Posted on 09/22/2006 2:09:33 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
Free Republic is currently running a poll on this subject:
Do you think creationism or intelligent design should be taught in science classes in secondary public schools as a competing scientific theory to evolution?You can find the poll at the bottom of your "self search" page, also titled "My Comments," where you go to look for posts you've received.
I don't know what effect -- if any -- the poll will have on the future of this website's science threads. But it's certainly worth while to know the general attitude of the people who frequent this website.
Science isn't a democracy, and the value of scientific theories isn't something that's voted upon. The outcome of this poll won't have any scientific importance. But the poll is important because this is a political website. How we decide to educate our children is a very important issue. It's also important whether the political parties decide to take a position on this. (I don't think they should, but it may be happening anyway.)
If you have an opinion on this subject, go ahead and vote.
Has he published his stuff in Math or Systems technical journals, or just in the popular press?
If the shoe fits, wear it. If not, then not.
cheers!
The second law doesn't apply until I stop eating. I still have some pizza from last Weds., a few cans of Coke and a bottle of maple syrup left. As long as I can complete the assembly before that's all gone, will have the cat back together and greetin' me at the door in the AM.
"But to know all that provides no basis of explanation for the machine when it is actually working. And that, I imagine, is Bohr's point."
The physical properties that result in the interactions of the assembly never change thoughout the assembly, nor do they change at any point during it. I don't see that he has a point.
Yes Coyoteman. And so do critics. What's your point?
A "critic" is a man who creates nothing and thereby feels qualified to judge the work of creative men. There is logic in this; he is unbiased -- he hates all creative people equally.Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love, 1973
To which I said:
Lovely, comparing us angry Islamist radicals.
Your response was:
If the shoe fits, wear it. If not, then not.
Objecting to the suggestion that fascism comes from the teachings of Charles Darwin makes me an Islamist? Shameful. Absolutely shameful.
Either your faith in God is fundamentally different than your trust in electrical systems or it is not.
Which is it?
*Hugs!*
But we can't find the translation.
But, we'll keep looking. Your eruditedness convinces me that your earneosity is worth pursuitification.
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHA!
Look in a mirror! Can you see yourself or not?
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHA!
This is exactly what I was talking about upthread, when I asked what the potential ramifications are to referring to those people who oppose the teaching of creationism or intelligent design in science class as nazis and commies and atheists, when those people represent a third of potential Republican voters.
Isn't she somethin'??? Our own "Rangy Li'l" here to provide great philosophy and edumacation to these either dry or overly emotional threads.
And she always praciticies Niceosity!
A net positive!
The point is the total function of the assembly: Is it working, or is it not working? And what is the "difference" OR "MISSING FACTOR" BETWEEN THE TWO STATES?
I was right: You do have a hyperactive imagination, Liberal Classic!!! But whar the hail do you draw such conclusions from? Just because Hitler was a Darwinist doesn't mean that Darwin was a Hitlerian, a Nazi, or a fascist! Sigh....
I guess you ran out of arguments.
As I pointed out, the assembly/disassembly process is reversible, so the original set of subassembly functions and the total assembly funtion is the same as in the original.
I should add that even with more, or less irrevesiblity, the difference occurs as heat in the surroundings. If I'm using my mind, the chair will get warm. :)
Hitler? BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA!
You left out Stalin and Mao and my older brother!
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA! How pathetic!
I don't have to invent anything.
Statements such as these...
Don't forget, both Marxism and fascism take their view of man from neoDarwinist principles.
and
...are worthy of strident objection.
Calling Hitler a "darwinist" and suggesting that people who disagree with you are "eerily similar" to Islamists, those things are exactly what I was talking about upthread.
You seem to have missed my point.
My point is not that your faith in God isn't special, in fact I am trying to get you to realize that faith in God is very different than the trust we have that things will behave consistently.
If you conflate the two meanings in an attempt to make science look like a religion you are guilty of equivocation, plain and simple.
I have faith that my car will start in the morning because I have experience that under the same weather conditions as I expect tomorrow it has started before. My faith that it will start is based on past experience and the consistency of those experiences. If I did not have those experiences I would have no faith that it would start.
Do you believe in God because he was there yesterday, the day before, and the day before that, or is your faith deeper than that? I'm sure that your faith in God is not based on some consistency in his actions.
If for some reason you disagree with me and you claim that the definition of faith is predicated on the object of the faith then you are faced with a dilemma. By claiming that science is a religion and acceptance of evolution is faith based then you are elevating evolution to an equivalence to God. Or the definition of each of those you mentioned in your previous post
. . at stop lights . . .
. . . at the MD's . . .
. . . at the food counters . . . especially when contemplating spinich! LOL . . .
. . . in close relationships
. . . in the Papal encyclicals proffered by the High Priests of the religion of science . . . many of which have been proven to be hoaxed, fudged etc. . . .
. . . that their car will start on cold mornings . . . wellll . . . that some cars will . . .
. . . that their spouses or significant other's will come home again day after tomorrow.
the Synthetic Theory of Evolution [my addition]
are different faiths than the faith in God (by the definition of faith you gave above) so you can't claim that science is the same as religion.
This can be simply stated. If the object of faith defines faith then all faiths with different objects are defined to be different. All faiths with the same definition must have the same or equivalent objects.
(BTW, this also works for the case where there are just two different classes of object, God and everything else) If you want to claim that evolution is a faith based religion you have to either elevate Evolution to equivalence with God, or lower your faith in God to be nothing but the observation of consistency and repeatability in physical events.
Or you can retain the specialness of your faith in God and just admit that science has nothing to do with religious faith.
But this understanding is precisely what I object to, spunketts, on the understanding that one cannot "step twice into the same river." The arrow of time makes this sort of thing impossible. There is no such thing as "same" if time has elapsed between two measurements.
You also wrote: "...even with more, or less irreversiblity, the difference occurs as heat in the surroundings. If I'm using my mind, the chair will get warm."
But not to a degree that we discover by experience, but only by the second law. Yet the late, great Harvard biologist Gaylord Simpson (among others) has noted that living systems are precisely those systems which are not fully subject to the second law of thermodynamics. Indeed, the fact that they are not so subject is precisely what identifies them as "living" systems. Inorganic, or non-living systems are fully subject. But they are not alive.
So again, I refer you to the quandary: What is the "difference" between the two states, "working" or non-working?" (Which is analogously the same difference between "living" vs. "non-living" states.) I submit the answer to this question cannot be given by a precise and exhaustive inventory of the parts, or subsystems, taken singly or in any combination....
Thanks for writing, spunketts!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.