Intelligent Design: Coming To A State Legislature Near You

[Cousin Jethro]

MichiganGEL wrote:

<quoted text>
[ Actually, my jumping up and down on my computer just produced my last response to Drew Smith. ;-)]
Hey, I'm always interested in finding out what other religions believe. I'm assuming that Dianetics is a religion, a form of gnosticism? Or do they claim some kind of scientific basis?
I know, I should Wiki Dianetics.

Well as in Hubbard's "Book One," Dianetics, it's from "dia nous," which is to say "through thought," or as I like to think, "through us," as "nous," in French is we or us...in Greek it's "thought." Gnosis, as in dia-gnosis, is knowing, which seems to imply a static knowledge or active application of "wisdom." I think Scientology and the Gnostics had a lot -- or if you shrink the time, have a lot in common...wild otherworldly theorems, extraordinary tales, are regarded pretty much as heretical (self-path choosers)...Scientology proper would regard Gnosticism as an "other practice," and schedule you for an audit Green Form 40 which deals with such, probably to your benefit -- as you may have been martyred as one and still suffer repercussions in the form of headaches, which some Dianetics process might help...these threads resemble dianetic chains -- expressing some analytic, some reactive thought, some "cognitive revelations," some despair and other emotions, and some stupidity as well -- and sometimes it's hard to see the linkage but like in an engram chain the
interrelationship of the present post to the last one need not be strictly analytic, but MAY BE TOTALLY REACTIVE!!! just kidding

[MichiganGEL]

Cousin Jethro wrote:

<quoted text>
And of course this all occurred many centuries after His Father had said, "Let there be abiogenesis!" just kidding

Actually, since biogenesis, to a scientist, means life from *materialistic* life, then I suppose creation, being life from *supernatural* life, would be indistinguishable from abiogenesis (cf our discussion with Drew).
So there's scientific logic to your "Let there be abiogenesis!" quip.

[lily of the Valley]

, I’m dedicating this poem (part of the intelligent design) to Al Gore and his family and to the work he continues to do in trying to save the planet and its inhabitants unlike apathetic and egotistical bush who’s responsible for creating a hell on earth…Quite a big difference, don’t you think?

I think that I shall never see

A poem lovely as a tree,

A tree whose hungry mouth is prest

Against the earth’s sweet flowing breast;

A tree that looks at God all day

And lifts her leafy arms to pray;

A tree that may in summer wear

A nest of robins in her hair;

Upon whose bosom snow has lain;

Who intimately lives with rain.

Poems are made by fools like me,

But only God can make a tree. Joyce Kilmer

Hurt not he Earth, neither the Sea nor the Trees..Rev…7:3

thank you, adios

[polymath257]

Cousin Jethro wrote:

<quoted text>
Or diffraction: quip reminds me that a dense star twixt us and a more distant star gravitationally bent, refracted the farther star's light: the appearance thus given to the observer on earth was that there were two stars: one above and one below the nearer star...yet they were representing light from the same source simultaneously: philosophically which one would be actual and which one virtual...just kidding -- on earth with Saints we get tales of bilocation sometimes, possibly related to some sort of moral gravitation

Typically, there is a delay between the two images, so you are not seeing the source simultaneously from two directions. Think of the images as being two different echoes of the same shout. The time delay DOES give interesting information about the nature and mass of the gravitating object causing the lens as well as information about distances, etc.

[Cousin Jethro]

polymath257 wrote:

<quoted text>
Typically, there is a delay between the two images, so you are not seeing the source simultaneously from two directions. Think of the images as being two different echoes of the same shout. The time delay DOES give interesting information about the nature and mass of the gravitating object causing the lens as well as information about distances, etc.

I was kind of thinking in terms of equidistant paths -- but you are correct -- one would be ever so slightly newer than the other image, and if there were considerable motion in the system -- they could conceivably exchange ages from eldest to youngest

[polymath257]

Drew Smith wrote:

<quoted text>
The issue was never subjective perceptions. Multiple observers see different things because they are occupying different locations at different times. So replacing a human observer with a recording machine doesn't do anything to solve that issue.

Actually, this is NOT the main issue. It is easy enough to take into consideration time delay effects which cause observers to see simultaneous events at different times. For example, suppose event A happens on Jupiter and event B happens on Venus. If I am on earth and you are on Ceres, then I could see the Venusian event first and you could see the Jovian event first, but if we use the known speed of light and the known distances involved, we could both determine that the two events are simultaneous. We just subtract off the times for light to travel the required distances from the times we actually see the events.

HOWEVER, even if I on earth and you on Jupiter agree that the two events were simultaneous (after making adjustments for light travel), someone going past us at 90% of the speed of light, even after making adjustments for travel times, would determine those events are NOT simultaneous. The relativistic effect is not simply a matter of perception or when the signals are picked up. It has to do with a deeper lack of simultaneity.

