Re: No Intelligence Allowed

[Guest guest]

Sounds like more Christian propaganda....

Just because there is an orthodoxy about diet that is most probably

not correct, doesn't mean that ALL theories should be taught in

schools. I don't think that people should be teaching intelligent

design in a science class - it is not science.

> Ben Stein's movie " Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed " is out on DVD.

> It is purportedly about the way scientists and educators are fired and

> ruined for allowing that God may have had a role in evolution; but it

> applies equally well to anyone in the science industry who doesn't tow

> the party line. I believe that is part of what is going wrong in this

> country - if you don't agree with the majority - even if it is because

> you have more experience and actually know better - they don't want to

> hear it if it contradicts strongly held opinions - be it the safety of

> fluoride or the vilification of saturated fats. It's actually a little

> bit scary how systematically they try to keep us in the dark about

> the " other side " of what is scientifically " PC " .

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Actually I mis-stated it. It's not even about God really as much as

that Darwin doesn't explain everything and no questioning of him is

tolerated. Questions like where did life come from have ridiculously

flimsy answers scientifically yet they will not allow that there

could be a possible religious explanation - i.e. that something out

there guided or accounted for life here. They'd rather say it was

space aliens (tho wouldn't that be a " higher intelligence " as well??)

or crystals.

I haven't finished the film yet, kids keep interrupting it, but I

just saw the part where he links Darwin and Hitler - the whole

eugenics movement was actually based on Darwin, very strongly. It

keeps occurring to me that if Hitler had read Weston A. Price's work

instead of Darwin, things could have gone very, very differently.

What if human degeneration was caused by poor nutrition and pollution

instead of by weakening the gene pool by inferior races??? It makes

me wonder how political Price was, I've never seen anything about his

politics.

Of course, if he were still a homicidal maniac, things could have

gone more like Pol Pot instead. He was closer to an insane follower

of Price - everybody needs to get back to the land.

--- In , Gene Schwartz <implode7@...>

wrote:

>

> Sounds like more Christian propaganda....

>

> Just because there is an orthodoxy about diet that is most

probably

> not correct, doesn't mean that ALL theories should be taught in

> schools. I don't think that people should be teaching intelligent

> design in a science class - it is not science.

>

> > Ben Stein's movie " Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed " is out on

DVD.

> > It is purportedly about the way scientists and educators are

fired and

> > ruined for allowing that God may have had a role in evolution;

but it

> > applies equally well to anyone in the science industry who

doesn't tow

> > the party line. I believe that is part of what is going wrong in

this

> > country - if you don't agree with the majority - even if it is

because

> > you have more experience and actually know better - they don't

want to

> > hear it if it contradicts strongly held opinions - be it the

safety of

> > fluoride or the vilification of saturated fats. It's actually a

little

> > bit scary how systematically they try to keep us in the dark about

> > the " other side " of what is scientifically " PC " .

> >

> >

> >

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Just silly that because Hitler's eugenics relied on some notion of

evolution, that evolution is wrong. You still have to use logic in

this world...

I really don't think that Hitler would have been so crucially

influenced by Price. Someone with so much hatred (even more than some

here attribute to me, amazingly enough), is going to find a way to act

it out.

My take on the film (watching the 9 minute youtube trailer, and

reading about it elsewhere) is that the STRONG subtext is science vs

religion. The few minutes that I saw were absolutely ridiculous. I

have no interest in it at all.

> Actually I mis-stated it. It's not even about God really as much as

> that Darwin doesn't explain everything and no questioning of him is

> tolerated. Questions like where did life come from have ridiculously

> flimsy answers scientifically yet they will not allow that there

> could be a possible religious explanation - i.e. that something out

> there guided or accounted for life here. They'd rather say it was

> space aliens (tho wouldn't that be a " higher intelligence " as well??)

> or crystals.

>

> I haven't finished the film yet, kids keep interrupting it, but I

> just saw the part where he links Darwin and Hitler - the whole

> eugenics movement was actually based on Darwin, very strongly. It

> keeps occurring to me that if Hitler had read Weston A. Price's work

> instead of Darwin, things could have gone very, very differently.

> What if human degeneration was caused by poor nutrition and pollution

> instead of by weakening the gene pool by inferior races??? It makes

> me wonder how political Price was, I've never seen anything about his

> politics.

>

> Of course, if he were still a homicidal maniac, things could have

> gone more like Pol Pot instead. He was closer to an insane follower

> of Price - everybody needs to get back to the land.

>

>

> >

> > Sounds like more Christian propaganda....

> >

> > Just because there is an orthodoxy about diet that is most

> probably

> > not correct, doesn't mean that ALL theories should be taught in

> > schools. I don't think that people should be teaching intelligent

> > design in a science class - it is not science.

> >

> > > Ben Stein's movie " Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed " is out on

> DVD.

