[totally OT] NYT Article about Intelligent Design



Jeff Jones wrote:
> RBR is proof that Intelligent Design is a load of bollocks. Discuss.


Au contraire, rbr was obviously created as a mouthpiece for the church of
LANCE, but now the heretics are asking questions about that pesky apple
again.
 
Tim, while there's obviously a lot to be said for the global
warming/pirate theory, don't you think that putting too much trust and
faith in the theory of evolution isn't equally rediculous?

Through the centuries there've been thousands of known "facts" that
finally were discovered to be completely incorrect. And yet we see the
same sort of people who want to insist that WE HAVE IT RIGHT.

Personally, although I'm an engineer and a scientist I certainly don't
think that putting doubt in people's minds about any of these theories
is a bad thing.
 
On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 14:15:19 -0700, "Philip Holman"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Sci.phys prays for a
>unifying theory real soon.


How about the Baltimore Orioles suck? Can we unite on that one?

Maybe I'm confusing simple fact with theory.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
 
I have a special theory of relativity that has to do with overweigh
cousins.
 
On 28 Aug 2005 13:30:09 -0700, "Bill C" <[email protected]> wrote:

>I can't think of a whole lot that is more despicable or disgusting than
>this, on so many levels. The term "lowest form of life" comes to mind.
> Read the rest if you have the stomach. I'm surprised that this
>administration didn't send an official envoy out with the protesters.
> Bill C


What about the present administration makes you think that they would
send an envoy, official or not, to stand with these protestors? Do you
feel that there aren't enough legitimate issues with Bush
administration actions that can be argured with both logically and
emotionally without making up situations that are at best bizarre?

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
 
Curtis L. Russell wrote:
> On 28 Aug 2005 13:30:09 -0700, "Bill C" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I can't think of a whole lot that is more despicable or disgusting than
>> this, on so many levels. The term "lowest form of life" comes to mind.
>> Read the rest if you have the stomach. I'm surprised that this
>> administration didn't send an official envoy out with the protesters.
>> Bill C

>
> What about the present administration makes you think that they would
> send an envoy, official or not, to stand with these protestors? Do you
> feel that there aren't enough legitimate issues with Bush
> administration actions that can be argured with both logically and
> emotionally without making up situations that are at best bizarre?


Yeah. I have a thousand complaints about this administration and this
President, but tarring him with the Fred Phelps brush ain't fair. Phelps
is a piece of work. I don't want to give the guy a clickable URL but you
can get some sense of his points of view in the domain names he's
registered: godhatesfags dot com, priestsrapeboys dot com, godhatesamerica
dot com, and the two that I have difficulty deciding is the most bizarre:
godhatessweden dot com and fredthemovie dot com.

Here's the Topeka Capital-Journal's page of Phelps:
http://cjonline.com/webindepth/phelps/
 
Curtis L. Russell wrote:
> On 28 Aug 2005 13:30:09 -0700, "Bill C" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >I can't think of a whole lot that is more despicable or disgusting than
> >this, on so many levels. The term "lowest form of life" comes to mind.
> > Read the rest if you have the stomach. I'm surprised that this
> >administration didn't send an official envoy out with the protesters.
> > Bill C

>
> What about the present administration makes you think that they would
> send an envoy, official or not, to stand with these protestors? Do you
> feel that there aren't enough legitimate issues with Bush
> administration actions that can be argured with both logically and
> emotionally without making up situations that are at best bizarre?
>
> Curtis L. Russell
> Odenton, MD (USA)
> Just someone on two wheels...

The reason I brought it up is Bush's well documented, long time
friendship with Robertson and other conservative church leaders who've
made many similar , but slightly less extreme comments about gays, and
what seems to be his great respect for them. Then again I'm friends
with Lafferty, and I know we make each other nuts. I haven't seen
anyone like Billy Graham or Roberson condemning this **** either, maybe
I missed it, but when your people connected to your cirlce of friends
do things like it rubs off on you. That's why I keep harping that it's
much more important to make sure the people you choose as associates
are decent people because their behavior is going to have a direct
reflection on you and your cause.
Here's a short article:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?G485162BB
Bill C
 
On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 17:49:32 +0200, "Robert Chung"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>Yeah. I have a thousand complaints about this administration and this
>President, but tarring him with the Fred Phelps brush ain't fair. Phelps
>is a piece of work


Especially with Phleps calling Bush the antichrist and at least two
local sources calling Phelps a Democrat (but that would be normal -
the nutcases are presumed to be part of the minority...)
 
