim that ID is some kind of 'big tent' with room for
a wide range of views. I suspect this is among the stunts being pulled
in a number of the surveys which claim ID/Creationism has strong
support among the American public or the scientific community. Any
scientist who expresses any kind of religious belief is automatically
labelled an advocate of ID or Creationism.
Tom
--
Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy
http://homepage.mac.com/cygnusx1
cygnusx1@mac.com
"They're trained to believe, not to know. Belief can be manipulated.
Only knowledge is dangerous." --Frank Herbert, "Dune Messiah"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chris Devol" |
|
| Title: Re: Draft: "Why We Should Teach About Creationism in Science Classes" |
14 Mar 2005 11:39:24 PM |
|
|
"Cygnus X-1" <cygnusx1@mac.com> wrote in message
news:0001HW.BE5BD4EB001D9974F02845B0@news.radix.net...
On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 23:40:27 -0500, Chris Devol wrote
(in article <%A8Zd.10127$cN6.8862@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>):
"Cygnus X-1" <cygnusx1@mac.com> wrote in message
news:0001HW.BE5A72A0000504FAF03055B0@news.radix.net...
Whether you like it or not, God has made the laws of the universe
neutral. That is part of the test. When humans commit good or evil,
it is they who commit it. They can't blame it on evolution, or
gravity, or any other scapegoat. Science creates understanding. It is
the fault of the person if they use that knowledge for evil.
As I mention in another part of this thread, the lesson Christians
should learn from evolution are:
1) humility;
2) the hope that humanity can change (after all, that's what evolution
means).
I suspect God's real plan is far greater than you can comprehend, far
larger than what can fit in a 2000 year old book, and that is what
really frightens you.
Tom
See, here's what I don't get. You repeat the assertion you made to me,
that
"God has made the laws of the universe....", and when I asked you if you
really believe that, you said yes.
So you believe that God made the laws of the universe. That's INTELLIGENT
DESIGN, which you say you believe in.
So what is your problem with others who also believe in Intelligent
Design,
and are trying to give it a scientific framework? Aren't you being a bit
hypocritical?
'Intelligent Design' as claimed by those trying to push their agenda
into the school system claims that God actively 'tinkers' in the
experiment, designing organisms and/or their components. I don't
believe that at all and there is certainly no experimental or
observational evidence supporting it. At most a supreme being set the
initial conditions, back in the earliest instances of the Big Bang -
then let the experiment run. If the multi-verse theory is correct, the
other universes may be populated by similar experiments and their
'controls'. Like the bumpersticker: "God is Why. Evolution is How."
I still don't get it. You say you believe God created "the rules" of the
universe. Now, if God made "the rules", and organisms are governed by "the
rules", then it follows that God designed the organisms.
Or do you think that "God" is just a fool like us, who could make some rules
without having any idea of their long term effects (like the people who call
themselves "scientists" but are filling up the world with the toxic waste of
their "scientific progress"). But if you believe in that kind of so-called
"God", then you are abusing the term "God", and should use some other word.
And when you say that "at most [God] set the initial conditions...", do you
mean to say that God didn't create the differential equations, or set the
boundary conditions? If so, then your statement that "God created the rules
of the universe will have to be revised.
And don't try to claim that ID is some kind of 'big tent' with room for
a wide range of views. I suspect this is among the stunts being pulled
in a number of the surveys which claim ID/Creationism has strong
support among the American public or the scientific community. Any
scientist who expresses any kind of religious belief is automatically
labelled an advocate of ID or Creationism.
The more I read your stuff, the more it appears that you have some kind of
personal grudge, rather than any serious scientific objections to
Intelligent Design. It always ends up that you accuse others of some kind of
malevolent cover-up.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: Draft: "Why We Should Teach About Creationism in Science Classes" |
15 Mar 2005 06:09:01 AM |
|
|
"Chris Devol" <eat@joes.pub> wrote in message
news:gyuZd.11163$cN6.9812@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
[snip]
Or do you think that "God" is just a fool like us, who could make
some rules
without having any idea of their long term effects (like the people
who call
themselves "scientists" but are filling up the world with the toxic
waste of
their "scientific progress"). But if you believe in that kind of
so-called
"God", then you are abusing the term "God", and should use some
other word.
Am I abusing the name of your god when I remind you that he took so
much pleasure in asking Abraham to barbecue his son that he caused tha
incident to be commemorated in the Bible, or is your main reference
book a pile of lies?
Do you by any chance carry in your head any figures for the number of
people who were actually babrecued during the Inquisition?
[snip]
--
Franz
"One Galileo in 2000 years is enough."
Pope Pius XII
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chris Devol" |
|
| Title: Re: Draft: "Why We Should Teach About Creationism in Science Classes" |
15 Mar 2005 02:41:56 PM |
|
|
"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:d16j8t$s6a$3@sparta.btinternet.com...
