Skip to comments.
Calif. School Scraps 'Intelligent Design' [El Tejon litigation]
The Dispatch (Lexington, N.C.) ^
| 17 January 2006
| JULIANA BARBASSA
Posted on 01/17/2006 11:24:31 AM PST by PatrickHenry
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 261-280, 281-300, 301-320 ... 441-451 next last
To: Syncretic
According to Darwinists, the explanation for all structures, features, and capabilities of any animal is that they confer an advantage in the struggle for survival. Actually, no.
Darwinists, however, do not seem to have a good answer as to what competitive advantage consciousness brings. On the surface, it would seem a competitive disadvantage, i.e. unnecessary overhead.
You're kidding, right? Look around you. Among other things, consciousness allows you to manipulate your environment to your liking. Consciousness is why you're tapping these messages out on a computer from your nice, comfy chair, after enjoying a nice hot meal from your stove under the cover of an artificial shelter, instead of grunting to your packmates and huddling up for warmth after dashing down to the creek to wash down your roots and berries with some water. We are the only creatures capable of reshaping the entire planet to suit us, with nearly absolute dominion over every other organism that exists anywhere on the world, but you don't see the advantage of consciousness. Kind of like the fish who doesn't notice the water any more, because he's always been swimming in it. Huh.
Now of course, my own belief is that consciousness is a gift from God, and its purpose is not to aid in survival but to demonstrate God's love and generosity.
Believe what you like, but it's not science.
To: Syncretic; VadeRetro
4. If human consciousness has this immortal quality, it may shed light on how it confers a competitive advantage. QED
Wow, I'm trying to wrap my mind around the concept of an immortal soul conferring a competitive advantage of some kind. When a person dies, how could the fact that their consciousness doesn't die with their physical body possibly affect how many children they have???
Or are you saying their soul gets to haunt their children & subtly change their minds WRT who they pursue for marriage, to an extent that the parents were never able to do while they were still alive?
(Hey Vade, I think there's a good plot for a novel here! Deborah tends to pursue boyfriends that send her domineering mother into shock. But after Mom dies suddenly of a heart attack, Deborah - without realizing it - starts to get attracted to the very nerdy men her Mom was trying to hook her up with. She almost marries an insufferable young lawyer, when a chance encounter with a part-time tarot-card reader who's studying to be an electronics engineer sets her on a desperate quest to free herself once and for all... :-)
282
posted on
01/17/2006 11:44:31 PM PST
by
jennyp
(WWJBD?)
To: Sola Veritas
"Whatever, do most of you know that 'Philosophy' is the love of wisdom or love of science?"
Another reason why creationism or id neither should taught as science nor as philosophy.
283
posted on
01/18/2006 1:40:45 AM PST
by
MHalblaub
(Tell me in four more years (No, I did not vote for Kerry))
To: Syncretic
I'll try to answer your question as honest as a scientist can do that.
"1. How does human consciousness work?"
Very complex interaction of neurons.
"2. How did human consciousness evolve?"
Out of less complex neural networks.
"3. What competitive advantage does the human consciousness bring?"
To look further than you can see. This is a big advantage for hunting. You have to imagine where you are and where your prey is. So you need an image of yourself.
"4. Will human consciousness one day be created in the lab?"
To answer that question I need a proper definition of what you have in mind with "human consciousness". When in the life of a human does his "human consciousness" starts to work? At conception, at birth or around 4 years age.
"5. Do you have any evidence supporting the belief that human consciousness (also known as the soul) does not survive the death of the body?"
In cases like the one of Terry Schiavo I think of living bodies without a "human consciousness". So I have evidence that the body can survive the "human consciousness".
"I have yet to get any kind of satisfactory answer from the Darwinists to any of these questions:"
Did you ever get an answer that was satisfactory and supported by evidence of someone else?
You are not satisfied with my answers? Maybe you have preset a limitation what is a valid answer for you. Maybe you should try other questions.
"Honest answers from Darwinists to 1-4 are, in each case, 'I don't know.' To number five, the honest answer is 'No.' If Darwinists would answer these questions honestly and admit their limitations, I would view that as progress."
I answered your questions honestly. Therefore I'm not a true "Darwinist".
My belief is your are limited by a certain interpretation of an old book. I think you try to limit the way of how your image of god is acting. - "Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image, nor any manner of likeness, of any thing that is in heaven above,..."
What do you think "graven" can stand for?
284
posted on
01/18/2006 2:52:17 AM PST
by
MHalblaub
(Tell me in four more years (No, I did not vote for Kerry))
To: jennyp; VadeRetro
I think there's a good plot for a novel here! Your plot is far too modern to deal appropriately with the primitive nature of the underlying belief. You need to drop waaaaaaay back into deeeeeeeep prehistory to deal with this one. Think about a really ignorant tribe of savages, blundering through their brutish lives, believing that they're being guided by the ever-present spirits of their departed elders. Let that scenario settle into your mind, and then you're ready to write a story about this creationist notion of the survival value of consciousness after death.
285
posted on
01/18/2006 3:40:46 AM PST
by
PatrickHenry
(Virtual Ignore for trolls, lunatics, dotards, scolds, & incurable ignoramuses.)
To: metmom
"So, which creationists don't like science?"
The ones in leadership positions in creationist organizations. They don't like evolution, cosmology, astronomy, geology, particle physics, radiometric dating... and so on. Anything that goes against their literal reading of Genesis.
286
posted on
01/18/2006 4:31:31 AM PST
by
CarolinaGuitarman
("There is grandeur in this view of life...")