On 29 Aug 2005 08:55:24 -0700, "Bill C" <[email protected]> wrote:

> I haven't seen
>anyone like Billy Graham or Roberson condemning this **** either, maybe
>I missed it, but when your people connected to your cirlce of friends
>do things like it rubs off on you.


Why should they? He is a smalltime nut case. He doesn't represent much
of anything or anyone. And Robertson IMO is a once bigtime nutcase,
but that's my personal opinion. You're waiting for one nutcase to
apologize for another?

Since Phelps calls Bush the AntiChrist and the war in Iraq The Blood
War, I'm rather guessing he and Bush (and Graham) aren't fellow
travelers - in any direction. So why did you assume that they might
be, to the point that Bush and Graham (as opposed to, say, the head of
the local Archdiocese) should be apologizing for his actions? I think
you jumped the wrong way on a whole bunch of conclusions.

And your comments about church leaders and gays seem to point only at
the conservative 'low church' churches. Yet the Anglicans worldwide
and the Episcopalians within the U.S., the Presbyterians and, most
recently, the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America - all blue state,
high church constituents - have had serious difficulty with the issue.
All of them have had pastors/ministers/priests talk of what the Bible
forbids and condemns.

Reform Jews are slightly ahead of their game in tolerance of gays and
gay rabbis, but the Conservatives are pretty much where the high
church churches are located - and if it isn't the low ground of
tolerance, it isn't exactly the high ground either.

And maybe I've drawn my opinions about the Quakers from the ones that
attend the Unitarian Universalist Church of Annapolis, but I was
surprised that even the more liberal national assemblies are not all
that liberal. (Or maybe its the area - the Baltimore Assembly has
taken one of the stronger stands for acceptance and tolerance.)

And while us UUs like to think we are pretty tolerant (as long as we
don't have to include Republicans in the mix), the lesbian groups
don't particularly agree, at least in the UUCA. Far as I can tell,
though, the Buddhists in the church seem to have gotten past the issue
- but who can tell?

And why does an anti-war protest have to immediately have political
linkages? This guy evidently doesn't have any as one starting point.
He hates everyone. And with the major Democratic leadership having
voted for most ramping points on the war and currently being for more
troops (on the speculative assumption that it will either reduce
casualties or the time we spend in Iraq or both (- geez, what if
they're wrong and we just have more targets for the same amount of
time?), exactly how does antiwar protest become Democrat or
Republican?

I don't need to know the position of the Republican Party or the
Democratic Party to make moral decisions. And I don't need Graham or
Bush (or God help us, Robertson) to tell me that Phelps is a nut case,
a bigot and a religious kook.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
 
"But why would it be a good thing?"

Science has gotten the idea that they know everything. They don't. Most
of today's science has about as much real backing as it did 100 years
ago when everyone knows they were stupid......

"There is no alternative that has any facts speaking for it, no
objection to the theory of evolution holds any water and nobody has
ever been disadvantaged by learning about the dozens of other theories
within science without having 'doubt put in their minds'."

I'm not saying it's right or it's wrong. But to deny that too much
faith is being put into it isn't a bad thing. Science can only be
science when there is always something of doubt about any "fact".
 
"Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "But why would it be a good thing?"
>
> Science has gotten the idea that they know everything.


Ofcourse not. In fact, most scientists take pleasure in emphasizing how
little 'we' actually know. Science would not exist if everything was known.
The fact that there is a lot of scientific work going on inevitably means
that there are big gaps in scientific knowledge.

> They don't. Most
> of today's science has about as much real backing as it did 100 years
> ago when everyone knows they were stupid......


