Free Republic

Good question -- and I'd love to kick it around when time permits -- can we call this a placemaker for now?

But I should point, I'm a linguist--and we are lousy at metaphysics : )

I was actually requesting some enlightenment from you on the meaning of your posting: the 'directly' was implied by the syntax of your sentence, and I was asking for clarification. Your original post:

I love the term supernatural. If it is a phenomenon that occurs and is inexplicable, by current standards, it is still a phenomenon. OTOH, if it is not observable, by current standards, it is not a phenomenon. It is not a very useful term. But folks sure bandy it about pretty loosely.

Let me set out my attempt to parse your sense here--which may well be wrong, which is why I asked for you to untangle it for me:

1. The term 'supernatural' is too ambiguous to be useful. To illustrate:

2. If event 'x' is a 'phenomenon' (an object of perception) but the [cause or nature] of 'x' cannot be explained by current knowledge, it is assigned the term 'supernatural.'

3. On the other hand, if 'x' occurs but is not 'observable' by currently available means of observation, then is not a 'phenomenon' (an object of perception).

Statement 3 is a meaningless tautology--which I assumed was not your intention. And it also implies the absurdity of 'unobservable phenomena,' which is why the phrase was set out in single quote marks.

With respect, you have misread my request for clarification, and I would still be interested to grasp your sense--unless you have determined that I am too 'sophmoric' for your instruction here.

The next step would be to say we understand everything using scientific scrutiny.

The closest to that claim might be a belief(!) that all knowledge is obtainable exclusively by science-- or perhaps only the findings of science qualify, by definition, as knowledge. Neither of these is among my own beliefs.

Is that the road you want to go down on? Do you like quantuum mechanics as a total solution forever?

I don't agree with your premise here; but in any event, if one choose to seek knowledge, one cannot prejudge what one finds. And I do not see how we can choose to only 'know' that which we find agreeable

We always welcome new converts. Last count I made was at least 3--which constitutes a quorum in the religious founding business, as that is enough to start dividing into sects and denouncing one another as heretics. We'll know we've really arrived, as it were, when we throw our first Inquisition

...Longshadow has expressed some distinctly unorthodox views already.

He might cease to be, if that small religious minority stopped trying to rewrite our history (when they aren't assailing the science curriculum) ever took the time to read him. Fortunately, I suppose, the dangerous ones are too busy reading scripture...

I agree--and that's really only an issue for people who insist on such matters being 'historical.'

It is a pity that Thomas Paine, without whom I sometimes doubt there would even be a US today, is not better known. In the present climate (set by a small band of religious fundamentalists), some of Paine's writings are probably too inflammatory to quote. But I'll risk one of his milder pronouncements, all the same:

"Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and tortuous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a demon than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness, that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind; and, for my part, I sincerely detest it, as I detest everything that is cruel." Thomas Paine

Please--before anyone is offended by the above--bear in mind that Paine was NOT attacking God, or Christianity nor religious belief -- but Biblican literalism, which he found untenable

LOL! Thanks for the 'pepper' you've added to this thread!

Well, if the tone really has to be so martial, then 'our' weapons are reason and the US Constitution. Do you have any belief in either of those?

Even if what you assert is true (I do not think it is, but in any event the matter cannot be decided unless we agree on what 'religious' means), you would still have the quarrel over which religion to use.

There are some rather awkward places that have adopted exactly this approach--look at the madrassas of Pakistan.

The only difference between your point here and the program adopted by the Taliban in Afghanistan is the particular choice of religion. Nothing anyone has said here suggests to me that using a different religion would have any different effect here than it did there--if anything, rather confirms it would be a similar disaster.

It is interesting, that in theocratic Iran, the educational system is also shot through with religion--though they have spared the science curriculum. No doubt because they recognise you can't do nuclear physics using religious dogma

Very easily indeed--as even the lawyers advising the Discovery Institute know, which is why they are rapidly trying to distance themselves from this one, Dover has no chance.

With respect, I am sincerely baffled that so many posters on a conservative forum do not understand the basic structure of our Constitution, nor appreciate just how fundamental the 'wall of separation between church and state' is to our most basic freedoms. Virtually everything else in our Constitution (bicameralism, separation of legislature and judicary, federalism, democratic enfranchisment, &c. &c.) were features that had been developed historically in other political systems which the Founding Fathers borrowed and then amalgamated, on rational principles, into our system of government. The separation of church and state was their biggest single innovation, and a very beneficent and powerful one at that. It has spared the US religious strife and maximised individual freedom of choice, thought and conscience. You are free to set up a school teaching whatever religious doctrines you wish--but the state must not fund those activities, as that would be an act of 'establishment.' Thus, the church and state are allowed their appropriate spheres, without conflict.

