Revote today [Dover, PA school board]

York Daily Record [Penna] ^ | 03 January 2006 | TOM JOYCE

[Zack Nguyen]

Natural selection is not a random process.

The theory of how it happened may not be random, but why it happened certainly is. And besides, the theory that life somehow began from a primordial soup is most certainly random, without purpose or explanation. This in and of itself does not make it wrong (though I believe that it is wrong), just describing what it is.

[puroresu]

Well, I gotta go for now. Duty calls. I appreciate your willingness to discuss this topic without getting angry. I'm sure we'll debate again.

[js1138]

Group differences are a mainstay of junk science. I seldom see them discussed except by people who have a vested interest in being in the superior or privileged group.

I would like to start a discussion on the rather obvious IQ difference between people who accept evolution and those who don't. I notice, for example, that many FR posters deny common descent, but actual scientists like Behe (an ID supporter) mostly accept common descent.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Given that there is no objective measure for "design" and "purpose" . . .

There is no objective measure for "natural" and "supernatural" either. Be that as it may, the common definitions of "design" and "purpose" make the connection with intelligence to be a reasonable one. Not an irrefutable one, to be sure, but it is not a wild stretch by any means.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your reply!

I still believe that the ID movement is more about backdooring a way into the Creation story versus an alternative scientifically based hypothisis. It was a Trojan Horse from all things people of faith.

That is your opinion - and sadly, there are quite a few who truly believe that evolution is the main power play for atheism as an ideology - along with all its political agenda.

IMHO, we need to lay aside all of our presuppositions and look at the intelligent design hypothesis on its merits.

For now, it simply is saying somethings are unexplainable without a Creators hand. Unfortunately, there's not a lot of science behind that.

To the contrary, the intelligent design hypothesis says "that certain features of the universe and life are best explained by intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection".

An "intelligent cause" could be either a phenomenon (such as an emergent property of self-organizing complexity or fractal intelligence) or an agent (such as God, collective consciousness, aliens, Gaia, etc...)

Something as simple as animals choosing their mates could be established as the "intelligent cause" for "certain features".

IOW, it doesn't matter whether the "intelligent cause" was a phenomenon or an agent. And it doesn't cover "all features" - i.e. the hypothesis is not a theory of origins, just like the theory of evolution is not a theory of origins.

[highball]

ID *is* PC.

ID requires us to redefine words. It elevates feelings to the level of facts.

It's every bit as dangerous as the original.

[Alamo-Girl]

I think you have nailed it like a Butterfly or Moth on a bugboard..

LOLOLOL! Great imagery! Thanks for your post!

[Alamo-Girl]

You're quite welcome, js1138!

[CarolinaGuitarman]

" The theory of how it happened may not be random, but why it happened certainly is."

Natural selection is not a random process. By definition.

"And besides, the theory that life somehow began from a primordial soup is most certainly random, without purpose or explanation."

This is outside of evolution. You are referring to abiogenesis theory. It too is not random. It's based on the laws of chemistry, which are certainly not random. It certainly isn't without explanation either.

"This in and of itself does not make it wrong (though I believe that it is wrong), just describing what it is."

It describes it, but incorrectly.

[highball]

"I still believe that the ID movement is more about backdooring a way into the Creation story versus an alternative scientifically based hypothisis. It was a Trojan Horse from all things people of faith."

That is your opinion - and sadly, there are quite a few who truly believe that evolution is the main power play for atheism as an ideology - along with all its political agenda.

It's more than an opinion - it's the admitted purpose of both the Discovery Insitute, the main proponent of ID, and the school board in this case.

Conversely, I challenge you to find any scientific organizations promoting the ToE that have atheism as a stated goal.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Well, I gotta go for now. Duty calls. I appreciate your willingness to discuss this topic without getting angry. I'm sure we'll debate again."

I didn't get angry? I knew I forgot something.

You GHF%%$#$#@!!! lol

:) Duty calls here too. Later!

[PatrickHenry]

The issue of motive of the supporters (on any side) is a legal sidebar.

Actually, motive is rather central. If the First Amendment were only about free speech, then the ID folks would have a free hand in government schools -- and so would everything else. But there is also the establishment clause. Free speech doesn't allow government agents to violate the establishment clause. That's why it's a necessary condition of state action that it must have a secular purpose.

[dmz]

OH NO!!!!!

It's happening in my very household. When I went to the grocery store the other day my 13 y/o daughter asked "Dad, can I come along?"

And we TALKED! About stuff that MATTERS!!! And she contributed mightily to the discussion.

Where did I go wrong?

[dmz]

Sure they can. They can take what they studied in science, compare it to what they have studied in church or discussed with their parents, and make up their own mind.

Knowledge and information are funny that way, learn it here, apply it there.

[puroresu]

You wrote:

#####Group differences are a mainstay of junk science. I seldom see them discussed except by people who have a vested interest in being in the superior or privileged group.#####

Then you wrote:

#####I would like to start a discussion on the rather obvious IQ difference between people who accept evolution and those who don't.#####

I'll assume you were joking!

[Fester Chugabrew]

I challenge you to find any scientific organizations promoting the ToE that have atheism as a stated goal.

It would be too objectionable for scientific organizations to have this as a stated goal. Better to have it as an unstated principle and then have it established by law as the only principle suited to scientific discussion.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your reply!

All qualia are grounded in physical, measurable phenomona. How directly and precisely one measures it is a function of technical capability.

Then what is the measure of right and wrong, good and evil, pretty and ugly and cute, pain and pleasure?

Moreover, whatever "ruler" you might wish to use, all that can result is yet another description of "it" - a quantization of a continuum of such measurements - and does not tell us what "it" is until we actually and directly experience "it".

Or to put it another way, one can describe an animal until he is blue in the face - develop vast piles of data comparing the animal to all kinds of other things - and still not know what the animal "is".

[Alamo-Girl]

Conversely, I challenge you to find any scientific organizations promoting the ToE that have atheism as a stated goal.

How about people in positions of great power over scientific organizations who are promoting the theory of evolution and have atheism as their stated goal?

In which case, as Exhibit #1 - I offer to you Richard Dawkins.

[js1138]

You are obviously on the right side of the curve.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your reply!

Actually, motive is rather central. If the First Amendment were only about free speech, then the ID folks would have a free hand in government schools -- and so would everything else. But there is also the establishment clause. Free speech doesn't allow government agents to violate the establishment clause. That's why it's a necessary condition of state action that it must have a secular purpose.

And that is the problem with the Lemon test - and the reason the Supreme Court already doesn't like Lemon and will no doubt move to repair the mess it has created once Alito is on the court.