Posted on 08/20/2005 5:45:53 PM PDT by Nicholas Conradin
The same can be said for UFOlogy, and crystal healing, and pyramid energy theory. All could conceivably be true and all, like ID, lack the positive, specific forensic evidence to make scientific investigation possible.
"fundamental symmetries in the nature of the initial quantum event"?
What fundamental symmetries? And wouldn't those be prior to the existence of many of the particles in question? And wouldn't the inital energy of the quantum event have to be set beforehand? Or would that also be in flux?
And why an initial quantum event at all with no cause?
"I can make a grab at Occams razor, because I'm not required to then try to examine and explain the nature of the entity mysteriously behind it all."
Right. With your theory you are not required to. I keep my mind open to that possibility as well. But, seeing as there is a theory that says the universe IS a creation, and it's a pretty good theory, then it might not be a bad idea for you to conjecture about "the nature of the entity mysteriously behind it all" as an extension of considering it. Seriously: What if?
PS - I'd be much obliged if you recommend an article regarding the theory you spoke of (of fundamental symmetries at the initial quantum event).
You are correct, that is a non-scientific conclusion, so, of course, science does not draw it. Science does not have enough data to hold an opinion on this subject.
ID holds that yes, it happened, but there was Intelligence behind it. The only point of dispute is the existence of God.
Or Thor. Or Odin. Or Raynard the Dawn Fox.
"Then why are the ID supporters all demanding equal time to teach their competing theory? Why are the ID supporters in this crevo debate all ripping on evolution?"
I think the problem is that you can't tell the players without a scorecard. It's hard to tell who is really advocating what.
"If "ID doesn't deny the factuality of evolution", then its supporters wouldn't have any complaints about what is taught in public schools."
That would be the case *if not for* the fact that many, many school teachers are using biology class to proselytize atheism. (Please don't bother repeating the anecdotal reports of exceptions you've seen.)
If all they taught was what we learn from the fossil record, then actual ID proponents would have no complaints. But what they teach is, "Here's the fossil record, and that proves not only that there is no God, but that people who think there is a God are drooling Neanderthal idiots."
"And if the only difference is "the final question, ...was there an Intelligence [God] behind it?", then ID's supporters can only be talking about religion (as you admit) and as such it absolutely has no place in a science classroom."
If both positions could be kept out of the classroom, that would be the case. However, we live among the human beings on Planet Earth, and that's not possible.
Therefore, because it is inevitable that atheists will be using the classroom to proselytize their students, I want at least some mention that there is another, at least equally reputable view.
You can't make this ludicrously ignorant claim true by stamping your feet and holding your breath until you turn blue.
"Theory" my friend... We are debating "Theory". Evolution is a long ways away from being "fact".
Which puts it in the same boat as galactic astronomy theory, plate tectonics theory, universal gravitational theory, and atomic theory. When was the last time you saw a continent drift?
Wasn't too long ago that "science" insisted the world was flat and that "Earth" was the center of the universe...
Science, in any analytic form remotely like it is now, never made any such claim.
If you are that stupid, just ask me to define it.
"I wonder if the ID supporters would be satisfied with something like this disclaimer in our public school science books."
Speaking solely for myself, I would have to balance the effect of such a disclaimer against the authority of the teacher.
"And now kids (snicker, sneer) I want you all to turn to the back of the Holy Book of Biology (deep obeisance) and look at the (snort, rolls eyes) disclaimer (drips sarcasm) that some people (tone clearly communicates 'some idiots') insisted on including in this science book (explosive exhalation indicating disgust).
If, just for the sake of argument, a supernatural being did create the universe and all life in it, would it be inappropriate for the created beings to worship said supernatural being, and for those same beings to seek to discover what that supernatural being did in the process - and would the worship part of that be described as religion, and the searching side be called science?
Obvious hogwash--cite some evidence that "Many, many" school teachers do any such thing.
[Wasn't too long ago that "science" insisted the world was flat and that "Earth" was the center of the universe...]
This is untrue.
These two ideas were widely believed by everyone by default until genuine scientists citing evidence proposed the now accepted theories of a spheroidally shaped Earth orbiting the Sun over the objections of the religious faithful citing strict interpretation of "infallible" Bible verses.
A quantum event produces a particle and anti-particle, which, should you clang them back together, produce the nothing from which they came. Has a sort of symmetric ring to it, doncha think?
And wouldn't those be prior to the existence of many of the particles in question?
Op. cit.
And wouldn't the inital energy of the quantum event have to be set beforehand?
Well, um, no, lacking any evidence to the contrary.
And why an initial quantum event at all with no cause?
I don't know. Why do we have them now?
"You are correct, that is a non-scientific conclusion, so, of course, science does not draw it. Science does not have enough data to hold an opinion on this subject."
Okay, I'm fine with that. You figure out some way to keep teachers from proselytizing that conclusion to their students, and I'll shut up about it.
"Or Thor. Or Odin. Or Raynard the Dawn Fox."
I want to say something that can easily be seen as an attack, but I don't mean it as an attack.
On these threads, creationists and ID proponents are often criticized for lack of scientific knowledge. My own background in paleontology and molecular biology were rather shallow when I graduated college in 1977, and I've only kept up in a desultory fashion since then. Even so, I think some of the criticisms do in fact reflect a misunderstanding of science.
That said, your statement regarding "Thor" et. al. reflects an equivalent lack of knowledge in the field of theology. That argument is based on a fundamental error.
"Therefore, because it is inevitable that atheists will be using the classroom to proselytize their students, I want at least some mention that there is another, at least equally reputable view."
Didn't you hear?
You won.
One of your activist buddy judges just ruled one for ya.
Atheism is religion.
That right, sing it loud...
Atheism is Religion!
Atheism is Religion!
That messy inconvenient and in the way Establishment Clause is History!
No more freedom from Religion!
Praise be to Our One True God!
Noting can stop us now!
(If SCOTUS doesn't vaporise it, that is.)
So you get Your "word of God" Thumper-Fundy-pseudo-science.
Happy?
watch your back...
Can you spell A C L U?
Muhammed gonna get his too.
Koran Klass Kiddies!
Hooray for God!
"Obvious hogwash--cite some evidence that "Many, many" school teachers do any such thing."
If you can actually manage to deny it, nothing I say could possibly sway you.
I saw it in my own student days, and have been reading about case after case on line since the days of UNEWS and BBSs back in the '80s.
I have no problems with such conjecturing. Practically every scientist I have ever known spent animated hours entertaining such speculations--in the dorm, over beer, or in church, over donuts. which, given our present state of sceintific knowledge, is exactly where it belongs.
Hypotenuses are in triangles.
"The same (disputes nothing that can be demonstrated through scientific methods) can be said for UFOlogy, and crystal healing, and pyramid energy theory."
Not honestly, by any rational person.
"All could conceivably be true"
You don't believe that for a moment.
"and all, like ID, lack the positive, specific forensic evidence to make scientific investigation possible."
That argument boils down to, "The existence of God cannot be demonstrated to my satisfaction through methods I accept as scientific."
Well, if that's true, then neither can the non-existence of God. So either stop teaching it in the classroom, or give the opposing view equal time.
Since there's no way the first of these things is going to happen, looks like you're stuck with the second.
Namely what? That your religeous beliefs are superior to early greek, early roman, and american indian riff raff's religeon?
That is flaming bloody nonsense. Science does not pose the non-existence, or the existence of God. The question is not relevant to science, and neither conclusion is taught to a significant extent in modern science classrooms, your mendacious and unsupported claims to the contrary notwithstanding.
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.