Revote today [Dover, PA school board]

York Daily Record [Penna] ^ | 03 January 2006 | TOM JOYCE

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Sure there is."

Now you're disagreeing with yourself, as you have previously said there WAS NO way to make a weighted choice.

"And it is a weighted, subjective choice."

It is not science then. Subjective evidence has no weight.

"My choice, and the choice of millions of reasonable people, is to infer from the presence of organized matter that behaves according to predictable laws that it is best explained by intelligent design. What is the other "option?""

The other choice is the one YOU said had the same weight, the idea that you can explain everything without a Designer(God). If "neither can be chosen over the other" as absolutely determinative of objective reality, then the only way to choose is some subjective evidence. Subjective evidence is automatically OUTSIDE of science.

[Fester Chugabrew]

It is not science then. Subjective evidence has no weight

It's not the evidence that is subjective, but my interpretation of it. As long as science is conducted by human beings it will be subjective.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"It's not the evidence that is subjective, but my interpretation of it."

??? Your interpretation is therefore NOT scientific.

"As long as science is conducted by human beings it will be subjective."

So we should embrace the subjectivity? lol To the extent that a scientist's statements are subjective, they are not scientific. Science depends on there being objective evidence in order for there to be any confidence that it's pronouncements explain the world as it is. The subjectivity of individual scientists is a defect that needs to be minimized as much as possible, not encouraged.

[Fester Chugabrew]

. . . as you have previously said there WAS NO way to make a weighted choice.

I maintain that science is capable of being undertaken with more than one assumption, and that the observer is free to choose those assumptions. Science from a theistic or atheistic point of view is never entirely testable or falsifiable because science is by nature limited. It cannot test every case imaginable. To that extent, and that extent only "neither can be chosen over the other" as absolutely determinative, or descriptive, of objective reality. That is quite alright, because science is not defined by proofs alone, nor will it ever be absolutely determinative or descriptive of objective reality.

The bottom line is that the tired old argument "intelligent design is not science" fails. It is not true. If evolutionism is to be held to the same standards you believe are required of science, then it too should be disqualified as science. Neither you nor anyone else is qualified to assert "scientifically" or "objectively" that God is beyond the scope of science. Neither you nor anyone else has objective "proof" that the history of mankind began with single-celled or simpler creatures and progressed to its current state.

[Gumlegs]

Thanks, Doc. I'm now producing my "Numbers Gone Wild" video, which you can order for only $19.95. But wait! There's more!

Actually, I've forwarded the link to some math instructors I know ... all of whom probably had a hand in writing it.

[Fester Chugabrew]

So we should embrace the subjectivity?

We should recognize it for what it is: an inescapable reality. Unless you can come up with a way for science to be conducted without any human element.

[hosepipe]

[ That statement has troubled me for some time. We can't allow something that is true to become true? ]

Some people believe you have you're truth, I have mine.. which in effect makes truth an opinion.. and they are O.K. with that.. Its a variation on the, If a tree falls in the forest.. sophomore'ism.. all totally logical to the logic impaired..

Probably they dropped out of engineering classes and majored in Journalism.. or Linguistics i.e. Noam Chomsky..

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"I maintain that science is capable of being undertaken with more than one assumption, and that the observer is free to choose those assumptions."

We are not free to choose subjective evidence and still be scientific.

"The bottom line is that the tired old argument "intelligent design is not science" fails."

No, it's true. You have already said it isn't objectively testable.

"If evolutionism is to be held to the same standards you believe are required of science, then it too should be disqualified as science."

No, because it's claims are objectively testable.

"Neither you nor anyone else is qualified to assert "scientifically" or "objectively" that God is beyond the scope of science."

You already have. Listen to yourself Fester, you were right then. You said it wasn't objective evidence that tilts the scales towards ID/God. You said it was subjective reasons.

"Neither you nor anyone else has objective "proof" that the history of mankind began with single-celled or simpler creatures and progressed to its current state."

No, but we have objective evidence. As you know, science doesn't deal in proof.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"We should recognize it for what it is: an inescapable reality. Unless you can come up with a way for science to be conducted without any human element."

Scientists require testing and repeatability because they are trying to make their statements as objective as possible. You, on the other hand, embrace subjectivity as being not problematic in the least.

[Fester Chugabrew]

We are not free to choose subjective evidence and still be scientific.

You switched the terms. I said it is the observer that is subjective by nature, not the evidence. Do you know the difference?

The presence of organized matter that behaves according to predictable laws is objective evidence for intelligent design, because intelligent design by definition entails organizing matter along with the parameters by which it will be governed. Where is your objective evidence that man began as a simple creature and progressed from there? Can you present objective evidence that entails not the slightest amount of inference or subjective notions? No.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Scientists require testing and repeatability because they are trying to make their statements as objective as possible.

