The alleged Education Minister Brendan Nelson becomes the first Howard government minister to to give qualified support to Intelligent Design:
Dr Nelson said he had met the proponents of intelligent design, in addition to watching a DVD on the subject.
“Do I think it should be a replacement for teaching the origins of mankind in a scientific sense? I most certainly don’t think that it should be,” he told the National Press Club in Canberra.
“In fact I would be quite concerned if it were to replace it.
“Do I think that parents in schools should have the opportunity if they wish to for students also to be exposed to this and be taught about it? Yes. I think that’s fine.”
No, Mr Nelson it is not fine. As the supposed Education Minister, after giving a speech at the National Press Club launching the Australian Science Festival this is ludicrous. In what classes would students be exposed to the intellectual travesty that is Intelligent Design? It surely can’t be the science class as it is not science. And given the protestations that ID is not religious, to have it as part of a class on religious studies would mean that the charade is up.
The topic of Nelson’s speech to the Nation Press Club was “…the importance of science and education in shaping Australia’s social and economic future.” Giving even qualified support to ID shows that Nelson cares little for science or education.
Many government schools teach lies such as the “stolen generation” as fact.
Yet the Left doesn’t complain about such lies, because it suits their politics to propagate such myths.
So I can’t really get very excited over issues like “intelligent design” being taught as an alternative. Not when there is so much fraudulent political indoctrination already being deliberately imposed through the education system.
I’m in agreement with Brendan here. But only if it’s taught in classes called something like “comparative mythologies” alongside stuff about rainbow serpents and elephants on the back of giant turtles.
And EP, even though we had that hot tub moment a while ago, I do have to ask if it’s ever possible for you address the subject under discussion without flogging your own foaming hobbyhorses down through the straight.
And – “So I canÄôt really get very excited over issues like “intelligent design” being taught as an alternative.”
WTF! You really think science, one of the greatest things humans have ever invented, is not worth defending against the encroachments of Bronze Age desert nomad superstitions?
Brendan’s haircut disproves any notion that he has been intelligently designed. Just sayin…
In essence, what is ID?
Creationism using Star Trek jargon.
“Creationism using Star Trek jargon.”
I’m nominating Graham for comment of the year.
Five little words that just nail the hide to the wall.
What puzzles me is how something so ludicrous causes such conspicuous indignation amongst liberals. Many of the same people in the United States (and here) have difficulty accepting a viable life-form in uetero is actually a living being. Now that really is backwoods stuff.
The Vatican is not regarded as an enemy of evolution by the scientific community but in various documents and pronouncements, it rejects the idea that the evolution of everything from the Big Bang onwards is a fully explained done-deal, with no input necessary from people of either faith or philosophical conjecture. Scientists are no better than hick creationists if they claim to know – or have the capacity to ever know – all there is to know. They simply don’t.
Maybe in the ecosystem of contemporary learning ID has emerged to teach scientists some humility;)
Evolution was God’s modus operandi – that’s what I believe and that, essentially, is what the Catholic Church believes. We shouldn’t place too much authority in the hands of scientists to oversee education on life and the worthwhile contemplations of it. Plato taught ideas companionable with so-called intelligent design, as did Aquinas. Several of their ideas and outlooks have not been debunked, nor can they be, and are well worth learning. Scientists don’t own the narrative of creation and the truth is they know comparatively few of the details.
C.L., on this, you should read this.
The Catholic Church is pro-science on the whole.
I return to what I said on an earlier thread about the pointlessness from a faith perspective of seeing God as a designer, and the philosophical emptiness of such a perspective.
I suggest you read Blaise Pascal on the God of the Philosophers vs. the God of the Theologians.
Pascal argued that it demeaned God to invoke the Divinity as a first mover or prime cause. He was right. And that’s a big concession from someone with links to the Jesuits. If you know your 16th/17th century theological stoushes
I thought it was supposed to take five years for bad American cultural ideas to make their way across the pond. Things must be getting faster these days.
Nelson is just playing to the Hillsong type crowd. It doesn’t mean anything. ID will get taught in various transcendentalist schools – just the latest flavor of the creationist story. What’s new is that the US admin which is run by religious zealots has put this idea onto the front page. It’s a flash in the pan. The world will return to a measure of sanity in 2008. But yes it’s striking how closely this government apes the Bush regime on just about every little thing.
This is the DVD he watched.
Too.annoyed.can’t.speak.
Nice work, Amanda.
So ID and evolution are compatible? Over to you, Homer Paxton.
I say we let any theory be taught in schools. Scientology, alien abduction, the illuminati, holocaust denial. Why not? Who cares about scientific evidence? If every theory is as valid as every other, then why the hell not?
You and I know the truth, Kate. We know about the noodly appendages. And we won’t stop until they’re on the syllabus in *every* school.
Indeed, Liam. In fact, I’m currently preparing a DVD detailing the truth about the FSM to deliver to Dr. Nelson.
“Plato taught ideas companionable with so-called intelligent design, as did Aquinas. Several of their ideas and outlooks have not been debunked, nor can they be …”
I have some vague recollection that a few of my philosophy lecturers and tutors tended to be pretty disparaging of people who argue from irrefutable claims. I suppose if you’re Plato or Aquinas you can get away with it.
I’ll second Nabs nomination. That did make me chuckle this morning.
Thanks for the link Amanda. Be interested to know who Nelson did meet with. The ID cronies are very quiet compared to their American counterparts.
There had been some recent argy bargy within the Catholic Church re Cardinal Schonborn’s comments.
CL, scientists don’t claim to know that all that is to know. Science is about discovery not dogma. Most scientists I have come across are quite humble in regards to what they do know reasonably well (which is quite an achievement in itself) and what they don’t know and the wondorous possibilities still to be explored.
Looks like it will be a good weekend for that post on science and religion I have been working on.
If only certain Victorian Senate preference deals HAD been intelligently designed….
Trackback replacement.
Sorry to go off-topic, but I couldn’t leave CL’s comment unchallenged.
Most people are not pro-choice because they don’t think the foetus is alive. Of course it’s alive!
They are pro-choice because they don’t think any living being has a right to use the body of an unwilling person to sustain their life.
“it rejects the idea that the evolution of everything from the Big Bang onwards is a fully explained done-deal, with no input necessary from people of either faith or philosophical conjecture. ”
It’s an easy concession and probably a wise one, bit like missing out on the footy team and claiming the oranges as your domain. If people of faith or philosphical persuasion want to have their ponderings included in the larger question of life that’s fine but it doesn’t make their input any more scientific. ID is trying to claim that it is valid input and it’s wrong – small problem of a lack of evidence. The choices are quite simple; either ID comes up with the goods, or we give it an easy in by changing the rules of science. Any takers on the latter? Oh and yah boo the villain scientists that claim to know everything like ahmm…
Kate, a friend of mine says he has several DVDs of people being touched by noodly appendages, would that be any help for Dr. Nelson?
What annoys me is how some people say abortion should be outlawed and then turn around and castigate single parents. This comment is not directed at anyone in particular on this thread, as I don’t know enough about the various views on the subject. If you are going to outlaw something, then you have to be prepared to support the people affected.
Now you wouldn’t expect the experts in Unintelligent Design here at LP to understand their limitations, but perhaps Brendan Nelson naturally does with ID. Still I don’t think he’ll exactly be introducing this here at http://www.techcentralstation.com/081005A.html into our primary schools.
Hat tip to http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/007324.php
Dr Nelson said he had met the proponents of a new worldwide Wahabist caliphate and mass terror bombing, in addition to watching a DVD on the subject.
“Do I think it should be a replacement for religious studies now taught? I most certainly donÄôt think that it should be,” he told the National Press Club in Canberra.
“In fact I would be quite concerned if it were to replace it.
