Posted on 05/20/2005 11:23:15 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
I think this is an assertion, is it? I think so, do u know this as a fact?
As well, this sound like an Enlightened self interest argument.
I'm sure you read the problem that I have with Enlightend Self Interest. It says to be Selfless so that you can be more Selfish (i.e so that you can live and eat bananas - the monkey example).
My problem is Morality at it's core has to do with being Selfish and Selfless. So you are using Morality to explain that morality evolved.
Or, actually you said "In a sense" morality evolved.
I do appreciate your input.
"...it also poses a threat to the very core of scientific reason. Most contemporary researchers believe that it is better to keep science and theology firmly separated."Hmmm. What is the "core of scientific reason", and how is it derived from science? And how is these researchers belief [that it is better to keep science and theology firmly separated] derived from science? Obviously these issues involve the philosophy of science, which isn't derived empirically either. What empirical knowledge or scientific fact justifies the value laden statement that "it is better to keep science and theology firmly separated."?
"...When they walk into the lecture hall, they should be prepared to talk about what science can and cannot doForget the straw man insinuation that conservative religious groups are trying to "halt the teaching of scientific theories", I thought that it is better "to keep science and theology firmly separated". Yet here we have another metaphysical value judgment that is not derived from science itself. Why is this value judgment better than any other value judgment, including its opposite? It isn't based on or derived from science and neither is the desire to turn students into "invaluable allies".
...It is as when more conservative religious groups try to halt the teaching of scientific theories in schools.
Indeed, it is not the job of a science teacher to meddle with the way their students are brought up or to attack their core personal beliefs. Rather, the goal should be to point to options other than intelligent design for reconciling science and belief.There is nothing scientific about this opinion, either. Apparently, all options are open for discussion except intelligent design, and if intelligent design happens to be one of their core personal beliefs then it is ok to attack it.
Cordially,
I'm talking about science prizes. I don't know any scientist who considers the Nobel Prizes to be illegit.
No. I believe in God. And I believe I just blew my nose. But God did not make me blow my nose. Evolution happened. Perhaps because God allowed it to happen, wanted it to happen, but in any event it happened. This we know from science.
Really? And who might these "Greatest Scientists in the world" be?
Gregor Mendel; Louis Pasteur and Monsignor George Lemaître -- and we are talking devout here, not just mild assumption
You're indulging in the fallacy of equivocation. Intelligent Design as it's being discussed here is a school of thought that says (1) that one can scientifically detect design in nature by objective examination and (2) that some parts of nature as we have observed it could not have arisen without the intervention of a designer.
You have switched to a definition of ID as the possibility that parts of nature could be designed. That's a postulate I would not attempt to refute.
The two postulates I list have been fairly roundly rejected. No useful mathematical or scientific tool for detecting design, in the absence of prior information, has ever been plausibly demonstrated; and the supposedly irreducibly complex entities in nature claimed by IDers to be impossible without a designer have uniformly to be shown not to be irreducibly complex.
Also, the inherent ID bias in any observation or experimentation makes it logically fallacious to state categorically that ID doesn't exist. As a matter of fact, all such experimentation and observation have ID origins themselves.
That's also fallacious. One might as well say that no number is truly random, because any apparatus or algorithm we make to generate a random number is designed and therefore not random. No one is claiming nothing is intelligently designed. What we are claiming is that evolution is an adequate explanation for life, and that intervention by an intelligent being is neither necessitated nor even suggested by the data.
There is good evidence that impulsiveness and aggression have genetic components.
Hey, rodeo-clown, it was your claim. Support it or quit lying.
"Not from where I'm standing"
Wait a hundred years, your perspective will have changed by then.
I couldn't have said it better myself. ;^)
At least Dog Whistle's stay at FR will be short-lived.
His other post was addressed to me, but I missed it. What did it say (paraphrase)?
Isn't he the "directed panspermia" apologist for life's beginning? If so, his scientific endeavors range from the ridiculous (or faith-based, at any rate) to the sublime.
Buzz, wrong. Read the question again.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.