Posted on 08/20/2005 5:45:53 PM PDT by Nicholas Conradin
By SEATTLE - When President Bush plunged into the debate over the teaching of evolution this month, saying, "both sides ought to be properly taught," he seemed to be reading from the playbook of the Discovery Institute, the conservative think tank here that is at the helm of this newly volatile frontier in the nation's culture wars.
After toiling in obscurity for nearly a decade, the institute's Center for Science and Culture has emerged in recent months as the ideological and strategic backbone behind the eruption of skirmishes over science in school districts and state capitals across the country. Pushing a "teach the controversy" approach to evolution, the institute has in many ways transformed the debate into an issue of academic freedom rather than a confrontation between biology and religion.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
...Unless you have some evidence of fraud, which I would be interested in seeing, as I've stated before, don't bother pinging me with any further nonsense.
May I take it, since the discussion of "fraud" you rather archly insist I am not joining, is about the credentials of the members of the Discovery Institute you listed, that if we can find the degrees awarded to any of these other gentlemen fall below the level of generally recognized accreditation institutions, that that would qualify as "fraud", and entitle me to enter the discussion?
Would you say that these headlines are basically what the arguement boils down to?
Nothing Creates Universe, Wins Lotto, Universe is Special
Or:
Something Creates Universe, Uses Choice to Make Universe Special
____________
No. That is what you and countless creationists would very much like it to boil down to, so you can engage in this loony science-by-sheer-logic rhetoric, that was so popular in the 13th century, and which you've recently grown so fond of.
Serious science is not interested in this argument, because it's outside science's sphere of competence. Science is interested in mundane material explanations of material phenomena, and has no useful, or particularly competent, opinions about additional metaphysical explanations beyond that.
_____________
But there's absolutely nothing metaphysical about this. The first headline is based on the article you linked to. The second is my belief based on the available evidence (the "something" in my headline could be a scientist in a lab somewhere outside our universe).
I think it would be a good idea if we could reduce this argument to its simplest form. So please, if you disagree with the above, could you state how you think the headline(s) should read?
"Science is interested in mundane material explanations of material phenomena, and has no useful, or particularly competent, opinions about additional metaphysical explanations beyond that."
Is science not interested in a material force external to this universe that creates this material universe and leaves evidence of such creation?
Bill Gates will be passing out $437 million by himself over the next 5 years according to the August Bio-IT World.
The company where I work will spend about $2 billion in 2005. Total private investment in biology research in the US alone is probably $50 billion a year. The competition for these funds is intense.
ID'ers can't get this money because they have no proposals!
So they're stuck with the P.T. Barnum approach and sell books, pamphlets and speeches instead.
It's not about authority. It's about humility. We all have our opinions on what makes a conservative, but one thing that we should all agree on is that conservatives have humility. We aren't like the Left that shrieks and demonizes those they disagree with.
You see, my British friend, you evos can point to all kinds of highly credentialed experts who explain and demonstrate with "facts" how your opinion is correct. However, we non-evos can do likewise. Sure, most credentialed scientists believe in evolution, but that same sample overwhelmingly believes George Bush is the world's greatest terrorist. Anyway, both sides can produce impressive amounts of thoughts and writings supporting their position.
Unfortunately, some evos have an annoying sense of moral superiority (on this thread alone they have called their opponents all kinds of names) that we typically expect from the Left. By asking them to identify their education and occupation (authority as you put it), I think it may humble them a bit and they are less likely to be quite as overbearing. After all, a guy who plays music to soothe his goats (such as our friend Carolinaguitarman) may be less likely to thump his chest about his own absolute rightness if everyone knows he is but a simple goatherder (not that there's anything wrong with that).
So, if we practice a little humility (perhaps use Reagan as our example), we can enthusiastically disagree on this one subject, but still remain friends and allies on the majority of things we do agree on.
TTFN.