“Do I think that parents in schools should have the opportunity if they wish to for students also to be exposed to this and be taught about it? Yes. I think thatÄôs fine.”
I’m dumb today. It was Campus Crusade for Christ mentioned by Amanda then Tim. Sorry.
More than usually obtuse there, Observa. What’s your point?
[...] Brendan Nelson has given his qualified support for intelligent design to be taught in schools. Irant has done us all the favour of pointing out just how absurd it is for Nelson to give this support (cross posted here. [...]
Graham’s comment is spot on, although Amway Creationism comes to mind as a more off-the-wall description when you consider the networking involved. Perhaps Nelson is trying illustrate the shortcomings of the University education system through personal example?
If you want to return to the Dark Ages, then by all means encourage or be indifferent to Intelligent Design. You can show your commitment to the super-rigorous ‘i’ve got my fingers in my ears and I can’t hear you, nerny ner ner’ scientific model followed by ID proponents by divesting yourself of all worldy goods created using the obviously fraudulent scientific method so loved by those crazy ‘only a theory’ evolutionists. At the same time, you can wonder why the Middle East went from being more scientifically advanced than Europe to being a haven for the Wahabi sect.
Fyodor,
Here at http://www.orgonomy.org/article_terrorism_trueliberal.html#back3 is a scientific psychoanalysis of a ‘Modern Liberal’ (my ‘Unintelligent Designer’ or the modern lefty liberal progressive). Bear in mind this analysis was produced in the 1950s, but some scientific discoveries are preciously timeless.
Yep, their attitudes to sex, education and God all get a mention. Notice how Mindy chimes in with “What annoys me is how some people say abortion should be outlawed and then turn around and castigate single parents….If you are going to outlaw something, then you have to be prepared to support the people affected.”
Whadda we want? Sex! When da we wannit? Now! Oops, baby! Whadda we want? Govt Big Daddy fix up now! Bloody priceless!
You’re a Reichian, observa. That explains a lot. Now, back to your furry room!
So I take it observa you’ve also had the smoko room fitted out as an orgone box and are urging your salt of the earth workers to stay healthy by striving to achieve “true orgasm”?
“Whadda we want? Sex! When da we wannit? Now!”
You weren’t joking after all were you?
Sad, isn’t it, that some people need a warning label [e.g. "WARNING: the Interweb may contain shite! If you are gullible, do not believe everything you read! Erm...except this warning, of course!"] with their interweb connection?
Just for the record, Observa, do you want to state an opinion on the topic of this thread?
For observa:
I’ve got an orgone accumulator
It makes me feel greater
I’ll see you sometime later
When I’m through with my accumulator
Let’s not scoff at orgone energy too much, folks; with a little R & D it might make a valuable contribution to reducing our dependency on fossil fuels.
Oh yeah Tim you old rockdog, that’ll kick out the bions.
Maybe observa thinks that bions should get equal time in biology classes?
Intelligent design may be an example of a “New variation in a new species” – I trust natural selection will winnow it out of the tree of knowledge in good time.
I suspect, (no empirical evidence) that the battalions of scientists that subscribe and contribute to Darwinian evolution theory are constituted at a ratio from both camps. That is to say some that aspire to Gods reward and some that take responsibility for their own lives.
If we compared that ratio with those supporters of “Intelligent Design” would it be the same?
Dr Nelson is a politician, maybe he could find an agenda?
On the positive side a class for “Critical Thinking” (ala. Carl Sagan) could use this subject as a 101.
Sorry if I offended any Christians reading this thread, I meant to offend all religions masquerading as science.
Beepee, offending all religions equally will get you called a relativist here.
From the furious attempts to change the subject, it seems that not even the RWDBs can bring themselves to support Nelson on this one.
Gee whiz and here was I thinking you lot were all into the history of evolution and all that scientific, psychoanalytical stuff.
“Just for the record, Observa, do you want to state an opinion on the topic of this thread?”
Hmmm! The big God Creation vs Evolution Science thingy?
Well from time to time I do picture this big funnel with mankind delving into his microscopes and sub-atomic particles at the narrow end and exploring the stars with space shuttles at the big end. The funnel sits centrally on a great table with Thor, Neptune, Osiris, Buddha, etc, etc all sitting around playing *a popular card game*, when Allah turns quizzically to JC and asks- Do you think we’ll ever get bored watching that lot inside the vase?- to raucous laughter all round.
Guess my short answer is- Whatever gets you through the night and is a help rather than a hindrance to all the others groping around in the dark. In the meantime I’ll keep telling the kids I’m the closest thing to God they know, but now they’re big, the heathens are off worshipping false gods. They’ll come back to the fold eventually though because I’ve slipped in some ID of course. Now whose deal is it?
“From the furious attempts to change the subject, it seems that not even the RWDBs can bring themselves to support Nelson on this one.”
Well I’m certainly supporting Nelson and teaching this stuff here http://www.techcentralstation.com/081005A.html in schools, although I doubt the JPs will be able to handle it just yet. So what’s Tim saying? No more Nativity plays, Easter Bunny, Santa, Harry Potter witches and warlocks, magic puddings or fairy tales? All bunkum and balderdash and we need to get serious deconstructing Dick and Dora, Nip and Fluff and putting them in context for the munchkins…err, whatever they’re called these days.
Popper would say you’re supporting an unfalsifiable theory, Observa, but somehow I doubt you’d give him as much credence as the credo of a bronze-age fairy tale. Which just about explains this thread, really.
They do teach it in schools, observa. It’s called religious studies.
I’m impressed you could understand what observa was on about, fyodor. Reading him sometimes is like reading Hunter S Thompson on angel dust, but without the humour.
Observa’s great skill is to use language without communicating. Fortunately, he linked to an astro-turf outfit that employs writers who can communicate ideas, albeit incorrect ones.
Jason, I think we all know what really goes on in Observa’s ‘smoko’ room.
For those of you too young to remember Dick and Dora, Nip and Fluff try here http://www.nostalgiacentral.com/pop/school60.htm
They were intro readers with simple phonics like ‘See Nip(the dog) run’ a bit like today’s Dr Seuss books. Much too PC with married mum, dad, kids, dog and cat for these days I gather. After that it was on to the SRA reading laboratories where you progressed along the coloured boxes of cards and their numbered exercises.(I’m up to 25 Green and you’re still on the Brown? nyah, nyah!)The Observa’s competitive edge was finely honed in those formative years.
The link is about British schools, but Oz ones were exact clones. Note the photo of the heinous inculcation of your grandparents and parents with the Nativity Play.
Always with the negative bions observa, always with the negative bions.
They are pro-choice because they donÄôt think any living being has a right to use the body of an unwilling person to sustain their life.
I’m glad that pro-choice people have come out against the State being able to force unwilling fathers to use their bodies to pay child support.
But I digress and now where were we? Oh yes remember the Observa takes the relaxed view- Whatever gets you through the night and is a help rather than a hindrance to all the others groping around in the dark. Now that could be crystals, aromatherapy, Jesus Christ, John Howard’s white picket fence, Marx or perhaps secular liberal progressivism is your bag. There’s only one choice the Evolutionists cry! It’s a no-brainer, or in their case, I only need to use my brain. Don’t listen to those Intelligent Design types and their mumbo jumbo. Secularism rules OK! We are the true light and the way. Curiously enough when I look at some of their prescriptions and outcomes, I’m more than a little confused.
