[totally OT] NYT Article about Intelligent Design

[Mark & Steven Bornfeld]

Carl Sundquist wrote:

> 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/
>

LOL!

Steve

--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001

 

[Curtis L. Russell]

On 29 Aug 2005 15:30:32 -0700, "Bill C" <[email protected]> wrote:

>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.

I'd argue that it is as simple as that the traditional faiths don't
have all the answers to begin with, and the marketplace of ideas will
lead eventually to the educated populations having a diverse belief
set.

The issue then becomes how does a society retain cohesiveness and a
civilization as the shared values internal to majority religions must
give way to shared values that embrace multiple religions. Maybe an
answer will begin to be formed before I'm dead and in spite of the
failure of the leaders of the minor religions of the Democrats and
Republicans...

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

 

[h squared]

Jonathan v.d. Sluis wrote:

> In addition, we cannot claim to know God, and most theology I know
> acknowledges that we can only speak of Him in metaphors, like God the
> Shepherd, God the Father, etc. God isn't the same as Frank Lloyd Wright, so
> God the Designer has to be only a metaphor as well.

as an even more off topic aside, the following is one of my favorite
quotes relevant to your point (i hope i haven't posted it before).
remembering it keeps me sane when hearing about how people "know" what
god wants or thinks, etc..

"can we, limited by minds that are finite, imagine infinity? the answer
is no, we cannot think of Nothing. anything that we can imagine has some
kind of boundary, and boundaries are containers. all thoughts, including
all imagination, are garments or vessels.

by definition, a boundary sets limits. we may be able to put a name to
infinity, we can draw a symbol of a figure eight on its side and say
that this represents infinity, but no matter how much we may believe
that our imagination is limitless, we remain confined by the boundaries
of our own reality. if it can be imagined, it is not infinite.

the word "god," and each of its various names in judaism, such as el,
elohim, adonoy, shaddai, and so forth, represent aspects of ein sof. the
exploration of these aspects gives us insights into the nature of ein
sof. thus, whenever god is discussed in this book, we are not talking
about a thing in itself, but a representation of a far deeper mystery.

the zohar says: before shape and form were created, it (ein sof) was
without form or appearance. therefore, it is forbidden to perceive it in
any way, not even by the letters of its holy name or by any symbol.
however, had its brightness and glory not been radiated over the whole
of creation, how could it have been discerned, even by the wise?
therefore, it descended on a [mystical] chariot to be known by the
letters y-h-v-h, in order that it could be inferred, and for this reason
it allows itself to be called by various names, such as el, elohim,
shaddai, zevaoth, and y-h-v-h, each being a symbol of divine attributes.
however, woe to anyone who presumes to compare ein sof with any
attributes. for it is limitless, and there are no means to comprehend it."
("god is a verb"- david cooper)

 

[Michael Press]

In article
<[email protected]>,
"amit" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Michael Press wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > "Philip Holman" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > "Ernst Noch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news:[email protected]...
> > > > Thought some people here might be interested in this article by Daniel
> > > > C. Dennett about Intelligent Design
> > > >
> > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/28/opinion/28dennett.html?pagewanted=1
> > > >
> > > > Mainly just applying Popper, but a nice read nonetheless.
> > > >
> > > > With some creativity, one might even be able to abuse his method of
> > > > reasoning for on topic stuff.
> > >
> > > "Fortunately for physicists, there is no powerful motivation for such a
> > > band of mischief-makers to form. They don't have to spend much time
> > > persuading people that quantum physics and Einsteinian relativity really
> > > have been established beyond all reasonable doubt".
> > >
> > > A shaky foundation for a start. Quantum physics and relativity are
> > > incompatible and there are large numbers of dissenters (mainly kooks)
> > > who especially do not believe in relativity. Sci.phys prays for a
> > > unifying theory real soon.
> >
> > A theory of relativity describes the relationship between
> > the conclusions drawn by relatively moving observers.
>
> dumbass,
>
> that's special relativity.

What do you mean by "that's special relativity"? I
purposely used the indefinite article.

>
> the previous posters conveniently only used the vague terms
> "relativity" and "Einsteinian relativity".

--
Michael Press

 

[Tim Lines]

Donald Munro wrote:
> amit wrote:
>
>>>dumbass,
>>>that's special relativity.
>
>
> Tim Lines wrote:
>
>>Right. General relativity, on the other hand, explains why everyone
>>rides a bit faster when I'm around. Or something.
>
>
> Because your mass tends to infinity earlier than everyone elses ?
>

But at least the fear of crossing my event horizon keeps them from
trying to squeeze past in bunch sprints.

 

[Tim Lines]

Tom Kunich wrote:
> 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.
>

So you support flying spaghetti monster theory?

 

[Donald Munro]

Bill C wrote:
>>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.

