Re: Bush Remarks On 'Intelligent Design' Theory Fuel Debate

Alan Lichtenstein wrote:
> js wrote:
>
> > Alan Lichtenstein wrote:
> >
> >>Rita wrote:
> >>
> >>>On 17 Aug 2005 06:50:34 -0700, "js" <jonathansmith99@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Rita wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>On 16 Aug 2005 16:59:37 -0700, "js" <jonathansmith99@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>Rita wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>On 16 Aug 2005 06:39:27 -0700, "js" <jonathansmith99@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>Rita wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>On 3 Aug 2005 14:29:20 -0700, "js" <jonathansmith99@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>But Rita - you (or perhaps not you, but others) argue that intelligent
> >>>>>>>>>>design is NOT possible, is unscientific, and therefore this opinion
> >>>>>>>>>>(controversy) is not a subject for discussion in schools. I disagree.
> >>>>>>>>>>I believe that in the absence of proof to the contrary and in the
> >>>>>>>>>>presence of mainstream arguments in support, it is our responsibility
> >>>>>>>>>>to make our children aware that this controversy exists and that the
> >>>>>>>>>>evidence is what it is.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>How can you posit that this discussion is inappropriate? Until 1972,
> >>>>>>>>>>it was impossible to transplant a heart. Until 1907, planes did not
> >>>>>>>>>>fly. Until 1964, no one could tell you what the backside of the moon
> >>>>>>>>>>looked like. How can you say that in 2212 we won't have evidence to
> >>>>>>>>>>support intelligent design? We have no evidence today to rule out the
> >>>>>>>>>>possibility, or?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>Think of it this way - We now know the biochemical basis for plant
> >>>>>>>>>>respiration yet we cannot and have not been able to replicate how this
> >>>>>>>>>>works. Knowing how it works and being able to replicate natural
> >>>>>>>>>>phenomenon are distinct and different. Plant's take in water and
> >>>>>>>>>>sunlight and create energy and hydrocarbons. Using hydrogen fuel cell
> >>>>>>>>>>technology we cannot replicate the process with any degree of
> >>>>>>>>>>efficiency or success. If we could, then we wouldn't need gasoline.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>Interesting thought, no? If not us, then how, who or what?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>js
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>I will throw this back at you. 100, 200, 300 years ago people didn't
> >>>>>>>>>know what caused disease but tried to explain it by theorizing foul
> >>>>>>>>>vapors in the air and many other causes. Then came the germ theory
> >>>>>>>>>of disease and bingo, the causes of many diseases became clear.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>Hardly many - but at least a working model for infectious diseases.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>Not all, but further resarch has continued to explore the underlying
> >>>>>>>>>causes of diseases such as cancer, Alzheimer's and many more.
> >>>>>>>>>People who behaved abnorally were thought to be possessed by demons -
> >>>>>>>>>then we learned about diseases of the brain and brain chemistry
> >>>>>>>>>malfunctions. Of course we are not "there" yet with explanations for
> >>>>>>>>>every disease or condition that afflicts humans. But if you don't
> >>>>>>>>>think the progress has been remarkable and is proceeding apace, then
> >>>>>>>>>you are not paying attention.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>I am certainly well aware of the advances of science. This is NOT the
> >>>>>>>>issue. The question is - in the absence of evidence to the contrary,
> >>>>>>>>is it scientifically honest to discount the possibility of intelligent
> >>>>>>>>design?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>Same with all sciences, not just medical, but physical and biological
> >>>>>>>>>as well. We know a great deal but we don't know everything at this
> >>>>>>>>>moment.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>Exactly my point.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>But given the difference between what was known in say, the 17th century,
> >>>>>>>>>and this one, why would one feel the need to posit a supernatural
> >>>>>>>>>explanation for the data yet unexplained?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>It is not a "supernatural" explanation. It is a suggestion that there
> >>>>>>>>is more to the concept than we currently know.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>"Intelligent-design theory states that certain features of the natural
> >>>>>>>>world are of such complexity that the most plausible explanation is
> >>>>>>>>that they are products of an intelligent cause rather than random
> >>>>>>>>mutation and natural selection. Supporters of the theory say the nature
> >>>>>>>>of the intelligent cause is outside the scope of the theory."
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>Do you really believe the
> >>>>>>>>>ability of science to find explanations has ceased, or even slowed
> >>>>>>>>>down?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>Absolutely not. I believe it is entirely possible for science to
> >>>>>>>>confirm the existence of the underlying "cause" of what we are today.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>People have always made up explanations for what they didn't understand.
> >>>>>>>>>These explanations faded out as science advanced to explain more and more
> >>>>>>>>>of our world.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>Exactly - and until such time as you can provide scientific evidence to
> >>>>>>>>support the theory of evolution and exclude the theory of intelligent
> >>>>>>>>design, we don't have the explanation, now do we. And that's the
> >>>>>>>>conundrum. And as such, the competing approaches are perfectly valid
> >>>>>>>>topics for discussion if only to further enlighten the discussants to
> >>>>>>>>the options.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>We do have substantial evidence to support the theory of evolution and
