I hope this works!
To get on/off the Cosmology ping list, freepmail Ronzo.
Posted on 04/22/2005 4:21:47 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
Evolution found a home Thursday in the oldest church in Kansas during a forum about the controversy over science instruction for public school students.
"There is no conflict between evolution and the Christian faith," said the Rev. Peter Luckey, the senior pastor of Plymouth Congregational Church, 925 Vt.
Luckey was preaching to the choir during a five-hour forum that featured scientists, teachers and politicians who argued in favor of teaching students evolution because it is the foundation of science, knowledge of which will be needed to compete for jobs in the growing bioscience industry.
About 75 people attended the forum at Plymouth, which was founded in 1854 and was the first established church in the Kansas Territory. Attempts to inject intelligent design -- the notion that there is a master planner for all life -- into science class should be rejected, they said.
"Intelligent design is nothing but creationism in a cheap tuxedo," said Leonard Krishtalka, director of the Kansas University Natural History Museum and Biodiversity Research Center.
‘Think critically'
The forum was another round in the debate that has thrust Kansas on the national stage.
With control of the State Board of Education in conservative hands [AAARRGGHHH!!], state officials again will consider science standards that will guide teachers.
A committee of scientists has drafted standards that include evolution teaching, but a minority report, led by proponents of intelligent design, wants criticism of evolution included. A State Board of Education committee, comprising three conservative [AARRGHH!!] board members, plans six days of hearings that will revolve around that debate.
The speakers at Thursday's forum were adamant that evolution instruction not be reduced, watered down or dumbed down.
Gov. Kathleen Sebelius' science adviser, Lee Allison, said when the state approved a $500 million bioscience initiative, it included a provision to recruit top scholars who met the standards of the National Academy of Sciences, which supports evolution without equivocation.
"The state really has taken a position on this in a broad, bipartisan way," Allison said.
Charles Decedue, executive director of the Higuchi Biosciences Center, said teaching evolution was critical because bioscience companies want to locate in places where the work force has received a solid education in chemistry, physics and biology.
"They want people who can think critically," he said.
‘Hayseed state'
Andrew Stangl, a Kansas University sophomore, said his high school science teachers in his hometown of Andover refused to teach evolution.
He bought books and taught himself. He said fear of teaching evolution would hurt the United States in the long term. "I don't want to see other countries pass us by. We are going to economically suffer as a result," he said.
In 1999, Kansas made international news, much of it negative, when a conservative [AARRGGHH!!] board de-emphasized evolution. The 2000 election returned moderates to power, and evolution was reinstated. But with conservatives [AARRGGHH!!] back in control, international criticism was starting again, several panelists said.
Rachel Robson, a doctoral candidate at KU Medical Center, said one of her friends was applying for a job with a Japanese company, and the company officials made fun of Kansas and questioned whether good scientists could come from there.
Thursday's forum attracted national attention from National Public Radio and NBC.
Krishtalka said even though the battle over evolution was going on in several states, "Kansas will be tarred and feathered by the media as the hayseed state."
Carol and Tom Banks, of Prairie Village, attended the forum, saying they were getting tired of conservatives [AARRGGHH!!] controlling the political agenda.
"If intelligent design were taught, that would be teaching religion in public schools," Carol Banks said.
But Jerry Manweiler, a physicist from Lawrence, said he supported teaching intelligent design. "It's important to know the theory of evolution, but it's also important to understand the nature of God," he said. Manweiler said he was put off by the forum speakers' "lack of humility."
Don Covington, vice president of networking for Intelligent Design Network Inc., said he disagreed with the speakers.
"They want their kids to know how to think, but you can't develop critical thinking skills when you tell them to memorize Darwin," he said.
• May 5-7: Science standards hearings in auditorium of Memorial building, 120 S.W. 10th St., Topeka. Time to be determined later.
• May 12-14: Science standards hearings, time and location to be determined later.
