Posted on 03/25/2002 7:53:24 PM PST by ThinkPlease
Edited on 07/12/2004 3:52:15 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
"I hate your opinions, but I would die to defend your right to express them." This famous quote by the 18th-century philosopher Voltaire applies to the debate currently raging in Ohio. The Board of Education is discussing whether to include alternate theories of evolution in the classroom. Some board members however, are opposed to Voltaire's defense of rational inquiry and intellectual tolerance. They are seeking to prohibit different theories other than Darwinism, from being taught to students. This threatens freedom of thought and academic excellence.
(Excerpt) Read more at asp.washtimes.com ...
as far as eternity--existence is concerned we can not out of finiteness define the infinite---time/space doesn't matter.
I actually believe in a "no age" universe---we have no idea of the beginning or the end.
Does a bird understand--experience gravity like we do...yes--no.
How about time for animals--humans--God...all different?
Who is right?
ID doesn't say a god, as defined by earth's religions, is responsible for the existence of life on this planet. It simply says that an intelligence was behind life being on this planet. That could be ET's uncles and cousins for all we know. The point is that the complexity of life on the earth and the amount of time allowed (roughly 5 billion years) contradict a theory of gradual change and development.
Perhaps there's another planet out there someplace where "life" originated and this life is the source of other life in the universe. Perhaps, if we were on that planet a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life would be much more obvious than it is here on earth.
The point is this. Intelligent design doesn't necessarily mean a god. Like in the second or third "Star Trek" movie, it could be some kind of "genesis project" carried on by extra-terrestrial, intelligent beings.
Actually, ID's founders really weren't interested in "creationsism." Creationists have seized upon ID because it assists their arguments. To fault ID for that is a bit like faulting medical advancement because religious hospitals use newly devised treatments.
ID uses a different method for criticizing current evolutionary theory. It uses mathematical modeling. According to this modeling based on information theory and only possible because of the advent of computers and their ability to crunch huge numbers, the probability of such a complex system is impossible given the amount of time available. Modeling is now used in every field from aerodynamics to quantum physics. If we're told there's a mathematical problem, then I'm an adult, I can handle it.
Do you believe that other intelligent life exists in the universe? Given the vast numbers of stars, planets, etc., there is a likelihood that other intelligent life exists out there. We won't go into UFO sightings and all the discussion in that area. But it's a valid discussion.
What's wrong with the notion that a more advanced civilization has "seeded" this planet? That accomodates the ID model and it recognizes that the origin of intelligent life could have an easy explanation elsewhere in the universe that we're simply not seeing yet.
Attempting to model evolution without understanding any of the basic biology is the fault that plagues Dembski, Behe, and the rest of the ID crowd. Math is just the language; without factual content these folks are just babbling and their probability estimates are worthless.
For example, these fellows could use a supercomputer with the help of most accomplished mathematicians available on the planet and they still couldn't successfully model the Wright's first airplane. In all likelihood they would finish their model, run the simulation, and proudly announce that heavier-than-air flight was an impossibility. A fresh engineering school graduate with single course in aeronautics could have helped them create a proper model. They have assiduously avoided the kind of information that a microbiologist could have provided to correct their "information theory" model of biological evolution.
Given the number of galaxies, the vast number of systems, planets, etc., would you say that intelligent life exists elsewhere?
BTW, Vercigetorix was an early childhood hero of mine. Even had a French penpal at the time send me a series of stamps that France had put out featuring V'rix. Unfortunately, they disappeared in a move from one home to another. (Caesar probably would've said that "intelligent" life didn't exist elsewhere until he met the warriors of V'rix.)
Cellular life may be common in the Universe or it may be exceedingly rare. There is no way at present of knowing what, precisely, is required for life to form. If cellular life is established and persists on a planet then in all probability multicellular forms will evolve. Intelligence develops naturally in those organisms that have sensors and actuators; a control system mediates the response to the environment. When does this control system begin to exhibit intelligence? Are porpoises intelligent? How about elephants or chimpanzees. Clearly every vertebrate animal exhibits intelligence but so do many invertebrates albeit to a lesser degree (cephalopods, crustaceans, arachnids). Therefore estimating the probability that intelligent life exists elsewhere depends on the probability that life itself exists elsewhere.
