Creationism: God's gift to the ignorant (Religion bashing alert)

Times Online UK ^ | May 21, 2005 | Richard Dawkins

[From many - one.]

No problem, been there, done that. Even had to apologize using the word testy!

I respect the work you and Alamo-Girl are doing in trying to get a mutually agreeable definition of ID.

[donh]

scientists want to be taken seriously when they present their theories, then they had better remind themselves of a host of assumptions that have been made in order to arrive at their "system of assumptions, accepted principles, and rules of procedure." Otherwise they simply play themselves and their audience for suckers

This is getting pretty silly. Science is not subject to tinkering by non-scientists, and so has no need to have its procedures justified to the unwashed masses. Unlike most civilians, scientists are professionally required to vet their assumptions with extreme critical rigor. It is the audience that needs to come up to speed, or get lost, unlike politics, science is not dependent on winning a popularity contest amongst the under-educated masses that vote. Science has a product to offer, and the countries stupidly enough run not to buy it, fall off the map, eventually. For two obvious examples of countries that thought that politicians should examine science and improve its thought processes, try China and Russia in the last century.

[Fester Chugabrew]

It's also a shame you can't do basic research before you post. A better link than the one above: Paleontology Journals.

I should hope the second link to be better than the first. The former points to an error. How about you just cite the title and author of a book that presents fossil evidence where is has been found? I'll go to the library and check it out.

Without apology, I do not engage in much detailed research before posting. You may be in this mostly for the hell of it. I'm in it mostly for the fun of it. I am just an ordinary observer who seeks to apprehend the difference between reasonable conjecture and immutable fact, a distinction herein demonstrably lost upon certain ones who purport to be perfessers, scientists, and the like.

Furthermore, what is a "shame" to you is of little concern to me.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Science is not subject to tinkering by non-scientists . . .

You seem to be deluded in what makes up "science" and what may or may not be submitted as a scientific claim. You also seem to be incapable of recognizing the fact there are varying degrees of certitude with repect to the claims science makes, whether those claims are made by "professionals," as you call them, or the man on the street. In short, your thinking on these matters may be in need of an epistomological enema. One way or another we'll all get one, if not within the next few minutes, then within the next century. That is a scientific prediction.

[Condorman]

I should hope the second link to be better than the first. The former points to an error.

Your observation shall be noted for posterity.

Without apology, I do not engage in much detailed research before posting.

Obvious to anyone. See above.

[Condorman]

I am just an ordinary observer who seeks to apprehend the difference between reasonable conjecture and immutable fact, a distinction herein demonstrably lost upon certain ones who purport to be perfessers, scientists, and the like.

You're not an ordinary observer. You refuse to do any research of your own yet expect us to spoon-feed you the entire history of the physical sciences and put up with your militantly ignorant sniping besides. An ordinary observer might be cajoled into participating in the learning process, taking an independent interest in the subject matter, and working out the calculations for himself.

You're content to prattle on about how ignorant you are without making the slightest effort towards a resolution. There must be some explanation other than that you are a colossal tool, but I'm at a loss to formulate one.

[PatrickHenry]

Colossal placemarker.

[Condorman]

PMFJI...

You also seem to be incapable of recognizing the fact there are varying degrees of certitude with repect to the claims science makes, whether those claims are made by "professionals," as you call them, or the man on the street.

Define "confidence interval".

[longshadow]

humongus placemarker

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your excellent essay-post and for your encouragements!

OR both. It seems that scientific materialists cling to the idea that the only thing going on in the world is matter in its motions. Yet this seems to be a flying jump to conclusions, IMHO.

Indeed, "or both!" And sadly, I agree that scientific materialists cling to the matter-in-motions prejudice which tortures all of their conclusions.

Notwithstanding, there seem to be things in the world which are not materially-based (e.g., the "informational" -- physical laws themselves and also worldviews, which often furnish an undisclosed premise on which research and analysis are based); and then there are others that are "physical" (e.g., vacuum fields, which are presumably not "material" in any usual sense).

So very true. There is no way a conclusion can be complete if the investigators are tunnel-visioned.

I know the analogy is a tad fanciful; but the parallels are there in my view. In the end, "classical" science wants to look at "the tip of the iceberg" and at not at the vast depths that lie beneath the surface....

The impression I got from Whitehead's assessment of it is that scientific materialism is so reduced that it cannot help but produced results whereupon the investigators pronounce their reduced view is the correct because it is successful. Jeepers. It is much easier to predict the result from the toss of a single coin than it is to predict the result from tossing a pocketful of change.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your reply!

Intelligent Design: A hypothesis that given features of actuality are explained by an intelligent cause, rather than by an undirected process such as natural selection.

your last post: The The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition gives the following definition of "actuality": the state or fact of being actual. In other words: what is, by contrast to what isn't. Is that definition adequate?