[Cousin Jethro]

MichiganGEL wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually, since biogenesis, to a scientist, means life from *materialistic* life, then I suppose creation, being life from *supernatural* life, would be indistinguishable from abiogenesis (cf our discussion with Drew).
So there's scientific logic to your "Let there be abiogenesis!" quip.

I think God is, and what (S)He's not is a micromanager -- except occasionally when needed -- "free will," is within parameters of His/Her context of macromanagement, which, if you review for example our own planetary conditions, we are not particularly well suited for evidently -- even persons on these threads, for instance seemingly resemble the confused crowds at Babel and make me shrug & laugh sometimes, & thank God I'm not a delta

[Cousin Jethro]

Re varying imagery, from Apocryphon of John:
"Straightway, while I was contemplating these things, behold, the heavens opened and the whole creation which is below heaven shone, and the world was shaken. I was afraid, and behold I saw in the light a youth who stood by me. While I looked at him, he became like an old man. And he changed his likeness (again), becoming like a servant. There was not a plurality before me, but there was a likeness with multiple forms in the light, and the likenesses appeared through each other, and the likeness had three forms."

and the following restates thoughts found in Thunder poem:

"He said to me, "John, John, why do you doubt, or why are you afraid? You are not unfamiliar with this image, are you?- that is, do not be timid!- I am the one who is with you (pl.) always. I am the Father, I am the Mother, I am the Son. I am the undefiled and incorruptible one. Now I have come to teach you what is and what was and what will come to pass, that you may know the things which are not revealed and those which are revealed, and to teach you concerning the unwavering race of the perfect Man. Now, therefore, lift up your face, that you may receive the things that I shall teach you today, and may tell them to your fellow spirits who are from the unwavering race of the perfect Man."

Hope there aren't any Nazis in the house (just kidding)

[lily of the Valley]

Nazi's? Escaping to Paraguay always seems to come to mind whenever the word Nazi is mentioned. Oh well. finis...

[Drew Smith]

shinningelectr0n wrote:

So... two observers positioned inside the same time frame and motionless relative to each other presents a problem to you regarding the accuracy of an observation of an event inside that same time frame?

They are seeing it from different positions, which means that the light arrives at their eyes at different times.

***

shinningelectr0n wrote:

So, next, I remove the observers and replace them with a single recording instrument and you still call it an 'observer'

Why wouldn't it be an observer? What is it that you think an observer is?

[McGoo]

Drew Smith wrote:

<quoted text>
Again, I originally asked you if you were referring to confidence, and you said that you would go along with that (for a time). If you're now saying that you weren't referring to confidence, then there is nothing that needs to be withdrawn by me. Your rejection responds to my original question.

No way... Your leaving even it more up in the air now. You offered confidence, I'm curious why.

[Drew Smith]

I wrote: "That's like asking how the evidence we have today can distinguish between a several-thousand-year recorded history and Last Thursdayism. It can't. So are you claiming that Last Thursdayism should be taught in public school history classrooms along with usual history content? Do you consider them of equal value? If not, why not?"

MichiganGEL wrote:

One step at a time, please...
Do we or do we not agree that the evidence we see today can't distinguish between imported, created, or abiogenetically-produced life (or Last Thursdayism)???

Evidence cannot distinguish between a relatively simpler natural process and a supernatural entity that attempts to fake evidence. There is no evidence that life was "imported" (this just pushes the same question back without explaining anything) or "created", just as there is no evidence that we were created Last Thursday.

Now, please address my question to you about Last Thursdayism.

***

MichiganGEL wrote:

Matzke's paper presents *how* abio could have happened. But, as you say so well, "'how' is not evidence. It's an explanation."

Matzke's paper not *only* addresses the "how", it *also* addresses the *evidence*(example: F1Fo-ATPase of bacteria).

***

MichiganGEL wrote:

we still cannot say it was abio', creation, or some other process.

We can say that the simplest explanation that explains what we observe that involves only natural processes (making it a scientific explanation) is abiogenesis. When you introduce a "creator", you've left the realm of science, and entered the same realm as Last Thursdayism.

[Drew Smith]

I wrote: "That's right, parents wouldn't have to, since parents could take care of their children forever."

MichiganGEL wrote:

Slow down, Drew, and think first. Can you imagine the situation our great great great... great grandparents would be in if they had to make the decisions for every one of their descendents?!?

You keep forgetting that you're trying to make this analogy work to explain your God. Are you saying that your God is incapable of multitasking for billions of individuals? So much for that all-powerful thing, eh?

[polymath257]

Cousin Jethro wrote:

<quoted text>
I was kind of thinking in terms of equidistant paths -- but you are correct -- one would be ever so slightly newer than the other image, and if there were considerable motion in the system -- they could conceivably exchange ages from eldest to youngest

I know of one example where the lensed object is a quasar and the found a time delay between the images of about a year and a half.

