Kansas brings on the Evolution debate- again

I wanted to comment on this earlier but was afraid it might divert the discussion into the deep wastes of abstract philosophy. But, seeing as you asked for it, what the hell.

You mentioned earlier something in the vein of "science can only account for the 'how' of life not the 'why'". Simply said, why is there a "why"? There is nothing that actually indicates any sort of purpose or "meaning of life" which we supposedly search for. People have vastly underestimated the philosophical implications of Darwins theory, including Darwin himself. Life as a aimless process of evolution knows no meaning, plainly put, "Life is". Or, to take a bit of a more darwinistic approach "Life is in a constant state of becoming something else". Attributing any form of purpose to life invariably leads to establishing a dogmatic principle for people to live by. And that's just plain silly.


EDIT:

The closest thing to a meaning of existence you mention is "We make what we can of the world", which I'd love to hear you elaborate upon
 
That is an accurate assessment. Yet I could counter with Hegelian or Neitzchean beleifs that our will defines our reality. That we impart purpose to existence by our very actions and perceptions (Berkeley). If that is the case, why would it be less valid to believe in a rational and ordering divine agent as opposed to what amounts to a borderline nihilistic existence?
 
I'll refrain from claiming you're missinterpreting Nietzsche in favour of retaining the last bit of on-topicness we still have.

Could you perhaps just slightly clarify your point, because I'm afraid I've missed it. First I thought you were claiming that my theory negated the existence of rationality and therefor you could think up irrational theories, but then I saw you also attribute rationality to your divine being, so I guess I just don't get it.

(I'd also like to point out the edit in my previous post)
 
The basic premise is this: That rationality neither implies nor denies the existence of a divine being in the absence of evidence. Everything that remains is conjecture without data to establish either of our claims. As we cannot know what "caused" the Big Bang, we cannot definitively rule out any claims made. We simply don't KNOW. Two people can theorize about the nature of why we exist and draw different conclusions, Hovercar.


In the absence of knowing, and in the absence of reliable data as to what the purpose of existence is, we simply create our own purpose. This only means there is a lack of data, not suitable proof either way to 'prove' our theories.

Deism attributes that we can find that a divine being exists through reason, yes. You are obviously not familiar with the idea. It is simply that the universe, in its infinite complexity; the fact that we exist and are cognizant, the appreciation of things such as beauty, and other things we would find as "awe-inspiring" I believe can be attributable to a divine being. Does that mean I am right? No. Does it mean that you can prove me wrong? No. What you call chance or fate or probability I can as easily claim as a cognizant source for all creation, and NOT come in conflict with any existing theory in science. Why i would do so is simply because of my own beliefs, just as you obviously have your beliefs about the purpose, or lack thereof, of creation, as well as its springing point.

If it helps, I will happily private message you or otherwise post links that may be able to elaborate furthur. I am a bit tired, so I am not exactly claiming to be at my "peak" of debate.

Note:
I was referring to the concept of the 'superior will' imposing itself upon others (theoretically this would not just apply to human beings), but mostly I was commenting on Berkeley's argument that perception writ large is reality.
 
Although I dont comment in these discussions often let me just say I am impressed by Fireblade and Hovercar Madness. There are plenty of these debates and info exchanges, but this is one of the rare times it's civil, orderly, and doesnt have rampant, purposeful misinterpretations.

Sincerely,
The Vault Dweller
 
I see.

You say we'll never be able to understand the cause of the big bang and therefor any theory is as good as the other. You even go so far as to call it rational, in which case I really have to insist once again you tell me how you solve the "unmoved mover" problem. Because honestly, I doubt you call the following a rational approach: "how does the world stay afloat? Why it's resting on the back of a turtle ofcourse. Then how is the turtle staying afoat? Why he's resting on the back of another turtle ofcourse." (I know this has nothing to do with what st. Augustine meant, but I thought it was in pretty bad sport for you to simply refer to him and consider the problem solved)

But let's leave the "rational" part to rest and just concentrate on the "not being able to know" part. I guess it makes sense to say that it's pretty hard to gather empirical data on an undocumented event like the start of time itself, but stating it as an impossibility is rather harsh. Let's use the lightning example again. Surely you agree that every time a lightning bolt crashes down from the sky we can gather empirical data on it and develop a rational hypothesis on its coming into being (stacking up of electrons or whateva). However, we cannot collect any data on a lightning bolt that struck 5000 years ago, does this mean that saying this bolt was caused by a divine entity is just as plausible as using aforementioned theory? Saying that the origin of time was a "one time offer only" doesn't really cut it either, because were finding similar systems of infinite density in black holes, which are happening right around us. I'm not saying "time could happen again" or anything, I'm just saying you don't have to be at a party to now how it went.
 
