[extropy-chat] intelligent design homework

Sat Aug 6 22:25:56 UTC 2005

Go here, http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html , to  
clean up your misconceptions about what evolution is and is not about  
and the known facts.  After that perhaps we can chat on the topic  
more productively.  I have my doubts though since you claim that  
theology is science.

- samantha

On Aug 6, 2005, at 12:40 PM, Robert Lindauer wrote:

>
> On Aug 5, 2005, at 11:37 PM, Samantha Atkins wrote:
>
>
>>
>> On Aug 5, 2005, at 7:15 PM, Robert Lindauer wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I completely agree that it would be worthwhile for every child to  
>>> have a complete comparative religion (obviously including  
>>> Agnosticism and Athiesm) course just as it would be worthwhile to  
>>> teach all children logic and soviet history (as an example of  
>>> another history which is commonly read differently in the US than  
>>> in the Soviet Union).
>>>
>>
>> And I suppose we want to teach all of this as part of *science*  
>> eh?  The most objectionable part of ID proposals is requiring ID  
>> to be taught as some kind of alternate scientific theory when it  
>> fails to hold up or even be remotely useful if it ever is  
>> considered scientifically.
>>
>
> I'm not sure what you have in mind here.  What parts of ID don't  
> hold up and aren't useful?  Don't forget to define "useful for  
> what" being a purpose-relative context.  It sure answers the  
> chicken and the egg problem adequately meanwhile giving us an  
> understanding of the big bang and a variety of other problem.  For  
> the sake of science and histo-biology it is an historical theory,  
> like the Permian Extinction and the giant meteor.  MAYBE there was  
> a meteor, it certainly would explain why the dinosaurs disappeared  
> in such great numbers.  MAYBE Zeus struck them down, that would  
> explain it too.  Which is the correct explanation?  Well, which one  
> fits in the best with the rest of -our world view-?  Well, it  
> depends on which -world view- you have, doesn't it?
>
> A person convinced of steady-state cosmology and the existence of  
> the ether will not regard the big bang as something that needs  
> explaining, rather that the evidence is neeed of some ad hoc  
> explanation.  Similarly someone convinced of evolution is, ipso  
> facto, convinced that life can arise spontaneously and will regard  
> the absence of evidence to that effect as something that needs ad  
> hoc explanation.  One makes choices in science.  It's fair and  
> right to show what the choices are.  Otherwise it's not science.
>
>
>>   Whether or not ID is something nice for kids to know about isn't  
>> the primary question.  As non-science it does not belong in a  
>> science curriculum.
>>
>
> Well that's just the question isn't it, whether or not Theology is  
> a science.  It certainly is in my book, maybe not in yours.  Who  
> gets to decide which book we use?
>
>
>>   Nor does the speculation of the Sim Universe belong is science  
>> curriculum except as pure speculation.  Even then it doesn't  
>> belong in any of the subjects that evolution is relevant to.   
>> Evolution is what makes all of biology hold together.
>>
>
> Not really.
>
>
>> To not teach that is to fail to teach what is known at all.
>>
>
> Not at all.
>
> Microbiology and chemical biology except for the various failed  
> attempts to show that life can spontaneously arise from inert  
> matter are completely evolution-neutral (well, except for those  
> cases where there appears to be a clear conflict - such as the  
> speciation problem or the spontaneous life problem) - in any case,  
> it's not relevant to talk about evolution when showing how, for  
> instance, chemical receptors inside of a given bacteria are  
> received and what process ensues.  Nor is it relevant, for the most  
> part, to cancer research.  One -could- come up with a theory of how  
> evolution is affecting cancer rates and what-not but nothing would  
> prevent an ID theorist for accepting that - just the two major  
> points - speciation and spontaneous generation.   ID theorists  
> aren't restricted from recognizing that competition and adaptation  
> are important factors for expression of genetic features, they just  
> reject that changes in gene-pools happen "accidentally" - like  
> changing the number of chromosomes in Humans, for instance, is  
> generally deadly and always mule-making - and that ooze becomes  
> life if you stare at it long enough.
>
> The only branch of biology for which evolution is really relevant  
> is Histo-Biology and here it's one of several competing theories.   
> It's not even necessarily the likeliest one given the relative  
> dearth of missing links and missing micro-biological evidence/ 
> theory.  Essentially, with speciation and spontaneous generation in  
> evolutionary theory, you get "something magical happens -here-" at  
> the point where two mules have a compatible genetic mutation and  
> are able to reproduce and that mutation is beneficial AND at the  
> point where the ooze starts reproducing itself.  But you KNOW  
> this.  It's relevant to point these things out in class, I think.   
> I took a couple of biology classes at USC and UCLA and it was among  
> the annoying things that during the undergrad classes the  
> professors were so adamantly against even mentioning the holes in  
> the theory.  One teacher actually refused to take further questions  
> on those two points during a discussion of evolution and the wolf/ 
> dog distinction when a student asked how non-reproductive- 
> compatible speciation happens.  I thought this would have been the  
> major subject!
>
> Where's the healthy scientific skepticism?  Big thinking in science  
> comes from rejecting the accepted wisdom.  That's why we don't have  
> the ether and the steady state universe anymore - someone decided  
> that there could be evidence that proved or disproved them and went  
> looking for it.
>
> I think this is how evolution came along too - Darwin decided that  
> there may be another way.   Subsequent generations decided that it  
> would be worth studying the -evidence- for it but as far as we can  
> tell, there isn't any convincing evidence.  No missing links, no  
> spontaneous generation mechanisms, no mule-speciation mechanisms,  
> none of the -really important- stuff, has any real verification.  A  
> great and elegant theory without any verification is, well, a great  
> and elegant theory.  There are LOTS of those.  I take it this  
> wouldn't be the forum for discussing positive evidence for  
> design :)  I believe that reasons.org has a good compilation.
>
>
>>> Unfortunately, there's not always time in a public-school  
>>> curricula.  So, with most -real libertarians- we should probably  
>>> just do away with public education.  But only after we do away  
>>> with taxation!  After all, if we're going to be paying for  
>>> something, it may as well be something we want.
>>>
>>
>> Huh?
>>
>
> Well, public money is used to educate your child and mine.  Their  
> curricula is decided by the public, e.g. the legislature.  When the  
> majority overrules the minority, the minority gets pissed and feels  
> disenfranchised.  The best way, in my opinion, to prevent such  
> occasions is to limit the strength and power of the government so  
> as to not enable the domination of one group by another, for  
> instance, in education.
>
> Here's a good example of how it works.  You don't want your kids to  
> learn about Intelligent Design.  BUT now, because some hotheads  
> have hijacked the white house and the legislature appears to have  
> been -mostly- fairly one and the court was stacked by  
> conservatives, if they're going to public school, they may be  
> forced to learn it as a competing theory.  This makes you unhappy.   
> You can pull your kid out, but then you're still paying for stuff  
> you don't agree with (in my case, it's -the war machine-).  How do  
> you prevent the majority or federal power-structure from dominating  
> the minority or weak like this?  Get rid of the government.
>
> Robbie Lindauer
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>