Science Fiction (Leftists worry IDers are using Leftist tactics to win 'Intelligent Design fight)

TNR ^ | September 9, 2005 | Noam Scheiber

[gobucks]

Although this question is off topic, sort of, after reading this post of yours, I have to ask: are you a golfer?

Golf is about swinging the 'right' way. The room for error is so small ... and the impact of hanging around and watching people who don't know how to swing correctly is so significant, it is no wonder so many clubs are gathering dust in garages or green fuzz on the bottom of a pond.

So many fail to pick up their clubs, once the evidence is present that the work ahead of them is so steep. Diamond, what I mean to say is that I would LOVE the ability to off the top of my head write:

Even if you could hypothetically explain all consciousness in terms of matter, you still are still saying that matter ends up producing real morality; actual, not illusory, right and wrong. Is matter or any of its emergent properties dualistic? Conversely, is morality just a property of human consciousness? If it is then it is entirely subjective, and not worthy of the name.

Asking the question, how does matter end up 'producing real morality'.... that is the kind of golf swing I frankly want to imitate. So, I'm guessing you are likely a golfer ... perhaps with a handicap in the single digits. The principles are so similar... Btw, I use the 20 Bill analogy ... is it green paper, or is it really 20 Dollars? I tell my Sunday School students that the hypocrit Christians are the best evidence BY FAR of the validity of Christ ... for who wants to counterfeit a fake? How many people are struggling to defeat the anti-counterfeiting measures taken by the Nigerian Gov't to protect their currency, the Naira? Thus, we have figured out without talking about it much, how to make the U.S. Dollar a 'standard', one that is worthy of massive counterfeiting efforts. But we don't talk very much about the good news a counterfeit 20 dollar bill actually tells us.

So, that all said, I'm still interested: are you a golfer?

[DoctorMichael]

Science Fiction (Leftists worry IDers are using Leftist tactics to win 'Intelligent Design fight)

Alternate title: Science Fiction (Common-sense Americans worry Whack-job IDers are using Leftist tactics to win Intelligent Design fight in their misguided and ignorant attempts to overturn a cornerstone of modern Western Civilization, 'Science'.)

[gobucks]

IDers are trying to "overturn a cornerstone"?

You need another cup of coffee. :)

[DoctorMichael]

IDers are trying to "overturn a cornerstone"?

Yes, in their ignorant and misguided attempts to destroy both the Conservative Movement and our modern Civilization.

:-)

[gobucks]

You STILL need another cup of coffee. :)

[Pietro]

"And when they come up with material, non-supernatural ones they can take part in a scientific discussion"

I think that is precisely the point. IDers, if I could speak for them, would maintain that there is more to creation and life than merely the physical components.

If that is true then a science which rejects all nonmaterial evidence/logic out of hand is inadequate to explain life. Yet many proponents of evo. hold forth the position that life can only be explained by its physical properties.

From this layman's POV "science", that is the academic elites, have for the last century or so been trying to put religion in a box, to marginalize it, and to force it out of the arena of important ideas. That explains the backlash.

I don't believe that IDers are anti-science, I know that I'm not. I do, however, believe that the box fitted out for religion by the scientific community is more appropriate for science itself. If science, and perhaps rightly so, cannot envision or account for a reality beyond materialism then it is self limiting and should, therefore, drop all "supranatural" claims at explaining life.

Of course I doubt that will happen, just as I doubt my opinioms will get even a second thought.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

" IDers, if I could speak for them, would maintain that there is more to creation and life than merely the physical components."

There is no way to examine and test non-physical components.

"If science, and perhaps rightly so, cannot envision or account for a reality beyond materialism then it is self limiting and should, therefore, drop all "supra natural" claims at explaining life."

Science makes no supra natural claims, that would be religion and ID. There is no EVIDENCE for a reality beyond matter. For either science or religion. Until some shows up, there is no reason to waste time with untestable speculation like ID.

[Pietro]

"Science makes no supra natural claims.."

Hate to disagree but it most certainly does, ie that life is self generating.

"There is no EVIDENCE for a reality beyond matter."

Only if matter is the sole criteria. What you have here is a circular argument.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

" Hate to disagree but it most certainly does, ie that life is self generating."

That's not supra natural. You can't just rewrite what words mean.

" Only if matter is the sole criteria. What you have here is a circular argument."

No, it's a fact. There is no evidence of reality other then matter. Please provide such evidence if you feel there is. Feelings and wishes won't count.

[Pietro]

Sorry to get back to you so late

"That's not supra natural."

Of course it is. You have no physical evidence of life self generating, therefore by your own definition it's supra natural.

Per your second argument concerning mattter: where to begin?

Let's try birth, childhood, a rose, a sunset my daughter, my father, synchronisity, God, pain, suffering, salvation.

None of these are matter, but somehow they matter. That's more than a pun. Much more.

It defines the limits of science. Fair enough.

Science cannot dictate the debate on life; it's simply not equipped to do so.

Thanks for your patience,

[CarolinaGuitarman]

" Of course it is. You have no physical evidence of life self generating, therefore by your own definition it's supra natural."

