Re: Advanced ID Theory Smeared With Religion

In message <4e62559b-8fc3-4f54-899b-890ac47b0513@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Primary Al <aavery6801@xxxxxxxxx> writes
On May 10, 4:38 am, Ernest Major <{$t...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In message
<ac91e1f5-0f60-454b-be27-1c64fb225...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Primary AL <aavery6...@xxxxxxxxx> writes

>Due to Vends destruction of my  thread I decided to re post for
>consideration.

>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?

We have already explained to you why intelligent design has no place for
consideration in the science classroom. I understand that you have even
agreed with us.

It turns out that you don't mean intelligent design, but some poorly
specified ideas of your own. I suspect that it would turn out that the
same reasons apply, but additionally

* the fact that your ideas are poorly specified is a reason for an
exclusion - if you can't present them clearly we can't teach them.
* ideas should command support among the scientific community before
they are candidates for inclusion in the science classroom.

>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.

Presenting a strawman of abiogenesis is not support for inclusion of
your ideas in the science classroom.

>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.

Ad-hominem arguments are not support for inclusion of your ideas in the
science classroom.





>Thus, the pervasive term random-ness." Today it is too easy to throw
>out the concept of pure random activity  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.. 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.”
>The argument that proven studies of nature show natural random
>activity 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."

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

>*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 in tunnels dug under cities
>surrounding needy citizens, trying to find a Higgs Boson. We are
>uncertain that it even exists. If they ever do find it they will then
>be saddled, with:
>"What are constituents within the Higgs Boson that cause it to behave
>that way?"

>It is no more unreasonable than the concept of the potential mass and
>information of the universe residing in a subatomic dot ,than it is to
>propose a theory of unresolvable physical measurement as it pertains
>to subatomic entities. Although the "constituents my cease to have
>measurement ascribed to them as they cease to qualify as discernable
>mass, it is a reasonable assumption that even the properties of
>energy, light and gravity contain discoverable categories definable as
>"informational/instructional" or data related constituents.

You haven't explained how a counter-example (explained in another reply)
to one of your assertions can be exactly your point, and yet here you
repeat that claim.





>>>>contrary to
>>> > your assertion that "All constituents of a form in order to exist must
>>> > themselves have constituents" quarks to the best of our >>> >observations and
>>> > theories do not have components. (The 'ace' model never gained any
>>> > traction.)
>>> > A neutrino is another particle which to the best of our >>> >observations and
>>> > theories does not have components.
>>> > The list of particles you give does not form the hierarchy you imply.

>"To the best of our ability" is a phrase describing
>our current inability to observe non or dark mass information, if
>not the  nature of information exchanges between energy and gravity.
>Because we are not yet prepared, as we were not prepared a thousand
>times in the past, to discern the nature of some entities
>properties, this decrying of inadequacy, elicits no scientific
>authority.
>The static argument involving the current inability to discern an
>aspect of a certain theories proposed properties replete with
>erroneously associating the theory with blatantly non-scientific
>religious material is not a scientific argument for the entire
>theories
>summary dismissal.

>Occam's razor is used inobtaining viable answers for complex
>questions, at least for the purpose of getting off square one.
>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
>intrinsically intelligent. This is such a no brain-er. Testability is
>done simply by honoring the fact that the mountain of evidence in
>front of our noses is real. Not in terms of factual establishment, of
>a deity through testability; but as to its viability for consideration
>as Universal Intrinsic Intelligence due to
>the obvious omnipresent quantity of easily observable engineering
>feats suggesting its existence.
>Proofs consists not of discovery, but of of admission of what is
>already observable at every level of reality.

--
alias Ernest Major

Straw Man: A rhetorical term accusing the opponent of railing against
a hypothetical individuals agenda thus non existent, not real; straw.
Straw Man as representative: An actual organizations agenda
personified, being opposed, even though the exact agenda being
debated exists, is open to the straw man method of obfuscation.
Because there is no representative present at the time of debate, the
opponent accuses the presenter of making up a straw opponent,
suggesting no such opponent exists. This method of obfuscation is also
useful for ongoing stealth operations of the said organization, who's
agenda, being accurately summarized in a personified manner enjoys a
certain stealth operation, having never exposed one of it's
representatives to a specific discussion or debate on the more
specific salient issues.

Presenting a strawman of abiogenesis is not support for the incorporation of your ideas in the school curriculum. That is not changed by an illucid rant. (The meaning escapes me, but the choice of vocabulary leads me to suspect that it's intended as an ad-hominem. Do you not have the confidence in your ideas to let them stand on their own merits?)


I don't see that I am obligated to articulate this idea to academic
levels of completion, having been scrutinized sufficiently to pass
muster for a acceptance into secular humanist educational system, for
it to have some content worthy of further consideration. Sounds like
another debate tactic to me. (You may now call the secular humanist
organization a "straw man" if it pleases you, but it exists in spades
with a clear agenda of wiping the minds of children clean from
religion.

Another debate tactic is changing the goal posts, which you have just committed. You're not obligated to articulate the idea to academic levels of completion for your ideas to have some content worthy of further consideration (though you are obligated to provide a lucid exposition), but you are entitled to have them incorporated in the school system without someone doing so.

And yes, your secular humanist educational system with a clear agenda of wiping the minds of children clean from religion is a straw man. American constitutional law is that the education system should be neutral on religion, not opposed to religion.

I there is any agenda here is the unconstitutionality of such
prohibitions.

You're engaging in ad-hominem here, with your suggestion of agendas. The unconstitutionality of the government support of religious positions is not an agenda, it's a well established fact of American constitutional law. You are entitled to argue that the constitution should be changed, but not that their unconstitutionality is not a reason for the exclusion of the promotion of religious

They seem to be born out hatred rather than from any concern for
children learning ethics and morals coupled with allegorical and a
smattering of opinion about how folks used to think about the universe
and life.

This has the appearance of being yet another strawman and ad-hominem, except that I can't parse the sentence into something that makes sense. But I trust that you realize that objections to children learning of the history of ideas will generally be absent, provided that they're not taught a biased history leading them to draw erroneous conclusions.

A bit OT: The task of mitigating any literalism or fundamentalism is
fairly lightweight when presenting our all encompassing cultural
heritage to those minds who deserve to know about it. It's is not just
the science room, it is complete historical prohibition.

Again you're not particularly lucid, but are you unaware that courses on the Bible can be constitutional under US law, and are taught in some schools? You give the impression that you're not.
--
alias Ernest Major

.

Relevant Pages

  • Jerry Coyne and Paul Nelson on TV Ontario tonight
    ... science vs. religion. ... I'm pretty sure The Agenda is repeated later on this evening at 11pm ... TV Ontario is a public broadcaster here in Ontario, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Why should average Joe trust scientists?
    ... "Why should I trust scientists over other professions"? ... that THEY know science. ... How is one to be assured that a scientist does not also have an agenda ... I think religion is only part of the skepticism. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Dawkins. What religion is this country?
    ... teacher for their views, ... This is a debate about science vs. religion. ... agenda. ...
    (uk.media.tv.misc)
  • Re: AiG goes after Francis Collins
    ... principles is incompatible with what science tells us about the world. ... the idea that God speaks directly to any person, ... any "is" claims must be accompanied by evidence. ... was that the proper domain of religion is "ought" claims only. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Challenge to evolutionists
    ... acceleration of the universe was found? ... "Science any system of knowledge that is concerned with the physical ... this is no more than religion. ... "Scientists maintain that scientific investigation must adhere to the ...
    (talk.origins)