> >>>>>>>natural selection.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>And there are those who suggest that the evidence is not contradictory
> >>>>>>to the proposition of ID. Perhaps you care to explain how subscribing
> >>>>>>to evolution as a process immediately invalidates the concept of ID?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>You just don't know about it.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Rahter presumptuous of you, isn't it.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Am I to take the
> >>>>>>>notion that because not everything is known one can propose that the
> >>>>>>>Tooth Fairy is the "intelligent designer?"
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>You can posit whatever you like. As a child I am sure you subscribed
> >>>>>>to the notion of tooth fairies, Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Is that an option that
> >>>>>>>should be considered?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>The label you provide is immaterial to the discussion.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>So why would I assume this has come to an end and say because not all is
> >>>>>>>>>yet known I must accept a supernatural explanation?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>As I pointed out earlier - the term "supernatural" is pejorative and
> >>>>>>>>does nothing to help further the discussion.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>Intelligent design posits that no explanation is possible for certain
> >>>>>>>>>processes because we don't have them as yet. It assumes that because
> >>>>>>>>>we don't have all the answers, we must jump to a theory of divine
> >>>>>>>>>intervention -- and be back at the place we were thousands of years ago.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>Not at all - the theoretical construct is one that supports a higher
> >>>>>>>>level process other than randomness.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>There are gaps in many scientific theories, things yet to be worked on
> >>>>>>>>>and explained. That hardly means they are unknowable. That is what you
> >>>>>>>>>are proposing.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>No - and please do not put words in my mouth.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>My argument is the following -
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>"...in the absence of proof to the contrary and in the
> >>>>>>>>presence of mainstream arguments in support, it is our responsibility
> >>>>>>>>to make our children aware that this controversy exists and that the
> >>>>>>>>evidence is what it is."
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>Any question not yet answered -- the answer must be
> >>>>>>>>>divine intervention.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>Where did I say that?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>You can't argue the poitn without putting words in my mouth. If I said
> >>>>>>>>to you that evolutionists like yourself don't believe in God, what
> >>>>>>>>would your response be?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>js
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>My response is that belief in God is not an issue in accepting the
> >>>>>>>theory of evolution.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Accepting the theory of evolution to the exclusion of ID yet accepting
> >>>>>>God as the creator as depicted biblically leaves me to wonder how you
> >>>>>>resolve the contradiction. And, if you do believe in creationism as
> >>>>>>the first cause then what exactly are you arguing about?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>I don't believe the Bible or any scripture is an authority on
> >>>>>scientific matters.
> >>>>
> >>>>The Bible is not intended to be a dissertation. Using a strict literal
> >>>>interpretation will cause you all sorts of problems with science as we
> >>>>know it today.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Allowing for a "first cause" that set things
> >>>>>as they are in motion is perfectly compatible with accepting the
> >>>>>laws of nature and science as a means of learning all we can about
> >>>>>those laws and processes.
> >>>>
> >>>>So quit your bitchin, then.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Creationism, as I understand the term to
> >>>>>be used by its proponents, posits that the world far younger than
> >>>>>science shows it to be and posits a Creator active today in fine
> >>>>>tuning the evolution of the various species. I don't accept that.
> >>>>
> >>>>Creationism as a label takes many forms. The only consistency is that
> >>>>creationism as a belief set requires ID. Creationism does not preclude
> >>>>process. But then again, the topic is - SHOULD the competing
> >>>>constructs of ID and Evolution be discussed in our schools or is it
> >>>>justified to exclude ID because some believe it to be scientifically
> >>>>impossible? My argument is - no, the discussion MUST occur.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>You appear to presume a "first cause" must be one and the same as the God
> >>>>>depicted in the Old Testament of the Christian Bible.
> >>>>
> >>>>Appearnaces or ingferences and once again you make a leap putting words
> >>>>in my mouth to make your point. Stick to the facts - not in an
> >>>>interpretion that suits your bias.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Many who
> >>>>>allow for a "first cause" don't know the nature of such an entity
> >>>>>nor do they believe this is knowable.
> >>>>
> >>>>The label oft used is God. Put any label you want - it is not
> >>>>germaine.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>It is quite possible both to believe in a
> >>>>>>>God or first cause or whatever you want to call it and to accept
> >>>>>>>the theory.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Clearly - but then again, I did not propose that evolution and natural
> >>>>>>selection are unsupportable theoretically only that there are
> >>>>>>contervailing opinions as to the viability, from a scientific
> >>>>>>perspective, of ID as an impossible (or possible) "first cause".