Let’s take their rational black armband theory of history here. Apparently for these wise secularists, the blame for the black condition can be laid at the feet of those Intelligent Designer types- The Christian missionaries and their whacky bronze age theories. Curiously enough their remedy was the Rainbow Serpent and the Dreamtime. Either that or a good dose of secular liberal progressive programs, I can’t quite decide which. After 3 decades or so of this, the results are becoming obvious here http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,16230761-29277,00.html and here http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,16208624-17001,00.html
Well I don’t recall the Christian missionaries killing 60 of their flock in 8 years do you? However I do recall that pooh pooher of ID, John Quiggin rationally attributed insurgent caused deaths in Iraq, to those who upset the applecart with Saddam. Now if there’s a degree of truth in that argument, what culpability is the Observa to lay at the feet of those same critics of ID here? Perhaps the Lancet could be called upon to give us an accurate assessment of their casualties and overall outcomes. As far as I’m concerned, after 30 odd years the jury is out and I’ll plonk for the outcomes of Catholics, Lutherans or even the Pentecostalists any day.
I’m not so sure about the Muslims, but I’ll leave the fairer sex here and elsewhere to be the judge of that http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=14881
If this Imam thinks women are responsible for rape does that mean that the men are animals who are unable to control themselves? I bet he wouldn’t like it if it was put that way.
Please don’t feed the animals, Mindy.
[Apologies, couldn't resist]
Mindy,
I’m not an expert on Islam, but I think they’re only animals if the the girl is under 9, in which case a respectable bloke is honour bound to kill the girl.
You’re absolutely right, Observa. You’re not an expert on Islam.
Observa pushes his hobbyhorse around the ring once again.
Though I suspect he rides a horse rather less well than another horse would.
Intelligent Design strikes me as just another version of the first mover argument that was popular centuries ago and now abandoned.
Any time the religious come up against science they cant overthrow, they add ‘yeah but our guy started it’.
ID doesnt answer anything, its just an attempt to slide their unwavering belief of a higher power into whatever science is popular at the time. Its as much an admission of their failure to combat the science of Evolution as anything else.
And like any other issue, rational debate of the issue, not outrage and dismissal will do far more to convince people and change opinions.
We should be welcoming this debate. Its an easy win , and shows to the Australian public who are 60% christian why they should have leaders with christian values. Not Christian leaders.
If you want to tackle hillsong and Costello & co’s attempt to pander to the religious vote, heres the best ground to take them on. Secular liberalism and science have won this debate before. This is just mopping up a crude counter-attack.
ItÄôs been said before that if man didnÄôt have God to explain the inexplicable, heÄôd have invented it, (perhaps just like Evolution.) Well similar logic could equally apply to those eternally restless souls, who see religious or well developed social and ethical mores, as restricting their personal freedom to act, hence they invented secular liberal progressivism(SLP). This allows them to claim the commanding moral and ethical heights of rationalism, from which they can look down upon the intellectually unenlightened masses. A certain all knowing, smug self-satisfaction ensues among the enlightened in group, like an art appreciation society. Come and join us in the rarified atmosphere of our exclusive club, observa they urge. The times they are a changinÄô or evolving and you donÄôt want to get left behind, or trampled in the rush. Alluring to a young O, but alas the older wiser O is a bit of a rational skeptic, because basically for him the proof of a pudding is in the eating, although comparing recipes among chefs can certainly whet his appetite.
SLP can be taken to its logical conclusion- ie ItÄôs my fundamental right to chemically alter my consciousnes, or indulge my personal sexual desires, free of those unenlightened religious or social mores. Like this bloke here http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,16237862-29277,00.html Yes O, scratch any SLP deep enough and youÄôre gunna find some core belief and values old son, otherwise itÄôs the stargate of empty nothingness and anything goes meboy. A bit like their scientific Evolution theory really when you ask if this means some species or sub species are more evolved than others. ItÄôs time to shutup heretic, politely change the subject and fall back on us all being GodÄôs creatures, with intrinsic worth and part of his ID. Dr Shrink puts their free-riding views completely and succinctly when he says- ÄöÄôWe should be welcoming this debate. ItÄôs an easy win and shows to the Australian public who are 60% christian why they should have leaders with christian values. Not Christian leaders.Äô Priceless isnÄôt it? He likes the omelette and the recipe, itÄôs just those pesky eggs he could do without. Presumably SLP eggheads would make the omelette perfect. Well letÄôs test that theory shall we?
We have the perfect situation in microcosm with the Mutitjulu people at Uluru. Here is the lefty SLPÄôs dream. These people are not poor, oppressed and downtrodden by evil capitalists. Far from it, because they are the pinnacle of capitalism in having the keys to the ticket-box of one the natural wonders of the world and all that economic rent. The results of SLP ? A $4 million graveyard of cars and elders sleeping in the sandhills for safety from their offspring, while the latter destroy themselves. Have a guess whatÄôs missing from the omelette? Yes itÄôs those pesky eggs and their inherent values to challenge the egghead chefs and their recipes for culinary disaster. IÄôll stick with the traditional cooks and their recipes thank you very much.
A fine rant there Observa, but history simply isnt on your side. (esp when you choose such ludicrious examples)
You talk about ‘well developed social and ethical mores’, but every time we let religion dictate societies legislation, those same view cause harm and suffering. The fact the dark ages correlate with a time when religion ruled the world isnt a co-incidence.
Like the religious, secular liberals hold many strong moral and ethical views. (Especially ethical, which are self imposed, rather than trying to impose our values on others)
However where we derive these values is not from 2000 year old texts but from a utilitarianian analysis of the world. What helps, what causes or alleviates suffering. Not what aligns our society with the wisdom of a time when rain dances were still considered useful ways of helping the summer crops.
This is directly in line with the Liberal rise in the 16th century which pushed society out of the grips of the churches, the monarchs, that allowed advances in science and attacked racism, bigotry and general tribalism that leads to nationalism, fundamentalism and conflict.
Modern society owes the majority of the virtues it takes for granted, (the virtues you so loudly applaud when fighting the islamic terrorists) to the acts of liberals who didnt want their religion running the government.
As I said last post, its a fine thing for our leaders to hold religious views and values. But it is a guaranteed way to cause harm and suffering when you let that religion dictate the legislation.
Shorter observa: Never mind the thread topic, IÄôm gonna stick you all in this grouping IÄôve just created and put words in your mouths so I can call you hypocrites.
Also folks, do you reckon, what with the interest in Reichian teachings, a cosmology apparently based on that painting of cute card-playing dogs and the occasional tendency to refer to himself in the third person, that observa may not quite be the life and soul of the smoko room he imagines he is?
“Whew, OK heÄôs gone. What the hell was all that about?”
In fact he seems to spending more here than there. I reckon, like EP, heÄôs here for the fashion tips and the chicky-babes.
Fashion tips? Brown cardigans, perhaps?
From the Smoko Room Tapes, Vol. II
“Fuck me. Did you see his new suit? It’s all purple!”
So sure they are of their precious commanding heights with their SLP views. Not for one moment has it crossed their mind that the bedrock on which they stand, pontificating to the those upon the sands, is really the inheritance of Judeo Christian values down the ages. Yet when you ask them to consider the outcomes of their prescriptive rationalist truths, they fall silent, or resort to the last refuge of the charlatan.
You could bet London to a brick that not one of the SLPs here, is born to a solo mum on Govt benefits , with 4 or 5 other siblings, all to different absent fathers, yet many of them would advocate Govt incentive payments to encourage such behaviour. Not for their middle class parents with their middle class values, which are predicated upon a Judeo-Christian culture. The fallacy of composition they fall for, is that many at the margins of our society will share their temperament and values and hence outcomes. Not so when you examine the outcomes of sit down money it seems, whatever its largesse. As I said, I don’t recall the Christian missionaries, producing such abhorrent outcomes at Uluru, but I have seen the results of their ID, in many of the aboriginal leaders of today. Outcomes be damned, it seems to me it’s wearing the politically correct club tie that’s of overriding importance.
