Kansas Evolution Fight Escalates...

[brodski]

So, not only are you going to insist that ID is not taught in biology you also want to see it actively debunked in some other class like modern studies, philosophy or RE?

Methinks you might want to try for a goal that is a little bit more realistic rather than trying to effect a second US civil war.
_
HypnoPsi

Of course, you assume that I was educated in the US .

I was trying to demonstrate that it is possible to teach about ideas, without promoting those ideas (in other words answering the specific question you asked).

I fully support kids being taught about ID, what I think is wrong however is allowing ID proponents to poison the well in evolution classes, especially as they do not seem prepared to have their claims tested in as rigorous manner as they demand from evolutionary theory.

 

[Ed]

1984 here we come!

Why would a belief in God mean someone looks no further when they hit a hard spot? That's "god of the gaps-ism". Being a theist or trancendentalist (like a Christian, Buddhist or whatever) really just means lacking the belief that matter has substance (though not structure or continuity) independent of the realness/beingness we are aware of in consciousness. It doesn't actively mean promoting "god of the gaps-ism".

But what of radical materialism actively promoting the idea that unknowable "matter" ultimately produces consciousness? Why should that be acceptable?
_
HypnoPsi

Didn't say that. I did not say that belief in god etc. etc.

I started with the notion that one who goes to the supernatural WHEN one hits a hard spot.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Why? One of your poster-boys, Daniel Dennett, is just Sheldrake's views taken to their logical conclusion. While Sheldrakes "morphic fields" seem to be about little more than genetics, Dennett went for the gold with thermostats being 'intentional systems' as a metaphor for the sodium-potassium pump in neurons.

I nominated him because he is a creduloid, not a scientist. His morphic fields are certainly much more than genetics, since he uses them to explain everything, including telepathy.

But what of radical materialism actively promoting the idea that unknowable "matter" ultimately produces consciousness? Why should that be acceptable?

Well, ignoring your loaded "radical materialism" term, the reason that would be promoted is because that's how science works. It looks for naturalistic explanations. Certain metaphysics, on the other hand, tend to say "consciousness is a fundamental existent," which is, of course, nothing other than a god of the gaps argument.

Look, this is really simple. You'll go around trying to convince us that consciousness is a fundamental existent. Science will attempt to explain consciousness as function of the brain. That's just the way it is.

~~ Paul

 

[HypnoPsi]

That is the bloody implication of the stupid bloddy concept of "goddidit". You want medicine populated with people like that? "Sorry Mr. Hammeric, that there cancer is a nasty one. Must be gods work. That pain stuff? Well we really don't understand that either and since it is obviously gods work, since we are stupid and lazy, I think that it would be blasphamous to give you any pain medication, god wanting you to suffer and all from something that we are too bloody stupid and intellectually flabby to explore."

Nice world.

Can you provide evidence of real Doctors actually doing this? Of saying "God caused your cancer" and, accordingly, that "painkillers shouldn't be administered"?

http://hcdi.net/news/PressRelease.cfm?URL=ScienceorMiracle.cfm

As the above link shows the vast majority of Doctors believe in God (and miracles) and a large majority even attend sunday service.

Again, why the linking of theism with God-of-the-gaps-ism? They're not the same.

Do you think it's better to say to someone who's dying that that's it, it's curtains, there's nothing to look forward to?
_
HypnoPsi

 

[HypnoPsi]

Of course, you assume that I was educated in the US .

Nope. You mentioned RE, a British term.
_
HypnoPsi

 

[Z]

When a would-be scientist decides to 'believe' in a metaphysical position such as 'consciousness is independent of matter' or 'the divergence of species is due to intelligent design', this individual is likely to make several flawed judgements as a result of that belief. For example, the individual may decide that further brain research into such sensitive issues as emotion, morality, etc. are unnecessary; the individual may decide that actively seeking for evidence of macro-evolution in the fossil record is a waste of time; the individual might even be so inclined, with such a belief under his belt, to waste time, energy, and resources seeking disembodied consciousnesses, evidence of telepathic powers, and other concepts based on the idea that something other than 'matter/energy' might exist and might be causing observable phenomena. The individual may decide that eradicating a virus or bacteria strain might be sacriligious, since it was 'intelligently designed'. The individual might decide that genetic research might be inappropriate, on the basis that humans, being 'intelligently designed', are exactly how the Creator wants them to be. The individual might rally against any number of potential scientific and cultural advancements for similar reasons - as has happened, repeatedly, throughout the course of human history.

No, not every scientist who believes this is going to be so poisoned; but enough will be that the raw value of the scientific method in general, and of scientific evidence specifically, will be reduced to bad comedy at best. If we accept 'intelligent design' in the science classroom, we had best be prepared to accept cryptozoology in our biology classrooms, with dissertations on sasquatch anatomy and the breeding habits of garden gnomes; we had best be prepared to accept mythology in our history classroom as fact, with focused subjects on appeasing the Fates and how the founders of Rome were really raised by an intelligent wolf; we had best be prepared to supplement physics classes with classes on telekinesis, chi manipulation, and wish-power.