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Most mainstream churches have no problem whatsoever
> >>>>>>>with the theory of evolution. People can and do believe that a
> >>>>>>>supreme being is capable of existing and that evolution through
> >>>>>>>natural selection also can co-exist -- as the means the supreme
> >>>>>>>being has chosen to effect changes in what exists. This is one
> >>>>>>>of a variety of views on the topic offered by people who believe
> >>>>>>>both in God and in a theory of evolutionary change and development.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>And in that case, we have no conflict. I am perfectly capabable of
> >>>>>>understanding that there are established paradigms that support the
> >>>>>>theory of evolution as a process by which life has evolved on Earth.
> >>>>>>But that is hardly sufficient to rule out ID as either the intiator or
> >>>>>>to rule out ID as the director of these processes.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>I do not subscribe to the notion of randomness as the only possible
> >>>>>>explanation. Clearly you do not either. So what's the problem with an
> >>>>>>open and honest discussion of this in the context of education?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>I do believe that randomness is perfectly consistent with a first
> >>>>>cause who (and it is hard to talk of such an entity in human terms
> >>>>>such as "who") chose evolution by natural selection as the mechanism
> >>>>>for this world. I say this world because I am interested in the
> >>>>>theories of some quantum physicists of "many possible worlds" and
> >>>>>many possible futures, which also I think means many possible pasts.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>In other words, I don't exclude the unknowable or a spiritual
> >>>>>dimension that can't be talked about in the terms we have available.
> >>>>>The most serious of theologians ultimately insist that what they
> >>>>>call God is ultimately unknowable. The best of them equate their
> >>>>>God with all that is good and loving and leave science to scientists.
> >>>>>Spiritual knowledge and scientific knowledge are not incompatible,
> >>>>>but neither are they at all in the same dimension.
> >>>>
> >>>>You keep putting ID into a religious context. Why do you insist on
> >>>>doing this?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>While science should be left to scientists to investigate, we as
> >>>>>humans do have an obligation to discern what is good in the application
> >>>>>of science to our world. Thus, the fact that science has allowed us
> >>>>>to use nuclear energy to create a bomb does not mean we should use
> >>>>>it, etc. etc. Science can't tell us how we should live and treat
> >>>>>others.
> >>>>
> >>>>Don't spin theology. The izssue at hand is whether or not there is a
> >>>>reason and justification to discuss in schools the possibility that two
> >>>>competing interpretations and/or explanations of who and what we are
> >>>>exist - one based on a strict "scientific" approach characterized by a
> >>>>rondom evolution punctuated by natural selection to the exclusion f any
> >>>>manipulation by anything else versus the aqcceptance that randomness
> >>>>alone is not sufficient and as such there is a higher order influence
> >>>>that is not currently understood.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>I do believe that humans evolved into beings who have the capability
> >>>>>and responsibiity as a result of that capability to care for their
> >>>>>world and the creatures in it. To care for all of nature. And that
> >>>>>we haven't made a very good job of it but have the potential to do
> >>>>>so. And that if a spiritual dimension enables humans to rise above
> >>>>>their self centeredness and act in the world with love and caring
> >>>>>than that is a very good thing.
> >>>>
> >>>>And this capability is the result of evolution and natural selection?
> >>>>One would think that "compassion" for the lack of a better word is
> >>>>inconsistent with survival. You have effectively defeated your
> >>>>argument.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>I see you know as little about views various churches have on
> >>>>>>>evolution as you do about the theory itself.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Unfortunately, you have once again made assumptions that have no basis
> >>>>>>in fact.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Do you believe that some intelligent being has had or continues to have
> >>>>>>a hand in who and what we are? Or do you believe that who and what we
> >>>>>>are today is a direct result, exclusively, from random chance coupled
> >>>>>>with fortuitous survival?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>I think I answered that above.
> >>>>
> >>>>Actually, you have answered it as a very definitive - maybe.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>I expect my views will please neither
> >>>>>those who espouse a fundamentalist form of religion nor atheists.
> >>>>
> >>>>Your views are hardly consistent.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>But
> >>>>>they have been arrived at through a lifetime of thinking about all
> >>>>>this and they "work" for me. I don't say they are fully closed,
> >>>>>because every day brings some new slant to be pondered and perhaps
> >>>>>incorporated. I like to read about both science and theology. It
> >>>>>is all very interesting:)
> >>>>
> >>>>You have deceived yourself into thinking you are a religious atheist
> >>>>and by taking this position reconciled yourself to the fact that
> >>>>irrespective of the truth, you covered your ***.
> >>>>
> >>>>Congratulations.
> >>>>
> >>>>js
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>I didn't expect you to like or agree with my views.
> >>
> >>Rita, I've been reading this thread, and considered joining it, but
> >>decided not to. Now, I'll comment, because apparently you've reached
> >>the end of discussion with Mr. Smith.
> >
> >
> > Alan 0- you couldn't wait to jump in with your anti-JS rant.
>
> Not anti-js; rather anti ignorance and superstition. If that label
> applies to you, then so be it.