That's inherent to the whole process. Theories replace earlier ones and open
up new fields of research. When a new field comes up, it is logical that
little is known about it. But about the science of 100 years ago, much more
is known now (case in point being evolution).

>
> "There is no alternative that has any facts speaking for it, no
> objection to the theory of evolution holds any water and nobody has
> ever been disadvantaged by learning about the dozens of other theories
> within science without having 'doubt put in their minds'."
>
> I'm not saying it's right or it's wrong. But to deny that too much
> faith is being put into it isn't a bad thing. Science can only be
> science when there is always something of doubt about any "fact".


It's a good thing that theories are critically reviewed. But schools, for
example, are not the place to do that. Either you explain how evolution has
worked to produce the current diversity of species, or you teach how, in a
general sense, theories are constantly tested by scientists. The first is
good biology, the second is good philosophy of science. But neither of these
have a special connection - there is no reason to stress the dynamics of
science in biology class than in chemistry. In the same vein, when informing
about biology in media for popular science, there is no such reason.

Jonathan.
 
Tom Kunich wrote:

> "But why would it be a good thing?"
>
> Science has gotten the idea that they know everything. They don't. Most
> of today's science has about as much real backing as it did 100 years
> ago when everyone knows they were stupid......


There is (I believe) some truth to what you say. But you're wrong that
"science" thinks it knows everything, is infallible, etc. Very few
scientists I've known have this idea.
However, science has in fact become the secular religion for a large
segment of the population. To the extent that this is true, it makes an
honest political judgement about the separation of church and state very
very much harder for the public to make.

Steve
>
> "There is no alternative that has any facts speaking for it, no
> objection to the theory of evolution holds any water and nobody has
> ever been disadvantaged by learning about the dozens of other theories
> within science without having 'doubt put in their minds'."
>
> I'm not saying it's right or it's wrong. But to deny that too much
> faith is being put into it isn't a bad thing. Science can only be
> science when there is always something of doubt about any "fact".
>



--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001
 
[email protected] wrote:
> Newtonian mechanics isn't wrong. It is perfectly adequate in its
> domain of applicability. Nobody (in their right mind) would
> use GR or QM to predict the trajectory of a thrown ball, or the
> power requirements for cycling up l'Alpe d'Huez. Newtonian
> mechanics is incomplete and that's why you can't use it to predict
> the behavior of a black hole or a transistor.


It also does not produce the same results as GR except in a very few
situations (empty universe, radius of a solitary non-rotating black hole, a
few others). It is an approximation which is usually accurate when
velocities and gravitational fields are small. So you could call Newtonian
mechanics wrong, in that sense. Useful for most practical purposes, yes. If
you did use GR to compute the power requirements for cycling up l'Alpe, to
use your example, then you would come out with a different answer to what
you'd get if you used Newtonian mechanics. But the difference would be
incredibly small, so for practical purposes it doesn't matter which you use.

> It is a misconception that scientific theories deal in definite
> truths.


That's what I'm trying to say - a scientific theory is only ever the (or a)
current best idea of 'the truth', there is always the possibility that
someone will perform an observation that contradicts the theory and forces
you to find a new theory. In other words, while in most situations it's safe
to behave as if Newton (or Einstein, or QM) are definite truths, if you
really want to think about physics then you need to be able to have doubt in
the theories.

Nothing really deals in definite truths - even mathematics is based on an
axiom scheme (choose your own if you want, most people will use ZFC) which
might be inconsistent.

Peter
 
Tom Kunich wrote:
> "But why would it be a good thing?"
>
> Science has gotten the idea that they know everything. They don't.
> Most of today's science has about as much real backing as it did 100
> years ago when everyone knows they were stupid......


You don't know what you're talking about.

100 years ago a scientist would want to tell you that they knew everything
and would be able to explain everything fairly soon, just they hadn't worked
out all the details yet for some stuff. A scientist's dream would be to show
how some experimental result was explained by an existing theory.

These days a scientist would want to tell you that they have a good
approximation but they don't think it explains, or can explain, everything.
A scientist's dream would be to find an experimental result that definitely
couldn't be explained by any current physical theory, so requiring the
existing theory to be thrown out and a new theory constructed which could
explain everything the old theory did plus the new observation.