So why does a religious minority repeatedly seek to erode this valuable 'wall' and insist upon state sanction for their own specific religious creeds? This is profoundly against the grain of our system, and ultimately destructive of all our freedoms.

Interesting point--but it's actually quite a massive leap from 'intelligence' to 'intelligent cause'--and its one for philosophy or theology, not science.

Basic epistemology (the 'how do we know what we know') is a great topic for Philosophy 101. And basic scientific methodology (which is epistemologically grounded) is an absolute staple of Science 101. So--what does ID actually bring to the table in the science classroom? Nothing of value, I'm afraid, other than an object lesson on what science does not resemble.

With respect, this is word salad--I cannot fathom your point here.

Atoms are not directly observable, but close scientific observation of a range of phenomena allow us to infer, not only their existence, but their properties, and to make accurate predications of their behaviour.

What 'unobservable phenomena' do you mean to indicate?

Your point is very interesting to me, padre, though maybe doesn't quite fit in this thread. I suspect you have outlined (without necessarily advocating) a rather Deistic view of things, such as was prevelent amongst many of the framers of our Constitution.

Everything turns, though, on what we mean to indicate by terms like 'natural' and 'intelligence,' of course. There is an 'intelligence' in mathematics, but it appears to require no 'supernatural' designer -- it is entirely derivable from the natural world, which is entirely constrained by it. But the mathematical order clearly does not require an external designer -- unless we wish to suppose that such a designer 'created' this mathematics in favour of another. In which event we would have to suppose a cosmos is possible where 2+2=5? Well, that's one for philosophical/theological speculation--it is not science.

However, the immediate issue at hand, in my view, is a much more prosaic and political one: no one has persuaded me that ID is anything other than a dishonest attempt, by a religious minority, to smuggle religion into a wholly inappropriate arena.

Well, thank you for your honesty here. ID has nothing to do with science, that is just another of the many falsehoods ID proponents have been peddling, it really is 'Creationism Lite.'

Why are you guys picking this absurd fight? Why do you want to throw away our science? Biblical literalism was the prevailing view in the West for over a 1,000 years--and a wretched millennium it was, too. If you don't like the findings of science, if you cannot reconcile science with your faith--you are free to ignore it. And your freedom to ignore it in favour of your faith is one of the bedrock guarantees of our Constitution (a product of rationalism, not of religious zeal). Do you not see how a wall of separation between church and state is in the best interests of both church and state? I do not want to believe you wish to pursue a Taliban-like assault on our form of government and against our freedoms--but that is certainly what it looks like.

What the heck is your beef?

Gramsci, Lenin, and Marx are dead--and their failed ideologies are expiring.

But I think you are right to suggest the DNC are indeed smiling, and with good cause: a small band of religious fundamentalists are about to get clobbered in a court case (and most deservedly so), exposing ID as an attempt to use bogus science to smuggle religion into the classroom. This will allow our opponents to portray (and, sadly, with some modicum of truth) conservatives as assailers of our basic 1st amendment freedoms. This was a completely stupid thing to do.

I almost wish for their "revolution" to start openly

Whose revolution? What on earth are you talking about?

OK: UK time zone (BST=Greenwich Mean Time - 1) reporting for duty, Sir!

Situation: currently outnumbered by irregular assortment of Prayer Warriors.

Or, as General Tony McAuliffe famously declared in December 1944, when his surrender was demanded by a German unit during the Battle of the Bulge:

"Aw, nuts!"

The same source for this article also has Part 2 of the article which was a thread yesterday. I highly recommend Part 2 - Intelligent Design - The Death of Science which in fact addresses many of the points some posters have raised in this present thread

WE ARE NOT WORTHY!

"Dictated" is pretty old-tech. Don't you mean "ear-mail"?

And if you run the stylus backwards over a vinyl copy of the Beatles' Abbey Road album, you discover that Paul McCartney is dead.

My friend, believe as you will--and I will defend to the utmost your right to believe it. But on this particular creed you are setting forth...sorry, this horse ain't that thirsty.

But always (I hope), cordially.

I am confident my freedom was guaranteed in 1776, though it took a few years to secure it. And some of my countrymen had to wait until 1863 for their freedom, and that also took a few more years to secure. But golly, the Constitution has come through pretty well for us, all in all.

2/3 of America is waiting.

For what, some of this chocolate cake!?

That would need a loaves and fishes intervention...