> > > It is purportedly about the way scientists and educators are

> fired and

> > > ruined for allowing that God may have had a role in evolution;

> but it

> > > applies equally well to anyone in the science industry who

> doesn't tow

> > > the party line. I believe that is part of what is going wrong in

> this

> > > country - if you don't agree with the majority - even if it is

> because

> > > you have more experience and actually know better - they don't

> want to

> > > hear it if it contradicts strongly held opinions - be it the

> safety of

> > > fluoride or the vilification of saturated fats. It's actually a

> little

> > > bit scary how systematically they try to keep us in the dark about

> > > the " other side " of what is scientifically " PC " .

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 8:46 AM, haecklers <haecklers@...> wrote:

> *It

> keeps occurring to me that if Hitler had read Weston A. Price's work

> instead of Darwin, things could have gone very, very differently. *

>

If Hitler's motives were truly for the good, yes, but he would have

perverted it for his own purpose - that's what evil does........

In-between Darwin and Hitler was Dewey who studied in Germany, bringing

their brand of eugenics to the American gov't school system......

There's nothing modern about eugenics, though. Plato promoted it, and it

was the ancient Greeks who put it into practice by leaving " defected "

children to die, abandoned on harsh mountainsides, exposed to the elements

and roving beasts.

Sharon

--

Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according

to conscience, above all liberties. - Milton, Areopagitica

Deut 11:15 He will put grass in the fields for your cattle, and you

will have plenty to eat.

Check out my blog - www.ericsons.net - Food for the Body and Soul

[Guest guest]

I've never heard that Dewey brought Nazi eugenics to America.

Please explain.

> On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 8:46 AM, haecklers <haecklers@...>

> wrote:

>

> > *It

> > keeps occurring to me that if Hitler had read Weston A. Price's work

> > instead of Darwin, things could have gone very, very differently. *

> >

>

> If Hitler's motives were truly for the good, yes, but he would have

> perverted it for his own purpose - that's what evil does........

>

> In-between Darwin and Hitler was Dewey who studied in Germany,

> bringing

> their brand of eugenics to the American gov't school system......

>

> There's nothing modern about eugenics, though. Plato promoted it,

> and it

> was the ancient Greeks who put it into practice by leaving " defected "

> children to die, abandoned on harsh mountainsides, exposed to the

> elements

> and roving beasts.

>

> Sharon

>

> --

> Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according

> to conscience, above all liberties. - Milton, Areopagitica

> Deut 11:15 He will put grass in the fields for your cattle, and you

> will have plenty to eat.

> Check out my blog - www.ericsons.net - Food for the Body and Soul

>

>

[Guest guest]

I didn't say " Nazi eugenics " . I said " ...studied in Germany... " . Check out

Dewey and German neo-Hegelian.

Sharon

On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 10:57 AM, Gene Schwartz <implode7@...>wrote:

> I've never heard that Dewey brought Nazi eugenics to America.

> Please explain.

>

>

>

--

Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according

to conscience, above all liberties. - Milton, Areopagitica

Deut 11:15 He will put grass in the fields for your cattle, and you

will have plenty to eat.

Check out my blog - www.ericsons.net - Food for the Body and Soul

[Guest guest]

I know that you didn't say it explicitly. however " In-between Darwin

and Hitler was Dewey who studied in Germany, bringing

their brand of eugenics to the American gov't school system...... " has

the implication that some of the evil of the Nazi eugenics system was

present in Dewey's theories.

But, I suspect that you will not be able to successfully support this,

or anything close to it.

> I didn't say " Nazi eugenics " . I said " ...studied in Germany... " .

> Check out

> Dewey and German neo-Hegelian.

> Sharon

>

> On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 10:57 AM, Gene Schwartz

> <implode7@...>wrote:

>

> > I've never heard that Dewey brought Nazi eugenics to America.

> > Please explain.

> >

> >

> >

>

> --

> Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according

> to conscience, above all liberties. - Milton, Areopagitica

> Deut 11:15 He will put grass in the fields for your cattle, and you

> will have plenty to eat.

> Check out my blog - www.ericsons.net - Food for the Body and Soul

>

>

[Guest guest]

But you feel comfortable arguing with us based on a 9 minute trailer?

Maybe the people whose opinions you read about it, like me, chose the

quickest way to sum it up, leaving out quite a bit of information

that would have answered your objections. Or maybe they felt it

applied to some thorn in their sides they already have and are

latching on to it to further their argument.

There are parts of the film where people confess that studying Darwin

had led them to becoming agnostic, but to me the main point of the

film was that " science " (or the authorities in science) very actively

censors what is allowed to be discussed and explored. That fact is

scary and I believe leads to the threat that we will be wasting

countless time and dollars going off on ridiculous tangents and in

fact become ridiculous as a society (if we aren't there already).

The opponents to Intelligent Design claim that allowing it to be

seriously discussed will lead to people claiming the earth is flat

again, but really the opposite is true - open discussion with equal

honor to anyone who can make a good point on a topic should lead to

more learning and knowledge while dogmatically holding to

unexamined " facts " will lead to flat-earth type groupthink.

--- In , Gene Schwartz <implode7@...>

wrote:

>

> Just silly that because Hitler's eugenics relied on some notion of

> evolution, that evolution is wrong. You still have to use logic in

> this world...

>

> I really don't think that Hitler would have been so crucially

> influenced by Price. Someone with so much hatred (even more than

some

> here attribute to me, amazingly enough), is going to find a way to

act

> it out.

>

> My take on the film (watching the 9 minute youtube trailer, and

> reading about it elsewhere) is that the STRONG subtext is science

vs

> religion. The few minutes that I saw were absolutely ridiculous. I

> have no interest in it at all.

[Guest guest]

Still, didn't Price and Pottenger prove that you can breed from those

same " defectives " (using animals) and with good nutrition get healthy

offspring, in just one or two generations?? Maybe myelination trumps

DNA??

I shudder to think that we'll ever actually try to control human

evolution - we're the ones who bred stupid collies, bulldogs that

can't breathe, turkeys that can't mate with each other, vicious

chickens, and a thousand other " good ideas " . I'm sure we'd just mess

ourselves up!

>

> > *It

> > keeps occurring to me that if Hitler had read Weston A. Price's

work

> > instead of Darwin, things could have gone very, very differently.

*

> >

>

>

>

>

>

>

> If Hitler's motives were truly for the good, yes, but he would have

> perverted it for his own purpose - that's what evil does........

>

> In-between Darwin and Hitler was Dewey who studied in Germany,

bringing

> their brand of eugenics to the American gov't school system......

>

> There's nothing modern about eugenics, though. Plato promoted it,

and it

> was the ancient Greeks who put it into practice by

leaving " defected "

> children to die, abandoned on harsh mountainsides, exposed to the

elements

> and roving beasts.

>

> Sharon

>

>

>

> --

> Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according

> to conscience, above all liberties. - Milton, Areopagitica

> Deut 11:15 He will put grass in the fields for your cattle, and you

> will have plenty to eat.

> Check out my blog - www.ericsons.net - Food for the Body and Soul

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

-------------- Original message ----------------------

From: " haecklers " <haecklers@...>

> But you feel comfortable arguing with us based on a 9 minute trailer?

Quite.

>

> Maybe the people whose opinions you read about it, like me, chose the

> quickest way to sum it up, leaving out quite a bit of information

> that would have answered your objections. Or maybe they felt it

> applied to some thorn in their sides they already have and are

> latching on to it to further their argument.

Maybe, but I doubt it.

>

> There are parts of the film where people confess that studying Darwin

> had led them to becoming agnostic, but to me the main point of the

> film was that " science " (or the authorities in science) very actively

> censors what is allowed to be discussed and explored. That fact is

> scary and I believe leads to the threat that we will be wasting

> countless time and dollars going off on ridiculous tangents and in

> fact become ridiculous as a society (if we aren't there already).

> The opponents to Intelligent Design claim that allowing it to be

> seriously discussed will lead to people claiming the earth is flat

> again, but really the opposite is true - open discussion with equal

> honor to anyone who can make a good point on a topic should lead to

> more learning and knowledge while dogmatically holding to

> unexamined " facts " will lead to flat-earth type groupthink.

I'm fine with it being 'seriously discussed'. Not in a science class, though.

This 'groupthink' talk is just a distraction from the real issues.

>

>

> >

> > Just silly that because Hitler's eugenics relied on some notion of

> > evolution, that evolution is wrong. You still have to use logic in

> > this world...

> >

> > I really don't think that Hitler would have been so crucially

> > influenced by Price. Someone with so much hatred (even more than

> some

> > here attribute to me, amazingly enough), is going to find a way to

> act

> > it out.

> >

> > My take on the film (watching the 9 minute youtube trailer, and

> > reading about it elsewhere) is that the STRONG subtext is science

> vs

> > religion. The few minutes that I saw were absolutely ridiculous. I

> > have no interest in it at all.

>

>

[Guest guest]

Gene, tell me more - what are the real issues it is a distraction from?

>>

> This 'groupthink' talk is just a distraction from the real issues.

> >

[Guest guest]

This isn't about 'group think' at all. We're all against 'group think', just as

people are generally for 'freedom'. It's a common tactic to couch the debate in

terms of something that anyone in their right mind would agree with, to distract

from what the real argument is.

One can believe in evolution, and still believe in intelligent design, and still

have religious faith. There is no contradiction. The trailer that I watched,

which presented actual portions of the movie, I believe, very blatantly

presented these false dichotomies, and then presented it all against the larger

issue of group think and censorship. I have no real sense that the latter is at

all the issue here. If someone presents a bad scientific paper, or teaches

intelligent design as a valid scientific theory, he/she would deserve to suffer

consequences - they are not good at what they do. It's what happens.

I am incredulous at the notion that there could be scientific evidence for

intelligent design. Please - someone explain to me what that kind of scientific

evidence might look like?

-------------- Original message ----------------------

From: " haecklers " <haecklers@...>

> Gene, tell me more - what are the real issues it is a distraction from?

>

>

> >>

> > This 'groupthink' talk is just a distraction from the real issues.

> > >

>

>

[Guest guest]

But how is it logical that acknowledging there is a god is

automatically dismissed as not science when there is how many

millions spent on CETI to see if there are aliens? There has been

a " theory " since time immemorial that there is something larger than

us, often also more wise, that created us or guided the development

of the way things are now.

Isn't there room in science to study the possibility that that could

be? Why dismiss any effort to bring that discussion to the table in

a scientific discussion? Is it just Occam's razor - that that theory

is too complex and the " no god " theory, as simpler is the thesis that

must be followed until too much evidence accumulates against that

thesis? When would that be? When can the accumulation of evidence

that there may be something wiser than us or older than us that was

here first be scientifically discussed and studied?

>

> This isn't about 'group think' at all. We're all against 'group

think', just as people are generally for 'freedom'. It's a common

tactic to couch the debate in terms of something that anyone in their

right mind would agree with, to distract from what the real argument

is.

>

> One can believe in evolution, and still believe in intelligent

design, and still have religious faith. There is no contradiction.

The trailer that I watched, which presented actual portions of the

movie, I believe, very blatantly presented these false dichotomies,

and then presented it all against the larger issue of group think and

censorship. I have no real sense that the latter is at all the issue

here. If someone presents a bad scientific paper, or teaches

intelligent design as a valid scientific theory, he/she would deserve

to suffer consequences - they are not good at what they do. It's what

happens.

>

> I am incredulous at the notion that there could be scientific

evidence for intelligent design. Please - someone explain to me what

that kind of scientific evidence might look like?

[Guest guest]

-------------- Original message ----------------------

From: " haecklers " <haecklers@...>

> But how is it logical that acknowledging there is a god is

> automatically dismissed as not science

Well, it isn't

>when there is how many

> millions spent on CETI to see if there are aliens?

Huh? What physically exists in space is something that can be researched

scientifically.

>There has been

> a " theory " since time immemorial that there is something larger than

> us, often also more wise, that created us or guided the development

> of the way things are now.

non sequitur

>

> Isn't there room in science to study the possibility that that could

> be?

that isn't something that can be tested scientifically. It isn't science.

> Why dismiss any effort to bring that discussion to the table in

> a scientific discussion? Is it just Occam's razor - that that theory

> is too complex and the " no god " theory, as simpler is the thesis that

> must be followed until too much evidence accumulates against that

> thesis? When would that be? When can the accumulation of evidence

> that there may be something wiser than us or older than us that was

> here first be scientifically discussed and studied?

>

I don't think that you understand the difference between science and its

limitations, and religion and its limitations.

>

>

> >

> > This isn't about 'group think' at all. We're all against 'group

> think', just as people are generally for 'freedom'. It's a common

> tactic to couch the debate in terms of something that anyone in their

> right mind would agree with, to distract from what the real argument

> is.

> >

> > One can believe in evolution, and still believe in intelligent

> design, and still have religious faith. There is no contradiction.

> The trailer that I watched, which presented actual portions of the

> movie, I believe, very blatantly presented these false dichotomies,

> and then presented it all against the larger issue of group think and

> censorship. I have no real sense that the latter is at all the issue

> here. If someone presents a bad scientific paper, or teaches

> intelligent design as a valid scientific theory, he/she would deserve

> to suffer consequences - they are not good at what they do. It's what

> happens.

> >

> > I am incredulous at the notion that there could be scientific

> evidence for intelligent design. Please - someone explain to me what

> that kind of scientific evidence might look like?

>

>

[Guest guest]

There

> has been

> a " theory " since time immemorial that there is

> something larger than

> us, often also more wise, that created us or guided the

> development

> of the way things are now.

>

> Isn't there room in science to study the possibility

> that that could

> be?

Look science is about the material world. It's about measuring, finding laws

that govern matter, making predictions based on those laws. Now, even if you

are a pantheist and believe that spirit is immanent in matter, you still are

talking about spirit, something different than matter, something that can't be

measured.

Science should not be in the business of counting how many angels can fit on the

head of a pin (as philosophers in the Middle Ages used to speculate about),

because, by definition, the angels are immaterial and therefore not subject to

quantification.

-

Why dismiss any effort to bring that discussion to the

> table in

> a scientific discussion? Is it just Occam's razor -

> that that theory

> is too complex and the " no god " theory, as

> simpler is the thesis that

> must be followed until too much evidence accumulates

> against that

> thesis? When would that be? When can the accumulation of

> evidence

> that there may be something wiser than us or older than us

> that was

> here first be scientifically discussed and studied?

>

>

>

> >

> > This isn't about 'group think' at all.

> We're all against 'group

> think', just as people are generally for

> 'freedom'. It's a common

> tactic to couch the debate in terms of something that

> anyone in their

> right mind would agree with, to distract from what the real

> argument

> is.

> >

> > One can believe in evolution, and still believe in

> intelligent

> design, and still have religious faith. There is no

> contradiction.

> The trailer that I watched, which presented actual portions

> of the

> movie, I believe, very blatantly presented these false

> dichotomies,

> and then presented it all against the larger issue of group

> think and

> censorship. I have no real sense that the latter is at all

> the issue

> here. If someone presents a bad scientific paper, or

> teaches

> intelligent design as a valid scientific theory, he/she

> would deserve

> to suffer consequences - they are not good at what they do.

> It's what

> happens.

> >

> > I am incredulous at the notion that there could be

> scientific

> evidence for intelligent design. Please - someone explain

> to me what

> that kind of scientific evidence might look like?

[Guest guest]

So are you dividing science into " hard " or " real " science and " soft "

science like psychology, economics, etc.?? Because I find it all a

grey area. Because something happens the same way 90% of the time,

does that " prove " it is a fact? What about the 1 in 10,000 times

when something different happens? Or one in ten million times? What

about all the scientific " truths " that are being redefined or changed

as new data comes in. Short of 2 + 2 = 4 there are very few " hard "

facts in my world and a lot more in the grey area.

Genetic engineers thought they " knew " DNA but now are finding out

about myelination and the switches that react to environmental cues,

and that DNA in males causes some conditions that in females causes a

completely different thing - in other words, their " hard " facts that

they think they know are getting wildcards.

Even protons and neutrons are turning out to not be as simple as once

thought. How can you " know " something and then change your mind

later?

> > >

> > > This isn't about 'group think' at all.

> > We're all against 'group

> > think', just as people are generally for

> > 'freedom'. It's a common

> > tactic to couch the debate in terms of something that

> > anyone in their

> > right mind would agree with, to distract from what the real

> > argument

> > is.

> > >

> > > One can believe in evolution, and still believe in

> > intelligent

> > design, and still have religious faith. There is no

> > contradiction.

> > The trailer that I watched, which presented actual portions

> > of the

> > movie, I believe, very blatantly presented these false

> > dichotomies,

> > and then presented it all against the larger issue of group

> > think and

> > censorship. I have no real sense that the latter is at all

> > the issue

> > here. If someone presents a bad scientific paper, or

> > teaches

> > intelligent design as a valid scientific theory, he/she

> > would deserve

> > to suffer consequences - they are not good at what they do.

> > It's what

> > happens.

> > >

> > > I am incredulous at the notion that there could be

> > scientific

> > evidence for intelligent design. Please - someone explain

> > to me what

> > that kind of scientific evidence might look like?

>

[Guest guest]

Renate,

> Genetic engineers thought they " knew " DNA but now are finding out

> about myelination and the switches that react to environmental cues,

You mean " methylation " ?

Chris

[Guest guest]

> So are you dividing science into " hard " or

> " real " science and " soft "

> science like psychology, economics, etc.?? Because I

> find it all a

> grey area. Because something happens the same way 90% of

> the time,

> does that " prove " it is a fact?

The more complex a system, an open system, the more difficult it is to make

predictions. As the parlance goes, it becomes overdetermined...meaning that

there are too many inputs to the system to always predict the outcomes. Let's

talk more about probabilities, than facts. I would say that so-called soft

science actually deals with more complex systems.

Anyway, I wasn't addressing the above question at all. I was just making the

point that theological arguments and theories, like Intelligent Design, have no

place in science courses. That doesn't mean that Intelligent Design is wrong.

However, it is not science.

[Guest guest]

I think you are confusing Intelligent Design with something else. Intelligent

Design is science based.

The Astronomical scientific evidence used in Intelligent Design theory starts

with Einstein's theory of General Relativity --- a scientific theory that is

now proven accurate to 5 decimal places ---- that shows that there was a

beginning to the universe in terms of time, space and matter. We also believe

in the Second Law of Thermodynamics which states, among other things, that the

universe is running out of usable energy. Since the First Law of Thermodynamics

says that the total amount of energy in the universe is constant and since the

Second says energy dissipates, we know the universe had a beginning.

We also know that the universe is expanding because of general relativity.

Edwin Hubble helped us establish that. Since it's expanding we also know it has

a beginning. Another line of scientific evidence that the universe ahd a

beginning was the Penzias and radiation detected in 1965. That

background radiation is in effec the afterglow from the Big Bang. We then

realized that if there was a beginning (Big Bang) we should see slight

variations in the temperature of the cosmic background radiation which we do

observe and we found in 1989 when NASA launched the COBE satellite.

The design part of the Intelligent Design argument focuses on the precision with

which the universe exploded. Even Isaac Newton noted the marvels of the design

of our solar system when he wrote, " This is the most beautiful system of the

sun, planets and comets and could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of

an intelligent and powerful being. "

Like Newton, many other scientists have identified a variety of Anthropic

constants that point to the precision with which our universe has been created.

These are used by Intelligent Design advocates to point to the impossibility of

these factors being generated by chance. I'll just give you 10 of them, but

there are at least 100 more such anthropic constants:

(1) Oxygen level of the earth is 21 percent. If oxygen were 25 percent, fires

would erupt spontaneously. If it were 15 percent, humans would suffocate.

(2) The degree of transparency of the atmosphere is an anthropic constant. If

it were more transparent, we wuld be bombarded with far too much solar

radiation.

(3) The precise levels of N, O, CO, and O3 are anthropic constants.

(4) The moon gravitationsl interaction is such that tidal events cleanse the

oceans. If it were greater, tidal effects on the ocenas, atomosphere and

rotational period would be too severe. If it were less, orbital changes would

cause climatic instabilities. In either even, life on earth would be

impossible.

(5) The CO2 level is just right. If it were higher, a runaway greenhouse

effect would develop and we'd burn up. If lower, plants would not be able to

maintain photosynthesis.

(6) Gravity is such that if it was altered by 10-17 percent our sun would not

exist and therefore neither would we.

(7) If the centrifugal force of planetayr movements did not precisely balance

the gravitational fources, nothing could be held in orbit around the sun.

(8) If the universe had expanded at a rate one millionth more slowly than it

did, expansion would have stopped, and the universe would have collapsed upon

itself before any stars had formed. If it had expanded faster, then no galaxies

would have formed.

(9) Any of the laws of physics can be described as a function of the velocity of

light. Even a slight variation in the speed of light would alter the other

constants and preclude the possiblity of life on earth.

(10) If Jupiter were not in it's current orbit, the earth would be bombarded

with space materiel. Jupiter's gravitational fields act as a cosmic vacuum

cleaner, attracting asteroids and comets that might otherwise strike earth.

I think that these scientific facts should be presented in school. However,

opinions as to how to evaluate the evidence fall into the domain of religion and

should not be presented. Students can be told that there are two theories (1)

An Intelligent Designer and (2) No Intelligent Designer, Just Chance. After

seeing the evidence, they can make that decision themselves. But, they should

be presented the scientific evidence and nothing more.

For a good read, see " I Don't have Enough Faith to be An Atheist " by Geisler and

Turek. They lay out the Intelligent Design evidence quite well.

Marcelle Kinney, Ph.D.

---- Original Message -----

From: Seay

Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2008 8:47 PM

Subject: Re: No Intelligence Allowed

> So are you dividing science into " hard " or

> " real " science and " soft "

> science like psychology, economics, etc.?? Because I

> find it all a

> grey area. Because something happens the same way 90% of

> the time,

> does that " prove " it is a fact?

The more complex a system, an open system, the more difficult it is to make

predictions. As the parlance goes, it becomes overdetermined...meaning that

there are too many inputs to the system to always predict the outcomes. Let's

talk more about probabilities, than facts. I would say that so-called soft

science actually deals with more complex systems.

Anyway, I wasn't addressing the above question at all. I was just making the

point that theological arguments and theories, like Intelligent Design, have no

place in science courses. That doesn't mean that Intelligent Design is wrong.

However, it is not science.

[Guest guest]

by the way, the gravity number in #6 was wrong. I wrote 10-17 and meant 10 to

the negative 17 percent. That doesn't come out very well in an email and looks

like I meant a range of 10 to 17 percent. But also, I was wrong. I meant 10 to

the negative 40 or:

0.00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,001 percent A very small

number.

mak

Re: No Intelligence Allowed

> So are you dividing science into " hard " or

> " real " science and " soft "

> science like psychology, economics, etc.?? Because I

> find it all a

> grey area. Because something happens the same way 90% of

> the time,

> does that " prove " it is a fact?

The more complex a system, an open system, the more difficult it is to make

predictions. As the parlance goes, it becomes overdetermined...meaning that

there are too many inputs to the system to always predict the outcomes. Let's

talk more about probabilities, than facts. I would say that so-called soft

science actually deals with more complex systems.

Anyway, I wasn't addressing the above question at all. I was just making the

point that theological arguments and theories, like Intelligent Design, have no

place in science courses. That doesn't mean that Intelligent Design is wrong.

However, it is not science.

[Guest guest]

I have only read Behe's book and various articles from the intelligent

design camp. I think ID presents valuable critiques of evolutionary

theory, but I don't think it presents all that great a case for

design. The argument is basically that you can infer a designer

either from a) lack of an alternative explanation or analogy to

human design.

I think ID falls into the same trap here that most phylogeny and most

of the historical sciences fall into, which is that it is not really

testable. Whether the analogy between environmental design and human

product design is legitimate is not testable. We cannot test our

ability to infer design by an omnipotent creator.

The same is true for most phylogentic mapping, but most scientists

will not admit it. Some scientists are quick to bash ID for its

untestability but will not admit that virtually all phylogeny is

untestable.

I think ID should be covered in science classes, in a section on

epistemology. The class could debate the legitimacy of inferring

design.

Chris

[Guest guest]

> I think you are confusing Intelligent Design with something else.

> Intelligent Design is science based.

>

hmmm - so you're saying that 'science based' is equivalent to

'science'? Sounds more like 'based on a true story' to me.

>

>

> The Astronomical scientific evidence used in Intelligent Design

> theory starts with Einstein's theory of General Relativity --- a

> scientific theory that is now proven accurate to 5 decimal places

> ---- that shows that there was a beginning to the universe in terms

> of time, space and matter. We also believe in the Second Law of

> Thermodynamics which states, among other things, that the universe

> is running out of usable energy. Since the First Law of

> Thermodynamics says that the total amount of energy in the universe

> is constant and since the Second says energy dissipates, we know the

> universe had a beginning.

>

> We also know that the universe is expanding because of general

> relativity. Edwin Hubble helped us establish that. Since it's

> expanding we also know it has a beginning. Another line of

> scientific evidence that the universe ahd a beginning was the

> Penzias and radiation detected in 1965. That background

> radiation is in effec the afterglow from the Big Bang. We then

> realized that if there was a beginning (Big Bang) we should see

> slight variations in the temperature of the cosmic background

> radiation which we do observe and we found in 1989 when NASA

> launched the COBE satellite.

>

> The design part of the Intelligent Design argument focuses on the

> precision with which the universe exploded. Even Isaac Newton noted

> the marvels of the design of our solar system when he wrote, " This

> is the most beautiful system of the sun, planets and comets and

> could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent

> and powerful being. "

>

But this conclusion isn't a scientific one. This is so obvious.....how

could you ever test it?

>

>

> Like Newton, many other scientists have identified a variety of

> Anthropic constants that point to the precision with which our

> universe has been created. These are used by Intelligent Design

> advocates to point to the impossibility of these factors being

> generated by chance. I'll just give you 10 of them, but there are at

> least 100 more such anthropic constants:

>

> (1) Oxygen level of the earth is 21 percent. If oxygen were 25

> percent, fires would erupt spontaneously. If it were 15 percent,

> humans would suffocate.

> (2) The degree of transparency of the atmosphere is an anthropic

> constant. If it were more transparent, we wuld be bombarded with far

> too much solar radiation.

> (3) The precise levels of N, O, CO, and O3 are anthropic constants.

> (4) The moon gravitationsl interaction is such that tidal events

> cleanse the oceans. If it were greater, tidal effects on the ocenas,

> atomosphere and rotational period would be too severe. If it were

> less, orbital changes would cause climatic instabilities. In either

> even, life on earth would be impossible.

> (5) The CO2 level is just right. If it were higher, a runaway

> greenhouse effect would develop and we'd burn up. If lower, plants

> would not be able to maintain photosynthesis.

> (6) Gravity is such that if it was altered by 10-17 percent our sun

> would not exist and therefore neither would we.

> (7) If the centrifugal force of planetayr movements did not

> precisely balance the gravitational fources, nothing could be held

> in orbit around the sun.

> (8) If the universe had expanded at a rate one millionth more slowly

> than it did, expansion would have stopped, and the universe would

> have collapsed upon itself before any stars had formed. If it had

> expanded faster, then no galaxies would have formed.

> (9) Any of the laws of physics can be described as a function of the

> velocity of light. Even a slight variation in the speed of light

> would alter the other constants and preclude the possiblity of life

> on earth.

> (10) If Jupiter were not in it's current orbit, the earth would be

> bombarded with space materiel. Jupiter's gravitational fields act as

> a cosmic vacuum cleaner, attracting asteroids and comets that might

> otherwise strike earth.

>

I think that issues like this make fascinating discussion in a

philosophy/religion class. But they IN NO WAY are scientific evidence

that a supreme being designed things this way. Just as it isn't

evidence that there are multiple universes splitting off all of the

time, and this one is here simply because it's stable....great stuff

to discuss, but in no way at all is it evidence (in the usually

accepted meaning of the term) of a supreme being's handiwork. If

anything, it's evidence that there is much about the universe that we

don't know. To me, however, your arguments are no more compelling than

the classic proofs of god's existence.