Nothing in science is definitely true, nor can it be.

Peter
 
On 29 Aug 2005 11:50:24 -0700, "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>"But why would it be a good thing?"
>
>Science has gotten the idea that they know everything. They don't. Most
>of today's science has about as much real backing as it did 100 years
>ago when everyone knows they were stupid......
>
>"There is no alternative that has any facts speaking for it, no
>objection to the theory of evolution holds any water and nobody has
>ever been disadvantaged by learning about the dozens of other theories
>within science without having 'doubt put in their minds'."
>
>I'm not saying it's right or it's wrong. But to deny that too much
>faith is being put into it isn't a bad thing. Science can only be
>science when there is always something of doubt about any "fact".



Evolution is not a theory. The nature of the process is a theory. A
theory is an plausible explanation for facts.

Similar to saying "Theory of gravity". Gravity is not a theory but
there is a theory about exactly how it works.

Teaching my child Genesis, The Book of the Secrets of Enoch, The Book
of Jubilees, Haggadah or any of the Gnostic creations myths is far
from promoting a "theory".

These are hypothesis' and should be treated as such. Not THAT far from
teaching about the easter bunny and santa claus.

Not to mention the line between Church and State. A state run school
should not teach religion.

D
(survivor of 8 years of catholic school)
 
Curtis L. Russell wrote:
> On 29 Aug 2005 08:55:24 -0700, "Bill C" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > I haven't seen
> >anyone like Billy Graham or Roberson condemning this **** either, maybe
> >I missed it, but when your people connected to your cirlce of friends
> >do things like it rubs off on you.

>
> Why should they? He is a smalltime nut case. He doesn't represent much
> of anything or anyone. And Robertson IMO is a once bigtime nutcase,
> but that's my personal opinion. You're waiting for one nutcase to
> apologize for another?
>
> Since Phelps calls Bush the AntiChrist and the war in Iraq The Blood
> War, I'm rather guessing he and Bush (and Graham) aren't fellow
> travelers - in any direction. So why did you assume that they might
> be, to the point that Bush and Graham (as opposed to, say, the head of
> the local Archdiocese) should be apologizing for his actions? I think
> you jumped the wrong way on a whole bunch of conclusions.
>
> And your comments about church leaders and gays seem to point only at
> the conservative 'low church' churches. Yet the Anglicans worldwide
> and the Episcopalians within the U.S., the Presbyterians and, most
> recently, the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America - all blue state,
> high church constituents - have had serious difficulty with the issue.
> All of them have had pastors/ministers/priests talk of what the Bible
> forbids and condemns.
>
> Reform Jews are slightly ahead of their game in tolerance of gays and
> gay rabbis, but the Conservatives are pretty much where the high
> church churches are located - and if it isn't the low ground of
> tolerance, it isn't exactly the high ground either.
>
> And maybe I've drawn my opinions about the Quakers from the ones that
> attend the Unitarian Universalist Church of Annapolis, but I was
> surprised that even the more liberal national assemblies are not all
> that liberal. (Or maybe its the area - the Baltimore Assembly has
> taken one of the stronger stands for acceptance and tolerance.)
>
> And while us UUs like to think we are pretty tolerant (as long as we
> don't have to include Republicans in the mix), the lesbian groups
> don't particularly agree, at least in the UUCA. Far as I can tell,
> though, the Buddhists in the church seem to have gotten past the issue
> - but who can tell?
>
> And why does an anti-war protest have to immediately have political
> linkages? This guy evidently doesn't have any as one starting point.
> He hates everyone. And with the major Democratic leadership having
> voted for most ramping points on the war and currently being for more
> troops (on the speculative assumption that it will either reduce
> casualties or the time we spend in Iraq or both (- geez, what if
> they're wrong and we just have more targets for the same amount of
> time?), exactly how does antiwar protest become Democrat or
> Republican?
>
> I don't need to know the position of the Republican Party or the
> Democratic Party to make moral decisions. And I don't need Graham or
> Bush (or God help us, Robertson) to tell me that Phelps is a nut case,
> a bigot and a religious kook.
>
> Curtis L. Russell
> Odenton, MD (USA)
> Just someone on two wheels...