More dopey outcomes for SLPs on the horizon here too it seems http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,16245852-23109,00.html
Remember the O warning you all about where your unintelligent design would lead us all? The end result will be the need to abandon any differential govt transfer payments to singles or uniteds(well not unless you intrusively means and assets test all cohabiters). Since there won’t be much more tax money forthcoming for the overall Centrelink kitty, what impact do you think that will have on the level of payments to singles? Won’t worry us traditional dual income, taxpaying marrieds of course. Come to think of it, there might be some very useful incentive effects, with such lower payments.
Observa, I don’t need semi-coherent lectures on Western Culture. I’m a postgraduate history student at a standstone university.
I am Western Culture.
Liam, if that’s the case, please make subsequent comments on this thread in LATIN. Thank you.
I hate to be the first to say it. I haven’t a clue what Observa is on about.
Liam, you are Batman. Observa is clearly the Riddler.
Hilarious!
Shorter observa of 10:08 am – secular liberal progressivism leads to sex with rabbits.
that makes me the joker!!
The “-r” is superfluous, Homey.
Thats it your fyored!
Well judging by the latest posts from Mark and Irant, they get it. For quite some time now, it would appear that the West has been labouring somewhat under the illusion that science and rationalism have won the debate over dogma and religion. Fundamentalist Islam has come along to challenge that view and tip the bucket on the smugness of SLP. Essentially science and rational deduction have their limits. Sooner or later you just gotta believe and the question now for the West is- in what are we’re gunna believe?
Having said that, it’s clear to many that Christianity has evolved and adapted to scientific enquiry and had some degree of Reformation. It’s pretty hard to say God made the flat earth in 7 days, when it’s clear the earth is round. As for the 7 days well… So, if some religions are evolving, then it follows that some are more evolved than others. Not so say some Evolutionist adherents elsewhere. The Rainbow Serpent and the Dreamtime, Islam, Christianity, etc and their beliefs and values are all the same and produce the same outcomes. Hmmmmm…an interesting empirical perception. You can see the dilemma for Evolution fans here. They have to get down and get dirty with those damned religious nutters, because they have some very obvious shortcomings of their own. One thing’s for certain though. In democracies it’s majority rules alright, which is a bit of a problem if you stuff nations full of one kind of religious nutter over another, particularly if they breed well. The outcome should be obvious to any rationalist. It may be a case of choosing the lesser of two evils perhaps?
As an aside of some relevance here, I should raise the interesting predicament of SA’s 57 yr old Mark Brindal, a Liberal State Opposition MP and former Govt minister. Now Mark has apparently admitted to cheating on his wife, by having a homosexual affair with a 24 yr old in his parliamentary office. The 24 yr old’s father is basically quoted as saying his son is not a ‘high achiever’- “He plays with Dinky Toys, for God’s sake.” What a freaking values quagmire that is, but according to the SLP viewpoint, such behaviour should have little or no bearing on his ability to represent and govern us. Watching the MSM and the all their different value sets tip-toe around that little lot, is bloody hilarious. One thing’s for sure though- That dude is now unelectable and he and everyone else knows it. There’s no scientific explanation for it though.
Ok, Liam can be Batman this week.
I’m all for compulsory classes in Comparative Religion. I think it’s a great idea.
Might teach kids how to think critically about everything.
Then ID and all this gumph would be a storm in a teacup and recognised as such.
“Shorter observa of 10:08 am – secular liberal progressivism leads to sex with rabbits.”
Longer observa- secular liberal progressivism has little to say about sex with rabbits.
i think of observa as two-face rather than Joker. He’s not completely insane, like Two-face he occasionally lapses into sanity (Harvey Dent), but that’s soon gone with a flip of the coin.
“Longer observa- secular liberal progressivism has little to say about sex with rabbits. ”
so i take it that sick yuppy bastard was convicted of animal cruelty and buggering bugs bunny under the christian theocratic laws of australia, observa?
Say what you will, Jason, but you must admit that Bugs Bunny always looked the Hotness in a dress, which he wore A LOT. Just sayin’, is all…
“so i take it that sick yuppy bastard was convicted of animal cruelty and buggering bugs bunny under the christian theocratic laws of australia, observa?”
Yes, just as he may be under the democratically evolved law of a majority of muslims. There may of course be another clause in their democratically evolved buggery laws, as well as some more permanent deterrent for both cases. Any Judeo-Christian majority, democratic country you know of that locks people up for 20 yrs for possession of 4.1kg of MJ Jason? Some democratic countries you can kill and eat cows, some you can’t. Ditto whales. Not judging, just saying.
‘sick yuppy bastard’- err, that’s not a value judgement is it Jason, like some vegan might throw at you for eating battery chooks is it? Where’s all this judgmental values stuff written in the sacred tenets of SLP mate?
what’s your point, observa and are you familiar with the concept of a rhetorical question?
i buy free range eggs and i’m a SLP, observa, and the laws that sent that sick bugger to jail are SLP laws too, not judaeo-christian laws. and you’ve just contradicted yourself by noting that presumably SLP vegans are capable of value judgements.
your strawmen are flailing in the wind
“Any Judeo-Christian majority, democratic country you know of that locks people up for 20 yrs for possession of 4.1kg of MJ Jason?”
There are some Judaeo-Christians who advocate capital punishment for drunkards, druggies and homos, observa. what stops them? liberal democracy.
http://reason.com/9811/col.olson.shtml
Perhaps the shorter SLP?- It’s obvious that only a sick yuppy bastard would bugger Easter Bunny, but 57 yr old politicians buggering 24 yr olds with their dinky toys, now let me see… where’s my SLP manual again? Nope!…try D for dinky toys….???
As I’m working (and not able to read the whole thread), can someone please summarise observer’s comments in a nutshell? They’re hardly comprehensible!
if you can’t distinguish between 24 year old adults and little furry bunnies, you’re the one with the problems, matey
“….what stops them? liberal democracy.”
At long last he gets it. The only thing that stands between any democratic judeo/legal system and another is the composition and tenets of the majority of voters. Fill this country full of Japanese and we’ll probably be allowed to legally kill and eat whales. Need I labour the point?
Fill the country with Observas and I’m moving to Japan.
Whats this latest craze of putting ‘Judeo-’ in front of things?
My favourite is “Judeo-Christian”… yes, that a long and harmonious tradition isnt it?
Anyone would think Christianity wasn’t largely responsible for centuries of anti-semitism the way thats chucked around.
“Fill the country with Observas and IÄôm moving to Japan.”
Apparently liam gets it too.
It even provoked harry to think “IÄôm all for compulsory classes in Comparative Religion. I think itÄôs a great idea.”
Careful harry or you’ll start down the path of assessing outcomes here(Mutitjuli people?) and logically moving back one step to actively discriminating for or against the underlying core beliefs as a result.
You might even fall for the visceral absolutism of Jason here “if you canÄôt distinguish between 24 year old adults and little furry bunnies, youÄôre the one with the problems, matey” Well the observa may well have the same absolute visceral objections to bunny buggery as Jason. However, Jason might want to hang the culprit, whereas the O might not. Some other religious, visceral objectors might want to hang both culprits for either act of buggery here. The O might think our polly most unworthy for infidelity and cheating on his wife. Others might think our polly unworthy for taking advantage of the intellectually disadvantaged. The same attitude they would take with the O in a commercial transaction. Social stigma or the strong arm of the law and its punisment, is inextricably linked with culture and religion.
Seems to me, that SLP is the Felix’s magic bag of other absolute values you go for, when you disagree with some formalised tenets of other IDers and their religions. SLP, the catch-all just like falling back on ID. What we might conveniently label as ‘Other’. That’s why I’d include them in your comparisons harry. The acid test for all should be social outcomes. That’s why I think Christian missionaries were better for the Mutitjulu than the Dreamtime or SLP administrators, but perhaps I should be less judgmental and more patient.
Drshrink – Thank you for your first post (one of the few here that I understand without a headache or a dictionary).