That definition doesn't help because it is inherently vague. It puts us back to the question of "what is all that there is?" - or in the short form, "what is reality?".

Either way though, we are going way beyond life v non-life/death in nature into cosmology - which is fine with me, btw.

To go cosmological, perhaps we could agree to our own specialized definition of "actuality" to include all corporeals and phenomenon within space/time regardless of dimensions as well as space/time itself and everything "beyond" all dimensions of space and time? That would include mathematical structures, information, Platonic forms, qualia, etc.

Or, if you would rather go back to looking only at the intelligent design hypothesis with regard to life, then perhaps we could agree to a mathematical definition for "what is life v non-life/death in nature?"

[bluepistolero]

Jesus was clearly not the Messiah as the Jews understood him to be.

Well, in some cases, the prophecies were specific, and they did not understand the time of their visitation. Killing the prophets, when you need them, is never a good idea. Jesus made every effort to get them to understand, that for a spiritual people, his kingdom was a spiritual kingdom, but they were looking for another. Consequently, as the prophecy of Moses states, it was then given to another people, and that is spiritual christians.

[betty boop]

It is much easier to predict the result from the toss of a single coin than it is to predict the result from tossing a pocketful of change.

Jeepers, A-G -- ain't that the truth!

You cited A. N. Whitehead: "... scientific materialism is so reduced that it cannot help but produce results whereupon the investigators pronounce their reduced view is correct because it is successful." [Itals added]

Which just begs the question: What is success? And I guess the answer to that question depends on who you ask. On the one hand, the pure theorists pursue the "open path" for the sheer love of adventure, of discovery, of the sense of being somehow married to the quest of truth. On the other, science is so brilliant in its achievements, that there are excellent scientists who think we ought to be satisfied with deriving useful, reliable "engineering solutions" to "human problems" -- which at least has the obvious benefit of practicality and utility going for it.

But it seems to me utilitarian solutions to human problems do not and can not reach to the essential problems of the human soul which, in combinatorial fashion, make the person; and the person in turn, "writ in larger letters," makes the family, the community, society, the nation, and in the final analysis the human race.

FWIW, it seems to me that science cannot provide solutions to human problems other than the "material" or physical ones. And even those to a shockingly limited degree as it turns out. (If anyone doubts this, just consider e.g., the high human poverty, morbidity, and mortality rates that persist in large parts of the world to this day. Etc.)

For the stark fact is: Science cannot defeat mortality. It cannot "cure" death. And it cannot make man "good."

All the same, man is more than his body, in the same way that the Universe is more than its material substance. JMHO FWIW.

Thanks ever so much for writing, dear Alamo-Girl!

[AntiGuv]

Let me give this some more thought and get back to you. I'm ready to move on, but it's essential that we have an acceptable definition of "intelligent design" before we do so. The next several steps should be relatively easy, but our entire exercise falls apart if our definition of "intelligent design" is faulty.

[AntiGuv]

And, if we are to reopen the debate on how to more narrowly define the type of features that "intelligent design" contemplates, we will need to entice PatrickHenry back into the discussion, because the primary reason I dismissed the formulation that PH proposed was because it was narrower than 'everything'..

[AntiGuv]

Hey, could you please repost that definition of "Intelligent Design" that we began with as one of our reference points. I think it was from the Discovery Institute. I could go back and find it, but it's buried deep in my comments list by now and you probably have it on hand.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Science has a product to offer, and the countries stupidly enough run not to buy it, fall off the map, eventually. For two obvious examples of countries that thought that politicians should examine science and improve its thought processes, try China and Russia in the last century.

It's not for lack of worship of your Science god, that they had problems. It was for lack of a humane Philosophy.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Do these chaps have anywhere even close to a good enough view of "macro" evolution to back up this kind of claim? They're saying they believe this is what happened, now can they back up this claim with the observation of the bulk of the "evolved" progression of species? Or is this a procrustean bed into which all scenarios of "evolution" must be forced?

[HiTech RedNeck]

"confidence interval" = the amount of time suckers spend believing the theory of evolution.

[donh]

You seem to be deluded in what makes up "science" and what may or may not be submitted as a scientific claim. You also seem to be incapable of recognizing the fact there are varying degrees of certitude with repect to the claims science makes,

No, I'm not, and I don't believe there is anything I have posted that remotely suggests that I'm not aware that "there are varying degrees of certitude" of scientific claims. What else do you think I could possibly mean when I point out that there is no such thing as proof in a natural science.

whether those claims are made by "professionals," as you call them, or the man on the street. In short, your thinking on these matters may be in need of an epistomological enema. One way or another we'll all get one, if not within the next few minutes, then within the next century. That is a scientific prediction.

Long on pompous hot air, short on sense.