Yes, if I had said that, it would be difficult to accept. But that's not what I said; nor was it what I indended to say. We were talking about the issue you raised: unanswered questions in science. I intended to say that scientists are the only ones who have the training and experience to provide scientific answers. That's considerably different, and far more limited, than saying that only scientists "know anything about reality." I'm certain there some scientists who know virtually nothing outside of their specialties. My favorite example is Einstein's peculiar devotion to socialism.
I'm responsible for the things I say. And I'm responsible for saying those things clearly. If I'm unclear, please request clarification. I'm always happy to correct any misunderstandings my clumsy wording may generate.
The gradual progress of the sciences in working on such problems can be seen merely by glancing at the table of contents of any professional, peer-reviewed journal. Such as-yet unanswered questions are gradually being answered. By scientists -- the only people who are equipped to provide the answers. That's how it works.
Here's a question for the scientists out there: who created us and why did he/they do so?
Here's another one: what is my purpose? Why do I even have the ability to understand the concept of "purpose," let alone have a name for it?
And one more: why do I require love and acceptance from others?
Lastly: Why can I consciously choose a course of action? Why do I do things that are harmful to me as a human being, even when I know they are harmful? What other animal or creature has this problem?
But elsewhere, far from the places where science is done, a few unanswered questions (and some that have already been answered) are being touted by public relations con-men, or they're being presented to woefully ignorant school boards, with arbitrarily proclaimed, non-testable answers, as an alternative "theory" amounting to a "controversy" for the children to decide.The contrast between the activities in the sciences (on the one hand) and the hocus-pocus, flim-flam, mumbo-jumbo, buy-my-anti-evo-tapes world of creationism/ID (on the other hand) is so strikingly obvious that it doesn't require any elaboration.
Intelligent Design is not about unanswered questions, rather it's about why there are questions considered off-limits. Cetainly there are those young earth creationists selling their wares and pointing out every whole, real or not, in evolutionary theory, but so what? Perhaps if the "scientists" were doing a better job publically discussing these questions, the creationists would be out of work...
I have a copy November 2004 copy of National Geographic sitting in front of me, with the red lettered headline "Was Darwin Wrong?" posted above a picture of a cute little lizzard. I don't remeber seeing a section in this issue listing all the unanswered questions of evolutionary theory. There was this blurb about the evidence being "overwhelming," but I'm still looking for the "evidence" they are refering too...must be in next month's edition. (PH's little FR web page does a FAR better job listing actual evidence for evolution than National Geo.)
PH, you seem to think (incorrectly) that ID is a counter theory to evolution. I can understand why you think that, but the minds behind ID are not just seeking to counter evolution, but rather the metaphysical naturalist presuppositions that underly evolution and other scientific endeavors. ID is not about biology, it's about origins.
The main quesiton of Intelligent Design is this: is there evidence enough from all the scientific discplines to suggest that our universe is the product of some sort of rational intelligence?
Futhermore, do these patterns we see and observations we make tell us something about those who might have created us? Does it tell us something about our own purpose? Does it help us to understand why we are here?
The science and methods are not changed with ID, just the underlying question. The current underlying question in metaphysical naturalism seems to be that there is no question--we just are, so get over it. Intelligent Design is not satisified with that. If we can ask the questions about who we are and why we are here, then we need to find out. If scientists want to help in that search, fine; if not, then another question remains: why bother with all the research? We are all just going to die anyway...
No subject matter is off limits to science. However, there are methodologies that lead nowhere, and science has learned over the centuries to avoid them.
Without these methodologies, you get people making a living doing Tarot reading, bending spoons with their minds, talking to the dead, selling cheese sandwiches on ebay, and so forth.
It's easy to spot poseurs (even well-intentioned poseurs) if you've had the training and practice. It's hard to avoid being one though. I would never try to tell Franks how to run a military campaign nor try to coach Johnson or Woods though.
You can ask it all you want, but if you want to ask it as a scientist you will need to frame your hypothesis so that it can be tested.
I hope this works!
To get on/off the Cosmology ping list, freepmail Ronzo.