Let me agree that “outrage and dismissal” will not achieve what reasoned debate can. It seems to me though, the reasoning is all the more problematic if one proponent defaults to a higher power which they regard as requiring no further explanation.
I think the most frustrating aspect is how Dr Nelson has legitimized(inadvertently or not) a new untestable distraction for students in our under resourced science classes. These are the places where experiment, result and conclusion are learned. Should we ask these students to test their proofs and then tell them that is ends with God? Not only is it emminently unfair it is also an easy way out for the lazy when the going gets tough.
Intelligent Design as an idea will produce more closed minds than free thinkers and in my humble opinion the waste is just too hard to bare.
The connection between religion and Intelligent Design seems symbiotic to me and it may be obvious this formulates my opposition on the subject. I welcome the debate and even the subject in our schools, philosophy maybe but not as science.
I think someone’s orgone box needs recalibrating.
“…has legitimized(inadvertently or not) a new untestable distraction for students in our under resourced science classes. These are the places where experiment, result and conclusion are learned.”
Spot on. Do we really need this kinda pissant distraction at a time when, in an increasingly globalised world of large low-cost labour pools, Aus’ future will more and more depend on highly localised resources operations and very high-end services and R&D/IP sectors. All of which depend in one way or another on a sound grasp of the scientific method.
Creationism! What has it done for us lately?
I don’t know about creationism, Nabakov, but Genesis does feature the first ever negotiated individual contract.
‘Your birthright is not an allowable matter. Our terms are 1) Mess of pottage. Sign here please’.
If only Hayek were taught in all schools, there’d be much more respect for free trade and the rule of law among the yoof.
“Creationism! What has it done for us lately?”
It has allowed you to take its believers and the good society they have created for you, totally for granted. I can’t say that any of the committed Creationists I’ve met, have been anything but exemplary citizens can you Nabakov? Actually you can pop over to Currency Lads to discover that yesterday was the 25th anniversary of that famous Creationist Lech Walensa setting up Solidarnosc. You remember, that country of Catholic Creationists that finally kicked in the rotten door of Communism. No doubt a good union man like yourself would have trotted out his Solidarnosc T-shirt to celebrate the occasion eh Nabs. A case of outcomes being just as important as wearing the badge.
When recalibrating your observa box, orgone, I suggest you pay good attention to the “humour” setting. It may be off by a RCH or two.
“…and the good society they have created for you…”
I’ll leave it to others around here with more energy and enthusiasm for the dialectics of history to point out how much of the “good society” is based on secular agitators and not a reactionary First Estate. I reckon you could have some fun with the small “o” here Jason.
“…Catholic Creationists that finally kicked in the rotten door of Communism”
Umm, wasn’t some trade union or something involved a bit there?
“No doubt a good union man like yourself …”
Nope. I’m a sleazy lazy boho who wouldn’t join any union with standards low enough to accept me. Except for APRA of course.
Why are we still debating if the Earth is flat and in orbit around the Sun? Perhaps we ought to switch to counting the turtles on the way down.
Get over it. Creationism and its bastard child “Intelligent Design” are not only wrong they are antithetical to reason itself. Not science. Not even philosophy. Keep it in comparative religion class along with the other fantastic beasts, space aliens, and Herakles (read: Jesus) harrowing hell. End of story.
Hey Jason, speaking of any possible law in a democracy how about this one http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,16292520-29277,00.html
It’s a purely rhetorical question but should our bunny buggerer get the same, lesser or greater sentence than that bugger, cos I’m buggered if I know anymore.
booring
strawman alert
rape is clearly non-consensual observa. what makes you think us classical liberal multiculturalists would favour one months’ punishment for rape just because the fellow invoked aboriginal law.
I didn’t think for one moment you would be in favour of it Jason, but just pointing out how an esteemed judge in our esteemed democracy was. Sheesh! I feel another Paul Nemer case outrage coming on, or perhaps we’ve all become immune to it nowadays.
[...] Kudos to Abiola Lapite for noting this striking quote from one of Hayek’s most famous essays which is directly relevant to the ‘Intelligent Design’ debate that has recently erupted in the US and Australia. [...]
Can someone tell me when evolution officially became a science?
1 July 1858
Can someone tell me why ID should be treated as a scientific method?
Does it have any testable hypotheses?
And if you need to claim scientific credibility for a core tenet of your faith, doesn’t that imply a lack of faith in your faith?
Can someone tell me what the odds of human males and females evolving at equivalent simultaneous rate to produce offspring are?
Less than the odds of an invisible superhero from outer space instantly creating woman from a spare chunk of calcium.
Facelift ask for odds as if science is some sort of SP bookie’s tote. I would suggest he/she/it starts at this site.
Can someone tell me how much I’d need to drink before Facelift’s last question started to make sense to me?
A lot. Here, let me top up your glass up Gummo with this rather decent Fabian chardonnay.
For inny bits: How To Evolve A Vulva.
Oh! You don’t know then. Oh well!
FaceLift,
We don’t play your stupid creationist games. Read the talk.origins website that I linked to if you want to know the answer. I am not your personal internet researcher. Go and find out about the fact of evolution and stop relying on your preacher for scientific literacy – he or she has none.
How to grow a brain
FaceLift may want to pay attention for more … fundamental … reasons.
Facelift,
Even after Nabs generous top-up of Fabian chardonnay, your question still doesn’t make any sense. It seems to be based on the absurd assumption that human males and human females evolved as separate species in the past but somehow ended up capable of sexual reproduction with each other.
The probability that anything like this could actually happen is zero. I’d rate the probability that you have any understanding of basic biology as so close to zero as to make no difference. Go away and find a good high school text book on the subject and read the sections on sexual reproduction.
Man! I think TR’s developing fangs and a foaming mouth. Obviously missed out on kindness genes. Having a bad scale day.
Wonder who the great ‘we’ are who don’t play the creationist games? They don’t really want to discuss things with people of another persuasion, just spit them off the blog so they can preach to themselves. Sounds like survival of the fittest. Missing link. Missing the point. After effects of the exquisitely tasty depressant chardonnay.
I wonder how they explain their position to plumbers and mechanics without sounding overly superior or pompous.
However, thanks for the info. I learned heaps on pharyngula.org. Pity talk.origins evaded the issue though.
Dear FaceList,
As I am not required to explain the facts of the matter to plumbers or mechanics (and why do you assume that a tradesman is not able to follow a scientific conversation anyway) I am not concerned with your little rhetorical games about my ‘attitude’: my attitude is irrelevant – it is the facts, and only the facts, that matter.
Creationism is not science. Neither is Intelligent Design. Keep them out of the science classroom.
Creationists are liars. End Of Story.
OK! I agree. Your attitude is irrelevant.
Facts. What facts are those? The facts you choose to believe which you think compromise creationists, or the facts others believe which compromise yours? Is the science of reason the only evidence-gathering system, or can there be supernatural occurrences which cannot be explained by your definition of science? Have you learned so much and seen so little?
The assumption seems to be that Christians are so narrow minded they can’t examine the universe in detail, yet people like Faraday, Pascal and Newton looked at the world through creationist eyes and advanced science greatly. Darwin gave the skeptics a great cause, but failed to remove the spiritual dimension of the normal, inquisitive person.
Marx planned for it. Destroy faith. Lenin and Stalin tried. But the people continue to believe. Christians everywhere are engrossed by physical, emotional and spiritual mysteries and unexplainable things. They see more than you think, understand more than you know.
Snap out of the reason for a while, and learn to live. Beginning of story.
The trouble was that Faraday, Pascal or Newton did not advance ideas that had at the centre “Hmmm, not sure about the next bit so therefore goddit. Huzzah! Now I can go bludge now and run a good PR campaign and not have to worry about the actually doing science bit.”