"Chris Devol" <eat@joes.pub> wrote in message
news:gyuZd.11163$cN6.9812@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
[snip]
Or do you think that "God" is just a fool like us, who could make
some rules
without having any idea of their long term effects (like the people
who call
themselves "scientists" but are filling up the world with the toxic
waste of
their "scientific progress"). But if you believe in that kind of
so-called
"God", then you are abusing the term "God", and should use some
other word.
Am I abusing the name of your god when I remind you that he took so
much pleasure in asking Abraham to barbecue his son that he caused tha
incident to be commemorated in the Bible, or is your main reference
book a pile of lies?
Do you by any chance carry in your head any figures for the number of
people who were actually babrecued during the Inquisition?
This discussion is for grown-ups, so take a time out, OK?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mitchell Jones" |
|
| Title: Re: Draft: "Why We Should Teach About Creationism in Science Classes" |
15 Mar 2005 11:48:30 PM |
|
|
In article <oMHZd.9526$oO4.6997@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
"Chris Devol" <eat@joes.pub> wrote:
Do you think that "God" is just a fool like us?
***{If you are referring to the fellow who (a) repeatedly sent plagues
to afflict the people of Egypt, supposedly to persuade Pharaoh to let
the Jews leave, (b) repeatedly employed mind control to prevent Pharaoh
from letting the Jews leave, and then (c) punished Pharaoh for not
letting the Jews leave by killing the firstborn of every non-Jewish
family in Egypt, the answer would seem to be no. "God," it would appear,
has taken the notion of "fool" to a whole other level! --MJ}***
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chris Devol" |
|
| Title: Re: Draft: "Why We Should Teach About Creationism in Science Classes" |
16 Mar 2005 12:22:22 AM |
|
|
"Mitchell Jones" <mjones@21cenlogic.com> wrote in message
news:mjones-FE82F1.23501615032005@spectator.sj.sys.us.xo.net...
In article <oMHZd.9526$oO4.6997@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
"Chris Devol" <eat@joes.pub> wrote:
Do you think that "God" is just a fool like us?
***{If you are referring to the fellow who (a) repeatedly sent plagues
to afflict the people of Egypt, supposedly to persuade Pharaoh to let
the Jews leave, (b) repeatedly employed mind control to prevent Pharaoh
from letting the Jews leave, and then (c) punished Pharaoh for not
letting the Jews leave by killing the firstborn of every non-Jewish
family in Egypt, the answer would seem to be no.
You are correct. A fool could not do those things.
"God," it would appear,
has taken the notion of "fool" to a whole other level! --MJ}***
It does not follow.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mitchell Jones" |
|
| Title: Re: Draft: "Why We Should Teach About Creationism in Science Classes" |
16 Mar 2005 02:52:49 PM |
|
|
In article <ygQZd.9925$oO4.2770@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
"Chris Devol" <eat@joes.pub> wrote:
"Mitchell Jones" <mjones@21cenlogic.com> wrote in message
news:mjones-FE82F1.23501615032005@spectator.sj.sys.us.xo.net...
In article <oMHZd.9526$oO4.6997@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
"Chris Devol" <eat@joes.pub> wrote:
Do you think that "God" is just a fool like us?
***{If you are referring to the fellow who (a) repeatedly sent plagues
to afflict the people of Egypt, supposedly to persuade Pharaoh to let
the Jews leave, (b) repeatedly employed mind control to prevent Pharaoh
from letting the Jews leave, and then (c) punished Pharaoh for not
letting the Jews leave by killing the firstborn of every non-Jewish
family in Egypt, the answer would seem to be no.
You are correct. A fool could not do those things.
"God," it would appear,
has taken the notion of "fool" to a whole other level! --MJ}***
It does not follow.
***{An assertion is not an argument. There are, of course, no arguments
by which the behavior described above may be defended. "God," by that
evidence, is a monster worse than any human murderer could ever be, and
more rightly condemned. What, then, is the moral status of those who
worship him? --MJ}***
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chris Devol" |
|
| Title: Re: Draft: "Why We Should Teach About Creationism in Science Classes" |
16 Mar 2005 03:34:55 PM |
|
|
"Mitchell Jones" <mjones@21cenlogic.com> wrote in message
news:mjones-C11675.14543516032005@spectator.sj.sys.us.xo.net...
In article <ygQZd.9925$oO4.2770@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
"Chris Devol" <eat@joes.pub> wrote:
"Mitchell Jones" <mjones@21cenlogic.com> wrote in message
news:mjones-FE82F1.23501615032005@spectator.sj.sys.us.xo.net...
In article <oMHZd.9526$oO4.6997@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
"Chris Devol" <eat@joes.pub> wrote:
Do you think that "God" is just a fool like us?