No, it really isn't. Lack of evidence of how something functions is not evidence of it being supernatural. Before we understand ANY biochemical pathway, when we are at the stage that we are completely clueless, we don't say it's *supernatural*. We say we don't know...yet. It's the ID'ers who propose supernatural causes when there are gaps in our knowledge. Scientists are willing to say they don't know and stick to physical causes; even if it means a very incomplete hypothesis or theory. ID'ers have such restraint.


"It defines the limits of science. Fair enough.

Science cannot dictate the debate on life; it's simply not equipped to do so."

Not sure exactly what you mean by the debate on life. The debate on how life started? It certainly can have a lot to say on that. On what life is? Ditto. Meaning in life? It's pretty impotent there.

I don't deny that there may be more than just matter, I just know of no objective means to examine it.

[Diamond]

I tried to play golf one time in my life and decided right then and there (exercising my free will) that for me golf was a game of utter futility and despair. I couldn't imagine hitting that little ball, and even if I did manage to hit it, what was the sense in hitting a ball as far as I could only to walk after it and hit it again?

I think the same principles apply though, in any endeavor. I happen to be a musician, among other things, and it takes the same type of formula to be good at music as it does doing other things. There is no substitute for perseverance, attention to detail, practice, and of course, ability. Greatness is another thing, though. Sometimes you see things that make you wonder. I listened to a 15 year pianist from Ukraine over the weekend at the R.C. Sproul conference and felt such marvel at being in the presence of such skill and maturity that I didn't want to ever pick up my instrument again. I will, though, because I like to play, even though I know I will never be THAT good at ANYTHING, at least in this life.

I'm just a putterer on these threads, but thanks for your comments all the same.

Cordially,

[Diamond]

There is no evidence of reality other then matter

Epistemologically speaking, have you searched everywhere?

The 'evidence' is in your proposition itself, which is self-refuting if only matter exists. (Is the meaning of the proposition the electrons and photons?) And what is this 'evidence' thing that you are talking about? Is it matter, too?

You can't prove empiricism empirically.

Cordially

[CarolinaGuitarman]

" Epistemologically speaking, have you searched everywhere?"

How does one search for something that isn't matter? What empirical tests are there for non-material entities? I did not say that matter is all there is, just that we as material have no way to test *spirit*.

"(Is the meaning of the proposition the electrons and photons?)"

"Meaning" is only something we give to things. Electrons and protons exist whether we ever noticed them.

"And what is this 'evidence' thing that you are talking about? Is it matter, too?"

You don't believe in physical evidence? How odd.

"You can't prove empiricism empirically."

You can't gather evidence subjectively. Look, our senses are physical; we can only detect that which is physical. Does that mean we are limited to using physical causes in our scientific explanations? Absolutely. Does that mean there is nothing that is non-material, that *spirit* doesn't exist? No; it just means that by using our senses we cannot make any objective statements about non-material things.
That doesn't mean though that there is any better way to examine the non-material. I know of no objective way to examine the non-material realm, if it exists.

I will admit that as you have said in a previous post to a different Freeper, I too am just a putter here on these threads. I don't claim to be an expert, though I am working to better my knowledge.

BTW, what kind of music/instrument do you play? :)

[Diamond]

Electric Bass. Fretless. Prefer Jazz and classical music but will listen to just about anything. Thank you for asking.

"Meaning" is only something we give to things

My point is that "meaning" is not a physical thing. Yet it is real. If we could only detect that which is physical there would be no mathematics or metaphysics or philosophy, or scientific explantions, and a host of other non-material things, and this sentence I'm typing would be completely unintelligible.

Cordially,

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Electric Bass. Fretless. Prefer Jazz and classical music but will listen to just about anything. Thank you for asking."

I (obviously) play guitar, some banjo, and a little mandolin and harmonica. I listen to most types of music too; jazz and classical, though I love them, are a little beyond my present capabilities. Even though I grew up listening to rock and heavy metal, I have since gravitated far more to traditional country and blues. Lyrically I have a hard time relating to much of the rock I listened too as a teen. At my age (34) I want a little more. Ironically, some of my favorite songs are bluegrass gospel. I love the harmonies and the seriousness of the lyric, even if I don't always agree with it. *Wayfaring Stranger* is probably my favorite song.

As far the rest of what we discussed, let's just leave it and agree to disagree. Much better to end a thread talking about music. :)

[Diamond]

Lyrically I have a hard time relating to much of the rock I listened too as a teen.

I too. Sometimes I think, "!WHAT was I thinking?"

Much better to end a thread talking about music. :)

And on that note < /pun intended> I heartily agree:^)

Cordially,

[eagle11]

Interesting...someone has figured out that the IDists and the postmodern leftists are using the same tactics to gain "respect" and acceptance of their viewpoints. Thank God that science is not democratic, or else we'd still be communicating by telegrams or the pony express!

Both sides insult the intelligence of educated, objective people.

Both sides label their opponents as bigots opposing free thinking. Just because someone's ego is bruised by science -doesn't mean they should have a place at the table. Respect is not an entitlement.

I always giggle when people try to associate moral relativism with Einstein's Relativity, it's more evidence of the generally ignorant state of our society. The post-modernists are just as misguided as the IDists, trying to force their political agenda on science, taking advantage of a dumbed-down public.