Nice linkage of Darwin to Marx but you are falling into the the philosophical v methodological naturalism trap as well as science is antithetical to being a christian. Being a Christian has not bearing on whether one can do good science. Being a fundamentalist though does have its drawbacks for actual research and coherent scientific explanations.
It’s true that being a Christian has no bearing on whether one can do good science, but it’s also true that being a Christian requires that our view of the universe has to stack up with the reality which surounds us.
You said fundamentalist, but that means the same to me as ‘methodist’ did to Wesley, a tag placed on him by skeptics simply because he was well organised in his belief. I’ll take fundamentalist to mean that I believe what God says in the Bible in a literal sense, which I accept.
This doesn’t mean that I can’t measure my surroundings against his sayings, or investigate his deeds with one eye on his information and another on science. He has to prove himself true to me. So far he hasn’t failed.
What drawbacks? When Attenborough produces those marvellous documentaries on the natural world, he sees them through the eyes of an evolutionist, and I see them through the eyes of a creationist, and we both see an astounding world.
We have the same data, and the same evidence and the same curiousity. We just work from a different premise.
“He has to prove himself true to me. So far he hasn’t failed.”
Ye of little faith. Taking the empirical rod to the back of God! Mouth. Soap.
Quite right! Badly put. Bubbles, foam. God doesn’t have to prove anything to anyone. Better to say the information he supplies is consistent with the world I see.
Faraday, Pascal, Newton and others started with God and took their findings as far as they could with theb equipment and data at their disposal. They didn’t have to ‘goddit’, or call for PR. That idea is based on current evolutionary thought, which they didn’t have.
Since Darwin the much of the emphasis has been to start with his theories and take the findings to some kind of conclusion, but sadly there has also been a tendency from some to attempt to disprove the existence of God and discredit those who believe in him at the same time, which is thoroughly unscientific.
Don’t feed the troll
He’ll just make your eyes roll
Don’t feed the troll or you ruin the thread
All trolls would rather be dead than unread
Don’t feed the troll
And end up spewing vitriol
Invoke the Miranda clause
Don’t give it just cause
Some of them are brilliant and some just plain perverse
Some like to pun and some like to do verse
Others conjure up conspiracy theories and smoko rooms
And before you know it, 5 am looms
So don’t feed the troll and get thee to a bed
Or go rub elbows like that guy Donahoo said
But if the troll you must feed
Make it quick and make it bleed.
Hi Jason
Thanks for the good advice. I already pointed it towards talk.origins archive, where they utterly refute all of its main talking points (evolutionists ignore facts, enlightment christianity, supernaturalism, darwin and marx, argument from personal incredulity, ‘scientific’ faith, and so on).
Creationists are liars. Liars make the baby Jesus cry.
[Sorry, OT]
So, Kommissar, can we call you Tyro Rex now?
That’s right, ‘spit them off the blog so they can preach to themselves’, see nothing, hear nothing, say nothing—maybe evolution has a point about the apes.
It’s pretty amusing to get a lecture about know-nothingism from someone who thinks evolution implies males and females evolved separately.
No! Gummo Trotsky made that assumption because he couldn’t work out the question.
I didn’t say ‘know nothing’. Obviously the people on this blog know something, but they’re being cautioned to reveal nothing to the ‘creationist’, because ‘it’ might be from a sub-species. It may actually stir up a decent debate on the subject in hand which is whether ID should be included in school curriculum.
The advice from the funny rhyme on trolls was to see nothing, hear nothing, say nothing and hope the troll fades away. TR immediately decided to comply.
(off topic)
Australian talkback radio tackles ID:
On ABC Radio National’s “Australia Talks Back”:
Monday to Friday at 6pm (4pm in WA), repeated at 3am
Should Intelligent Design Be Taught In Our Schools
Tuesday 23 August 2005
The theory of intelligent design has reignited debate about evolution by challenging DarwinÄôs theory. US President George Bush wants it taught in schools. And here itÄôs won the qualified backing of education minister Dr Brendan Nelson. Should intelligent design be taught in our schools?
http://tinyurl.com/bpgnv
If you are interested in contributing, the contact details are:
Fax: 07-3377-5171
Toll-free phone: 1300 22 55 76 – 1300 CALL RN
Fyodor, credit where it’s due – Kim was the first on the Saturday Salon thread to dub Tyro Rex with that sobriquet.
I thinking calling FaceLift a troll does no one any favours here. He, she or it is now showing a willingness to argue their point in a polite and coherent fashion, so let’s all settle down for a good clean civil stoush – and one for a change where religious issues don’t involve finer points of Catholic theology.
I think a fun next step here would be for FaceLift to clarify whether it’s hardcore six days and sleep-in creationism or more of an ID type thang that’s being expoused here.
I agree with Nabs. The cricket doesn’t start till Thursday so I’ll be up for stoushing.
Facelift, you do need to put a more coherent and detailed position together. I’m really not sure what you are on about and pithy little sentences do not explain much.
Ok I came in with ‘when did evolution officially become a science’, which isn’t a bad question since it is still regarded by many as a theory, which means it still requires conclusive evidence before it can be said to be a science.
The focus of modern science is based on the premise that evolution could be the most likely explanation for life. However a growing number of scientists (collectors of evidence) are coming to the conclusion that random events alone are not conclusive enough, and they are seeing the possiblity of intelligent design, an exterior agency which influences the development of life beyond mere mutational changes.
One of the arguments is that ID can’t be in the science class because it is not a science, yet bona fide scientists are raising the issue as a possibility. Surely the scientific process includes questioning the accepted norm. If evolution is still a theory, should it be in the science class, or should the scientific evidence we have be rethought, allowing the possibility that things are neither as random or as fixed as people think.
FaceLift, evolution is not random. It is actually quite intelligent in its own design. Evolution is constantly testing out new genetic designs, keeping those it likes and rejecting those that add no value.
When we thought the world was 5000 years old, intelligent design made sense. But now that we know it is billions of years old, we understand how evolution has been possible. Evolution might be very slow, but given enough time it can assemble some pretty impressively complex structures from the ground up.
The intelligence in the design process that is evolution is that by forcing organisms and their genetic software through a challenging reproductive and survival cycle, each and every genetic innovation is put through the wringer of competition and through a test of its own internal logic and viability.
So the question is between intelligent design by an unknowable force and intelligent design by good old biological evolution.
The other question is why do people who believe in God, feel a need to impose that God’s hand into the workings of evolution. Faith is all that is required, not scientific evidence.
Thanks Facelift. Check out this post of mine. Your misconceptions on what science is, what a theory is and notions of randomness are all covered.
Time to toss the Theory of Relativity out of the Physics curriculum then. Away with all theories! None of them are officially sciences.
That’s it; I’m taking Jason’s advice. It’s reasoned argument Jim, but not as we know it.
OK, Iron Scientist Stoush.
To my right: the creationists, armed with…erm…unshakeable belief, and a deep knowledge of…erm…some book of makey-uppy stuff written by desert shepherds.
Their opponents: the snarky, smarty types who gave you such wonders as…electricity!…and…aeroplanes!…and…velcro!
Who will win? Who will lose? You, the audience, decides!
The tension is killing me.
Firstly FaceLift, could you clarify exactly what it is that you are advocating for here. Full bore creationism or ID? It’s hard for me to crank up the quipparama without a clear target.
“One of the arguments is that ID canÄôt be in the science class because it is not a science, yet bona fide scientists are raising the issue as a possibility.”
A little evidence here about which scientists and what exactly they are saying would be nice.
“Surely the scientific process includes questioning the accepted norm.”
Yep, that’s scientists did when they questioned creationism, the norm until only fairly recently in human history.
“If evolution is still a theory…”
As has been pointed out here before, the definition of “theory” in the scientific method carries a very precise meaning which does not mean what I think you think it means.