No wonder. They are typically operating with organized matter that behaves according to predictable laws. Without intelligent design there would be no testing, let alone repeatability. Intelligent design is an objective reality that governs all of science. Your subjective person will never be able scientifically to explain it away.

[Fester Chugabrew]

You, on the other hand, embrace subjectivity as being not problematic in the least.

How does admitting the existence of subjectivity equate with "embracing" it as "not problematic in the least?" It's obviously been a problem with you, because you cannot objectively understand any connection between intelligent design and organized matter.

[hosepipe]

[ God is not examinable by science. It's a theological / philosophical statement, not a scientific one. ]

True..... UNLESS;

God is a real and operable force in this Universe..
holding all things together and by "it"(God) all things consist..

If that were true, then modern science, especially quantum physics(meaning those that seek that knowledge ), rejects the very source of what they trying to deduce..

Also; if that were true, a "scientist" that didn't pray ugh!, attempt communication or knowledge of/with that force whom is(could be) a personality is carrying on a monologue with himself and is looking into a universal mirror and is shaving knowledge and brushing ignorance's teeth..

ya think?..

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"I said it is the observer that is subjective by nature, not the evidence. Do you know the difference?"

Yes, I do. Do you? We arrive at objective evidence by subjecting the evidence to testing and repeatability.

" The presence of organized matter that behaves according to predictable laws is objective evidence for intelligent design."

Not what you said before.

"Where is your objective evidence that man began as a simple creature and progressed from there?"

The entire fossil record. The record in our genes. Our morphology. Biogeopgraphical studies. The evidence is ENORMOUS. And it is objective.

"Can you present objective evidence that entails not the slightest amount of inference or subjective notions? No."

Inference is not necessarily subjective. So your dichotomy is false.

"Intelligent design is an objective reality that governs all of science."

Not what you said before. You said that it was SUBJECTIVE reasons that tilted the scales to ID over not ID.

"How does admitting the existence of subjectivity equate with "embracing" it as "not problematic in the least?"

Because you said that you chose ID for subjective reasons. You said (then, anyway) that the choice was not objective.


"It's obviously been a problem with you, because you cannot objectively understand any connection between intelligent design and organized matter."

Nor can Fester1, your other self who said that it wasn't objective reasons that tilts the scales to ID.

Now, before you continue, please have that debate with yourself. Don't come back until you can all keep your positions straight.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

No, it's just true. God is not examinable by science. It's a theological/philosophical question. There is no Godometer.

[puroresu]

####Scientists require testing and repeatability because they are trying to make their statements as objective as possible. You, on the other hand, embrace subjectivity as being not problematic in the least.####


But doesn't every scientist have to be subjective sometimes? Suppose there are two competing theories concerning a given observation.

Aren't Hawking's frequent atheist rants subjective? No one exorcises him from the science community for delivering these rants, even though he often delivers them as part of an otherwise scientific commentary.

[Doctor Stochastic]

A similar scene occurs in Strindberg's "A Dream Play" during a dispute among the faculties of Law, Theology, Medicine.

[hosepipe]

[ "God is not within the purview of science" is not a scientific statement, but an assumption under which certain people prefer to begin their interpretation and explanation of the evidence. ]

On the other hand, this could be correct in the sense that ALL Gods of this earth are mental constructs, except the real one..

Upon a brief study of the available God's man has invented for himself.. Without knowing the real one.. The subject of "a God" could seem to be a joke.. i.e. Jupiter, Diana(with multiple breasts)

Reminds me of a cliche'.. "When God seems far away, WHO MOVED?.. Some people have seemed to have moved intellectually to a far place.. a 2nd reality insolated from reality.. by creating a reality of thier own.. sealed from the truth.. and looking at things thru a filtered lens..

The true honest agnostic approach should be, if there were no God, well their ought to have been one.. and maybe there really is one, I just happen to NOT know who "it" is..

[Fester Chugabrew]

We arrive at objective evidence by subjecting the evidence to testing and repeatability.

Wrong. We draw subjective conclusions and inferences from objective evidence.

Inference is not necessarily subjective.

Wrong. Inferences cannot be made apart from human assumptions and limitations. Inferences are inherently subjective, just like the ones you make from the fossil record. The fact that those inferences are subjective does not make them unscientific, because they are based upon objective evidence.

Because you said that you chose ID for subjective reasons.

Yes, I chose ID subjectively because it is what best fits the objective evidence. Get it?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"But doesn't every scientist have to be subjective sometimes? Suppose there are two competing theories concerning a given observation."

If there isn't enough information to make an objective choice between theories, then the issue is undecided by science. Scientists who do take sides are therefore doing so for extra-scientific reasons.

"Aren't Hawking's frequent atheist rants subjective?"

Yes.

"No one exorcises him from the science community for delivering these rants, even though he often delivers them as part of an otherwise scientific commentary."

Because his science statements are not of this nature.