Thank you, TVD.

Hovercar:

You seem to be fixated on the how as opposed to the why still, Hovercar. The origin of the unvierse in an event known as the Big Bang I already agree with you on. However, you have yet to adequately explain what the empirical data is that establishes your belief a divine being cannot exist? We can study the nature, the shape, the breadth, the total energy/matter, and so on of the universe. Indeed, the study itself is called "ccosmology", and we did elaborate on it in my own astronomy classes. Yet it merely describes a fact. It doesn't explain why it is there, what the purpose is, why it came into existence in the first place?

In short, you say that we can study the mechanism of how something happens. We can study the ions that cause a lightning bolt to form. Fine, I certainly concur with that. But this is answering "How is a lightning bolt formed?" not "Why is this a law for all lightning bolts?" The answer would be it is a law of nature. I say to you then, who created the laws of nature? You say the Big Bang, I concur. Yet then I argue, "Why did the Big Bang create a principle of general order in the universe?" When you answer that (I believe a divine rational agent created the big bang and ordered the universe), please let me know.


I am uncertain about how to answer the Unmoved Mover argument, merely because I don't feel it is an accurate representation about why I believe a divine being exists. That is somwhat fair, is it not? I mean, should I be responsible for defending another's point of view as I would my own? Personally, I find the unmoved mover argument speious at best, yet its weakness doesnt offer to me definitive "proof" a divine being CANNOT exist (the probability is debateable, but is the possibility?). I may beleive the end result is accurate (the existence of a divine being), but not the means ('It' has to exist because of this rational lne of thought, the Unmoved Mover argument). It is rather silly for me to argue St Augustine's Unmoved Mover argument when many atheists attack it on their own to prove God does NOT exist.

Why should I weaken my argument defending something that to me is the equivalent of Aristotleian physics? It may describe something, it may describe it pretty well, but it doesn't mean it is accurate, nor 'true'.
 
The main differences between my "borderline nihilism" and your "wacky deism" is this. You believe that science can only explain the "how" to life and to complement it, we also need something to explain the "why". This is in the form of a divine entity. Just like science doesn't need a "why", we don't need to know "how" the divine being got into existence. I, on the other hand, find any notion of there being a "why" preposterous, and therefor of the two there is only science which explains the how.

Fine.

But there is just one last thing. What exactly is this "why" then, which requires the existence of a divine being? The only thing I can think up is:
why does the universe exist? Because it was created by a divine being. Why does the divine being exist? To create the universe.

I don't think I need to explain the faultiness of this line of reasoning.
 
The USA is falling apart, bit by bit.

welsh said:
And thus the level of scientific development in the US?
Click to expand...

It would seem to me to be a indication of the social development of the US.
 
calculon000 said:
The USA is falling apart, bit by bit.

welsh said:
And thus the level of scientific development in the US?
Click to expand...

It would seem to me to be a indication of the social development of the US.
Click to expand...

You would think so, but no. It is not 'new"development, but has been part and parcel of our politics here for a very long time. Just because it is more prevalent today does not mean that the issues, the people, or the sides have suddenly shifted from what the issues were even a hundred years ago.


Hovercar:

I don't say it "requires" it, merely that I believe a divine being exists. I can no mor eprove it than you can disprove it Hovercar. I would love a more thorough answer, but that is really what it comes down to. I can't force you to believe in it, nor can unassailable logic answer it for either of us.
 
Hovercar Madness said:
La-ame.

I kid, I kid, been fun arguing with you.
Click to expand...

*Chuckles* New cat came home today, so I was off playing with it. Nothing personal of course :twisted: .


Anyways, the point of debate isn't to convince the other (this almost never works), but to refine our own arguments. We succeeded in that, I believe.

universe1rg.jpg
 
Bah! I said this earlier- You're ontological views shape your epistemological understanding. ANd I was hoping you guys might disprove me. Poop.
 
First off, sorry about the double post kids.

