Posted on 05/09/2005 11:35:25 PM PDT by Crackingham
While Kansas State Board of Education members spent three days soaking up from critics of evolution about how the theory should be taught in public schools, many scientists refused to participate in the board's public hearings. But evolution's defenders were hardly silent last week, nor are they likely to be Thursday, when the hearings are set to conclude. They have offered public rebuttals after each day's testimony. Their tactics led the intelligent design advocates -- hoping to expose Kansas students to more criticism of evolution -- to accuse them of ducking the debate over the theory. But Kansas scientists who defend evolution said the hearings were rigged against the theory. They also said they don't see the need to cram their arguments into a few days of testimony, like out-of-state witnesses called by intelligent design advocates.
"They're in, they do their schtick, and they're out," said Keith Miller, a Kansas State University geologist. "I'm going to be here, and I'm not going to be quiet. We'll have the rest of our lives to make our points."
The scientists' boycott, led by the American Association for the Advancement of Science and Kansas Citizens for Science, frustrated board members who viewed their hearings as an educational forum.
"I am profoundly disappointed that they've chosen to present their case in the shadows," said board member Connie Morris, of St. Francis. "I would have enjoyed hearing what they have to say in a professional, ethical manner."
Intelligent design advocates challenge evolutionary theory that natural chemical processes can create life, that all life on Earth had a common origin and that man and apes had a common ancestor. Intelligent design says some features of the natural world are best explained by an intelligent cause because they are well ordered and complex. The science groups' leaders said Morris and the other two members of the board subcommittee presiding at the hearings already have decided to support language backed by intelligent design advocates. All three are part of a conservative board majority receptive to criticism of evolution. The entire board plans to consider changes this summer in standards that determine how students will be tested statewide in science.
Alan Leshner, AAAS chief executive officer, dismissed the hearings as "political theater."
"There is no cause for debate, so why are they having them?" he said. "They're trying to imply that evolution is a controversial concept in science, and that's absolutely not true."
Sorry, in an adversarial mode.. i.e. the flipantancy..
Rarely do I get this deep into a Evo, Creationist, bruhaha..
I've never met in college(many years ago) or after, a die hard Evo that made any sense.. but I've met a few Creationists that had a few good points IMO.. and I'm not brain washed by either of the dogmas..
I see it kind of like the Abortion, No-Abortion people.. They both have some good points with neither having the last word on a big issue, sactity of life.. Their way or the highway both of them..
Pretty much that way with Evos and Non-Evos too.. Each trying to pull the rug out of the others base arguments..
So going with the lesser of two evils I choose the non-abortionists and creationists.. because they at least listen to the others arguments before they reject them out of hand.. Not that they are so smart themselves but that they are not so dumb to purchase an unproveable dictum, "There is no God".. and that "life" is a purely mechanical process.. I'm not convinced of that..
When 13 years old I knew socialism was a parasitical system of parasites and host then, and if there was not a God, then there ought to be.. If so, then creating one is not a bad idea.. if only to make inalienable rights possible.. and dialectic materialism a parasitic social disease..
There is nothing algebraically exotic about any of the steps of that algorithm, nor is there any conflict of assignment across the equality signs. Why can't you provide with an answer, and formally prove it? I thought you indicated that mathematics was unambiguously cut and dried.
But I still don't see your point. You're not refuting the fraudulent, alchemaic nature of biological research.
My point hasn't changed, it is that, contrary to your claim, even pure math has to be considered to be something of an experimental science with rough edges and vague frontiers, just like biology and the other natural sciences. Not a pure crystalline proof-palace of unassailable pedigree and scope.
If anything, presently, were you to poll all scientists, biology would have the best claim outside of, perhaps, physics, to be the natural science with the best odor about it of reproducable claims, as to theory, and value to customers, as to results.
No, people can submit a wrong proof.
This gets more entertaining with each pass. What is the difference between a distinction without a difference and a difference without a distinction? Or is there any? Or not?
If I don't submit a proof at all--than the proof must be correct?
Whouldn't it have saved a lot of energy to just never have submitted any proofs of anything, ever? Than all the proofs would be correct.
He's just a fool with a poor education. If you elect to continue, you should charge him for it.
You mention myth here, hosepipe. My take is that myth and metaphor aren't substantially separated by much at all. As you know, myth is very ill-regarded in post-contemporary thought (though apparently there is still some toleration for poetry in elite circles...). Many if not most people today regard “myth” as synonymous with “falsehood” begotten by “superstition.” The relentless flattening of the human person continues apace….
I prefer Eric Voegelin’s take on myth. He writes in Order and History, Vol. III: “The myth remains the legitimate expression of the fundamental movements of the soul.”
Of course, if anyone reading this thinks the soul itself is a “superstitious falsehood,” then he could probably find a better use for his time than reading further here. Myth has no meaning without the idea or concept of soul….