>

>

> I think that these scientific facts should be presented in school.

> However, opinions as to how to evaluate the evidence fall into the

> domain of religion and should not be presented. Students can be told

> that there are two theories (1) An Intelligent Designer and (2) No

> Intelligent Designer, Just Chance. After seeing the evidence, they

> can make that decision themselves. But, they should be presented the

> scientific evidence and nothing more.

>

I think that this is a false dichotomy - ID or chance. Obviously not

everything happens by pure chance. One event can determine another -

either totally, or partially. Given that intelligent design is not a

scientific theory, it is irrelevant in a science class.

>

>

> For a good read, see " I Don't have Enough Faith to be An Atheist " by

> Geisler and Turek. They lay out the Intelligent Design evidence

> quite well.

>

> Marcelle Kinney, Ph.D.

>

> ---- Original Message -----

> From: Seay

>

> Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2008 8:47 PM

> Subject: Re: No Intelligence Allowed

>

>

>

> > So are you dividing science into " hard " or

> > " real " science and " soft "

> > science like psychology, economics, etc.?? Because I

> > find it all a

> > grey area. Because something happens the same way 90% of

> > the time,

> > does that " prove " it is a fact?

>

> The more complex a system, an open system, the more difficult it is

> to make predictions. As the parlance goes, it becomes

> overdetermined...meaning that there are too many inputs to the

> system to always predict the outcomes. Let's talk more about

> probabilities, than facts. I would say that so-called soft science

> actually deals with more complex systems.

>

> Anyway, I wasn't addressing the above question at all. I was just

> making the point that theological arguments and theories, like

> Intelligent Design, have no place in science courses. That doesn't

> mean that Intelligent Design is wrong. However, it is not science.

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

On Oct 23, 2008, at 8:17 PM, Masterjohn wrote:

> I have only read Behe's book and various articles from the intelligent

> design camp. I think ID presents valuable critiques of evolutionary

> theory, but I don't think it presents all that great a case for

> design. The argument is basically that you can infer a designer

> either from a) lack of an alternative explanation or analogy to

> human design.

>

Which is fun to discuss but anyone who would even suggest that this is

scientific doesn't know what they are talking about.

>

>

> I think ID falls into the same trap here that most phylogeny and most

> of the historical sciences fall into, which is that it is not really

> testable.

>

It is absolutely 100% not testable. If we could test for a God, there

would be no need for ID.

> Whether the analogy between environmental design and human

> product design is legitimate is not testable. We cannot test our

> ability to infer design by an omnipotent creator.

>

There is no need to test our ability - we can (of course) infer this,

but it is a philosophic inference, totally unscientific, and quite

weak logically.

I'd love to believe it though - but it's really a matter of faith, not

science.

>

>

> The same is true for most phylogentic mapping, but most scientists

> will not admit it. Some scientists are quick to bash ID for its

> untestability but will not admit that virtually all phylogeny is

> untestable.

>

> I think ID should be covered in science classes, in a section on

> epistemology. The class could debate the legitimacy of inferring

> design.

>

Now, that's cute. I thought that epistemology, in the general sense,

was covered in philosophy classes. If ID is covered, well then, you'd

have to cover philosophy of science in general - and that really isn't

a science course.

This whole argument is totally inane.

>

>

> Chris

>

>

[Guest guest]

Thanks, Chris! Boy do I hate dyslexia! Anything that gets paired in

my head, even because it shares a lot of letters, becomes

interchangable to my word-recall bit.

>

> Renate,

>

> > Genetic engineers thought they " knew " DNA but now are finding out

> > about myelination and the switches that react to environmental cues,

>

> You mean " methylation " ?

>

> Chris

>

[Guest guest]

Wow, your science classes were several degrees better than mine -

basically we were given lists of dry facts to memorize with a little

inane verbiage between them. How many miles to the sun, etc. etc.

Nothing was ever covered about disagreements among the authorities

and debate was certainly not encouraged. We were the tabula rasas

sent there to soak up information from the authorities.

>

> I have only read Behe's book and various articles from the

intelligent

> design camp. I think ID presents valuable critiques of evolutionary

> theory, but I don't think it presents all that great a case for

> design. The argument is basically that you can infer a designer

> either from a) lack of an alternative explanation or analogy to

> human design.

>

> I think ID falls into the same trap here that most phylogeny and

most

> of the historical sciences fall into, which is that it is not really

> testable. Whether the analogy between environmental design and

human

> product design is legitimate is not testable. We cannot test our

> ability to infer design by an omnipotent creator.

>

> The same is true for most phylogentic mapping, but most scientists

> will not admit it. Some scientists are quick to bash ID for its

> untestability but will not admit that virtually all phylogeny is

> untestable.

>

> I think ID should be covered in science classes, in a section on

> epistemology. The class could debate the legitimacy of inferring

> design.

>

> Chris

>