***{If you are referring to the fellow who (a) repeatedly sent plagues
to afflict the people of Egypt, supposedly to persuade Pharaoh to let
the Jews leave, (b) repeatedly employed mind control to prevent Pharaoh
from letting the Jews leave, and then (c) punished Pharaoh for not
letting the Jews leave by killing the firstborn of every non-Jewish
family in Egypt, the answer would seem to be no.
You are correct. A fool could not do those things.
"God," it would appear,
has taken the notion of "fool" to a whole other level! --MJ}***
It does not follow.
***{An assertion is not an argument. There are, of course, no arguments
by which the behavior described above may be defended. "God," by that
evidence, is a monster worse than any human murderer could ever be, and
more rightly condemned. What, then, is the moral status of those who
worship him? --MJ}***
You sound like one of those simpering, insecure, effeminate, self-pitying,
sissy-boy "pacifists" who whine and cry for their "rights", but they'd
murder every living being in the universe to save their own pride.
That's the moral status of those who don't worship God.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mitchell Jones" |
|
| Title: Re: Draft: "Why We Should Teach About Creationism in Science Classes" |
16 Mar 2005 06:25:38 PM |
|
|
In article <3E1_d.12509$cN6.3004@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
"Chris Devol" <eat@joes.pub> wrote:
"Mitchell Jones" <mjones@21cenlogic.com> wrote in message
news:mjones-C11675.14543516032005@spectator.sj.sys.us.xo.net...
In article <ygQZd.9925$oO4.2770@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
"Chris Devol" <eat@joes.pub> wrote:
"Mitchell Jones" <mjones@21cenlogic.com> wrote in message
news:mjones-FE82F1.23501615032005@spectator.sj.sys.us.xo.net...
In article <oMHZd.9526$oO4.6997@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
"Chris Devol" <eat@joes.pub> wrote:
Do you think that "God" is just a fool like us?
***{If you are referring to the fellow who (a) repeatedly sent plagues
to afflict the people of Egypt, supposedly to persuade Pharaoh to let
the Jews leave, (b) repeatedly employed mind control to prevent Pharaoh
from letting the Jews leave, and then (c) punished Pharaoh for not
letting the Jews leave by killing the firstborn of every non-Jewish
family in Egypt, the answer would seem to be no.
You are correct. A fool could not do those things.
"God," it would appear,
has taken the notion of "fool" to a whole other level! --MJ}***
It does not follow.
***{An assertion is not an argument. There are, of course, no arguments
by which the behavior described above may be defended. "God," by that
evidence, is a monster worse than any human murderer could ever be, and
more rightly condemned. What, then, is the moral status of those who
worship him? --MJ}***
You sound like one of those simpering, insecure, effeminate, self-pitying,
sissy-boy "pacifists" who whine and cry for their "rights", but they'd
murder every living being in the universe to save their own pride.
That's the moral status of those who don't worship God.
***{Ah, yes, the usual Christian rejoinder: a contentless, mindless
expression of hatred and rage. ("By their works shall ye know them.")
You and your "God" clearly deserve one another. How unfortunate that you
do not share with him his state of nonexistence! --MJ}***
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cygnus X-1" |
|
| Title: Re: Draft: "Why We Should Teach About Creationism in Science Classes" |
16 Mar 2005 04:57:04 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 00:39:24 -0500, Chris Devol wrote
(in article <gyuZd.11163$cN6.9812@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>):
"Cygnus X-1" <cygnusx1@mac.com> wrote in message
news:0001HW.BE5BD4EB001D9974F02845B0@news.radix.net...
[ stuff deleted ]
'Intelligent Design' as claimed by those trying to push their agenda
into the school system claims that God actively 'tinkers' in the
experiment, designing organisms and/or their components. I don't
believe that at all and there is certainly no experimental or
observational evidence supporting it. At most a supreme being set the
initial conditions, back in the earliest instances of the Big Bang -
then let the experiment run. If the multi-verse theory is correct, the
other universes may be populated by similar experiments and their
'controls'. Like the bumpersticker: "God is Why. Evolution is How."
I still don't get it. You say you believe God created "the rules" of the
universe. Now, if God made "the rules", and organisms are governed by "the
rules", then it follows that God designed the organisms.
Not necessarily. If the causal chain is that tight, then suppose I
consciously decide to drive with bald tires, knowing it's a safety
hazard. On a rain-slick highway, I skid into a phone pole and am
killed. Would it be a suicide? Remember, beyond my initial choice,
everything else is a consequence of natural law which has some
non-deterministic components. Not the best real-world example, but I'd
have to think a little longer to find a better one. Most examples I've
seen involve committing murder by relying on a chain of probabilistic
events.
Current physical laws have a non-deterministic component that appears
to hold true even under bizarre conditions. While a God might start
the motion, he/she may not know the end result of the experiment.