Hi Curtis.
Being a reformed Catholic who's totally disgusted with them at this
point I'm probably most sensitive to what's going on with them and the
southern evangelicals due to some good and really bad experiences with
them so I wanted to dig up some hard info before I replied to this.
We know what the Catholic Churches position on the issue is,
especially the last two hardcore conservative Popes. Here's a link to
the SBC's positions currently:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_sbc.htm
These two currently comprise more than half of all the christian church
population and are seriously powerful. I find their positions
repellent, but that's just my opinion.
I agree that the some of the other churches have tried to be a lot
more open but there's a ton of serious discussion/argument going on and
some of it is downright nasty. I could tell you some UCC stuff that got
really nasty and almost did split the church before they came up with a
pretty weak and vague policy that both sides could live with to keep
the church together, at least here in Mass.
I understand your point, but when the leadership of these
organizations take a hard line, which is basically a more civilized way
of saying some of the things Phelps is then I have a huge problem with
it.
With the Catholic Church's growth being explosive in the fastest
growing population areas of the world, and a real hardline theology
being taught there this is scary:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?B24F322BB

All the figures show that traditional religion is declining in Europe,
the US, and Canada while nontraditional faiths are growing. My personal
view of this is that traditional faiths have failed badly in keeping
pace with the social revolution of the last 50 years, and are really
getting farther and farther out of touch with most people. Peoples
access to so many other sources of information and exposure to other
beliefs and cultures is so much greater too today that the local
religious leader in no longer the definitive source for people's
beliefs here in the west and that's had a huge effect on membership. I
expect to see a these trends continue for the foreseeable future, and
it looks like the Catholic Church does too that's why they are driving
so hard to open up, and convert areas where they can try to recreate
some of their past power and influence.
Thanks for the good discussion.
Bill C
 
Bill C wrote:
> Curtis L. Russell wrote:
> > On 29 Aug 2005 08:55:24 -0700, "Bill C" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > I haven't seen
> > >anyone like Billy Graham or Roberson condemning this **** either, maybe
> > >I missed it, but when your people connected to your cirlce of friends
> > >do things like it rubs off on you.

> >
> > Why should they? He is a smalltime nut case. He doesn't represent much
> > of anything or anyone. And Robertson IMO is a once bigtime nutcase,
> > but that's my personal opinion. You're waiting for one nutcase to
> > apologize for another?
> >
> > Since Phelps calls Bush the AntiChrist and the war in Iraq The Blood
> > War, I'm rather guessing he and Bush (and Graham) aren't fellow
> > travelers - in any direction. So why did you assume that they might
> > be, to the point that Bush and Graham (as opposed to, say, the head of
> > the local Archdiocese) should be apologizing for his actions? I think
> > you jumped the wrong way on a whole bunch of conclusions.
> >
> > And your comments about church leaders and gays seem to point only at
> > the conservative 'low church' churches. Yet the Anglicans worldwide
> > and the Episcopalians within the U.S., the Presbyterians and, most
> > recently, the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America - all blue state,
> > high church constituents - have had serious difficulty with the issue.
> > All of them have had pastors/ministers/priests talk of what the Bible
> > forbids and condemns.
> >
> > Reform Jews are slightly ahead of their game in tolerance of gays and
> > gay rabbis, but the Conservatives are pretty much where the high
> > church churches are located - and if it isn't the low ground of
> > tolerance, it isn't exactly the high ground either.
> >
> > And maybe I've drawn my opinions about the Quakers from the ones that
> > attend the Unitarian Universalist Church of Annapolis, but I was
> > surprised that even the more liberal national assemblies are not all
> > that liberal. (Or maybe its the area - the Baltimore Assembly has
> > taken one of the stronger stands for acceptance and tolerance.)
> >
> > And while us UUs like to think we are pretty tolerant (as long as we
> > don't have to include Republicans in the mix), the lesbian groups
> > don't particularly agree, at least in the UUCA. Far as I can tell,
> > though, the Buddhists in the church seem to have gotten past the issue
> > - but who can tell?
> >
> > And why does an anti-war protest have to immediately have political
> > linkages? This guy evidently doesn't have any as one starting point.
> > He hates everyone. And with the major Democratic leadership having
> > voted for most ramping points on the war and currently being for more
> > troops (on the speculative assumption that it will either reduce
> > casualties or the time we spend in Iraq or both (- geez, what if
> > they're wrong and we just have more targets for the same amount of
> > time?), exactly how does antiwar protest become Democrat or
> > Republican?
> >
> > I don't need to know the position of the Republican Party or the
> > Democratic Party to make moral decisions. And I don't need Graham or
> > Bush (or God help us, Robertson) to tell me that Phelps is a nut case,
> > a bigot and a religious kook.
> >
> > Curtis L. Russell
> > Odenton, MD (USA)
> > Just someone on two wheels...

