Posted on 10/07/2005 4:03:19 AM PDT by gobucks
Intelligence to me means thought, planning, execution. But you could use any definition you feel appropriate.
"The absolute last thing I want is the schools interfering the the religious education of my kids. And no, teaching science does not do that unless ones' faith is very, very, superficial."
So although evolution posits that God was not involved in creation and that we are not separately created beings, we just evolved along with all other sorts of animals and God had nothing to do with it is NOT interfering with religious education? I respectfully disagree.
"Please explain what the Big Bang theory has to do with the TOE?"
- Both try to explain reality by perceiving only the eventuality and ignoring the fundamental questions related to causality.
We know the Big Bang happened, science has shown the evidence, but nobody can explain rationally how it happened. An explosion of such monumental proportions as to form the entire universe and all the quadrillions of tons of matter in it had to consist of something to explode. Where did that something come from if there was nothing there before? Nobody can answer that question scientifically.
The same can be said of Evolution. We know that species can change into different species over time, it has be shown to happen in birds isolated by geographic constraints, but what evolution hasn't shown is that same bird evolving into an animal of some different Order. Evo breaks down completely at the Order level. It can't show how a dog evolved into an ape for instance.
The bottom line is that as we do and become increasingly more able to do ourselves as a species, like expand into space, modify genetics, create new materials with science that have never existed naturally and to mold our surroundings to better suit ourselves, we must also take into consideration the possibility that some being (corporeal or ethereal) before us was able to do the same as well as the currently unexplainable. In fact, spreading life is the modus operendi for life and its sole fundamental purpose. And while Evo can be incorporated into Design theory, it cannot be said the other way around.
ID is destined to whimper and fade.
"I have a feeling this isn't really about how concerned everyone is with our children's science education as it is about removing God from every aspect of public life in this country"
I think your right & I think that this is the real reason, and it is not just "God" but the christain persepctive of God which is the freedom to worship or not.
"We do not know how to define intelligence because the Darwinian choke-hold on scientific thought has not allowed us to develop a scientific model that even asks the question. Darwinianism has become an antiquated dogma preventing science from moving into areas that it denies, such as intelligence theory."
Intelligence theory? Ok, what is the definition of intelligence in this field? I am pretty familiar with information theory by the way and though this would be the most plausible track to pursue this question it is ultimately a dead end. Why? Becuase it is mathematically provable that there exist no computable test that can differentiate between a random sequence and a highly complex sequence. This means that even if God is encoding "messages" into the seemingly random perturbations of nature that drive the various biological processes it is impossible to test for them, because arbitrarily complex sequences cannot be distinguised from random sequences.
No. I have noticed I have been born into a time and place where words, definitions, and 'reality' were already twisted before I got here. For example, I have a copy of the 1828 Webster's dictionary. I have compared many common words to the current collegiate dictionaries using the name Webster. It is flat out one of the most eye opening 'scientific' exercises I have ever conducted.
So, what I am really asking is: who owns the definition of 'science'? Who decides what 'science' means? Did the word 'science' mean the same thing in 1810 as it did in 1610? If not, why not? Why is its meaning today so dearly protected by the vested interests in that community? Why do they fear so intensely much the 'competition' of I.D.?? It is the fearful reaction, not to mention everything else, that lends so much credibility to I.D. for many. You'd think they'd understand that. But no ... the fear is palpable.
I notice, over and over and over, is that how science itself is defined seems to be a profoundly upsetting question. Just why is that? What is the fear behind all the upsetness. And above all, if 'science' were so robust as is (esp T.o.E), why is it (another question that gets little attention) that I.D., a 'non scientific' idea, gets so much traction?
At the very minimum logic itself would dictate something must be really wrong w/ 'science' that so many find it so unacceptable.
But no.... that conclusion is 'not logical', or such is the case being implied in your post.
I wrote: "One reason Islamic countries are such backwaters today is that they let religion trump science"
You provided the response:
"So if we teach ID, we will all become Muslims? Quite a stretch but I guess you have to continually think of new arguments against ID."
Non-responsive answer.
And you know it.
Bt I'm glad you gave me a chance to repeat my statement in order to clarify for the lurkers:
In many fundamentalist Islamic countries evolution is not taught because someone there seems to think that it somehow detracts from Allah. You will note how many brilliant scientists are not coming out of those countries today.
A great majority of Christians can accept both Creation and evolution.
A noisy minority can't and want to replace the science in science classes with religion.
Guess what the effect will be if we let them succeed.
"I do not believe you read the article. "
I think this will be the case repeatedly in this thread. Especially the point made in #4 about falsifying 'concepts'.
I haven't heard any Christians say to not teach the theory of evolution - no one wants to replace science with religion and for you to suggest that just tells me you aren't really interested in a debate.
This response of yours is an insult to the faith of most Christians who understand both evolution and their own religion.
You said: "So although evolution posits that God was not involved in creation..."
It posits no such thing. It is dishonest to claim it does.
Ding, ding, ding! Correct!
Nice!
"Intelligence to me means thought, planning, execution."
What is the definition of thought? Do you think a computer chess program is capable of "planning" and "execution?"
"But you could use any definition you feel appropriate."
I can't think of any definition that is scienficially appropriate. Can you?
I can see where this is going - a circular argument with no "correct" answer. Sorry - don't have time today. If you want to argue something concrete, let me know.
BINGO
You know, this post is a good reason why I really like this forum ... being confronted w/ folks who write expressively, cogently, and at the same time are pithy regarding the point. I try to imitate ... but it just doesn't have the same ring. What a great post, and thanks.
It's pretty dumb, but not the dumbest I've seen. When will this terribly narrow vision stop getting attention.
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.