After all, if you know the end result, why do the experiment? If you
don't know the detailed outcome, at what level can the result be
'designed'?
Or do you think that "God" is just a fool like us, who could make some rules
without having any idea of their long term effects (like the people who call
themselves "scientists" but are filling up the world with the toxic waste of
their "scientific progress"). But if you believe in that kind of so-called
"God", then you are abusing the term "God", and should use some other word.
And when you say that "at most [God] set the initial conditions...", do you
mean to say that God didn't create the differential equations, or set the
boundary conditions? If so, then your statement that "God created the rules
of the universe will have to be revised.
And don't try to claim that ID is some kind of 'big tent' with room for
a wide range of views. I suspect this is among the stunts being pulled
in a number of the surveys which claim ID/Creationism has strong
support among the American public or the scientific community. Any
scientist who expresses any kind of religious belief is automatically
labelled an advocate of ID or Creationism.
The more I read your stuff, the more it appears that you have some kind of
personal grudge, rather than any serious scientific objections to
Intelligent Design.
You mean beyond the fact that what in most cases it's untestable and in
the few cases it can be tested it fails? In the cosmological case,
I've yet to see anything from the IDologists that generate *real*
predictions better than various versions of the Anthropic Principle
which assumes non-interventionist god (i.e. naturalistic). This is in
conflict with a central tenent of ID.
If the IDologists want to look for experimental evidence for their
specific beliefs, they are free to do so. However, until they can
produce real, reproducible experimental results, their 'theory' does
not belong in science classes.
It always ends up that you accuse others of some kind of
malevolent cover-up.
I've known many fine Christians, but I've also known a number of
monsters (sociopaths would be the clinical term) that masquerade as
Christians, often in positions of power. The public persona of the
sociopaths matches those of the higher-level ID advocates and
creationists that I've observed in interviews. Not to mention the ones
that I've observed on this newsgroup and interacted with via e-mail.
The creationists I've encountered in person are either
1) not as pushy as the online variety - I've even worked with a few, or
2) avoid me after I hit them with a with a good question for which
their memorized 'science' didn't prepare them. (My favorite was one
who insisted on 'proof' that the Earth was older than 10,000 years and
I asked him to present proof that the Earth was round. He got a bit
upset when I began punching holes in his 'proof':^).
Tom
--
Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy
http://homepage.mac.com/cygnusx1
cygnusx1@mac.com
"They're trained to believe, not to know. Belief can be manipulated.
Only knowledge is dangerous." --Frank Herbert, "Dune Messiah"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chris Devol" |
|
| Title: Re: Draft: "Why We Should Teach About Creationism in Science Classes" |
16 Mar 2005 06:04:17 PM |
|
|
"Cygnus X-1" <cygnusx1@mac.com> wrote in message
news:0001HW.BE5E23F00006AF97F02845B0@news.radix.net...
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 00:39:24 -0500, Chris Devol wrote
(in article <gyuZd.11163$cN6.9812@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>):
"Cygnus X-1" <cygnusx1@mac.com> wrote in message
news:0001HW.BE5BD4EB001D9974F02845B0@news.radix.net...
[ stuff deleted ]
'Intelligent Design' as claimed by those trying to push their agenda
into the school system claims that God actively 'tinkers' in the
experiment, designing organisms and/or their components. I don't
believe that at all and there is certainly no experimental or
observational evidence supporting it. At most a supreme being set the
initial conditions, back in the earliest instances of the Big Bang -
then let the experiment run. If the multi-verse theory is correct, the
other universes may be populated by similar experiments and their
'controls'. Like the bumpersticker: "God is Why. Evolution is How."
I still don't get it. You say you believe God created "the rules" of the
universe. Now, if God made "the rules", and organisms are governed by
"the
rules", then it follows that God designed the organisms.
Not necessarily. If the causal chain is that tight, then suppose I
consciously decide to drive with bald tires, knowing it's a safety
hazard. On a rain-slick highway, I skid into a phone pole and am
killed. Would it be a suicide? Remember, beyond my initial choice,
everything else is a consequence of natural law which has some
non-deterministic components. Not the best real-world example, but I'd
have to think a little longer to find a better one. Most examples I've
seen involve committing murder by relying on a chain of probabilistic
events.
In the Vedantic paradigm, your body is the organism, which is governed by
the laws of physics. However, "you" are not identical to your body. "You"
are a conscious spirit who is temporarily occupying the body. "You" are also
governed by rules, but they are of a different character than the laws of
physics.
But the answer to the question is:
It would be suicide if your intent, your will, was to destroy your body, or
if, in your ignorance of the fact that you are not your body, you intent was
to destroy yourself. In other words, if you drove the car under those
conditions hoping that you would die, then it was suicide.