As Voegelin points out, Plato has a great myth about the soul and its constitution, which Plato termed metaxy, or the “in-between” reality. My dear friend Alamo-Girl asked about this in a recent post, but I was unable to respond at the time. So I’m picking up this topic here, because hosepipe said the word “myth” and that usually gets me going…. (apologies A-G; I hope this is OK by you.)
Anyhoot, metaxy refers to the “in-between” nature of human existence. It does not describe a physical phenomenon; it refers to a spiritual dimension or context that is native to the human person. It seems to me it is a model of the soul (though Plato places preeminent emphasis on its noetic quality, that is the soul's quality as mind). The myth suggests the soul mediates a dynamic “field” resonating between two poles. For Plato, the two poles are the Beyond of the Cosmos (pertaining to the divine realm), and the ground of being (pertaining to the laws of nature and the cosmos – which are themselves divinely constituted). The former refers to an “unknown” but “sensed” (by Plato and possibly by us) God; the latter to physis, to “nature” – the physical, biological, social man. Man is existentially “stretched” in-between the two poles, and thus accordingly expresses his nature in the indicated subfields of physics, biology, and society in the context of a more comprehensive – indeed, extracosmic -- Nature.
Plato thought that it is the role of the philosopher to explore such depths of the soul. Further, he seems to have thought that “all of philosophy” is but a “preparation for the eventual death of the philosopher” – a cryptic remark that I will not further belabor here. (Who has eyes and ears, let him see and hear.)
Effectively, the person who understands himself as “having” a soul that relates to divinity in some fashion, who experiences himself as a living process in a “timeless” metaxy, would presumably understand that the source of such knowledge cannot have a direct “intellectual root”; that is, a root grounded in self knowledge or personal experience or “introspection.” Plato calls this species of knowledge “awareness.” That is, it is not the product of direct human experience per se nor of self-reflective human consciousness, but of an independent recognition of what exists perceived directly, from “internal sources.” We might call this nonintellectual knowledge.
Must close, but not before putting certain extraordinary insights from Cornelius Lowe on the record [from Myth, Sacred History, and Philosophy, 1967] that might shed light on these problems to the discerning reader:
“Plato seems to have believed that basically this nonintellectual knowledge is awareness, in the unconscious depths of the self, of a point in contact between the self and the primordial forces of the cosmos. His experience of the oneness of all reality is similar to that of Egypt and Mesopotamia, and his answer to the question of what is going on in a depth-dimension of the self that is beyond the subject-object relationship can be expressed is the same answer given by these earliest high civilizations. Although what is going on in the depths of the self [soul] cannot ever be expressed directly and literally, it can be expressed indirectly, imaginatively, through the symbols of the myth….
“…The traditional body of myths of a people might be called the refraction of its collective unconscious into consciousness….
“Man [according to Plato] is a microcosm. Like the cosmos, he is neither changeless being nor changeable becoming, but being-in-becoming. Incarnation is the secret of his being. Now the question is: what is man’s relationship to the eternal model?…
“…The Good is “beyond reality.” What can be seen is the cosmos, the image of the eternal model. And since the cosmos is an image, a likeness, every human account of ‘gods and the creation of the universe’ will be a myth, a plausible story [‘a likely story,’ an aletheia logos as Plato might put it], rather than direct [i.e., scientific] knowledge. The correlate … is that every comprehensive account of human selfhood is myth rather than knowledge, no matter how much factual information about personality it might contain.”
Must sign off. May I take this opportunity to mention that I’m going to be pretty scarce around here for the next three weeks? Will be mainly away and off-line for the duration, until or around June 1st.
And so meanwhile if anyone wants to write me, please be patient regarding my reply? I’ll come back ASAP.
Meanwhile, may God bless and keep you ALL!
p.s.: Really excellent essay at post #560, hosepipe. Thank you ever so much!
But after that it can get a bit sticky because people are different, just like the apostles were different and the churches in Revelation were different.
Some will lean almost entirely to the Scripture (their own understanding of it) – giving much less weight to the leading of the indwelling Spirit (John 15-17, etc.) Others lean almost entirely to the indwelling Spirit giving much less weight to the Spirit’s revelation in Scripture. Still others are more comfortable having a spiritual mentor or organization interpret everything for them – giving less weight to both the indwelling Spirit and Scripture.
Like I said before, I eschew the doctrines and traditions of men altogether so my view has no earthy strings attached. To me, the revelation is like a diamond with seven facets. The diamond looks different depending on which facet one is looking at, but it is the same diamond and the same Light. There is only one God. He exists in three persons – the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
Nevertheless, for some, differences are poison pills and if one doesn’t see things exactly the same way then they are hopelessly lost. Which brings up your second point:
It makes me sad because first of all, I want all Christians to root deeply very fast. It is also sooo unnecessary to be intimidated by science.