Yes, I'm suggesting a slippery slope.

On the other hand, if 'Intelligent Design' - and, indeed, 'Creationism' - were proffered in the appropriate setting - such as a current events class or a class on metaphysics, or even one on theological studies - I'd have no problem with it. Of course, these are subjects best left to the high-school and college classroom, and certainly ought to be taught in an honest light - not as a direct challenge to evolution, but as a faith-based theory which could very well compliment evolution.

 

[HypnoPsi]

I nominated him because he is a creduloid, not a scientist. His morphic fields are certainly much more than genetics, since he uses them to explain everything, including telepathy.

Dr Sheldrake is a Cambridge educated scientist of the highest caliber.

But what of radical materialism actively promoting the idea that unknowable "matter" ultimately produces consciousness? Why should that be acceptable?

Well, ignoring your loaded "radical materialism" term, the reason that would be promoted is because that's how science works. It looks for naturalistic explanations. Certain metaphysics, on the other hand, tend to say "consciousness is a fundamental existent," which is, of course, nothing other than a god of the gaps argument.

So you would accuse a Buddhist, Taoist, Platonist or Confusionist of being a theist?

You have a natural explanation for how inert matter transmutates into consciousness? Okay, let's hear it?

What you're talking about here is actively promoting materialistic atheism - nothing more and nothing less. How can that be excused when it's as much a faith as Christianity?

Look, this is really simple. You'll go around trying to convince us that consciousness is a fundamental existent. Science will attempt to explain consciousness as function of the brain. That's just the way it is.

Philosophy is to the scientific method what the scientific method is to biology, chemistry and physics. Remember that. Whatever view the majority of philosophers adhere to, I'm pretty darn certain it won't be a form of "radical materialism" like physicalism or eliminativism.
_
HypnoPsi

 

[Ed]

Can you provide evidence of real Doctors actually doing this? Of saying "God caused your cancer" and, accordingly, that "painkillers shouldn't be administered"?

http://hcdi.net/news/PressRelease.cfm?URL=ScienceorMiracle.cfm

As the above link shows the vast majority of Doctors believe in God (and miracles) and a large majority even attend sunday service.

Again, why the linking of theism with God-of-the-gaps-ism? They're not the same.

Do you think it's better to say to someone who's dying that that's it, it's curtains, there's nothing to look forward to?
_
HypnoPsi

Real doctors wouldn't. Why are you being obtuse? The logical end point of the supersticous stuff that Behe espouses is precisely what I said. He hit a hard spot. He is not intellectually equipped to explore why things that he thinks are designed might not be. He has committed an unpardonable intellectual sin: he invoked the supernatural to explain something that is beyond him. Why is it so hard to see this in the medicle field?

 

[Z]

You have a natural explanation for how inert matter transmutates into consciousness? Okay, let's hear it?

Did anyone claim that 'inert matter transmutates into consciousness'?

Obviously, the matter would have to be active, not inert, and energy would have to be involved here, too.

This is as stupid as asking how cold, raw silicon can 'transmutate' into a running copy of 'Doom III'.

 

[hammegk]

Did anyone claim that 'inert matter transmutates into consciousness'?

Obviously, the matter would have to be active, not inert, and energy would have to be involved here, too.

This is as stupid as asking how cold, raw silicon can 'transmutate' into a running copy of 'Doom III'.

Perhaps not quite...
Raw silicon & many other things evolved -- guided by intelligence -- and use energy.

 

[HypnoPsi]

Real doctors wouldn't. Why are you being obtuse? The logical end point of the supersticous stuff that Behe espouses is precisely what I said. He hit a hard spot. He is not intellectually equipped to explore why things that he thinks are designed might not be. He has committed an unpardonable intellectual sin: he invoked the supernatural to explain something that is beyond him. Why is it so hard to see this in the medicle field?

Kinda backtracking on the "goddidit" claim as being inevitable of believing in "God", aren't you?

Thank heaven for small miracles.

Now try and get your head around the fact that radical materialism is entirely faith-based along with the view that matter transmutates into consciousness (some type of combustion that doesn't seem to use up any energy). The counter position of consciousness being known to exist while the 'substance' of matter (as opposed to it's continuity and structure) is forever unkowable isn't faith based. (What that leads to, of course, is an open question.)
_
HypnoPsi

 

[hammegk]

Real doctors wouldn't.

Agreed. We just disagree that no "real doctors" believe in god.

I started with the notion that one who goes to the supernatural WHEN one hits a hard spot.

If your doctors, or scientists, or anyone you depend regard on any in does so, you should switch doctors, scientists, etc.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Dr Sheldrake is a Cambridge educated scientist of the highest caliber.

Dr. Sheldrake is a creduloid who cannot design an experiment protocol.

So you would accuse a Buddhist, Taoist, Platonist or Confusionist of being a theist?

The term "god of the gaps" is a generic term that does not imply that the person is suggesting a god did it.

You have a natural explanation for how inert matter transmutates into consciousness? Okay, let's hear it?