Maybe the evo's ARE superior to us lowly IDers. I mean - they work and teach at all these high-falutin' institutions and whatnot. And me? All I do is file papers at the local patent office.
Absolutely nothing metaphysical about an argument as to the possibility of multiverses, Divine creation, or natural creation. Give me a call when you return from the 5th dimension.
The first headline is based on the article you linked to.
Which, I leap to point out, was not an article on the subject of well-accepted scientific theories.
The second is my belief based on the available evidence (the "something" in my headline could be a scientist in a lab somewhere outside our universe).
When said scientist publishes in "Science" or a specialized refereed journal, let me know.
I think it would be a good idea if we could reduce this argument to its simplest form.
Well, of course you do. Provided you can choose the poles of debate around which to collapse the compexity.
So please, if you disagree with the above, could you state how you think the headline(s) should read?
Nothing to it. "Scientists once again found to be vastly uninterested in theologically freighted metaphysical debates". When asked to comment, Galileo was heard to mutter "and yet, it moves". Spinoza is stunned.
Science doesn't give a tinker's poop about this question, because science's job doesn't change too awfully much regardless of the outcome of the debate, should it ever have a resolution. If it turns out that God-did-it, then the question becomes "What is the material context in which God operated--what is God made of, and how does He work?" If the multiverse did it, than the question becomes "What is the multiverse, and how does it operate?" Either way, it's just not a big item on the science agenda, because the outcome isn't too significant for science as she stands, no matter how obsessed creationists are with it.
I hate to keep bringing this up, but Argosy University is not the University of Sarasota, and most certainly wasn't in 1978.
Help me out, here. The Univesity of Sarasota was listed as a diploma mill at that time. Where am I wrong?
I have searched all the references at the IRC website and can find nothing helpful.
I'll go you one better. We probably both concede that santa claus is an immaterial force. And yet, Santa Claus has a vast effect on the human universe, particularly amongst kids, that is, and has been, subject to scientific monitoring.
A thing need not have a material existence for science to be interested in it.
So, tell me, do think that, therefore, Santa Claus has been established by science to be a real thing, red suit, pot belly, raindeers and all?
The thing of it is, it's possible there's a multiverse, it's possible there's a Prime Mover God, and it's possible there's a santa claus. All these things are possible, but very few things are actually worth wasting science's sadly limited budget on.
Knock yourself out. But if you did just a little bit of research, then either, you would not have asked me that, or you would already have evidence available, because your argument is really with the accreditation services, and more specifically, NCAHLC and CACREP, links to which have already been posted in #407, and from which you can easily find their credentials.
NCAHLC:
The Higher Learning Commission is part of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools. The Association was founded in 1895 as a membership organization for educational institutions. It is committed to developing and maintaining high standards of excellence.
The Association is one of six regional institutional accrediting associations in the United States. Through its Commissions it accredits, and thereby grants membership to educational institutions in the nineteen-state North Central region: Arkansas, Arizona, Colorado, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, North Dakota, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, New Mexico, South Dakota, Wisconsin, West Virginia, and Wyoming.
The Higher Learning Commission is recognized by the US Department of Education and the Council on Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA).
Read the Commission's Mission Statement (39K PDF), adopted June 22, 2000.
Please Note: We often receive questions about the accreditation of distance learning programs. Since the Commission accredits entire institutions, rather than individual programs within those institutions, we do not have a list of external programs offered. However, we have compiled some resources for students seeking information on distance learning programs.
The other service, CACREP, you can research yourself.
Now, either these are legitimate accreditation services, or they are not. You should have enough information to figure that out.
Credentials do not an argument make. Either you have evidence, or reasoning from that evidence, or you have butkis, and you deserve to be humble, even if you have multiple Doctorates from God.
So, if we practice a little humility
Humility does not trump having actual facts, and arguments derived therefrom. You've been offered science's arguments. Anti up, or you don't get dealt cards. Whining because the exact right person to show you science's hand isn't available is transparent avoidance.