Curtis L. Russell wrote:
> The issue then becomes how does a society retain cohesiveness and a
> civilization as the shared values internal to majority religions must
> give way to shared values that embrace multiple religions. Maybe an
> answer will begin to be formed before I'm dead and in spite of the
> failure of the leaders of the minor religions of the Democrats and
> Republicans...

http://www.merseyworld.com/imagine/lyrics/imagine.htm

 

[Mad Dog]

Tom Kunich says...

>Science has gotten the idea that they know everything.

Who is "they"?

>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 is interesting to note how many science/technology corporations have hired
firms to teach the scientific method to their scientists (which have degrees in
a scientific discipline). A few years ago, my former employer gave a little
hidden quiz about the fundamentals of the scientific method and more than 50% of
the BS and above level scientists flunked it. I scored 100% so they put me on
the team to implement the new initiative. By the time we were done, we realized
that we couldn't afford to do science properly and therefore upper management
decided to get rid of most of their R&D people. See no evil and all that
********. So basically, Tom is right on the money. I think you need to weed
out the people in science that are purely in it for the money and what you'll
see is that the remaining few actually want to do science for its own sake. Too
bad their funding situation sucks and nobody cares. It's all about the money,
don't forget that!

 

[Tom Kunich]

"Donald Munro" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>>> I spent all day climbing up a road in order to get to a downhill on
>>> which I went 35 mph through a series of chicanes. There were several
>>> riders who passed me near the top and several on the downhill but I
>>> passed them all like they were standing still.
>>> So did that happen accendently or through intelligent design?
>
> Peter Allen wrote:
>> 'I'm not fat, I'm just... intelligently designed'
>
> Candidate for the Krispy Kreme/Pizza Hut Post of the Month.

Jeez, I must have been tired when I wrote that. My point was that there are
about a dozen natural constants any one of which is changed by one one
thousandth of a percent would yeild a universe that wouldn't resemble this
one at all.

IF there were a God and IF he were omniscient wouldn't all he need to do is
define the universal constants and know what would happen?

You have to admit that this sort of "science" isn't of any use beyond word
games anyway so what possible difference could it make if some people
believe in evolution which can't be proven or intelligent design which can't
be proven?

 

[Tom Kunich]

"Jonathan v.d. Sluis" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> ID is a 'dead end' for science, as you said. One would have to re-think
> the Great Designer's thoughts and I don't think even Mr. Ratzinger would
> be so arrogant.

Not in the least. It doesn't CHANGE the real world - it simply insists that
there was some sort of power behind what happened because what is here is
FAR too complex to be attibutable to chance.

OK, that's a religious believe EITHER way.

 

[Tom Kunich]

"Jonathan v.d. Sluis" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "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.
>
> Of course not. In fact, most scientists take pleasure in emphasizing how
> little 'we' actually know.

Not in my experience John. What I've seen is that they SAY that but don't
much believe it.

>> 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).

The point is that EVERY scientific "FACT" of 1600 has been proven wrong or
entirely too simple.

>> "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.

Certainly we agree that schools are not the place to critically review
theories. But neither are they places to spout endless rhetoric on many of
the subjects to which they are in fact teaching.

I personally don't see any problem with explaining that the Theory of
Evolution happening in the strictest statistical sense (which in FACT IT
DOES NOT) as most textbooks teach it can also have some sort of intelligent
design about it in some people's opinion.

We KNOW that Shakespeare's rendition of Henry the VIII is not truth but
everyone reads it and gets truth from it.

 

[Tom Kunich]

"Mark & Steven Bornfeld" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:Y0KQe.4256$cY.1275@trndny06...
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>
>> 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.

In 40 years of working with scientists it is my judgement that they know
that their science is incomplete but they believe that science can anwer ANY
question. And that's what I meant.

> 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.

That is an extremely astute judgement Steve and a very good way to word it.

 

[Tom Kunich]

"D. Ferguson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Evolution is not a theory. The nature of the process is a theory. A
> theory is an plausible explanation for facts.

Then you shouldn't have any problems at all making a horse from a goose's
egg.

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

Then perhaps you can explain what that theory is since if there is no ether,
there is no reasonable explanation.

 

[Tom Kunich]

"Mad Dog" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Tom Kunich says...
>
>>Science has gotten the idea that they know everything.
>
> Who is "they"?

Science as perceived by the general public. Specific scientists may know
their limitations but they have convinced laymen that science is the answer
to everything. Maybe it is.

>>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 is interesting to note how many science/technology corporations have
> hired
> firms to teach the scientific method to their scientists (which have
> degrees in
> a scientific discipline). A few years ago, my former employer gave a
> little
> hidden quiz about the fundamentals of the scientific method and more than
> 50% of
> the BS and above level scientists flunked it. I scored 100% so they put
> me on
> the team to implement the new initiative. By the time we were done, we
> realized
> that we couldn't afford to do science properly and therefore upper
> management
> decided to get rid of most of their R&D people. See no evil and all that
> ********. So basically, Tom is right on the money. I think you need to
> weed
> out the people in science that are purely in it for the money and what
> you'll
> see is that the remaining few actually want to do science for its own
> sake. Too
> bad their funding situation sucks and nobody cares. It's all about the
> money,
> don't forget that!