“…allowing the possibility that things are neither as random or as fixed as people think.”
So yer willing to entertain the possibility that God doesn’t exist then? That stuff could just y’know evolve like?
How about a compromise? Teach ID in science classes and teach science in Bible studies? I’m certainly welcome some cool and empirical light of reason shone on that committee-assembled mish-mash of bronze-age desert nomad myths, public order and hygiene rulings and rambling stories of political agitators that’s been misused for so long to keep so many under the thumb of so few.
FaceLift if it wasn’t the vanity of the scientists talking there you might have a point. Unfortunately I don’t buy the whole ‘Science can’t explain it, so it must be ID’ argument. Science itself is still evolving so it’s not surprising it can’t explain everything. Some scientists need to accept that they won’t know everything they would like to know in their lifetimes. That’s how it is. Like all humans through the ages when we can’t explain something we make up stories. ID is just Dreamtime for the modern world.
Very astute there, Mindy. It reminds one of the ol’ “Chewbacca Defense”, dunnit?
“Can someone tell me when evolution officially became a science?”
I’m still dying to know why this is a useful question.
“OK, Iron Scientist Stoush.”
But what is the mystery ingredient?!
I suggest Logic.
The main contributor to the ID debate seems to be Michael Behe, here interviewed on a Christian website: http://www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn58/dna.htm
I think ID could be a compromise for both creationists and evolutionists.
I’m allowing the possibility that God called things into existance that didn’t previously exist, and that over time they have adapted or changed. Something/One had to cause matter to be and the ‘big bang’ to happen.
deja vu anyone? anyone?
Oh! You’ve heard it all before. OK I’ll take these pearls somewhere else, trotter free.
So Facelift, we could boil your point down to “There could well be a God because how else could shit first happen.”?
And if you think ID is just evolution kickstarted by some Deity, then what is the point of treating it as a science? Science is about “how” and “why”, whereas by your lights, ID is just sticking “because there is a God” in front of the “how” and “why”. So basically it offers nothing but the comfort that your life must have a higher purpose without adding in any way to our knowledge of the world. That’s not science, just a very solipsistic belief system.
Don’t be silly. Your argument says only evolutionists have a handle on science and creationists have no handle on science because they fall back on the fact of God generating everything so why should we bother to investigate our universe. That’s total nonsense and I’ve already argued the point that there are great scientists form history who have advanced science.
You say creationists are limited by their faith because they don’t have to investigate, but it seems to me that it is evolutionists who are limited because they are basically realists who deny the supernatural and are hamstrung by their inability to accept spiritual cause and effect as well as natural cause and effect.
Who says that supernatural occurences can’t be part of scientific thinking? Evolution may be seen as the current ‘norm’, but it can and will be challenged, and there’s a whole new realm of investigation which needs to be rationally unlocked. You just haven’t seen it yet, or it’s possibilities.
You asked for my position and I began to give it to you but you immediately put me in a box, as did Mindy. Put the box down and open your minds and i’ll give you my position.
The Intelligent Design theory simply has to be true. Just look at how the human form has evolved perfectly to fit the chair!
Have you ever read a biography of Newton? He was a heretical Christian who denied the doctrine of the Trinity. He wasted the greater part of his life trying to prove the Bible and studying alchemy. His work in the Principia Mathematica is remembered because it contains nothing about the supernatural, “I frame no hypotheses”. If there’s one exemplar of the fact that “supernatural occurences” are a complete fantasy it’s Newton.
FaceLift. Evidence. Science requires evidence. When you (or anyone else) has the evidence, then we can all chat about ID belonging in science class and being taught alongside other scientific theories and facts.
Until the evidence exists, then perhaps ID belongs better in the metaphysical area of study or in a religious class.
Honestly, I respect your beliefs but that doesn’t make then science.
Who says that supernatural occurences canÄôt be part of scientific thinking?
What exactly do you think supernatural means?
“Your argument says only evolutionists have a handle on science and creationists have no handle on science because they fall back on the fact of God generating everything so why should we bother to investigate our universe. ”
No, what I said was that your view of ID adds nothing to the actual process of investigation via the scientific method, not that people holding such views are unable to carry out such investigations.
If yer gonna put someone’s comment in a box, you should make sure it fits first.
And once a supernatural occurrence is explained by scientific thinking, then it’s no longer supernatural is it? I mean, our ancestors thought thunder and lightening were the gods throwing a whoopsie. I doubt anyone espousing ID today would advance the same explaination now.
…and thereÄôs a whole new realm of investigation which needs to be rationally unlocked.”
And how does belief in God aid in rationally unlocking such realms?
“and iÄôll give you my position.”
So you feel that after 14 odd comments, you still haven’t made your position clear? Where do think the problem lies here? With your interlocuters? With your ability to explain your position? Or with the position itself?
Nabs,
I think Facelift is arguing that we can’t actually debate his position because he hasn’t actually told us what it is and he ain’t gunna, either. Furthermore, because nothing we’ve said so far addresses his actual position – becaue he hasn’t told us what it is – he doesn’t consider it refuted.
As I said, it’s reasoned argument Jim, just not as we know it.
Yo Facelift, here’s an example of the scientifc method in action.
A large body of empirical and well documented data clearly shows that:
a) people who believe in God can carry out valid work using the scientific method; and
b) people who don’t believe in God can carry out valid work using the scientific method.
Based on these data points, I put forward the theory that belief in God plays no discernable part in the successful application of the scientific method.
Can you disprove this theory by providing contrary examples or can you propose another theory based on empirical observation that makes this one a subset of one that depends on belief in God?
If you can, then I’ll agree that ID should taught as a scientific theory.
Basically ID only exists because of a belief in God and not because it’s a testable theory as defined by the very system that it wants so much to take it seriously.
Shorher Nabakov: Science shows you can’t have your cake and eat it too.
This little sequence is pretty hilarious;
then;
But looking back we can find;
T.Rex: Creationists are liars. Lies make the baby Jesus cry.
T.Rex: Nabs, this is an immaterial distinction. Neither make any disprovable, distinctive, predictions about the nature of the world or any observation about it in any scientific sense. Neither is science.
T.Rex: the argument that “Evolution is only a theory” is extensive covered in the talk.origins FAQs. Evolution as theory and as FACT is studied by the scientific method. Neither Creationism nor IDism is a science, and nor are they conducted using the scientific method.
T.Rex: No, they are not. Another creationist talking point covered in good detail in the talk.origins FAQs. Creationists are liars. Liars make the baby Jesus cry.
T.Rex: No bona fide scientist is raising the issue. As before all over the talk.origins FAQs. Evolution is not a “still a theory” it is an observed fact. The status and nature of scientific theory is also covered in detail in the talk.origins FAQ. Id is NOT a science (meaning not scientific method) because it makes no testable, distinct hypotheses about the natural world.
T.Rex: Behe is not a scientist and he is a proven liar and distorter of the truth and of scientist’s words. See PZ Myers site (pharyngula.org).
T.Rex: Science does not compromise with the facts. It does not need to “compromise”; it needs to produce testable, disprovable, hypotheses about the Universe.
T.Rex: Yes. Science is what scientists do. Creationists who produce arguments in the way that you do (and they all do – or worse) don’t know jack sh.t about science. And if you “fall back” to “the god of the gaps” you’re not doing science. Simple. (and if not YOUR god, WHICH god are we talking about anyway? maybe MY god? Or gummo trotsky’s? how about NO god?) And “the god of the gaps” stuff is all covered in the talk.origins archive.
T.Rex: Science is by definition about the natural world. If you want to talk about the natural world, talk science or get out of the conversation. At least now you admit you are not talking about science. On your way out, check out the talk.origins archive as I suggested much earlier because you’ve not asked a SINGLE question that is not covered in their FAQs.
