Re: Tiny Dot

On May 9, 3:31 pm, Ernest Major <{$t...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In message
<653bb621-149e-4df5-8c66-d5e05f2ae...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Primary Al <aavery6...@xxxxxxxxx> writes



On May 9, 4:39 am, Ernest Major <{$t...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In message
<a839bd83-d682-487d-8c34-0efd99e3e...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Primary Al <aavery6...@xxxxxxxxx> writes

Paragraphs would have been our friends.

Why, due to our inability to articulate the complexity of the universe
as it facilitates life (from non mass-non form into mass, form, and
then life), do we see legal forces in public education proclaiming that
intelligent design has no place for consideration in the science
classroom?

Your are flirting with nihilism. That we do not have an understanding of
everything doesn't mean that we can discount what we do know, and adopt
any position we please.

The position that God guided evolution, or that God fine-tuned the
universe to be hospitable to life, are compatible with observation.
However there are two reasons for excluding them from the science
classroom. Firstly, they are not scientific positions; secondly to teach
them as fact in the science classroom would be in breach of the
establishment clause of the first amendment to the US constitution.

There may be places in the curriculum where these positions where an
exposition of these positions would be acceptable; but to teach them as
being factual would be inappropriate, as they are not facts, and to
teach them as factual would be in breach of the establishment clause of
the first amendment to the US constitution.

The probability of two hundred different amino acids aligning with each
other, from pure unintentional random shuffling for completion of
cellular manifestation is something like a trillion, trillion,
trillion, trillion to one. Void of any instruction facilitating the
assignment of tasks to the amino acids receptive components necessary
for alignment, let alone programming for symbiotic relations between
them once aligned, makes the probability of actual completion of any
cell, from random activity, zero.

I suspect that this doesn't address any model of abiogenesis, but it
would help if you were to address a current model of abiogenesis.

Yet the term random-ness is embedded throughout evolution theory text.
It keeps a short rhetorical link for nationalist atheist agendas and
secular humanist foundations. They proclaim pure purposeless activity
as the basis for any initial generation of life form. These private
pressure groups have made sure terms like adaptation and selection are
taken out of mainstream classroom studies, and current science, not
because they depict anything scientifically inaccurate; They suggest
the viability of public reconsideration of universal intelligence.

I doubt that terms like adaptation and selection have been taken out of
mainstream classroom studies, except perhaps as an effect or even an
objective of creationist crippling of science education - the focus on
the random elements of evolution is a characteristic of creationists,
not biologists. Below you point a finger at Richard Dawkins. If you were
familiar with debates among evolutionary biologists you would find that
many of his peers accuse him not of suppressing mention of adaptation
and selection, but of overstating their role.

Thus, the pervasive term random-ness." Today it is too easy to throw
out the concept of pure random activity being facilitating any
functional phenomenon. Random has to be cloaked in such a way as to
obfuscate ideological intentions associated with its ongoing use.
Sadly, the term inadvertently causes the honest scientist involved in
objective evolutionary science to partake at times, by proxy in a
movement garnered by a forceful vocal few, like Hitchen’s and
Dawkins, who hang their hats on such nihilistic terms..

This is a strawman. When mutations are described as random in the
context of evolutionary biology what is meant by this there is no
discernible bias in favor of beneficial mutations.

The theory of no discernible bias in favor of beneficial mutation is
the mindset, amplified, of nihilism.

I don't see the connection between the absence of a discernable bias in
favour of beneficial mutations and the mindset of nihilism; however the
absence of a discernable bias in favour of beneficial mutations is an
observation of the world, so the implication seems to be that you feel
that the world as we see it supports nihilism. I disagree.





With one word, toggled back and forth from random to randomness in a
sentence, science can be made to appear supportive of the concept of
life having "No-Purpose or Meaning” unwillingly strengthening a
movement they had no intentions of supporting. Isn't the real issue
here, currently more honestly, the fact  that, as one observes such
massive organizational power emanating out of non- mass, non-form, of
such intricate complexity, arguably irreducible* that science in any of
its areas of study has yet to find a way to discern any universal bias
pattern, or cyclical facilitating the evolutionary process? A far more
scientific answer than “purposeless random activity,” would be
“We don’t know. More research needs to be done.”