Bah! I said this earlier- You're ontological views shape your epistemological understanding. ANd I was hoping you guys might disprove me. Poop.
Well, as far as I can tell this amounts to a Hegel vs Kant situation.

The "ontology shapes epistemology" scenario could be seen as a representation of Kants view of the object being little more than a bundle of different properties and that it only becomes a whole through the metaphysical "compounding" process of the subject. Therefor I guess it could be seen as saying that the physical properties of the object mean nothing until they are merged into a whole by the metaphysics of the subject. Thus metaphysics shape physics.

The "epistemology shapes ontology" scenario can be seen as Hegels view of the object... which has escaped me for the most I'm afraid. But I remember it basically amounting to the object already having some sort of an inherent unifying concept of some sort which established its relations to other objects. Anyways it came down to the physical properties of the object already existing without the need of some sort of metaphysical "binding" process. The metaphysical relations between objects are thereby shaped by the physical entity of each object.



Well, that was pretty vague. I don't quite know enough on the subject, but I find it all delightfully fascinating. So if anybody who has read "Phenemonologie des Geistes" can correct me on anything, that would be grand.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Whoops, I knew I forgot to respond to this.

The reason why the question of epistemology vs ontology is interesting for me merely because of the problem of constructing "scientific" research and the use of appropriate methodologies. Here I am interested in the process of thinking rather than the substance of those thoughts themselves.

The question for me is whether our endeavors to understand our social world are inherently flawed because of our own biases going into it. Our ontological choices determines epistemological choices, our biases and our 'world view.'

The rule of falsification specifies that we should look for evidence that disconfirms our theories. This creates quite a few problems when you consider the great list of variables that might intervene when trying to gain some generalizable leverage over our rather complex social worlds. It is not surprising that those who make arguments often fail to fully address alternative arguments or variables, that would falsify their hypotheses, but rather seek confirming evidence that buttresses their position.

Think of this as the problem of the statement "All ravens are black."

But in a way this links back the Kansas debate on intelligent design vs. evolution but more on the purpose of science.

Evolution taught in a science class should posit a theory and then articulate the disconfirming evidence for that theory.

If one were to argue intelligent design there is a danger that the motivation, the ontological belief that there is an "intelligent reason or mind" behind our notions of life and history seems to seek affirmative evidence, when it should be seeking disconfirming evidence.

Part of this stems for essential assumptions- Evolution might be the result of purely random interactions of particles that, given billions of years of iterations, led to the formation of the universe through scientific "natural laws." The assumption here is that through recurring random events, creation occurs. Chaos and then order.

Ironically, this creation story does have mythological foundation in human history. In Babylonian Myths the world is first ruled by a chaotic principle (Tiamat) who gives birth that which creates order in the universe through the destruction of chaos.

Alternatively, intelligent design begins with its own ontological assumption- that first came reason, or order, and then came creation.

As for me, I am willing to except a notion of intelligent design if we were to study the idea of creation in faith, in which notions of human imagination and the desire to make sense of the world created different creation ideas or myths. That would be interesting in itself.

But here we study the origin and change of life through science, and science relies on method of disconfirmation- falsification which is antithetical to religion itself- which emphasizes the notion of faith over reason, belief over doubt.

Honestly, I would not have a problem with folks in Kansas arguing that Intelligent Design could be part of a school curriculem- if it was taken in consideration of other approaches of mankind to construct a reasonable explanation for the creation of the universe. I mean when I studied social studies we also examined the nature of religions as part of cultures of different people across the world.

But if it were to be taught as a science than it should be studied with the same rigor as other scientific methods- through the process of falsification.

But I doubt those who support intelligent design would want their theory (with its implied use of a Creator) subject to scientific scrutiny. I also doubt whether that would be an efficient use of class time.
 
Intelligent design is an amusing topic. Kansas and other states might actually have an argument if they weren't destroying scientific process. But that isn't the biggest flaw with it.

Kansas alone is argument for needing intelligent design being required to lend a helping hand, yet instead we end up with that region and a few more becoming increasingly akin to the British nobility, and we just need to wait a bit longer as they breed themselves into a backwoods Okeechobee existence and fall into irrelevance due to most of them chewing on the keyboard instead of typing upon it.

A catch twenty-two for the rest of the world, but it at least decides this whole issue one way or another, as it proves there are long-term effects in the descendents of those living in Deliverance. :D
 
But I doubt those who support intelligent design would want their theory (with its implied use of a Creator) subject to scientific scrutiny. I also doubt whether that would be an efficient use of class time.
Click to expand...