“Nabs, this is an immaterial distinction.”
Yeah, I know that. I wanted to see where FL was coming from so I could respond accordingly. If it was the “the world was created 6000 years ago” schtick I would have adjusted my aim accordingly. And shooting fish in a barrel and pigeons on the wing require different gauges for best results.
Yer a smart guy Tyro Rex but I fear you’re not much of a full-on really Filthy MacNasty bastard threadfighter.
Guys,
It is not true that ID has not given us scientifically useful methods. Behe, when cornered regarding how the mysterious designer works, tells is that all we need is a puff of smoke. So all biologists need to do is watch things closely. If they see the tell-tale puff of smoke bringing into existence a novel biological feature then we have evidence of mysterious designer.
I eagerly await Behe’s description of his methodology in this matter.
“a puff of smoke”
Makes sense to me Irant. Isn’t that how they signal God’s choice of his top enforcer on earth?
Is that the same sort of smoke puff that my computer makes when it gives up the ghost? I mean I suppose if something can be intelligently designed it can be intelligently UNDESIGNED by the same sort of mechanisms? Perhaps also it’s an explanation for smog?
Nabs; yeah I’m not much of a rhetorical brawler really.
‘T.Rex: Science does not compromise with the facts. It does not need to “compromise”; it needs to produce testable, disprovable, hypotheses about the Universe.’
ID is a compromise, not science.
‘T.Rex: Science is by definition about the natural world.’
Dictionary: Science: the state of knowing: knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
talk.origins won’t discuss Brendan Nelson’s comments.
‘T.Rex: Creationists are liars. Lies make the baby Jesus cry’ (again & again)
Jesus isn’t a baby. He grew up. He wants you to follow his example.
So FaceLift, if there is a god and a saviour, how do you explain Michael Bolton?
“He wants you to follow his example.”
Tortured to death at 33 as a political hit? No thanks.
Yes, but he grew up first
“Yes, but he grew up first”
Yer edging into snarkland there FaceLift.
(And also completely dodging the various questions raised above. Your religion teaches you to be charitable right? So assume the questions above were asked in good faith.)
But if you wanna go the snark route, then bring it on. I warn you though – you won’t like me when I’m snarky.
Sorry, TR’s irrelevant ‘joke’ about ‘baby’ Jesus distracted me.
Nabakov:
A large body of empirical and well documented data clearly shows that:
a) people who believe in God can carry out valid work using the scientific method; and
b) people who donÄôt believe in God can carry out valid work using the scientific method.
It also follows that:
a) people who believe in evolution can carry out valid work using the scientific method; and
b) people who donÄôt believe in evolution can carry out valid work using the scientific method.
You’ve completely missed the point of my comment that yer sourcing your last one from.
Now, was that a sin of omission or one of commission?
Not really, the point just jumped out and I made it. Science is science, Evolution, ID and creation are theories, by any definition of the word.
Q
‘Can you disprove this theory by providing contrary examples or can you propose another theory based on empirical observation that makes this one a subset of one that depends on belief in God?’
The answer, in terms of conceding that your view of ID or creationism is correct, is no, because the available data is the same for all three arguments and not fully persuasive for any.
Evolution depends on huge, almost unimaginable time spans to have any hope of working. Creation depends on a God and requires faith. These are difficulties for all sides.
Science on the other hand throws up interesting questions which have yet to be answered by either side, which is why science, like math or languages, should be taught in schools according to the available evidence, and theories attached to science should be taught as separate curriculum.
Neither evolution or creation is going to work for everyone. I concede that for you this is a hugely inadequate point of view, and that you’ve argued well and been fair despite wanting to place creationism in your sites.
Happy hunting.
And that’s precisely why science and science curricula should have nothing to do with it. Science is about the nature of the Universe, not political compromise.
Science is not epistomology. Science is not even just a type of epistomology. Science is a epistomological method for learning about the natural world. And checking dictionary.com to see where you got the “dictionary” definition that you appear to plucked out of thin air above yields nothing, as it defines science as (and you might note definition 2);
1. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
2. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
3. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
But dictionary definitions of a word (i.e. the meanings in which it is used by people) don’t denote the practice, anyway, just like the way that a map is not the territory.
But neither are you. You’ve barely if at all mentioned him or his comments. And talk.origins covers in detail every single talking point you’ve regurgitated so far.
Jesus called a spade a spade. And creationists ARE proven liars (the ‘scientists accept evolution have problems’ is but ONE example of these incessant lies). Isn’t “thou shalt not bear false witness” one of your religion’s commandments?
Lies make baby elephant Ganesa angry. Soon, the age Kali Dhurga will come to an end, and Siva Nataraja shall cleanse the world of ignorance and the cycle of death-in-life will start over again. Maybe that’s the puff of smoke that two-bit fraud Behe is looking for.
Argument from personal incredulity is a logical fallacy.
The “unimaginable” time spans have certainly been imagined, and more – they have been theorised, predicted, and measured. Which is why there are no “difficulties” on the side of evolution.
There is no “controversy”. Evolution is FACT as such as the sky and earth are facts. Just as sure that we both are primates of the genus Homo who share a common ancestor not only with all the other primates, but the entire clade of Mammilia, the phylum of Metazoa (Animals), in the kingdom of Eukarota, who, billions of years ago, parasitised some bacteria, and we still carry their separate DNA within us.
DNA contains what could be called identifyable and unchanging information in each species. How does information in a DNA strand evolve separate to the species and form it at the same time? Simultaneous mutations of form and information?
Jesus H. Christ. This is fecking ridiculous. FaceLift, do you know a creationist “scientist” who could argue on your behalf? For example, someone who knows that your DNA isn’t identical to your father’s?
This is downright embarassing – not so much a stoush as a squib.
The “huge, unimaginable time spans” are very large on the human scale, but not very large on geologic scales. Why are the lifespans of human beings your natural time scale?
This para just reveals a great deal of ignorance and closed-mindedness…
“DNA contains what could be called identifyable and unchanging information in each species. How does information in a DNA strand evolve separate to the species and form it at the same time? Simultaneous mutations of form and information?”
DNA is a molecule, a physical object. It has no magical powers of stability. During cellular reproduction the DNA strands separate and the process can lead to changes in the DNA sequence, because copying the sequences is not perfect. Some of those sequence changes are viable and give the organism’s descendants a reproductive advantage over the rest of their species. There is no reason form and “information” can’t change simultaneously because “information” in DNA is merely a metaphor, not something real.
I didn’t come here for a stoush. That was someone else’s idea. I haven’t claimed to know anything about any of these processes. I just threw a few ideas into a blog.
It’s interesting to see how people who obviously have a fair degree of knowledge and information respond.
Brendan Nelson may have had that in mind when he sought to be reasonably fair-minded about whether people’s faith could be accommodated in schools without compromising the evolutionists vehement defence of theirs.
Sorry about the embarrassment.
Here’s a song for Brendan Nelson
“Jocko Homo” – DEVO (from “Q:Are We Not Men A: We are Devo!”, produced by Brian Eno, 1988)
They tell us that
We lost our tails
Evolving up
From little snails
I say itÄôs all
Just wind in sails
Are we not men?
We are devo!
WeÄôre pinheads now
We are not whole
WeÄôre pinheads all
Jocko homo
Are we not men?
D-e-v-o
Monkey men all
In business suit
Teachers and critics
All dance the poot
Are we not men?
We are devo!
Are we not men?
D-e-v-o
God made man
But he used the monkey to do it
Apes in the plan
WeÄôre all here to prove it
I can walk like an ape
Talk like an ape
I can do what a monkey can do
God made man
But a monkey supplied the glue
We must repeat
O.k. letÄôs go!
D’oh! Produced 1978 I mean. My carbon dating process needs calibrating.