[McGoo]

Drew Smith wrote:

<quoted text>
Many scientists have done so. Ken Miller is a good example. But the danger is that the public will perceive the opposite, namely, that "if evolution doesn't reject God, then it must *support* God." Unfortunately, the public isn't especially good at understanding neutrality toward religion. That's why we keep hearing complaints that banning school-sponsored prayer is equivalent to "taking God out of the schools".
***

So better to be misundertood as being anti god than pro god?

Drew Smith wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm not "trying to force" anyone to be anything. The nature of theistic belief does that.
If they don't want to be regarded as a theist, then they can assert that they lack a belief in a god. If they don't want to be regarded as an atheist, then they can assert that they have a belief in a god.
If they don't want to be regarded as either one, well, they can always remain silent on the issue. It doesn't change the fact that they *are* one or the other, but as to which of the two they are, they are free to take that secret to the grave, or at least until a mind-reading machine is invented.
***

So are you saying that the only options are theist, atheist or lying by silence?

And you don't think thats force in principle

Drew Smith wrote:

<quoted text>
Interest in religious belief? If it wasn't threatening my rights (education is only one of the venues, but it's the venue relevant to this topic), none that I can think of.
***

So let me get this straight, cos it might be a first.

Are you actually saying you agree with my suggestion

[McGoo]

Drew Smith wrote:

No quote

Tell me Drew,

How would you feel if a teacher, who genuinely believed in god was allowed to say to their students, during science, that they personally believed in god but could not say anything more than that.

Or if not exactly the above, would you compromise anywhere?

[McGoo]

Drew Smith wrote:

If "evolutionist" means "one who believes that evolution is true", then no.
If "evolutionist" means "one who is aware that evolution is the best available scientific theory for what is observed", then yes.

And "if" there were only two options
Evolutionist or Aevolutionist

Which would you choose?

[ScienceRules]

McGoo wrote:

<quoted text>...... I think scientists should emphasis more to the public, that evolution doesn't reject god per say rather than getting dragged into the whole evolution versus creation debate, which seems to me to just bring science down to a level that plays into the hands of the creationsissts. Your stance in this little discussion we've had here doesn't help science either in my opinion, if people want to use their brains to think about god and science but don't want to be regarded as either a theist or an atheist, why must you try force them into being one or the other. I just don't understand it.

I see you two have quite the debate going so excuse me for jumping in.

Scientists would be happy to ignore any discussion of a god vis-a-vis evolution. But strong believers/fundamentalists WILL NOT let it go at that. In the courts, in the schools, in the media and in the general public sphere, fundamentalist types relentlessly pursue a return to a theistic society.

I am an atheist. I could debate the nuances of "strong" vs. "weak" atheism, agnosticism, etc. all day. But Drew is essentially spot on when one is either a theist or an atheist. Sure, some atheists deny the possibility of a god and other atheists admit the possibility, and agnostics might say, "I just don't know" but intellectually honest people will admit either they believe or don't believe in the supernatural. There is no force involved.

Consider this. Believers will argue until the cows come home who is a "true" christian, each one confident of having a lock on the truth. Of course, at this point the word christian ceases to mean anything. Only when a clear, concise definition is agreed upon can the answer be decided. But, it is easy to determine whether one is a believer or not. Either you believe or you do not in the supernatural. if you claim you don't know, you are really an atheist; at the core atheism is absence of belief due to absence of evidence for the supernatural, often accompanied by evidence of error and inconsistencies in scriptural texts.

This is why Drew's "last thursdayism" analogy is so spot on; there is no more evidence that the universe was created 6,000 years ago than last thursday by a master magician. There is no more evidence for the abrahamic god than for zeus, apollo, or any of the thousands of other man-made concepts of gods.

By the same token, either you accept evolution or you do not. "Denying" evolution from one species to another, while "accepting" evolution within species is like being agnostic; you actually are rejecting evolution since evolutionary biologists do make or accept that distinction in the operative mechanisms.

If you learn a bit about formal logic you will understand more.

[ScienceRules]

Oops....
..........evolutionary biologists DO NOT make or accept that distinction in the operative mechanisms.

[Primewonk]

McGoo wrote:

<quoted text>
Tell me Drew,
How would you feel if a teacher, who genuinely believed in god was allowed to say to their students, during science, that they personally believed in god but could not say anything more than that.
Or if not exactly the above, would you compromise anywhere?

Why? Are you saying that belief in a god precludes understanding science?

Plus if one is fundamentalist creationist, who doesn't understand basic biology, geology, paleontology, archeology, anthropology, etc., why would they want to teach science in the first place?

It would be like having a religious fundamentalist who didn't think that blacks should be equal to rights being a history teacher. Should they be allowed to tell the the students that they think blacks are subhuman?

It would be like someone who hates football being a football coach. Yeah, you can, but why?