Posted on 04/14/2002 12:31:25 AM PDT by sourcery
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"/>
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||
Interesting take on Hunt by Aufill, who certainly has his dander up about Hunt's inferences that Catholics surrender "devotions, novenas, feasts", and I suppose the incense, candles, and Marial and saint worship as well and does in fact tie in all the evidence.
But Hunt does know how to make a point, while refusing to play patty-cake with anyone.
Agreed.
ID is a mutation of the Creationism virus. Like all organisms use mutation for survival, the Creationism virus needed to mutate to survive in the face of the Science anti-virus.
The ID virus is essentially the Creationism virus with some cloaking material to make it look like Science to the untrained eye or weak mind.
The ID virus cloaking material is not yet sophisticated enough to fool the Science anti-virus; however, minor mutations such as yours (ID does not mandate God) are valiant (but usless) attempts at gaining that sophistication.
It says nothing about a God. It says that there is not enough time allowed for the complexity seen and uses a math model to demonstrate that. That then causes the "intelligence" hypothesis; that the origin of life on earth was guided/seeded by an "intelligence."
I'm writing this for open-minded others/lurkers who can recognize that that proposition does not equal "God." It can equal another race from another galactic region. It can mean we don't have all the answers about the universe yet and about what is the meaning and extent of intelligence.
Neither of those is Thor throwing a hammer or Jehovah parting a sea.
Let me ask you. Do you think extra-terrestrial higher intelligence is possible?
Neither.
Some sponges fall into this category, and evolutionary theory covers them, too.
Regarding the 'math model': I am reminded of the infamous proof that bumblebees can't fly. But if more time really is needed, there's always the pan-spermia theory.
And I am reminded that the modern aerospace industry uses mathematical computer modeling to design and TEST FLY their current futuristic designs. Seldom do they build a proto-type before it's been 'FLOWN' benefit of the computer age.
The ID modeling was via that computer-age system.
You would do better to castigate it via some of the enviro-wacko, warm Earth modeling that takes place also using math modeling. The issues always become the assumptions that you put into the computer. Garbage in equals garbage out.
Why do I point out a better method for you to argue against my position? Because my intent is honesty and not some preconceived position.
The correct method is to propose an alternate math model with different but valid assumptions while recognizing the strengths and weaknesses of the prior model.
No one has done that. They're so damn busy being "against religion" that no one is bothering to be diligently honest.
[|]Camoflaged[|] & envious
As has been pointed out repeatedly, the math model is obviously wrong in several respects because it makes assumptions that don't map to reality. A big part of the reason we have discussions about it at all is that while the flaws are "obvious" to people with expertise in the relevant fields, they are not "obvious" to lay people or individuals with only pedestrian familiarity with the subjects. People like Dembski really grate against my nerves by their apparently intentional misuse of fields such as information theory in which I have deep expertise.
I can see you have religion on your mind and that is your primary target. Simply read the original ID literature. It had/has nothing to do with God.
It says nothing about a God. It says that there is not enough time allowed for the complexity seen and uses a math model to demonstrate that. That then causes the "intelligence" hypothesis; that the origin of life on earth was guided/seeded by an "intelligence."
I'm writing this for open-minded others/lurkers who can recognize that that proposition does not equal "God." It can equal another race from another galactic region. It can mean we don't have all the answers about the universe yet and about what is the meaning and extent of intelligence.
But that's just not true! It's all about preserving some overarching Father Figure whom society can obey, in order to supply a secure, objective morality which the ID'ers believe the real world cannot supply.
Or as they themselves originally put it:
Life After Materialism
For more than a century, science attempted to explain all human behaviour as the subrational product of unbending chemical, genetic, or environmental forces. The spiritual side of human nature was ignored, if not denied outright.
This rigid scientific materialism infected all other areas of human knowledge, laying the foundations for much of modern psychology, sociology, economics, and political science. Yet today new developments in biology, physics, and artificial intelligence are raising serious doubts about scientific materialism and re-opening the case for the supernatural.
What do these exciting developments mean for the social sciences that were built upon the foundation of materialism? This project brings together leading scholars from the natural sciences and those from the humanities and social sciences in order to explore what the demise of materialism means for reviving the various disciplines.
-- CRSC website, circa 1998
The IDers' boilerplate disclaimers notwithstanding, I doubt very much that they would be happy if mankind started believing that ancient genetic-engineering aliens created us. Would we worship them? Would we take their word for what moral code we should follow? Would we take Phillip Johnson at his word if he were to write that the aliens happened to be Christians themselves and they want us to derive our morality from the Bible?
Clearly not. The IDers' words betray them.
#1. What is Materialism?
For these purposes, it has little to do with greed. Or wanting to buy too much at the mall to boost your self-esteem.
Materialism is the modern day philosophy that holds that matter is all there is. It's the philosophy that says "If you can't touch it, smell it, taste it or explain it through the hard sciences, it doesn't exist." Men are merely complex machines and not spiritual beings.
And it's approved by most intellectuals around the world.
One other thing: we're out to topple it.
#4. Materialism, Naturalism, Darwinism, all these isms, what do they have to do with me and my life?
Materialism is a powerful philosophy of life today because it sets the boundaries for what is right and wrong in society. It explains the ''rules'' that govern our civilization. It goes to the very intellectual roots of society, the very foundation that our social and cultural institutions are built upon.
Indeed, if materialism is right -- as most intellectuals propose -- then ''God'' is merely a figment of our imagination. Therefore, God didn't create man; man created God. Doestoyevsky once said that ''if God is dead then all things are lawful. '' Might makes right. The State is the ultimate enforcer of rules.
Do you begin to see why we view IDers with so much contempt when they claim to be purely scientific dissidents?
That which cannot be proven or disproven, even in theory, must be excluded from any discussion of objective reality, or else the floodgates of meaningless mush are opened. It is impossible to prove or disprove that an silent, transparent, impalbable gerbil is sitting on your shoulder, and any time you waste cogitating upon the issue is taken away from issues upon which you might actually form some meaningful conclusions.
I am mature enough to recognize that my "wants" do not necessarily coincide with reality. For example, I want the Arabs to all wake up one morning and decide that this terrorism stuff really sucks. However, I'm not holding my breath waiting for that to happen.
Behe's work didn't even try to answer who/what the designer was and there is great care to explain that that is a different discussion.
Now, I know an evolutionist that goes to a methodist church. Does that mean evolutionary theory endorses methodism? Of course not.
One's personal life might contain any number of associations that are not part of their professional life.
Don't bother me. I'm yelling back at the screen!
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.
n the last decade or so, creationism has grown sophisticated. Oh, the old-fashioned creationists are still around, especially in the Bible Belt. They're the ones who believe that the earth is only a few thousand years old, that God created it and all its inhabitants in six days and that fossils are a product of Noah's flood. In the early 1990's, however, a new breed of creationists appeared. These ''neo-creos,'' as they have been called, are no Dogpatch hayseeds. They have Ph.D.'s and occupy positions at some of the better universities. The case they make against Darwinism does not rest on the authority of Scripture; rather, it proceeds from premises that are scientific and philosophical, invoking esoteric ideas in molecular biology, information theory and the logic of hypothesis testing. 