No, anti-js. But that's your style - and to date you have failed each
attempt - so be it.

> >>Suffice it to say, that Mr. Smith argues from a fallacious point of
> >>view.
> >
> >
> > Your opinion based on?
>
> Your words, fool. Here they are:
>
> "I am certainly well aware of the advances of science. This is NOT the
> issue. The question is - in the absence of evidence to the contrary,
> is it scientifically honest to discount the possibility of intelligent
> design?"
>
> And here:
>
> "My argument is the following -
>
> "...in the absence of proof to the contrary and in the
> presence of mainstream arguments in support, it is our responsibility
> to make our children aware that this controversy exists and that the
> evidence is what it is."
>
> Consequently, by your own words, you demand that a negative be proven,

No - I do not require this. I point out that in it's absence - the
proof of the negative - we must consider the possibility at least to
the point where it is not discounted simply because some believe it is
impossible. The whole basis of science is to explore what we do not
know.

> a
> fallacious position. If there is no evidence to support intelligent
> design and creationism( which there isn't ), how can you disprove
> something which doesn't exist? Simply put, you cannot prove a negative;
> only a positive.

The world is not flat - and guess what, though it took quite a bit of
time, we proved it.

> Now you may choose to believe that such exists,
> despite the paucity of tangible evidence, and that is your right. But
> you don't get the right to say that because of your belief, which is
> strictly based on faith, that it should be taken as science and
> considered in schools.

One more time - we have a responsibility to openly discuss the
controversy of natural selection with or without ID.

This is what GWB said, in part and what lead off the topic:

"Both sides ought to be properly taught . . . so people can understand
what the debate is about," he said, according to an official transcript
of the session. Bush added: "Part of education is to expose people to
different schools of thought. . . . You're asking me whether or not
people ought to be exposed to different ideas, and the answer is yes."

> > Oh, yes, I see - based on your putting words in my mouth and reading my
> > mind? Infering things that are necessary for you to posit your dribble
> > even in the absence of truth? Got it, thanks.
>
> No need. Your own words were cited above. Perhaps your memory is
> dimming and you have forgotten that you wrote them. Do you now retract
> them? If not, then the criticism I made stands as valid.

Here is what I said - consistently again and again:

"But then again, the topic is - SHOULD the competing
constructs of ID and Evolution be discussed in our schools or is it
justified to exclude ID because some believe it to be scientifically
impossible? My argument is - no, the discussion MUST occur."

And this is your criticism:

"He infers, that because there is no negative evidentiary items
disproving intelligent design, that it should be accepted as a valid
theory."

I do not refer to it as a theory. I have been extremely careful in the
use of terms - I have referred to ID as a school of thought - a
proposal - a construct - hence, a hypothesis that should be pursued,
discussed, not discounted as unscientific in the absence of knowledge.
If science did this routinely we'd still be living in caves.

> >>He infers, that because there is no negative evidentiary items
> >>disproving intelligent design, that it should be accepted as a valid
> >>theory.
> >
> >
> > I said that it is appropriate to discuss, in schools, that there is a
> > difference in opinions regarding the topic.
>
> No, you clearly said that in the "absence of proof to the contrary."

Absolutly - but in context I said (typos aside) that:

"Don't spin theology. The izssue at hand is whether or not there is a
reason and justification to discuss in schools the possibility that two

competing interpretations and/or explanations of who and what we are
exist - one based on a strict "scientific" approach characterized by a
rondom evolution punctuated by natural selection to the exclusion f any

manipulation by anything else versus the aqcceptance that randomness
alone is not sufficient and as such there is a higher order influence
that is not currently understood."

> The negative evidence is the positive evidence for Evolution. There is
> no evidence to support these crackpot ideas.

Some disagree - Behe, Dembski, and Wells, for example. These three and
others argue that we need to consider ID. As such, there is sufficient
reason to allow or even require the debate to occur. Your personal
opinion that the concept of ID is "crackpot" requires you to justify
it. Go ahead - why are these ideas, in your opinion, "crackpot"?

> The difference of opinion results from a dishonest effort to equate a
> valid scientific theory with a faith based religious belief which is
> attempted be be masqueraded as science.

Hardly. I suppose you would not have supported the notion of earth
roundedness, either.

> > "I believe that in the absence of proof to the contrary and in the
> > presence of mainstream arguments in support, it is our responsibility
> > to make our children aware that this controversy exists and that the
> > evidence is what it is."
> >
> > I never proposed or offered an opinion as to my belief.
>
> Whether you did or not, is irrelevant;

No - it is entirely relevant. I proposed that discussion of the
competing concepts is a valid and necessary part of the education of
our children if only to understand the controversy. We discuss
competing political systems - why should this be any different?

> the demand for the proof of a
> negative is a fallacious demand.

Hardly. Your demand that all hypotheses be proved before they are
discussed is disconcerting. Moreover, your proposal that in the
absence of any evidence to the contrary, all hypotheses requiring the
proof of a negative are unscientific.

> If you persist in standing by it, then
> your assertion that it is our responsibility to make our children aware
> of this controversy, is a fallacy. Are you saying that it is our
> responsibility to make our children aware of a fallacy?

It is our responsibility to promote the open discussion of ideas in the
classroom as long as such ideas are consistent with the ideas held in
society at large. Just as your opinion that ID cannot exist and that
Darwinian theory is the ONLY viable explanation of who and what we are
should receive attention, so should the concept that other
explanations, including ID (which by the way does not require
refutation of natural selection) are considered by society to be
tenable.

> >>Perhaps, but that theory must be taken simply on faith that
> >>proof exists, or that the mechanism the theory proposes is valid in the
> >>absence of proof. The fallacy is that you can't prove a negative; only
> >>a positive. I doubt he realizes that.
> >
> >
> > As it happens, there really isn't such a thing as a "purely" negative
> > statement, because every negative entails a positive, and vice versa.
>
> Very good. Where is the positive evidence for intelligent design or
> creationism?

Irreducible complexity posits ID as viable as does specified
complexity. There are arguments on both sides and that is the part of
science that makes scientific endeavor possible and exciting. You just
don't like it because somehow you've equated ID with religion and make
the leap to the right?

> > The absence of an attribute can be shown.
>
> Very good. The absence of evidence for intelligent design and
> creationism is well known.

> > Its done in science all the
> > time - we rule out competing hypotheses to support our hypothesis.
>
> We rule them out based on EVIDENCE, not on the basis of faith or
> uncertainty.

Hypothesis testing is founded in explaining uncertainty. In the
absence of uncertainty, we'd not need science.

> A big difference which both I and Rita are attempting to
> demonstrate to you, which you resist.

You (but not Rita) argue that ID cannot exist, should not be discussed,
and is not explorable scientifically.

I can consider the possibility of ID as a plausible explanation and
advocate a continued discussion on a scientific level. Ideally, we
ought to be discussing HOW to test the hypothesis rather than whether
or not the hypothesis is valid of a discussion. You subscribe to the
head in the sand approach to hypotheses, if ultimately supported, that
contradict your politics or opinions?

> >>Unfortunately, science doesn't base its theories on faith. It bases
> >>them on evidence.
> >
> >
> > And in the absence of scientific evidence to the contrary, any
> > proposition is tenable.
>
> there you go again, requesting scientific evidence to demonstrate a
> crackpot idea is untenable.

And there you go again - labeling the contstruct of ID as a crackpot
idea.

> Science doesn't work that way.

Science works EXACTLY that way - we observe and then try to explain.
Once we explain, then we test the explanation to see if it is
consistent with observations. Inductive/deductive reasoning and the
scientific method.

> It takes as
> tenable only that which can be verified.

And just because YOU can't figure out a way to verify it doesn't make
it any less viable as a hypothesis - it just makes it that much more
challenging.

> Any other ideas need be taken
> on the basis of faith, NOT science. Thus, intelligent design and
> creationism must be taken on the basis of faith, NOT evidence. And the
> big difference between science and religion is that the tenets of
> science are based on evidence, not faith. So what you are advocating is
> a religious belief.

Bull***. Just because YOU can't accept the scientific possibilty of
ID is not sufficient for me.

Look in your garage and tell me how you want to explain your SUV.

> > Whether or not the proposition can remain
> > tenable as we investigate its components is another question.
>
> Wrong. If there is no evidence to support its existence in the first
> place, it is discarded as untenable.

That is not science, Alan.

> > How do
> > you think the process of science starts? All "science" starts out as
> > an idea - on faith if you like.
>
> Here you show your lack of knowledge of science

Yeh, that would be my problem - no knolwledge of science. Alan - you
do this benevolent condescension and then procede to make a fool of
yourself.

> Science begins with tangible evidence,

Science begins with observation and a question.

> not crackpot ideas,

Most new knowledge starts with crackpot ideas. Do you honestly think
that Darwin's idea was not considered to be crackpotty at first?
Certainly Galileo was a crackpot.

How about Pasteur and bacteria? Granted, there are plenty of examples
of crackpot ideas that in fact are crackpot ideas.

> and then
> looks for explanations to account for those. those explanations are
> commonly called theories, or models of processes.

The explanations are considered hypotheses and the experinments are
then designed to test the hypotheses.

> Evidence for the
> models is then collected, and the validity of the theory is measured
> against the tangible evidence which exists. Thus, a theory which
> explains most of the tangible evidence is accepted,

Theories are SUPPORTED, not accepted.

> and another
> discarded.

So, you do subscribe to the all or none conditional. Not too smart,
Alan.

> Two recent examples are the discarding of the Steady-State
> Theory of the Universe in Favor of the Big Bang, and the discarding of
> the valence bond theory of chemical bonding in favor of the molecular
> orbital theory.

The valence bond theory has not been discarded - only expanded and
renamed. Neither model is the perfect explanation of how molecules are
formed or how they behave. Both are approximations.

> theories reach conclusions AFTER and as a RESULT of the evaluation of
> the evidence. Intelligent Design and creationism BEGIN with their
> conclusions, and consequently violate the process of science.

Bull*** again - ID is a competing hypothesis and is worthy of
discussion because it is a valid competing hypothesis and this is
exactly what science and the scientific approach requires.

In your example of bonding theory, what say you? Obviously VBT was
insufficent and using MOT explanations become more precise. Does that
invalidate one or the other?

Under VBT we are unable to explain the absence of HE2 in nature. Does
that imply, or better, refute the viability of VBT for all molecules?
Of course not. Why then do you want to apply this to the hypothesis
that NS is potentially complemented by ID?

> And THAT'S how science works, as my degrees in Chemistry has taught me.

Your degree in chemistry? How much experimental chemistry have you
done oh great sage of science? I looked in Chem Abstracts. Nada, eh?

> >>Evolution is a theory for a mechanism that produces
> >>change. There is ample evidence to support that mechanism( Natural
> >>Selection ).
> >
> >
> > But the theopry does not preclude ID - these are not competing
> > hypotheses.
>
> It most certainly does. Intelligent Design postulates change, for which
> there is no evidence.

You make this up as you go along or what? Intelligent design proposes
directive change in some or all cases. It refutes randomness as the
exclusive vehicle for change.

> Evolution has volumes of evidence. Reasonable
> people will discard a crackpot idea which has no evidence in favor of
> one for which there are volumes of evidence. And the competition is not
> even close, as it was between the theories I cited above. In those
> theories, there was evidence in equal force to support both sides. As
> more evidence was uncovered, it became evident that one theory explained
> more of the facts than the other, and consequently the volume of opinion
> shifted in favor of one. But there is NO contest because there is so
> much evidence in favor of evolution and NO evidence in favor of
> intelligent design. So great is the discrepancy, we don't even consider it.

There you go again - you argue that IF we accept ID as a plausible
hypothesis that we must abandon Darwin in his entirety. Don't you get
it? This is hardly necessary.

> The hypothesis of evolution and natural selection does not
> > preclude the involvement of ID. The hyptheses are not competing where
> > one cannmot exist in the presence of the other.
>
> First of all, you make a mistake.

No, this is your myopia, not mine.

> Evolution is not a hypothesis; it is
> a FACT. It occurred.

Bull*** - it is and always will be a theory, Alan. You make one of
the basic mistakes of lay scientists - you don't understand science and
as such mispecify and misuse terms about which real scientists are
extremely cautious.

Your statemtn shows a serious misunderstanding of the scientific usage
of the terms "theory" and "fact." A theory in science is an explanation
of a natural phenomenon, and a fact is a confirmed observation. An
example of a fact would be that there is great consistency in the
sequence of fossils in the fossil record, with no major branch of the
tree of life being out of order (fossils of mammals are not found in
the Devonian age of fishes, for example). Another fact is that living
species tend to be found where their fossil ancestors are also found.
We explain these and many other confirmed observations, or "facts,"
with the explanation that living things share common ancestors, from
which they have diverged. This explanation is the "theory" of
evolution, an extremely strong and well-supported theory.

Evolution as a theory is supported by what we have observed. Evolution
in the absence of other influences has not been proved. Get it right.
The fact is that there are linkages between species and the theory is
that these occured either at random or with some direction. And that,
Alan, is the core issue. Do we provide students with the information
that the theory of evolution explains some of what we observe while the
opportunity for further explanation based on ID is real in the sense
that there are some who argue it and do so scientifically.

> And there is no evidence to believe that
> intelligent design was involved in the FACT of evolution.

Evolution IS A THEORY!

*** then again, other than the problem in trying to explain how
evolution and natural selection accounts for the ALL of the results,
there still is that naggin little issue of Irreducible complexity and
specified complexity.

> >>Intelligent Design is a crackpot idea for a mechanism that
> >>produces change. There is NO, repeat, NO evidence to even suggest that
> >>such an idea could be valid. Consequently, scientists accept the
> >>mechanism of Evolution and discard the crackpot idea of intelligent
> >>design, because the evidence indicates that it is true.
> >
> >
> > And "scientists" accepted the idea the earth is flat at one time as
> > well - and that everything revolved around the earth - and that man
> > could not fly.
>
> Scientists didn't accept anything.

"Scientists" - the ones who insist that they know what is right - you
know, the Alan Lichtensteins of the world.

> That was the secular religious
> interpretation. As far back as the Greeks, they understood that the
> Earth was curved. It was only when the influence of the belief oriented
> influence of the Church was diminished by the Renaissance that Science
> got a wider hearing. Many Renaissance scientists were threatened by the
> Church for those 'blasphemies.' Surely you recall those, or do you
> require my further reminding you?

The reminder should be for you, Alan. Let me provide some further
reminders: Rita suggest germ theory as one.


Now, explain again Aquaqtic Ape Theory - something evolutionists seem
to still be challenged by.

Explain why, under natural selection paradigms, the gender distribution
in humans is almost 50/50. Just curious to hear your explanations.

Seems to me that like VBT, Evolution under the proposition of
randomness has some issues in explanation.

> > There is a scientific disagreement on the viability of ID as a
> > sustainable theory regarding the who and what of what we are.
>
> There is no disagreement. Science has rejected the notion as invalid.

No, there is disagreement. I am a scientist and I disagree that ID is
scientifically implausible. You proport yourself to be a scientist and
you disagree.

There are hundreds and perhaps more compent and well respected
scientists who are unwilling to discount the hypothesis as untenable.

Here's a link to a website (albeit one in support of ID) that answers a
lot of the questions.

http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php

> There has been not one article offered for publication in any reputable
> peer review journal which deals with a basic science that has been
> published with evidence supporting this.

Once again you spout off that it is necessary to confirm a hypothesis
before you can write a hypothesis. Sorry - science requires otherwise.
Testing the hypothesis is still an unanswered challenge. Ande yes,
Behe has published the hypothesis in Philosophy of Science.

> It is
> > this disagreement that should be open for discussion. Your proposition
> > is that it should not be. How scientific is that?
>
> Very. Science does not discuss things it has no evidence for. It is
> just as irrelevant to discuss this as it is to discuss the existence of
> angels.

It is relevant if only to inform students of the controversy.

> >>Mr. Smith's
> >>comments about the 'tooth fairy' are appropriate, because they apply
> >>with equal force to his position.
> >
> >
> > I called the Tooth Fairy a label.
>
> Which applies to your comments, as I asserted.

And by the way, it would be Dr. Smith.

> >>After all, why not postulate the
> >>tooth fairy as the 'intelligent designer?' And of course, if one
> >>accepts the concept of intelligent design, the whole idea falls apart
> >>because the question of who designed the designer can be asked, with
> >>obviously no answer, with the concomitant dilemma that the question
> >>raises. That, in and of itself, ought to be enough to convince the
> >>rational person that this view is sorely lacking, and hardly verifiable.
> >
> >
> > Oh please. What a bunch of garbage, Alan.
>
> Why? Because you don't understand enough of the subtleties to realize
> what a fool you're making of yourself,

I understand more than just the subtelties to lose patience with
statements as outrageously and purposely inflamatory.

> and to realize the limitations of
> what you are proposing?

My proposition is that the jury is out, people need to discuss and
consider the limitations of science and explore the frontiers
unbiasedly. We have learned more in the last 25 years than all of
mankind has prior to that. What makes you so damned sure that we've
explained everything?


> THAT very question is why science rejects
> intelligent design?

Science has challenged ID - not rejected it. You have rejected it.
Good. But I have not because I know that science has klinmitations and
there is a lot we have yet to learn.

> Are you so thick that if intelligent design has any
> chance of acceptance, THAT question must be answered? BEcause it will
> always be there. And since there will always be on better intelligent
> designer, the question can never be answered and thus the limitations
> and the fallacy of the position become evident.

> To all except you.

Me ansd perhaps 54% of Americans.

> > If in fact evolution and natural selection is the only explanation,
> > then where did the building blocks come from, Alan?
>
> The building blocks came from the elements that were created in the Big
> Bang, for which we have evidence.

A theory in transition, Alan.

> How did the carbon
> > atom evolve?
>
> Carbon atoms don't 'evolve.' They exist as they are.

No - actually the BB suggest that they did in fact evolve - from Boron.

> > Evolution faces the same question.
>
> Hardly.

Exactly.

> How convenient for
> > you to avoid that.
>
> Perhaps it is because of my greater understanding of the physical world
> as compared to yours that permit me to have a knowledge b ase which you
> sorely lack.

There's that benevolent condenscension again. You resort to that when
you lose the argument. Great style.

> Your position is based on ignorance; mine is based on
> chemistry.

Yeh, right. Maybe you should use less chemistry before you post.

> > The point I made was simply that there is a difference of opinion and
> > that this difference is one that should be open for discussion.
>
> Differences of opinion have to occur between equally knowledgeable
> factions. Science has discarded these crackpot and there is no
> difference of opinion.

Yeh, right.

> Anyone
> > who suggests that differnces in opinion should not be discussed openly
> > in our society is just a myopic clod.
>
> Science is not an exercise in political bullshitting, as you think it
> is. And anyone who thinks that it is is just plain stupid.

Yeh, right.

> > Some people believe in little green men - and as we have not explored
> > every corner of the universe, does this mean that their belief is
> > valid?
>
> It means that there is no evidence to support their beliefs and that
> those beliefs must be taken on the basis of faith. Since there is no
> evidence, there is no reason to believe that they exist, other than on
> faith. Science does not discuss every crackpot concept based on faith
> and irrationality; only what it can measure.

There is evidence based on mathematical theory that in fact other
intelligent life can and should exist in the universe - just as your
theory of evolutionary randomness provides a mathematical basis for
complexity.

You can't have it both ways, Alan.

> So discussing little green men is an exercise in bullshitting, which
> science does not engage in. You can if you want to, but that's all it is.

SETI is hardly bull*** - its millions per annum.

> In your proposal, it is not and cannot be. In mine, it is one
> > worth considering - and that is what SETI is all about.
>
> Science only considers the rational; not the irrational. Your proposal
> qualifies as such.

SETI is bull***?

And therefore, Alan wants to make absolutely sure that our children
don't get exposed to competing schools of thought.

Fortunately for me, in my education we where made to explore ALL
aspects of science, not just the ones consistent with Lichetenstein
political correctness.

.

Quantcast