Of course I don't have complete explanation. I see no particular barrier to a full explanation of "consciousness" in terms of brain function. There is no transmutation or transmogrification involved.

What you're talking about here is actively promoting materialistic atheism - nothing more and nothing less. How can that be excused when it's as much a faith as Christianity?

Dude, I don't give a damn how you want to label me. I don't need your blessing. I think science will find an explanation for consciousness in the long run. There is no faith involved. If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong.

Philosophy is to the scientific method what the scientific method is to biology, chemistry and physics. Remember that. Whatever view the majority of philosophers adhere to, I'm pretty darn certain it won't be a form of "radical materialism" like physicalism or eliminativism.

No one is holding his breath to find out what the majority of philosophers think. They've been thinking for thousands of years without reaching a conclusion.

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

... matter transmutates into consciousness (some type of combustion that doesn't seem to use up any energy).

Say what?

~~ Paul

 

[Z]

Perhaps not quite...
Raw silicon & many other things evolved -- guided by intelligence -- and use energy.

Which shows how ignorant you are, as well - since that has nothing at all to do with what I spoke of - how 'raw silicon' transmutes into a running program.

And 'guided by intelligence' is not evolution, you know. Though the two ideas are not completely incompatible.

 

[Z]

Kinda backtracking on the "goddidit" claim as being inevitable of believing in "God", aren't you?

Thank heaven for small miracles.

Now try and get your head around the fact that radical materialism is entirely faith-based along with the view that matter transmutates into consciousness (some type of combustion that doesn't seem to use up any energy). The counter position of consciousness being known to exist while the 'substance' of matter (as opposed to it's continuity and structure) is forever unkowable isn't faith based. (What that leads to, of course, is an open question.)
_
HypnoPsi

For the casual reader, who may have missed it: 'radical materialism' is his straw-man. He believes that there are those who 'believe' that a 'fundamental matter/energy' is the source of everything', and that this is the source of modern scientific thought and skepticism in general; further, he believes that awareness, in general, is independent of sensory cognition and processing (including memory), and is therefore a singular 'known'.

The fact is, science is built on theories based on the observation that all things have thus far been composed of matter and energy, and that matter and energy have, as of yet, proven to be composed of still smaller components. Theories exist that these smaller components may, themselves, be comprised of still smaller components, but scientists and materialist in general are not running around espousing 'faith' in some mysterious fundamental matter/energy thing. That's Hypno's strawman.

Further, his assertion that 'awareness' is a given known is likewise false; since observation has also demonstrated several key aspects about cognition and thought processing that makes sensation and sensory processing key to the discernment between 'self-awareness' and 'general-awareness'; that these two forms of awareness can be reduced or eliminated purely through manipulation of the physical brain; and, most importantly, that whatever we consider these basic awarenesses, they do not equate to 'knowledge' of any 'divine entity' in any manner. To propose in any way that awareness equates to knowledge of a supernatural entity of any type is simply false, and is exactly what Hypno has tried, again and again, to do.

So, in short, what materialistic atheists are doing is simply promoting the science based upon observable phenomena and contemporary theories - theories they will more than willingly change if evidence proves contrary; while those of 'faith' are pushing for a denial of many of the foundational aspects of modern science, on the basis of mythical stories, imagined supernatural beings, and vague personal sensations of awe.

Just to clarify for those who are passing by.

(Yes, copy of a post from elsewhere. I find it necessary to spread this explanation of Hypno's lies and deception wherever he tries to equate religious faith with scientific theories.)

 

[fishbob]

Hold on a second. The IDers are just wanting their views included. They're not doing anything to prevent students from gaining "a grouding in evolutionary theory"._
HypnoPsi

Hold on another second. The gist of ID is that evolution is not a good enough explanation. The basis of this earth-shaking concept seems to be deliberate misrepresentation of evidence, deliberate misunderstanding of evolution, and wishful thinking.

What value is there to the IDiot views when the take home lesson of ID is that intellectual dishonesty is OK. The IDiots have no right to want such views included in public education.

 

[hammegk]

So, in short, what materialistic atheists are doing is simply promoting the science based upon observable phenomena and contemporary theories - theories they will more than willingly change if evidence proves contrary; while those of 'faith' are pushing for a denial of many of the foundational aspects of modern science, on the basis of mythical stories, imagined supernatural beings, and vague personal sensations of awe.

In short, you don't know what you are talking about.

"Just to clarify for those who are passing by."

 

[Dr Adequate]

To take up fishbob's point, consider the book Pandas and People in the Dover trial. According to the witness for the defense, Michael Behe, Pandas and People misrepresents Darwinism (by replacing it with a straw man) and misrepresents Intelligent Design (by incorporating in the term a whole load of other creationist ideas which have nothing to do with what he and Dembski are talking about).

So you have to ask, how is that educational?

 

[Mojo]

So, not only are you going to insist that ID is not taught in biology you also want to see it actively debunked in some other class like modern studies, philosophy or RE?

Well, if you prefer, perhaps it could just be debunked in science lessons. Because frankly, as a science, ID is pants.