"Is science not interested in a material force external to this universe that creates this material universe and leaves evidence of such creation?
I'll go you one better. We probably both concede that santa claus is an immaterial force. And yet, Santa Claus has a vast effect on the human universe, particularly amongst kids, that is, and has been, subject to scientific monitoring.
A thing need not have a material existence for science to be interested in it.
So, tell me, do think that, therefore, Santa Claus has been established by science to be a real thing, red suit, pot belly, raindeers and all?
The thing of it is, it's possible there's a multiverse, it's possible there's a Prime Mover God, and it's possible there's a santa claus. All these things are possible, but very few things are actually worth wasting science's sadly limited budget on."
But you have entirely avoided my question by changing its meaning to something that I didn't ask. Please, PLEASE stop with that straw man game. Santa Clause doesn't leave evidence. I'm talking about evdidence IN THIS UNIVERSE, MATERIAL EVIDENCE of it being a creation. That, you must agree, is within science's sphere, yes?
And also - Santa Clause exists ONLY in this universe as an IDEA that has an effect. All of Santa's effects can be traced to this universe. It is a false analogy.
According to their website they are:
"...Our programs are specifically designed to make adult, working learners successful. At Argosy University/Sarasota, (formerly the University of Sarasota)...
Again, I can't say anything about 1978. I've only done very superficial research, but since the outlets, where this so far apparent slander is originating from, do not make any of the distinctions that can be found from such cursory analysis, one can't help but wonder if they themselves are up to something devious.
I stand amenable to any and all corrections, but if this were a christian challenge to evolutioanry scientists, without so much as any evidence whatsoever, and in fact, with evidence to the contrary, even if general rather than specific, then I think people on your side would be rallying together loudly and proclaiming, amongst many other things, liar.
I'm not willing to take that stance right now, but I do think it is a sad state of affairs when people blindly accept such slander at face value, because they want it to be true.
Sad state of affairs indeed. The Univesity of Sarasota was listed as a diploma mill at that time. Where am I wrong?
Do you mean it was listed as a diploma mill in 1978...or that it is currently being referrenced as such. If the latter, then duh. If the former, then you must have some kind of citation, dated of course, to support it.
So, donh, are you saying that science has no business trying to figure out how the universe came into being?
You seem to keep avoiding the question that if there is evidence in this universe as to its creation - whatever that may be - then that falls under the sphere of scientific inquiry, does it not?
I think I am starting to see how this breaks down:
If there is a force that intervened or set something in motion at some point in the past, whether five minutes ago or 13 billion years ago, and that force is only now identifiable by the fingerprint that it left, and that force is non-sentient, then it is within the purview of what you call science.
BUT
If the fingerprint of that force reveals any signs of sentience, then you insist that all inquiry is ouside the purview of what you call science.
Is that about right? Regardless of the evidence, all notions of intelligent intervention must be discounted because, well simply because you say so?
The University of Sarasota was not accredited in 1978, It did not have a doctorate program until 1990.
Answers In Genesis says Richard Bliss had an Ed.D.
IRC says he had a Ph.D.
Help me out here. I graciously conceded that I Argosy University was accredited. I expect you to graciously help with whatever research is required to clear this up.
sci·ence n
1. the study of the physical world and its manifestations, especially by using systematic observation and experiment (often used before a noun)
2. a branch of science of a particular area of study
3. the knowledge gained by the study of the physical world
4. any systematically organized body of knowledge about a specific subject
5. any activity that is the object of careful study or that is carried out according to a developed method
Doesn't the study of evidence in this universe as to its creation, based on the fingerprint left by its creator - if there is one - fall under the rubric of "Science"?
[csense grudgingly puts his Lowden back in it's case] Just kidding :-)
I'll see what I can turn up js, but aside from current information, I was having a hard myself time nailing down something that happened almost thirty years ago.
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.