However, if your intent was not to die, but to have some kind of a thrill,
and your hope was that there was something about the laws of physics of
which you were unaware, a "loophole" so to speak, and which would prevent a
crash, so that you could enjoy the thrill and not be killed, then it was not
suicide.
As a matter of fact, people are killed all the time because of such risk
taking. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, although it is not necessarily
grounds for the charge of suicide.
Current physical laws have a non-deterministic component that appears
to hold true even under bizarre conditions. While a God might start
the motion, he/she may not know the end result of the experiment.
But that is a non-standard definition of "God". Perhaps you should call it a
demigod.
After all, if you know the end result, why do the experiment? If you
don't know the detailed outcome, at what level can the result be
'designed'?
If you already know the outcome of an activity, then it is not an
"experiment" at all. It is simply building something that you know how to
build. And since the standard definition of "God" includes omniscience, it
follows that God doesn't conduct experiments, at least not in the sense that
so-called "scientists" do.
I don't characterize God's intelligent design of the universe as an
experiment. He's just doing what He knows how to do.
Or do you think that "God" is just a fool like us, who could make some
rules
without having any idea of their long term effects (like the people who
call
themselves "scientists" but are filling up the world with the toxic waste
of
their "scientific progress"). But if you believe in that kind of
so-called
"God", then you are abusing the term "God", and should use some other
word.
And when you say that "at most [God] set the initial conditions...", do
you
mean to say that God didn't create the differential equations, or set the
boundary conditions? If so, then your statement that "God created the
rules
of the universe will have to be revised.
And don't try to claim that ID is some kind of 'big tent' with room for
a wide range of views. I suspect this is among the stunts being pulled
in a number of the surveys which claim ID/Creationism has strong
support among the American public or the scientific community. Any
scientist who expresses any kind of religious belief is automatically
labelled an advocate of ID or Creationism.
The more I read your stuff, the more it appears that you have some kind
of
personal grudge, rather than any serious scientific objections to
Intelligent Design.
You mean beyond the fact that what in most cases it's untestable and in
the few cases it can be tested it fails? In the cosmological case,
I've yet to see anything from the IDologists that generate *real*
predictions better than various versions of the Anthropic Principle
which assumes non-interventionist god (i.e. naturalistic). This is in
conflict with a central tenent of ID.
The Anthropic Principle does not, as far as I know, even mention
consciousness. There may be some people who assume that consciousness is a
material entity, but that cannot be demonstrated. Therefore, The Anthropic
Principle is definitely a materialistic idea.
But consciousness is what came up with the Anthropic Principle in the first
place. And consciousness is what realized that there are consistent laws
operating in nature. consistency, law, order, pattern, rule, etc. are all
characteristics of consciousness. Unconsciousness cannot even conceive of
such things, because it cannot "conceive" of anything at all.
There is no physics without consciousness, and one of the major activities
of consciousness is to intelligently design things. To intelligently design
"things" means to consciously impart consistent rules or patterns to
assemblages of matter and energy.
As far as physics can determine, all matter and energy behaves according to
consistent rules, and possesses consistent patterns. Unconsciousness could
not have come up with those rules and patterns, nor could it have had the
desire, or will, to impart them to matter.
It is therefore reasonable to conclude that conscious, intelligent design is
responsible for the behavior of all matter and energy in the universe.
If the IDologists want to look for experimental evidence for their
specific beliefs, they are free to do so. However, until they can
produce real, reproducible experimental results, their 'theory' does
not belong in science classes.
Tell me what you would consider a "real, reproducable result" of Intelligent
Design research. I consider the observation that consciousness is a real,
nonmaterial entity to be conclusive proof of intelligent design.
<snip>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Isaak" |
|
| Title: Re: Draft: "Why We Should Teach About Creationism in Science Classes" |
18 Mar 2005 04:58:51 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 00:04:17 GMT, "Chris Devol" <eat@joes.pub> wrote,
midst much else:
[...] And since the standard definition of "God" includes omniscience, . . .
Actually, it doesn't. Omniscience is merely a traditional attribute
of the Christian god and gods of other monotheistic religions. A
standard definition of god, according to cultural anthropologists who
specialize in religion, is a being who does a substantial amount of
creation and/or regulation of nature. Some gods are quite ignorant.
Omniscience itself isn't well defined. Am I omniscient if I know
everything presently in the universe, or do I have to know everything
in the past and future, too? And suppose I do know everything from
all times, am I omniscient if I can't answer hypothetical questions,
such as what will happen if I intervene somehow? And what if I know
all that but do not care to think about it? God may very well be
omnicient, but in practice, that doesn't mean much.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering
.
|
|
|
| User: "chosp" |
|
| Title: Re: Draft: "Why We Should Teach About Creationism in Science Classes" |
18 Mar 2005 06:02:24 PM |
|
|
"Mark Isaak" <eciton@earthlinkNOSPAM.next> wrote in message
news:mmmm31lmt98rh2m108dh79o84hsehkmn2a@4ax.com...
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 00:04:17 GMT, "Chris Devol" <eat@joes.pub> wrote,
midst much else:
[...] And since the standard definition of "God" includes omniscience, . .
.
Actually, it doesn't. Omniscience is merely a traditional attribute
of the Christian god and gods of other monotheistic religions. A
standard definition of god, according to cultural anthropologists who
specialize in religion, is a being who does a substantial amount of
creation and/or regulation of nature. Some gods are quite ignorant.
Omniscience itself isn't well defined. Am I omniscient if I know
everything presently in the universe, or do I have to know everything
in the past and future, too?
You would have to know everything in the past and future.
And suppose I do know everything from
all times, am I omniscient if I can't answer hypothetical questions,
such as what will happen if I intervene somehow?
If you were omniscient there would be no hypothetical questions left.
Period.
You would already simultaneously know every conceivable outcome
from every conceivable intervention or interaction in every conceivable
situation and circumstance and you would probably have known it for
all time.
It could even be that the reason the world is in such a mess is that God
has been rendered catatonic from the inordinate load of merely
knowing.
And what if I know
all that but do not care to think about it?
Then you would cease being omniscient until you changed your
mind.
God may very well be
omnicient, but in practice, that doesn't mean much.
Either way, it doesn't mean much.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cygnus X-1" |
|
| Title: Re: Draft: "Why We Should Teach About Creationism in Science Classes" |
16 Mar 2005 10:23:39 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 19:04:17 -0500, Chris Devol wrote
(in article <5Q3_d.12607$cN6.10656@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>):
"Cygnus X-1" <cygnusx1@mac.com> wrote in message
news:0001HW.BE5E23F00006AF97F02845B0@news.radix.net...
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 00:39:24 -0500, Chris Devol wrote
(in article <gyuZd.11163$cN6.9812@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>):
"Cygnus X-1" <cygnusx1@mac.com> wrote in message
news:0001HW.BE5BD4EB001D9974F02845B0@news.radix.net...
[stuff deleted ]
Not necessarily. If the causal chain is that tight, then suppose I
consciously decide to drive with bald tires, knowing it's a safety
hazard. On a rain-slick highway, I skid into a phone pole and am
killed. Would it be a suicide? Remember, beyond my initial choice,
everything else is a consequence of natural law which has some
non-deterministic components. Not the best real-world example, but I'd
have to think a little longer to find a better one. Most examples I've
seen involve committing murder by relying on a chain of probabilistic
events.
In the Vedantic paradigm, your body is the organism, which is governed by
the laws of physics. However, "you" are not identical to your body. "You"
are a conscious spirit who is temporarily occupying the body. "You" are also
governed by rules, but they are of a different character than the laws of
physics.
But the answer to the question is:
It would be suicide if your intent, your will, was to destroy your body, or
if, in your ignorance of the fact that you are not your body, you intent was
to destroy yourself. In other words, if you drove the car under those
conditions hoping that you would die, then it was suicide.
However, if your intent was not to die, but to have some kind of a thrill,
and your hope was that there was something about the laws of physics of
which you were unaware, a "loophole" so to speak, and which would prevent a
crash, so that you could enjoy the thrill and not be killed, then it was not
suicide.
As a matter of fact, people are killed all the time because of such risk
taking. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, although it is not necessarily
grounds for the charge of suicide.
Current physical laws have a non-deterministic component that appears
to hold true even under bizarre conditions. While a God might start
the motion, he/she may not know the end result of the experiment.
But that is a non-standard definition of "God". Perhaps you should call it a
demigod.
After all, if you know the end result, why do the experiment? If you
don't know the detailed outcome, at what level can the result be
'designed'?
If you already know the outcome of an activity, then it is not an
"experiment" at all. It is simply building something that you know how to
build. And since the standard definition of "God" includes omniscience, it
follows that God doesn't conduct experiments, at least not in the sense that
so-called "scientists" do.
I don't characterize God's intelligent design of the universe as an
experiment. He's just doing what He knows how to do.
Then I guess you can't claim I'm a IDer. :^)
You mean beyond the fact that what in most cases it's untestable and in
the few cases it can be tested it fails? In the cosmological case,
I've yet to see anything from the IDologists that generate *real*
predictions better than various versions of the Anthropic Principle
which assumes non-interventionist god (i.e. naturalistic). This is in
conflict with a central tenent of ID.
The Anthropic Principle does not, as far as I know, even mention
consciousness. There may be some people who assume that consciousness is a
material entity, but that cannot be demonstrated. Therefore, The Anthropic
Principle is definitely a materialistic idea.