Moi??? Belligerent? Do you really think that's fair or equitable, js?
You said: "If [the collective consciousness] were something other than a metaphor then it could be studied with the appropriate analytical tools."
Noted. But what does this mean? Does it mean that you dispose of the collective consciousness (regarding which there seem to be empirical reports) as a "mere" metaphor, going in? And therefore nothing of any substance whatever deserving of an organized investigation?
OR did you mean to propose an actual experiment, by which the collective consciousness could be falsified?
If the latter, then i am all ears. :^) If the former, then i have heard it all before, ad nauseam.
As for your comment regarding ESP: I make no claim for it pro or con whatever. But would like to note that, in order for ESP to be "true," it would need a field in which to propagate. Or so it seems to me.
When you say "brains are a component part of people," are you suggesting that somehow people are not reducible to their brains? Or did I misunderstand something?
What would the "irreducible" part look like?
Questions, questions, and then more questions.... There is never any end to it, in an infinite Universe.
I know you said that, PH. But whether you want to admit it or not, that's like saying that only scientists are "rational." And this is where our dispute finds its common root, to the effect that we apparently do not agree on this particular point.
In all fairness I know that on repeated occasions in the recent past, you have graciously tipped your hat to philosophy. But still, from where I sit, it looks to me like you still regard it as a "poison pill," as inferior in all respects to the methods and modes of the natural sciences.
The point that i have been trying to make, however, is that you can't get philosophy out of science. The reason is that science -- as we see its theory and practice these days, and quite probably as it ever was in human history -- implies a cosmology. And cosmology is a branch of metaphysics that seeks to describe "all that there is" in terms of a unified, dynamic, ever-changing yet unchanging, persisting comprehensive Whole, or One (i.e., at the global level of the total system).
Well, these be my thoughts on this subject so far. Probably i need to elaborate them further. Will be thinking about that.
Thanks for writing, Patrick!
Sorry, that's just not a correct conclusion to carry away from my statement. I don't want to drop this while I'm failing to communicate clearly. Here's my corrected statement on this mini-point: Not only scientists, but loads of other people are rational. Okay?
However, those who aren't scientists lack the training and experience necessary to scientifically appreciate all of the information in a particular collection of data. I'm sure some of our practicing scientists could provide numerous examples. The data that particle physicists look at are (I understand) a bunch of computer printouts giving them the results of their high-energy collisions. I'm rational, but I can't decipher that data. They can. The issue isn't rationality, it's training and experience. Surely you realize this. I can't believe that we're arguing about it.
A more mundane example would be fossils. We've had many people in our threads who look at the pics and say: "So? I only see a pile of bones." But to trained biologists, with an enormous background in such material, those bones reveal a great deal of information.
I'm exhausted on this point, BB. If we're still in disagreement, we'll just have to leave it where it lies.
I leave anything that is not accessible to experiment or quantitative analysis to fields other than science. That would include ID, collective consciousness, ESP, UFOs, spoon bending...
Spoon boy: Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead... only try to realize the truth.
Neo: What truth?
Spoon boy: There is no spoon.
Neo: There is no spoon?
Spoon boy: Then you'll see, that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself.
You're right js1138, we can't do empirical studies on something that simply does not exist...
With a missing color, all pixels still appear but the color is often wrong. The image is faithful but not true when a primary color is missing. In the extreme, imagine a color portrait converted to black and white.
Primary colors can be added or subtracted - the effects can be seen at this link.
But that would imply that the concept of color is embodied in the eye and brain. Otherwise, if the mind were in a remote location, the lack of color would subjectively resemble looking at a black and white photograph.
You are evidently arguing against the physical brain as a receiver/transmitter for the consciousness/mind. But even in that model, damage to the receiver/transmitter would have the same observable effect. The consciousness/mind however would survive in that model regardless of what injury might occur in the receiving/transmitting mechanism.