You need to understand that ID is hardly about creating an original theory to replace evolution, instead it is based on the principle of removing evolution from its monopolic position and allowing other theories (creationism) to come into play. Behe and his motley crew reason that certain scientific principles make it impossible for evolution to be valid. For instance they believe that the second thermodynamical law proves that simpler organisms could have evolved into humans (the second law states that in a closed system entropy will increase). Ofcourse this is quite easily proven to be complete nonsense and that the second law does allow localised decreases in entropy, but that is beyond the point. The point being that ID does very much want their theories to be subject to scientific scrutiny.
 
And with all things cultural, politics must come into it.

W has posted his feelings on this topic and, no surprise, he endorses intelligent design.

Conservative Christians rejoice at minor payoff by President while south suffers low economic growth, high divorce rates and more casualties in Iraq.

Bush Remarks Roil Debate over Teaching of Evolution
By Eisabeth Bumiller
The New York Times

Wednesday 03 August 2005

Washington - A sharp debate between scientists and religious conservatives escalated Tuesday over comments by President Bush that the theory of intelligent design should be taught with evolution in the nation's public schools.

In an interview at the White House on Monday with a group of Texas newspaper reporters, Mr. Bush appeared to endorse the push by many of his conservative Christian supporters to give intelligent design equal treatment with the theory of evolution.

Recalling his days as Texas governor, Mr. Bush said in the interview, according to a transcript, "I felt like both sides ought to be properly taught." Asked again by a reporter whether he believed that both sides in the debate between evolution and intelligent design should be taught in the schools, Mr. Bush replied that he did, "so people can understand what the debate is about."

Mr. Bush was pressed as to whether he accepted the view that intelligent design was an alternative to evolution, but he did not directly answer. "I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought," he said, adding that "you're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, and the answer is yes."

On Tuesday, the president's conservative Christian supporters and the leading institute advancing intelligent design embraced Mr. Bush's comments while scientists and advocates of the separation of church and state disparaged them. At the White House, where intelligent design has been discussed in a weekly Bible study group, Mr. Bush's science adviser, John H. Marburger 3rd, sought to play down the president's remarks as common sense and old news.
Click to expand...

Now what is wrong with this picture. You're discussing science in bible study?

What the fuck?

Rumsfeld- 'Hey W, how the hell are we going to get out of this cluster fuck in Iraq?"

W- "Shut the fuck Rummy, We're studying our bibles now."

Mr. Marburger said in a telephone interview that "evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology" and "intelligent design is not a scientific concept." Mr. Marburger also said that Mr. Bush's remarks should be interpreted to mean that the president believes that intelligent design should be discussed as part of the "social context" in science classes.
Click to expand...

Social context?

Intelligent design, advanced by a group of academics and intellectuals and some biblical creationists, disputes the idea that natural selection - the force Charles Darwin suggested drove evolution - fully explains the complexity of life. Instead, intelligent design proponents say that life is so intricate that only a powerful guiding force, or intelligent designer, could have created it.
Click to expand...

Yog-Sothoth! Your presence will soon be revealed!
The Stars Are Right!
Cthulhu will awaken from his slumber!

Ah... (cough) never mind.

Intelligent design does not identify the designer, but critics say the theory is a thinly disguised argument for God and the divine creation of the universe. Invigorated by a recent push by conservatives, the theory has been gaining support in school districts in 20 states, with Kansas in the lead.

Mr. Marburger said it would be "over-interpreting" Mr. Bush's remarks to say that the president believed that intelligent design and evolution should be given equal treatment in schools.

But Mr. Bush's conservative supporters said the president had indicated exactly that in his remarks.

"It's what I've been pushing, it's what a lot of us have been pushing," said Richard Land, the president of the ethics and religious liberties commission of the Southern Baptist Convention. Dr. Land, who has close ties to the White House, said that evolution "is too often taught as fact," and that "if you're going to teach the Darwinian theory as evolution, teach it as theory. And then teach another theory that has the most support among scientists."

But critics saw Mr. Bush's comment that "both sides" should be taught as the most troubling aspect of his remarks.