But consciousness is what came up with the Anthropic Principle in the first
place. And consciousness is what realized that there are consistent laws
operating in nature. consistency, law, order, pattern, rule, etc. are all
characteristics of consciousness. Unconsciousness cannot even conceive of
such things, because it cannot "conceive" of anything at all.
There is no physics without consciousness, and one of the major activities
of consciousness is to intelligently design things. To intelligently design
"things" means to consciously impart consistent rules or patterns to
assemblages of matter and energy.
As far as physics can determine, all matter and energy behaves according to
consistent rules, and possesses consistent patterns. Unconsciousness could
not have come up with those rules and patterns, nor could it have had the
desire, or will, to impart them to matter.
It is therefore reasonable to conclude that conscious, intelligent design is
responsible for the behavior of all matter and energy in the universe.
If the IDologists want to look for experimental evidence for their
specific beliefs, they are free to do so. However, until they can
produce real, reproducible experimental results, their 'theory' does
not belong in science classes.
Tell me what you would consider a "real, reproducable result" of Intelligent
Design research. I consider the observation that consciousness is a real,
nonmaterial entity to be conclusive proof of intelligent design.
I've yet to see a good definition or way to measure 'consciousness'.
What is its real definition? Is a dolphin conscious? Chimpanzee?
Elephant? Canandian Goose? Cat? Dog? Humans? Why or why not?
There is a lot written about quantum mechanical connections to
consciousness but that's more philosophy than science. While this
might change in the future, I strongly suspect it won't impact
'naturalistic' results except where human or other physical 'conscious'
agents participate.
Tom
--
Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy
http://homepage.mac.com/cygnusx1
cygnusx1@mac.com
"They're trained to believe, not to know. Belief can be manipulated.
Only knowledge is dangerous." --Frank Herbert, "Dune Messiah"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chris Devol" |
|
| Title: Re: Draft: "Why We Should Teach About Creationism in Science Classes" |
16 Mar 2005 11:19:49 PM |
|
|
"Cygnus X-1" <cygnusx1@mac.com> wrote in message
news:0001HW.BE5E707B001244E1F02845B0@news.radix.net...
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 19:04:17 -0500, Chris Devol wrote
(in article <5Q3_d.12607$cN6.10656@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>):
"Cygnus X-1" <cygnusx1@mac.com> wrote in message
news:0001HW.BE5E23F00006AF97F02845B0@news.radix.net...
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 00:39:24 -0500, Chris Devol wrote
(in article <gyuZd.11163$cN6.9812@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>):
"Cygnus X-1" <cygnusx1@mac.com> wrote in message
news:0001HW.BE5BD4EB001D9974F02845B0@news.radix.net...
<snip>
I don't characterize God's intelligent design of the universe as an
experiment. He's just doing what He knows how to do.
Then I guess you can't claim I'm a IDer. :^)
Well, you can be whatever you want to be, as long as you reject the law of
non-contradiction. :-)
You mean beyond the fact that what in most cases it's untestable and in
the few cases it can be tested it fails? In the cosmological case,
I've yet to see anything from the IDologists that generate *real*
predictions better than various versions of the Anthropic Principle
which assumes non-interventionist god (i.e. naturalistic). This is in
conflict with a central tenent of ID.
The Anthropic Principle does not, as far as I know, even mention
consciousness. There may be some people who assume that consciousness is
a
material entity, but that cannot be demonstrated. Therefore, The
Anthropic
Principle is definitely a materialistic idea.
But consciousness is what came up with the Anthropic Principle in the
first
place. And consciousness is what realized that there are consistent laws
operating in nature. consistency, law, order, pattern, rule, etc. are all
characteristics of consciousness. Unconsciousness cannot even conceive of
such things, because it cannot "conceive" of anything at all.
There is no physics without consciousness, and one of the major
activities
of consciousness is to intelligently design things. To intelligently
design
"things" means to consciously impart consistent rules or patterns to
assemblages of matter and energy.
As far as physics can determine, all matter and energy behaves according
to
consistent rules, and possesses consistent patterns. Unconsciousness
could
not have come up with those rules and patterns, nor could it have had the
desire, or will, to impart them to matter.
It is therefore reasonable to conclude that conscious, intelligent design
is
responsible for the behavior of all matter and energy in the universe.
If the IDologists want to look for experimental evidence for their
specific beliefs, they are free to do so. However, until they can
produce real, reproducible experimental results, their 'theory' does
not belong in science classes.
Tell me what you would consider a "real, reproducable result" of
Intelligent
Design research. I consider the observation that consciousness is a real,
nonmaterial entity to be conclusive proof of intelligent design.
I've yet to see a good definition or way to measure 'consciousness'.
What is its real definition? Is a dolphin conscious? Chimpanzee?
Elephant? Canandian Goose? Cat? Dog? Humans? Why or why not?