Ahh, people are people. Science needs the workaday types as much as the
thinkers.

 

[D. Ferguson]

On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 01:36:39 GMT, "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>"D. Ferguson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>> Evolution is not a theory. The nature of the process is a theory. A
>> theory is an plausible explanation for facts.
>
>Then you shouldn't have any problems at all making a horse from a goose's
>egg.
>
>> Similar to saying "Theory of gravity". Gravity is not a theory but
>> there is a theory about exactly how it works.
>
>Then perhaps you can explain what that theory is since if there is no ether,
>there is no reasonable explanation.
>

EXACTLY!!! A theory is an explanation for a fact. You can argue about
which theory or "model" of gravity is correct but you are certainly
not going to argue about whether gravity exists.

Gravity is a fact.

Evolution is a fact.

Argue all you want about the mechanisms.


If you don't want to take my "unqualified" word on it. Please do read
this so you don't go through life being a dumbass on this issue too.


Stephen J. Gould Excerpted from Discover Magazine (May, 1981).

In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact" -
part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory
to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument:
evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many
aspects of the theory.

Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories
are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing
certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of
ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when
scientists debate rival theories to explain them.

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no
such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of
logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and
achieve certainty only because they are NOT about the empirical world.
Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth. In science "fact" can
only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to
withhold provisional consent." [underscore added]

Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and
theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always
acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the
mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin
continually emphasized the difference between his two great and
separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and
proposing a theory - natural selection - to explain the mechanism of
evolution.

 

[[email protected]]

Tom Kunich wrote:
> I personally don't see any problem with explaining that the Theory of
> Evolution happening in the strictest statistical sense (which in FACT IT
> DOES NOT) as most textbooks teach it can also have some sort of intelligent
> design about it in some people's opinion.

Intelligent design of WHAT? If it's design of species, then what would
be taught about whether design is still underway? For example, when new
volcanic islands are formed, by what process have new species appeared
on those islands? Were the new species designed after the islands
formed?
If so, when new volcanic islands are formed in the future, will an
intelligent designer (or designers) design new species for those
islands and how will this(these) designer(s) populate the new islands
with these new species? (In the case of sexually reproducing species),
by manufacturing a new male and female of each species and placing them
on the island(s)?

 

[Donald Munro]

Tom Kunich wrote:
>> I personally don't see any problem with explaining that the Theory of
>> Evolution happening in the strictest statistical sense (which in FACT IT
>> DOES NOT) as most textbooks teach it can also have some sort of intelligent
>> design about it in some people's opinion.

ranjit_mathews wrote:
> If so, when new volcanic islands are formed in the future, will an
> intelligent designer (or designers) design new species for those
> islands and how will this(these) designer(s) populate the new islands
> with these new species? (In the case of sexually reproducing species),
> by manufacturing a new male and female of each species and placing them
> on the island(s)?

Forget about the species, I want to know who's designing the fjords.

 

[Peter Allen]

Donald Munro wrote:
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>>> I personally don't see any problem with explaining that the Theory
>>> of Evolution happening in the strictest statistical sense (which in
>>> FACT IT DOES NOT) as most textbooks teach it can also have some
>>> sort of intelligent design about it in some people's opinion.
>
> ranjit_mathews wrote:
>> If so, when new volcanic islands are formed in the future, will an
>> intelligent designer (or designers) design new species for those
>> islands and how will this(these) designer(s) populate the new islands
>> with these new species? (In the case of sexually reproducing
>> species), by manufacturing a new male and female of each species and
>> placing them on the island(s)?
>
> Forget about the species, I want to know who's designing the fjords.

The guy who does Africa next time, probably.

Peter

 

[Bill C]

Peter Allen wrote:
> Donald Munro wrote:
> > Tom Kunich wrote:
> >>> I personally don't see any problem with explaining that the Theory
> >>> of Evolution happening in the strictest statistical sense (which in
> >>> FACT IT DOES NOT) as most textbooks teach it can also have some
> >>> sort of intelligent design about it in some people's opinion.
> >
> > ranjit_mathews wrote:
> >> If so, when new volcanic islands are formed in the future, will an
> >> intelligent designer (or designers) design new species for those
> >> islands and how will this(these) designer(s) populate the new islands
> >> with these new species? (In the case of sexually reproducing
> >> species), by manufacturing a new male and female of each species and
> >> placing them on the island(s)?
> >
> > Forget about the species, I want to know who's designing the fjords.
>
> The guy who does Africa next time, probably.
>
> Peter
If he isn't busy singing to the big boss's cat.
Bill C