If the mind is somehow outside the physical brain, then the mind would not be affected by damage to the brain. If Channel four goes off the air, my TV still knows how to display a picture. If my hand is chopped off, I still remember it and remember using it. With some kinds of brain damage I lose the ability to think about having a hand. With other kinds of damage I lose the ability to think about color. If the mind were located outside the brain, you would expect brain damage to be experienced like a lost limb or a lost channel on your TV. Instead, what happens is our consciousness "fills in" the missing capability, and we continue to experience a seamless consciousness, and are generally unaware of loss.
I still don't follow the conceptual difference between a lost pixel and a lost color. Physically, a lost color is just a lot of pixels displaying incorrectly. If you lost a third of you pixels at random, it would be just as disturbing.
Could you try another analogy?
I'm pretty tuckered out too, Patrick!
The fact is, I don't know whether we're "still in disagreement." Mainly I've been trying to amplify, not so much as contradict, your arguments. I sense you are just not seeing something critically important that is there to be seen. But I could be wrong about that, guy.
Anyhoot, it's always a pleasure to "dialog" with you Patrick! Thanks ever so much for writing!
You've always been able to "see" things that I can't. That's fine when it comes to the universe, because you know my position about not wanting to get ahead of the objectively verifiable evidence. But when it comes to my own statements, which I hope are carefully worded, and where I know what I'm saying, I feel that I'm on firm ground when I observe that you've gone beyond what is warranted. So let's both give it a rest for a while.
Yep, the ol' "slice and dice" approach among all the specialities. As the poet said, "We murder to dissect." In the end, it's like the blind men trying to decide what an elephant looks like. One grabs the tail, and says the elephant is like a tail. One feels the trunk, and says the elephant looks like a trunk. Another has found the elephant's leg, and says the elephant is like a leg....
Here's an interesting (and rather charming) take on this issue:
"If the Universe is an organic unit, it must be more than just the sum of its parts. That given, to what extent can the Universe be understood by examining its elements? The Universe cannot be imagined after the fashion of an imaginary creature who, for instance, living inside a horse, and knowing just a few molecules of the horse, tries to imagine, on this basis, what the horse itself could look like. If this hypothetical observer gets to know, let us say, three or four protein molecules, it might say that the horse must be an enormous protein molecule. For an elementary creature sitting inside and getting acquainted with a couple of horse molecules, it is not easy to find out the essence of a horse: what 'being a horse' means, what it is like, what it looks like, what it does, what it feels and thinks, how its life goes, what kinds of pleasures and experiences it has. It is uncertain that this creature could imagine what a fiery steed this horse is; and when a man is riding it at full gallop, what kind of experiences are lived by the horse. Then again, can we hope at all to somehow understand the universe as a whole? At least this example shows that we can see the structure only by recognizing the relationships, by understanding, for example, why a horse is a horse, what its structure and construction are like, what kinds of relationships and existential qualities it has. Therefore, in order to understand the real nature of the horse — and by the same token, the real nature of the Universe — we must examine the relationships that give its substance." [A. Grandpierre, emphasis added]
Specialists, virtually by definition, do not look at "wholes." I am not particularly interested in the "blind men + elephant" approach to the human being, js1138 -- which probably comes as no surprise to you.
Thank you ever so kindly for writing!
Okay, Patrick! But don't be a stranger.... :^)
You are immune to my point.
There is no way to look at an elephant, complete and whole. You cannot understand an elephant without understanding its biology, physics, and chemistry. You cannot understand it without understanding the position of the earth in the solar system. You cannot understand it without understanding its ecosystem. You cannot understand it without observing its behavior, both personal and social.
People have limitations. They are not omniscient. Scientists break things into managable pieces for study. They apply methodologies appropriate to the scale of analysis. Real science is often tedious, even boring.
Out of this, science writers, poets and philosophers try to derive metaphors that speak to ordinary non-specialists. All such metaphors are incomplete, and all become incorrect when extended. You are being intellectually lazy when you skip the science and argue from popular writings or reviews of literature. All such writing has limitations and most of it is easily overextended.
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.