To: jennyp
(Hey Vade, I think there's a good plot for a novel here! Deborah tends to pursue boyfriends that send her domineering mother into shock. But after Mom dies suddenly of a heart attack, Deborah - without realizing it - starts to get attracted to the very nerdy men her Mom was trying to hook her up with. She almost marries an insufferable young lawyer, when a chance encounter with a part-time tarot-card reader who's studying to be an electronics engineer sets her on a desperate quest to free herself once and for all... :-) Interesting. The Mommorcist! I'm not sure Tarot cards make great theater, though. A full voodoo ritual might be better.
287
posted on
01/18/2006 5:25:12 AM PST
by
VadeRetro
(Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
To: PatrickHenry; jennyp
Then again, think "Norman Bates." The mother is taking over the daughter's mind after her death. A modern psychobabble setting could fly, here.
288
posted on
01/18/2006 5:29:14 AM PST
by
VadeRetro
(Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
To: CarolinaGuitarman; metmom
They don't like evolution, cosmology, astronomy, geology, particle physics, radiometric dating... and so on.It isn't that they "don't like" these subjects. They simply prefer to question many of their assumtpions just as science is inlcined to do, and would prefer not to see these discplines abused in favor of an ideology.
To: Fester Chugabrew
"It isn't that they "don't like" these subjects. They simply prefer to question many of their assumtpions just as science is inlcined to do, and would prefer not to see these discplines abused in favor of an ideology."
No, they don't like these subjects. Their *questioning* has nothing to do with science but everything to do with their theology. For creationists to be right, a large portion of modern science, in many disciplines, must be totally wrong.
290
posted on
01/18/2006 6:21:46 AM PST
by
CarolinaGuitarman
("There is grandeur in this view of life...")
To: CarolinaGuitarman
If they "don't like these subjects" then why do some of them have degrees in astonomy, geology, etc?
To: VadeRetro; jennyp
Then again, think "Norman Bates." The mother is taking over the daughter's mind after her death. A modern psychobabble setting could fly, here. I don't think you fully appreciate the truly primitive nature of this creationist notion of the survival value of consciousness which persists after death, expressed back in post 279. It's inspiring me to ponder all kinds of things.
Consider two competing tribes. One thinks it's living in a world where ghosts are ever-present, always guiding their actions. The other tribe (I'm thinking of classical Greece) has shaken off much of this worldview -- they have only a few gods (Zeus, Aphrodite, etc.), and their dead are neatly tucked away in Hades. The pagan Greek outlook, while not at all what we would go for, is a vast intellectual improvement over the really primitive "ghosts-everywhere" worldview. The Greeks have their ghosts mostly under control, which gives them room to think. They are only occasionally thwarted by the gods. The savages, on the other hand, who always look to ghostly influence, are non-rational almost all the time.
292
posted on
01/18/2006 6:43:35 AM PST
by
PatrickHenry
(Virtual Ignore for trolls, lunatics, dotards, scolds, & incurable ignoramuses.)
To: Fester Chugabrew; CarolinaGuitarman
I'm a creationist and I don't just *like* science, I *love* science and got my degree in it. Nobody can make blanket statements that "Creationists don't like science" anymore that someone can say "Evolutionists are atheists".
293
posted on
01/18/2006 6:52:11 AM PST
by
metmom
(Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
To: Fester Chugabrew
"If they "don't like these subjects" then why do some of them have degrees in astonomy, geology, etc?"
It's a mystery. They reject most of these subjects as they stand today.
294
posted on
01/18/2006 6:52:49 AM PST
by
CarolinaGuitarman
("There is grandeur in this view of life...")
To: metmom
"Nobody can make blanket statements that "Creationists don't like science" anymore that someone can say "Evolutionists are atheists"."
Which is why I said Creationist leaders. The Henry Morrises and Duane Gishes. Hovind, and so on.
295
posted on
01/18/2006 6:54:20 AM PST
by
CarolinaGuitarman
("There is grandeur in this view of life...")
To: CarolinaGuitarman
They reject most of these subjects as they stand today.No. They just don't happen to agree with your opinion that God is outside the purview of science, and so you feel a need to tag them as wholly atagonistic to science in general.
To: microgood
I also have a degree in philosophy, and, yes, philosophy departments nearly everywhere have courses in the philosophy of religion and the philosophy of science, and, if anywhere, that's where ID would rightfully be taught.
I would not expect the philosophy of religion course to be one in which the science of evolution is discussed at all, why would it? It is not an issue in the philosophy of religion.
As for the philosophy of science, sure, discuss it there, but teach the science (?) of ID. Much of what I have read in the ID arena is a put-down of evolution, as though the rejection of evolution is an automatic affirmation of ID. It's not.
JMO.
297
posted on
01/18/2006 6:58:02 AM PST
by
dmz
To: Fester Chugabrew
"No. They just don't happen to agree with your opinion that God is outside the purview of science, and so you feel a need to tag them as wholly atagonistic to science in general."
My *opinion* is a fact, one that underlies every scientific theory today, and for the last 300 years. Creationist leaders hate modern science. They are ignorant Luddites.
298
posted on
01/18/2006 6:59:50 AM PST
by
CarolinaGuitarman
("There is grandeur in this view of life...")
To: CarolinaGuitarman
LOL. When I was finishing my philosophy degree, my advisor gently hinted that continuing on to get an advanced degree in philosophy might not be the best path for me.
Even at 22, I understood what he meant.
299
posted on
01/18/2006 7:08:26 AM PST
by
dmz
300
posted on
01/18/2006 7:24:06 AM PST
by
PatrickHenry
(Virtual Ignore for trolls, lunatics, dotards, scolds, & incurable ignoramuses.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 261-280, 281-300, 301-320 ... 441-451 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson