ID on Trial. Tonight on PBS Nova - watch it if you can!
Thanx Mike - quite the debate… even in my home town.
Right - there’s really no debate because ID is false, i.e., it is not science, but people are irrational.
Still copying and pasting links about ID and Evo ?
Hi Mike !
How you doin’ ?
Hi Wihan Stemmet:
I lost the lottery…
TOOOOO…
I’m getting some outdoor Hardware for my ku Band installation…
Maybe I’ll be able to get the PBS up-links when I get it up-and-running…
Are you working on polishing that chrome 
?
Winter’s all over, you know…
Bill…
p.s. O.K. … I need a two page report on that PBS, show…
Wihan - I’m doing well.
Thanks.
Quote:
Still copying and pasting links about ID and Evo ?
You bet!
I posted the link because the show was on that day. So it’s alittle more than just copying/pasting links which is how many of you describe what I do. And somebody might learn something from the link.
When there’s good information on the subject, you’ll hear from me. Unfortuanately, I wasn’t able to watch the NOVA show.
One of the things that the anti-evolution people always argue is that there is no fossil evidence supporting evolution.
Well that’s just is not the case anymore and the PBS web site has some good information.
Quote: (Mr Soul @ Nov. 13 2007, 3:28 PM)
Right - there's really no debate because ID is false, i.e., it is not science, but people are irrational.
Oy Michael, you need to practice making points without insulting. People who believe in the creation story may not be as enlightened as you, but that does not make them necessarily irrational. These people believe that the bible is the word of God and that the bible is meant to be taken literally. Unfortunately, these same people are human and are subject to the same weaknesses/faults as you or I.
Be aware Michael that you often come across like you believe that anyone who disagrees with you is irrational. I personally have no problem with evolution and the creation story existing in the same space.
But that is another subject.
Mike
It was a very good show, with enactments of the trial taken from the transcripts. It also points out that the judge was a life-long republican, appointed by Bush and an ID proponent, the trial was non-jury (decided by this judge alone) yet he still found against ID in this case, and not by a little.
ID proponents will see this program and label it left-wing-liberal-media gibberish-propaganda. It’s on PBS and part of the Nova series. That more proof does anyone need? Anyway, that’s obvious in interviews with some folks at the end of the show when they talk about the judge and his judgment.
It’s all online at the link Mike gave.
Speaking of evolution, where are those videos of Britney Spears procreating again?
Quote:
People who believe in the creation story may not be as enlightened as you, but that does not make them necessarily irrational.
Mike - ID is VERY different than the creation story.
The people who profess ID are trying to make it compatible with science, or as valid as science, which it is not.
The ID people are very careful to never mind the word God.
The people professing the creation story are doing it on faith.
Faith is different than science. Also, the ID people don't necessarily say that that the Earth was created in 6 or 7 days.
Quote:
Be aware Michael that you often come across like you believe that anyone who disagrees with you is irrational.
I said that people who believe in ID are irrational.
People can disagree with me and they are not necessarily irrational.
On the ID case, it has nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing with me.
The issue is not about me - it's about ID which is a false "science".
Quote:
I personally have no problem with evolution and the creation story existing in the same space.
I don't either (except that the creation story is probably not true).
Mike - you have to be willing to directly fight the ID people or ID will soon taught in schools.
I'm willing to do that, are you?
Quote:
It also points out that the judge was a life-long republican, appointed by Bush and an ID proponent, the trial was non-jury (decided by this judge alone) yet he still found against ID in this case, and not by a little.
Wow - I didn't realize that?
I saw the judge interviewed and I don't remember him saying he believed in ID, nor did he even seem like he sided with them on this issue.
Mike
Quote: (DrGuitar @ Nov. 15 2007, 12:48 PM)
Be aware Michael that you often come across like you believe that anyone who disagrees with you is irrational.
Well hang on. I believe that anyone who disagrees with me that in normal arithmetic 1+1=2, is irrational.
I believe that anyone who disagrees with me that the earth goes around the sun and thinks it's the other way around, is irrational.
You likely believe that anyone who disagrees with you that (...oh, I don't know - pick something...)that you know how to read English, is irrational.
So if Mike believes that anyone who disagrees with him that ID is false science is irrational, is that really so different?
Quote:
So if Mike believes that anyone who disagrees with him that ID is false science is irrational, is that really so different?
Hmmm... good point except that the real point is not whether a different point of view is irrational, but whether calling people who do not agree with you irrational is being tolerant or divisive.
Without getting too far into this (and off topic), I believe that at the point when you call people names, a discussion goes from possibly productive to destructive. And certainly, there is a certain amount of "holier than thou vs smarter than thou" going on when people discuss the merits of evolution vs creationism.
Also, we are actually talking about creationism and not ID. The Nova program pointed out very clearly that ID is just repackaged creationism so that religion can find it's way around the constitution back into the schools. ID does not really exist except as a construct of creationism.
So if we are talking about creationism (or the creation story), I would have to take exception to his "people who believe this are irrational" statement. I believe that God used evolution to create man. The creation story was written to help those living thousands of years ago a way to understand what is a very complex process.
Do I believe that God said, "I shall make a man." and it was so. No. But I do believe that it was Gods intention to create man and it happened. Sure. The concepts of time would mean nothing to a spirit who is everlasting. How would you convey that concept to people who poop into the same water that they drink? With a simple story.
Are the people who take this story literally irrational?
ir
·ra
·tion
·al
ADJECTIVE:
1.
1. Not endowed with reason.
2. Affected by loss of usual or normal mental clarity; incoherent, as from shock.
3. Marked by a lack of accord with reason or sound judgment.
I think irrational is probably extreme. Maybe "let by a strong faith" or "unwilling to bend to scientific study".
Honestly, I think it is probably irrational to blindly follow science when even the majority of scientists are unsure of the complete picture. After all, we are not talking about 1+1 or the rotation of the Earth, we are talking about evolution which is just now beginning to be studied to a depth including genetics and microbiology. And such study may prove that man started as a bit of slime in a swamp. And that is ok by me since I think only God could see that such a blob could become man.
After all, God made man from the dust of the Earth (how else would you explain a blob of swamp cells to people living 2000 years ago).
I think the biggest problem is that some people take the bible as a literal text when it was pretty obviously written more along the lines of stories and parables meant to convey concepts and ideas to people of all educational backgrounds.
Anyway, I really enjoyed the Nova program. Although the judge was appointed by Bush, I do not think it was reported that he also was a proponent of ID. I think that part was assumed. After all, faith cannot compete with factual science. And the proponents of ID was found to be actually pushing religion and cared little about ID as a scientific theory. Also, the judge was obviously upset that the people pushing religion lied in their depositions. And that is what I am most upset about also. That purported religious people will occasionally break their own religious laws to win a battle. Now that is irrational and immoral.
Mike
How about “ignorant”?
It’s accurate, and not really an insult.
I’m ignorant about lots of things.
The only question is: are anti-evolution folks intentionally ignorant (ignorant by design, so to speak), or are they ignorant for reasons beyond their control? I have trouble with intentional ignorance. And in this case, so many of the anti-evol people seem motivated by things other than a concern for truth or genuine faith commitments. Power seems to be the main motivation.
I missed the PBS special, but I read every document in the Kitzmiller case as part of a class when it was happening. The ID folks really fell flat on their faces, for exactly the reason Dr G identified. But when push came to shove Behe admitted the epistemic value of the main argument, and that is to his credit, especially given that it is exactly contrary to his published position.
Anyway, why bring this up, Toker? I don’t think there are any creationists of that kind here. Among intelligent people the position is nearly never found, unless the person has adopted it for other reason, e.g., power or professional status.
"Marked by a lack of accord with reason or sound judgment."
Personally, I have no problem applying that definition to modern, educated, otherwise intelligent people who believe the world is six thousand years old (or five or four or whatever it is).
It isn’t a matter of freedom of beliefs - you can believe anything you want to believe - if you believe the universe/world was sneezed out of a giant space warthog that’s perfectly fine with me. But if you believe that it happened six thousand years ago and the world came out of that sneeze substantially as it is today then your beliefs are marked by a lack of accord with reason or sound judgment.
Hmmm…
Do you believe in love? Does love exist or is it just a series of chemical, electrical functions in the brain and body? Are there actual feelings? Can a person (like your mother) emphasize with you on a truly personal level? Is there a real connection between people who claim that they can feel when someone is in trouble or happy?
Sure, it can be shown that people go through physical changes when they are “in love†but is it really love or just a manifestation of errant electrical impulses? How do we know that what one person perceives as love is universal to all people? And if it isn't, then does love exist? Who gets to make such a decision?
I personally believe that the universe started about 14.5 billion years ago, but was I there? If I was, I don't remember it (I can't tell you what I had for breakfast yesterday). Could I be wrong? Could you?