Because life exists here but not on other nearby planets we know that life is at least somewhat rare. Because intelligent life abounds here we know that the probability of intelligent life elsewhere is at least a finite number greater than zero.
I take your answer to the question then to be "yes." Is that correct? You equate "intelligence" with any organism's guidance system.
I, of course, mean higher "intelligence," whatever definition that incorporates the intelligence of humans -- ability to reason, foresee consequences, plan, build, love, emot and control emot, etc......so many aspects that it's difficult to capture. Let's just call it human or higher as if on a scale. Let's also assume that human intelligence is the highest expression of intelligence on this earth based on the human's dominant status.
Do I understand you, then, to be saying that such "higher" or greater than "higher" exists elsewhere in the universe as a probability statement?
I am denying that the man-made texts in Genesis are the work of the Creator - a claim that I consider blasphemous.
What other account of the Creator's work do you accept?
The account given us by the Creator's own hand, the Book of Nature. That, and none other.
Who is the Creator in whom you believe, if He is not the God of Genesis?
The God of Pythagoras and Plato, of Xenophanes and Ibn Sina, of Newton and Spinoza. Need more?
- Richard P. Feynman (1918-1988), from the introductory lecture on quantum mechanics reproduced in QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter (Feynman 1985).
We?
Yes, I am familiar with Bible Study classes.
After decades of the theory of evolution I would submit to you that in practice it has proved to be not falsifiable. I.e., every time it predicts something that doesn't pan out the way it predicted or some discovery makes it much less probable or even mathmatically impossible, the basic premise of evolution is never questioned.
After decades of the theory of evolution I would submit to you that in practice it has proved to be not falsifiable. I.e., every time it predicts something that doesn't pan out the way it predicted or some discovery makes it much less probable or even mathmatically impossible, the basic premise of evolution is never questioned.
After decades of the theory of evolution I would submit to you that in practice it has proved to be not falsifiable. I.e., every time it predicts something that doesn't pan out the way it predicted or some discovery makes it much less probable or even mathmatically impossible, the basic premise of evolution is never questioned.
Re a: There doesn't have to be a place containing prime numbers. To believe so would be taking an extreme Platonist position. Neither does one need infinite space to discuss infinite things. One only makes finitely derived statements about infinite things. There is no "infinite list of primes" only a proof that given any prime, one can produce a larger prime. These methods are discussed in books about "foundations of mathematics" and similar topics.
Re b: We reason about mathematics with more certainty because the whole subject is man-made.
Re c: There's a book called something like "The Unreasonable Effeciveness of Mathematics." We do invent things in math to describe the real world. It's often surprising that math works so well. We make a mathematical system do describe one thing (electrons, for example) then extrapolate the math to other things (positrons) and ofter, the other things exist physically. Pythagoras suggested "everything is number."
Well said. There are other areas, other than biology, where schools are indoctrinating our young:
1) "Racheal Carson is a hero" - Her book "Silent Spring" was very influential in restricting the use of DDT. Schools present her as a hero for the environment. The schools don't teach how all of the claims against DDT usage have been refuted and that malaria, that could have been controlled by DDT, has killed tens of millions.
2) "Humans are causing global warming" - This is drummed into young heads of mush from K through 12. The evidence against this silliness is never presented.
3) "Guns are bad" - No evidence is ever presented at all. No discussion of Constitutional rights ever takes place.
And so on. In the case of Darwinism, I would be happier if biology teachers simply pointed out the huge holes in Darwinism and left it as an "I don't know" and "Darwinism is far from being a complete explanation". Instead it is presented as "this is fact" or "this is what happened", much like when teachers discuss global warming - "this is fact".
Oh, I noticed. I noticed that you do not understand the difference between science and religion. You talk about education in the sciences as if it were a Bible Studies class.
When I took my first science class in the Seventh Grade, I was taught about the scientific method. I learned (among other things) that that which can be verfied by experimentation is science. It is really that simple.
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.