Should be take it that you agree that "intelligent design" is not worthy
of consideration for inclusion in the science curriculum. Because that
is what follows from your position here. That evolution is not
demonstrably teleological is not a valid reason for teaching that there
is a designer; in fact it's a good reason for not teaching that there is
a designer.

----That evolution is not demonstrably teleological is the reason it
should not presented as scientific fact in the classroom to the
exclusion of other theories under consideration teleological or
otherwise.

That appears to be a non-sequitur.

It is most definitely not a good reason for misleading students into
dumping their faith due to the exclusion of any aspect that faiths
redeemable value as it concerns ideas about life.

Telling students that the existence of God is incompatible with the
factuality of common descent with modification through the agency of
natural selection and other processes is conducive to students dumping
their faith, as several participants here will testify from personal
experience.





Occam s razor is quickly used in arguments for evolution. The
statement often heard that intelligent design is not science because
it cannot be proven with basic empirical observation is such a blind
argument as to be laughable. We sit in the midst of intelligent
information, we work with it, we build machines to better understand
it, we are by nature intelligent ourselves as is most life including a
virus with one little gene infused with information so complex as
enable it to multiply, leech off or other life forms, etc.

-Yet we say there is no demonstrable empirical evidence sufficient for
consideration of efforts to develop a theory that the universe is
intelligent. This is such a no brain er, not in terms of factual
establishment, but as to its viability for consideration do to
overwhelming omnipresent suggestion of its universal existance.

innocent students about the factuality of common descent with
modification through the agency of natural selection and other
processes, or about other fields of science (e.g. geology, cosmology).


What conceptual level of God could be summarily dumped at this
juncture? If you mean the children s story level with all the simple
easy mythical answers, rank materialistic oversimplification and
cliches, I agree. That god would have fallen watching Saturday Night
Live.

By the way, I am an atheist, and the real straw man here is this
waning children's god every one likes to attack like a blow up
punching bag-easy target..anytime the letters i n t e l l i g en t
pop up. This god is naturally losing air pressure anyway without our
help.

The idea of universal intelligence beyond articulation is all
pervasive and as of yet not conceptually conveyable except for our
ability to observe it's pervasive, even omni present, all infusive
myriad of designs, quite usually of baffling complexity.

This should be an accepted description of Intelligent Design, NOT the
default lazy religious association that has been ascribed to it at
posting sites like this one, through terrific repetition by those
hypnotized with paranoid imaginings of a nation being forced into a
musty basement full of old choir robes, for a life of punishing bible-
study if we let the hideous idea of Intelligence back out of the
proverbial bag from hell.

Your entire rebuttal is based on reintroduction of the theory of
intelligent design as absolute fact enmeshed in religious 7 day God
creationism, being foisted on innocent students, instead of presented
to them as another popular historical view.

Not true. Try reading for comprehension, rather than seizing on a
convenient strawman.



occurring with regularity is by no means sufficient grounds for an
absolute summation of any primary nature of the universe, as having
"Absolutely No Intentions."

It is grounds for arguing that it would be premature to ascribe a
teleological meaning to the universe.

Ascribing an evolution theory as fact instead of God meaning to life,
with no other consideration and foisting it on innocent children in
7th grade science is as unkind and  premature as it gets

Common descent with modification through the agency of natural selection
and other processes is a fact, unless you're a nihilist. Telling them
that it is an alternative to "God meaning to life" is conducive to them
concluding that atheism is correct. Are you sure you want to be
promoting atheism?





If there are any empirical observations to be made, look around and
observe. Intelligence, defined as “instructional matrices of
information” is infused into every atom, nucleus, and cell. It is
guiding the electromagnetic, light, energy, and gravitational
properties which allow mass to exist. It has nothing to do with
religious problems. It has nothing to do with atheism. It is timeless,
formless, all-inclusive, pervasive, creative, adaptive.

You need more that an assertion here.

*All constituents of a form in order to exist must themselves have
constituents.

What are the constituents of a quark?
Exactly my point. We will spend billions trying to find the Higgs
Bozon. We are uncertain it exists. If we ever do we will then be
saddled, with: "What are constituents within the Higgs Boson that
cause it to behave that way??" Is it not sane to draw an Occam's
oriented conclusion as we go further out and further out and in and in
and in finding atoms in cells and electrons around the protons and
then neucleus then nutrino then quark then Bozon.

Firstly a minor point - it's boson, not bozon. The term ...

read more »

.