I have no problem with people believing that the world started 6000 years ago any more than I have a problem with a person telling me that the hamburger I am about to eat will kill me (it may, just not today). I think the problem comes in when the person with limited beliefs tries to impose those beliefs on everyone. That is one of the reasons I have a problem with Pres. Bush. I really don't care if he believes that Dick Cheney is the next coming as long as he doesn't require me to worship him.
Am I more “right†than Pres. Bush? No. He has his beliefs and I have mine. I may label him as ignorant to the “factsâ€, but that label shows a lack of respect on my part. For although I believe as I do, it is not my job to tear others down in the process unless they are trying to force their beliefs on everyone.
The people who tried to make their beliefs policy were wrong and they paid the price (over a million in legal fees for the opposition). But the average devout Christians with strong creationism beliefs are not the enemy nor are they ignorant (unless you can only view them according to your own views). And then they are only ignorant to your belief system. And that is ok.
They may make a killer homemade blueberry pie. How is your blueberry pie? I love blueberry pie… or do I? 
Mike
Nice post Doc… 
Blueberry pie and nellar’ ice cream… yum… YUM!
D - ain’t gettin’ suckered into anymore ID vs Creation vs Evolution vs Tennessee Titans whatever debates… 
Quote: (Mr Soul @ Nov. 15 2007, 10:14 AM)
Wihan - I'm doing well. Thanks.
Quote:
Still copying and pasting links about ID and Evo ?
You bet! I posted the link because the show was on that day. So it's alittle more than just copying/pasting links which is how many of you describe what I do. And somebody might learn something from the link.
When there's good information on the subject, you'll hear from me. Unfortuanately, I wasn't able to watch the NOVA show.
One of the things that the anti-evolution people always argue is that there is no fossil evidence supporting evolution. Well that's just is not the case anymore and the PBS web site has some good information.
Not saying what you're doing is wrong - lots of waters have gone to the sea in the meantime for me.
It really is nice sticking my head in here every now and then and feeling a familiar environment amidst the new look forum.
I really mean that in a positive way.
Looks like respectful (albeit heated sometimes) debates are still going.
Nice to see the familiar faces.
Sorry for the hijack...
Cheers!
Mike - the court may have found that the intent of the ID proponents is to repackage creationism, but ID is NOT creationism.
Sorry to disagree, but it is just not.
ID is an attempt to bring a supernatural force into science and say that some intelligent being designed everything.
That is different than creationism per se.
Quote:
So if we are talking about creationism (or the creation story), I would have to take exception to his “people who believe this are irrational” statement.
No - I never said this & you are putting words into my mouth.
I am not talking about creationism and I’ve not made any claims about creationism other than to say that it is faith and not science.
If you want to discuss creationism than fine, but that’s not what this thread is about.
Is it naming calling to suggest that the flat-earth believers are irrational?
I would say not.
Same goes with the ID people.
Quote:
I believe that God used evolution to create man.
The creation story was written to help those living thousands of years ago a way to understand what is a very complex process.
That’s fine and I probably believe something like this myself but ID is not this.
ID never mentions the word God. BTW - there are 2 creation stories in Genesis and I’ve never heard any “true believer” rectify them.
Quote:
Are the people who take this story literally irrational?
According to the definition, yes they probably are. But people who believe in creation believe in it because of faith, not reason.
Quote:
D - ain’t gettin’ suckered into anymore ID vs Creation vs Evolution
Sorry D but it’s not debate - ID lost.
Wihan - it’s coincidental that you should come by now and see this activity, because in general this forum is pretty inactive these days.
I certainly don’t post any where’s near what I used to & I don’t think I’ve posted anything about evolution for 1 - 2 years (I didn’t actually look).
Quote:
Sorry D but it's not debate - ID lost.
Not that it matters, but yes ID lost.
D
PS DANG! Just wasted more valuable time...
Quote: (DrGuitar @ Nov. 15 2007, 11:10 PM)
Hmmm…
Do you believe in love?
Does love exist or is it just a series of chemical, electrical functions in the brain and body?
Are there actual feelings?
...
Respectfully, you are confusing the subjective and the objective.
You and I may honestly disagree as to the merits of the taste of the blueberry pie and I must respect your opinion on that matter. But the minute you claim (without proof) that you manifested the blueberry pie out of a dingo's hind quarters you have entered the realm of the irrational and, while I continue to respect your right to hold that belief, I am not obliged in any way to respect the belief itself.
Because it is no longer a matter of opinion it is now a matter of fact and, in this case, a matter of mistaken fact.