The existence of consciousness is self-evident, isn't it? I mean, you know
you're conscious, right? And no amount of "evidence" to the contrary will
persuade you that you are not a conscious living being. This is not a matter
of faith, but of first-hand direct observation of your own conscious
existence.
Consciousness can be defined as self-awareness. That implies that there is a
"self" of which to be aware.
According to Vedanta, the self is a nonmaterial energy unit whose qualities
include eternal existence, consciousness, and bliss: sat-chit-ananda. Thus,
consciousness is a property of the self. The self is an irreduceable
element, according to Vedanta.
If you want to directly measure consciousness, using some apparatus made of
matter, and some kind of quantitative scale, frankly, I don't see how that's
possible. However, consciousness can detect other consciousness. That is one
of the side effects of the Vedic yoga system.
But perhaps some of the effects of consciousness can be measured, after a
fashion. The Princeton experiments of the P.E.A.R. group seem promising in
this regard.
There is a lot written about quantum mechanical connections to
consciousness but that's more philosophy than science. While this
might change in the future, I strongly suspect it won't impact
'naturalistic' results except where human or other physical 'conscious'
agents participate.
QM talks about an "observer" and sometimes uses the word "consciousness" in
that connection. Something has to "explain" the collapse of the state
vector. But if you look closely at what the QM "observer" is, you find that
it is always a material device, such as the retina of an eye, or a brain
cortex, or a photon detector, or some such thing. It is not really the
nonmaterial consciousness that I have been talking about.
I don't know what else to tell you. You may follow the path of materialism,
which is the dominant trend of modern so-called "science". Or you may have
the realization that this approach is inadequate for understanding the whole
of reality, and adopt a more comprehensive program of study that includes
nonmaterial consciousness. I hope for the latter.
Tom
Chris
.
|
|
|
| User: "Stanley Friesen" |
|
| Title: Re: Draft: "Why We Should Teach About Creationism in Science Classes" |
18 Mar 2005 08:45:06 AM |
|
|
"Chris Devol" <eat@joes.pub> wrote:
"Cygnus X-1" <cygnusx1@mac.com> wrote in message
news:0001HW.BE5E707B001244E1F02845B0@news.radix.net...
I've yet to see a good definition or way to measure 'consciousness'.
What is its real definition? Is a dolphin conscious? Chimpanzee?
Elephant? Canandian Goose? Cat? Dog? Humans? Why or why not?
The existence of consciousness is self-evident, isn't it? I mean, you know
you're conscious, right?
That doesn't help the scientist trying to *study* consciousness. It
*certainly* does not answer the *last* part of the question. How do we
determine if *other* beings are conscious??
Consciousness can be defined as self-awareness. That implies that there is a
"self" of which to be aware.
So, are dolphins and chimpanzees conscious?
QM talks about an "observer"
Not in its modern forms. It now talks about "measurement" (or,
sometimes, "observation") - with the implication that it is not the
*agent* that matters, but rather the *mechanism*.
--
The peace of God be with you.
Stanley Friesen
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "SortingItOut" |
|
| Title: Re: Draft: "Why We Should Teach About Creationism in Science Classes" |
18 Mar 2005 12:47:40 AM |
|
|
Chris Devol wrote:
"Cygnus X-1" <cygnusx1@mac.com> wrote in message
news:0001HW.BE5E707B001244E1F02845B0@news.radix.net...
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 19:04:17 -0500, Chris Devol wrote
(in article
<5Q3_d.12607$cN6.10656@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>):
"Cygnus X-1" <cygnusx1@mac.com> wrote in message
news:0001HW.BE5E23F00006AF97F02845B0@news.radix.net...
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 00:39:24 -0500, Chris Devol wrote
(in article
<gyuZd.11163$cN6.9812@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>):
"Cygnus X-1" <cygnusx1@mac.com> wrote in message
news:0001HW.BE5BD4EB001D9974F02845B0@news.radix.net...
<snip>
If the IDologists want to look for experimental evidence for
their
specific beliefs, they are free to do so. However, until they
can
produce real, reproducible experimental results, their 'theory'
does
not belong in science classes.
Tell me what you would consider a "real, reproducable result" of
Intelligent
Design research. I consider the observation that consciousness is
a real,
nonmaterial entity to be conclusive proof of intelligent design.
I've yet to see a good definition or way to measure
'consciousness'.
What is its real definition? Is a dolphin conscious? Chimpanzee?
Elephant? Canandian Goose? Cat? Dog? Humans? Why or why not?
The existence of consciousness is self-evident, isn't it?
It seems to be.
I mean, you know
you're conscious, right? And no amount of "evidence" to the contrary
will
persuade you that you are not a conscious living being. This is not a
matter
of faith, but of first-hand direct observation of your own conscious
existence.
That seems to be the case.
Consciousness can be defined as self-awareness. That implies that
there is a
"self" of whi | | | | | | | | | | |