>
> Hi Curtis.
> Being a reformed Catholic who's totally disgusted with them at this
> point I'm probably most sensitive to what's going on with them and the
> southern evangelicals due to some good and really bad experiences with
> them so I wanted to dig up some hard info before I replied to this.
> We know what the Catholic Churches position on the issue is,
> especially the last two hardcore conservative Popes. Here's a link to
> the SBC's positions currently:
> http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_sbc.htm
> These two currently comprise more than half of all the christian church
> population and are seriously powerful. I find their positions
> repellent, but that's just my opinion.
> I agree that the some of the other churches have tried to be a lot
> more open but there's a ton of serious discussion/argument going on and
> some of it is downright nasty. I could tell you some UCC stuff that got
> really nasty and almost did split the church before they came up with a
> pretty weak and vague policy that both sides could live with to keep
> the church together, at least here in Mass.
> I understand your point, but when the leadership of these
> organizations take a hard line, which is basically a more civilized way
> of saying some of the things Phelps is then I have a huge problem with
> it.
> With the Catholic Church's growth being explosive in the fastest
> growing population areas of the world, and a real hardline theology
> being taught there this is scary:
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?B24F322BB
>
> All the figures show that traditional religion is declining in Europe,
> the US, and Canada while nontraditional faiths are growing. My personal
> view of this is that traditional faiths have failed badly in keeping
> pace with the social revolution of the last 50 years, and are really
> getting farther and farther out of touch with most people. Peoples
> access to so many other sources of information and exposure to other
> beliefs and cultures is so much greater too today that the local
> religious leader in no longer the definitive source for people's
> beliefs here in the west and that's had a huge effect on membership. I
> expect to see a these trends continue for the foreseeable future, and
> it looks like the Catholic Church does too that's why they are driving
> so hard to open up, and convert areas where they can try to recreate
> some of their past power and influence.
> Thanks for the good discussion.
> Bill C

I'm a dumbass and forgot to include this link:
http://www.ncccusa.org/news/050330yearbook.html
This gives membership figures broken down.
Sorry
Bill C
 
Robert Chung wrote:
>
> Yeah. I have a thousand complaints about this administration and this
> President, but tarring him with the Fred Phelps brush ain't fair. Phelps
> is a piece of work. I don't want to give the guy a clickable URL but you
> can get some sense of his points of view in the domain names he's
> registered: godhatesfags dot com, priestsrapeboys dot com, godhatesamerica
> dot com, and the two that I have difficulty deciding is the most bizarre:
> godhatessweden dot com and fredthemovie dot com.
>


Maybe he had a bad experience here:

http://www.lindsborg.org/
 
I gotta tell you something, the most visible "Christian Leaders" are
abusing the bible to gain credibility among like-minded bigots that
happen to be Christian. Truly great Christian leaders are forgotten
because they appropriately keep the focus on Christ rather than their
own cult-of-personality.

Christian politics have nothing to do with Christians that sincerely
believe in the bible. Anyone that uses Bible scripture to attack gays
is demented, and is just the kind of hypocrite that Christ attacked
while on his earthly ministry.