The YEC doctrine vis-à-vis the age of the universe and the theory of evolution is mostly compatible if one embraces relativity and the inflationary theory. It is also fully compatible if it is stated entirely as an article of faith. As I said before, there is no scientific argument against the notion that “all that there is” was created last Thursday, or 4004 B.C.
But YEC is doctrine - it cannot be argued using scientific materialism (microscope to telescope). Trying to argue theology with scientific materialism only results in hostility and indignation on both sides.
It is futile and ill advised to ask a Christian with a YEC doctrine to change his doctrine. It is much easier to explain how YEC can be reconciled – either as an article of faith or by considering relativity and inflationary theory.
One last point: the Intelligent Design supporters are not of the same cloth as the YEC. ID is not ‘about’ doctrine.
What ID basically has is a litany of objections to evolution theory which centers against the wholesale “randomness” concept of RM – NS >Species.
People tend to want to put the YEC and ID in the same box, but they simply don’t mix very well. ID doesn’t dispute the age of the universe, or that natural selection is a factor or that mutations occur or that they are random in some instances, such as bacterial resistance to antibodies.
They are saying basically the same thing I have been saying around here for so long – that the theory of evolution is incomplete and wholesale “randomness” doesn’t belong in the formulation wrt speciation. This is basically the same direction of current investigations by mathematicians and physicists in the areas of information, autonomy, semiosis, complexity and intelligence.
So, even if the ID proponents were not given a hearing at all, their objections would still be raised in the ongoing research. But because it is doctrine, YEC will always be theological no matter what science discovers in the years to come.
Interesting.
I translate that as 'sense'& 'non-sense' literally.
Thanks.
Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou [art] with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me.
Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies: thou anointest my head with oil; my cup runneth over. Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life: and I will dwell in the house of the LORD for ever.
XenuDidit place mark
Bump for the Boop..
Exactly...
Its a fearful thing to fall into the clutches of your own morality and myopic frogs eye view of the sky..
Unless your basically amoral have the tongue of a frog and hop around a lot..
Evolution is quite French in character..
In fact, the most outrageous "out-of-context" quote was to be found on PatrickHenry's profile page where he attempts to prove that even "the pope" agreed with him and Darwin.
The Pope, speaking with his officially infallable voice of Jesus, accepted Darwinian evolution in 1996--this is a fairly well-known event. Like most unwarrantedly overconfident, over-wordy creationists, ye speak in authoritative tones about issues you are, on the evidence, fairly incompetent about. Darwinian evolution, nor any of modern micro-biological discipline (as affirmed by the Pope, incidently), is capable of opposing or supporting the notion that God created the universe. You are spoiling for a fight that only exists in the minds of creationists.
Indeed, the myopia of scientific materialism is our main objection. To me, it is like the ancient maps where they used to write on the edges "there be dragons". Once a materialistic scientist wanders into a subject which cannot be viewed with a microscope or telescope there is a tendency to avoid it or declare it doesn't exist.
Nevertheless, the investigation into unphysicals - such as information, autonomy, semiosis, complexity and intelligence - will continue and hopefully, ease the myopia.
When I was twenty I was the smartest guy on earth.. but have grown progressivly dumber ever since.. To morons like me every time the "title" scientist is used I get suspicious.. That word is quoted (by Evos) with the reverence a Roman Catholic attributes to the word Pope.. Science, Scientific, Scientist.. all quoted as IF they mean something sacred..
And to them I guess they are sacred words.. To me, most likely, they describe somebody on the take.. Takeing from a government grant or government institution of some kind.. Or a contractor or sub-contractor of a government institution of some kind.. Theres got to be money or a hope for some money involved in some way.. Not that I have anything against money unless its government money. Since the government literally has no money of its own.. Because money is not greenbacks anyway(government notes). "Money" is hard tangible assets.. not promises.. The only "money" the government (federal, state, county, or city) has are hard assets it has TAKEN from people.. Fiat notes are not money.. Labor is one type of money.. the notes used to pay for that labor is also not money..
What does this have to with evolution.?.
Darwinian evolution is a parasite on the government host.
The parasite sucks out government notes for its labor. The parasite depends on the government host.. and the government is a parasite on the people.. The people are the host of both the government and all its own parasites..
Some call socialism, slavery by government, but occludes the fact its really parasiteism of the people by government.. Removing all the parasites on the "government" would make for a healthier government.. and also healthier people..
So Darwinian Evolution and money and ultimately the "government" are related.. especially the federal government.. Some say separate "church and state", I say, separate "Church and Science from the State".. yeah!.. separate them BOTH..
Let the church and science be privately funded.. Because they both can be vectors of dogmatic agitprop.. pushed down the throats of the people.. by propagandistic disinformation.. No Theocracy and No Scientocracy.. because its obvious science can become a religion.. as Secular Humanism itself is.. actually No Theocracy covers them BOTH.. but I was being cute.. d;-)~ phsssst..
Ever since the reformation, popery has landed everywhere.
"That Simpson, he thinks he's the pope of chili town."
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.