"It sounds like you're being fair, but creationism is a sectarian religious viewpoint, and intelligent design is a sectarian religious viewpoint," said Susan Spath, a spokeswoman for the National Center for Science Education, a group that defends the teaching of evolution in public schools. "It's not fair to privilege one religious viewpoint by calling it the other side of evolution."

Ms. Spath added that intelligent design was viewed as more respectable and sophisticated than biblical creationism, but "if you look at their theological and scientific writings, you see that the movement is fundamentally anti-evolution."

The Rev. Barry W. Lynn, the executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, called the president's comments irresponsible, and said that "when it comes to evolution, there is only one school of scientific thought, and that is evolution occurred and is still occurring." Mr. Lynn added that "when it comes to matters of religion and philosophy, they can be discussed objectively in public schools, but not in biology class."
Click to expand...

Or is there a difference between science and philosophy? Between physics and metaphysics?

The Discovery Institute in Seattle, a leader in developing intelligent design, applauded the president's words on Tuesday as a defense of scientists who have been ostracized for advancing the theory.

"We interpret this as the president using his bully pulpit to support freedom of inquiry and free speech about the issue of biblical origins," said Stephen Meyer, the director of the institute's Center for Science and Culture. "It's extremely timely and welcome because so many scientists are experiencing recriminations for breaking with Darwinist orthodoxy."

At the White House, intelligent design was the subject of a weekly Bible study class several years ago when Charles W. Colson, the founder and chairman of Prison Fellowship Ministries, spoke to the group. Mr. Colson has also written a book, "The Good Life," in which a chapter on intelligent design features Michael Gerson, an evangelical Christian who is an assistant to the president for policy and strategic planning.

"It's part of the buzz of the city among Christians," Mr. Colson said in a telephone interview on Tuesday about intelligent design. "It wouldn't surprise me that it got to George Bush. He reads, he picks stuff up, he talks to people. And he's pretty serious about his own Christian beliefs."
Click to expand...

And it's good politics!

So what if you are lobotomizing science.... I mean, isn't science politically expendable?


And in response-

Bush Endorsement of 'Intelligent Design' in Public Schools Is Irresponsible, Says Americans United
Americans United for Separation of Church & State | Press Release

Tuesday 02 August 2005

AU's Lynn criticizes president's support for teaching religion in science class.
President George W. Bush's endorsement of teaching "intelligent design" in the public schools is irresponsible and undermines sound science education, says Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

During a White House interview with a group of reporters yesterday, Bush was asked whether "intelligent design," the latest version of "creationism," should be taught in public school science courses.

Bush told the reporters that he favors teaching intelligent design "so people can understand what the debate is about."

"I think part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought," Bush said. "You're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, the answer is yes."

The Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United, called the president's comments uninformed and reckless.

"The young people of America are ill served by a president who confuses religion with science," Lynn said. "Bush has used his presidential pulpit to advance the ludicrous notion that evolution is in controversy and that 'intelligent design' is legitimate science. Surely, he knows that most religious people see no conflict between Bible teachings and the evidence of science.

"His irresponsible comments will likely score big points with Religious Right leaders, but they undermine the teaching of sound science in the nation's public schools," Lynn said. "The president has demonstrated a disturbing degree of scientific illiteracy, which may also explain his ideologically driven positions in other areas of scientific policy including stem cell research."

Added Lynn, "As a Yale graduate, President Bush should know basic science. Maybe he signed up for Biology 101 but didn't report for duty."
Click to expand...

Zap! Ouch! And here we were thinking that the whole "I was in the National Guard during Vietnam" thing would have blown over. Nice to see someone didn't forget that bullshit.

Americans United and the Pennsylvania ACLU are currently challenging an intelligent design mandate in public schools in Dover, Pa. The case is set to go to trial on Sept. 26.

The National Academy of Sciences, which was created in 1863 to provide information on the sciences to Congress and other branches of the federal government, has staunchly opposed teaching religious concepts as if they were sciences. In a 1999 statement, the Academy said, "Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of aspects are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science."

The U.S. Supreme Court in 1987 ruled that public schools may not teach creationism or "creation science" alongside evolution. In Edwards v. Aguillard, the high court invalidated a state law requiring "creation science" to be taught if evolution were taught. The Court said the state law violated the separation of church and state because it sought "to employ the symbolic and financial support of government to achieve a religious purpose."
Click to expand...

Oh so what if the president is supposed to enforce the law and the court is suppose to interpret the law.... I mean, what's an imperial president supposed to do?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top