About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadPage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Page 7Page 8Page 9Forward one pageLast Page


Post 0

Sunday, August 14, 2005 - 4:43amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Good article.

Darwin would have welcomed such debate because he was keenly aware that the problems he had raised were not capable of being resolved into trivial facts to be memorized like the names of the state capitals or the rules of the multiplication tables.

As pointed out - this claim is bull.

Darwin would have welcomed reasoned debate or objections to the theory of Evolution, but would have been insulted by a theory based on nothing more than religious intuition being given equal weight.

This line of pro-choice argument all boils down to the old, "all points of view may be equally valid in life", - in fact they are not and should not be treated as such.



Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 1

Sunday, August 14, 2005 - 9:25amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The argument that the Intelligent Design advocates make is that the universe is so complicated that it had to be created by some kind of intelligence. They don't seem to realize that  they had to invent a 'Creator' that must be much more complicated than the system that was 'created'.

Sam


Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 2

Sunday, August 14, 2005 - 10:02amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Maybe scientists need to demand that in every bible class, there must be someone saying - "on the other hand, there is no evidence to support the claims the Bible makes or even that God exists. For all we know this Bible has just as much validity as children's fairy stories." 

However, as soon as their backs are turned all the religious pro-lifers will be preaching to their kids, "don't listen to them, there is only one truth and that is God's truth."


Post 3

Sunday, August 14, 2005 - 10:23amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
An excellent article. Thanks Adam.

As to Marcus, that is perhaps the most creative idea (of teaching evolution in Bible classes) I have come across in the last two weeks!! May be we should start a campaign!

Sanjay

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 4

Sunday, August 14, 2005 - 10:47amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"teaching evolution in Bible classes"
They already do teach evolution in Church. It goes like this: "Humans were obviously designed. There is no way evolution could actually produce such complex beings. Many respected scientists agree that it is false. The bible is the word of God. Evolution is obviously false."

Post 5

Sunday, August 14, 2005 - 1:45pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I am in the middle of an argument on a local freethought list regarding government education.  Here is my latest response:
<< The religious have a choice in sending their kids to religious schools vice public schools. >>

So they need to pay for the education of their children *and* that of other people's children as well? I know I am in the tiny minority here regarding my support of a totally free market and the replacement of government welfare with private charity. But that is my position.

<< No public school should be seen as a place where the state can "teach these children values diametrically opposed to those of the parents." ... However, education has gone a long way in driving mysticism out of the culture and I hope that continues until we truly have an Enlightened electorate. >>

Well, you just made two opposite points in the same post. Mystical parents see secular education as "diametrically opposed" to their own values. So no one can make a credible claim that secular schools do not often teach values at odds with those of the parents.

I guess the central question is: Do you consider the teaching of mystical values a form of child abuse that the state should have authority to combat? If so, how do you reconcile this with the First Amendment and ultimately with freethought, which includes the right to believe weird things? Finally, how do you prevent this from turning into a form of statism that grants the state its own authoritarian, dogmatic status as final arbiter of all truths?
While I like the idea of granting "equal time" to evolution in Sunday school, that clearly will never happen without violating property rights.  I support the idea of sticking with good science in government schools.  But these culture wars will never end as long as we have both freedom of religion and compulsory education laws.

The best solution is to get rid of government schools.  The risk is that acceptance of mystical ideas in the culture will increase.  That motivates freethinkers outside the Objectivist movement to keep compulsory secular state schools intact.

I would be interested in reading the thoughts of other SOLO members on this.


Post 6

Sunday, August 14, 2005 - 1:49pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
A fabulous interior.

Post 7

Sunday, August 14, 2005 - 2:18pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The risk is that acceptance of mystical ideas in the culture will increase.

They will be weeded out through survival of the fittest soon enough ;-)


Post 8

Sunday, August 14, 2005 - 3:01pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Luke wrote: "The risk is that acceptance of mystical ideas in the culture will increase."
Would there be less mysticism if the government created 100% publically funded colleges?
=========
Maybe it would be worthwhile to bring this up in the freethought forum: "Forcing people to go to school stamps a clear message into our children's minds: that they are incapable of thinking and making decisions for themselves." You will have to revoke the laws that force children to go to school before you can begin making all schools private.
(Edited by Dean Michael Gores
on 8/14, 3:08pm)


Post 9

Sunday, August 14, 2005 - 4:08pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Dean,

I've been cultivating a similar position for a while, but there would also have to be some major changes in child labor laws, since the issue of why children are forced into schools is largly based on the idea that children need occupied and that people don't want large roving bands of children with nothing to do.

---Landon


Post 10

Sunday, August 14, 2005 - 6:22pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Robert Davison enigmatically wrote:
A fabulous interior.
Please clarify what this means.


Post 11

Sunday, August 14, 2005 - 8:06pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Luke,

A fabulous interior.
Please clarify what this means.

Have you never hired an interior decorator?


Post 12

Sunday, August 14, 2005 - 9:57pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Landon, excellent point.

What do you all think about child labor, and child labor laws?

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 13

Monday, August 15, 2005 - 1:12amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I see that Objectivists -- "Sense Of Life" ones or "Fully Self-Conscious, Explicitly Philosophical" ones -- still criticize ideas they know nothing about and have  no intention of researching.

Below are some links to articles from one of the more important pro-ID websites called "The Discovery Institute" at www.discovery.org.  I chose articles by mathematician/philosopher David Berlinski (some of which first appeared in the conservative magazine "Commentary"); a controversial scientific article by Stephen Meyer (from the peer-reviewed journal "Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington"); and some short articles by mathematician William Dembski.  I also linked to "ISCID", a site devoted to the study of complexity, information, and design (www.iscid.org).

********************************************************

"Darwinian Doubts" by David Berlinski

 

"Academic Extinction" by David Berlinski

 

"A Scientific Scandal" by David Berlinski (from Commentary magazine)

Berlinski dissects and refutes a paper ostensibly proving the evolution of a camera-type eye from Darwinian processes.

 

"The Deniable Darwin" by David Berlinski (from Commentary Magazine)

 

This short story by Berlinski, appearing at the end of the above-linked article from “Commentary” magazine, pretty much sums up the absurdity of Darwinian “natural selection acting on random mutation” as any sort of causal explanation, either of biological origins, or of macro-evolution.

 

On the Derivation of Ulysses from Don Quixote

I IMAGINE THIS story being told to me by Jorge Luis Borges one evening in a Buenos Aires cafe.

His voice dry and infinitely ironic, the aging, nearly blind literary master observes that "the Ulysses," mistakenly attributed to the Irishman James Joyce, is in fact derived from "the Quixote."

I raise my eyebrows.

Borges pauses to sip discreetly at the bitter coffee our waiter has placed in front of him, guiding his hands to the saucer.

"The details of the remarkable series of events in question may be found at the University of Leiden," he says. "They were conveyed to me by the Freemason Alejandro Ferri in Montevideo."

Borges wipes his thin lips with a linen handkerchief that he has withdrawn from his breast pocket.

"As you know," he continues, "the original handwritten text of the Quixote was given to an order of French Cistercians in the autumn of 1576."

I hold up my hand to signify to our waiter that no further service is needed.

"Curiously enough, for none of the brothers could read Spanish, the Order was charged by the Papal Nuncio, Hoyo dos Monterrey (a man of great refinement and implacable will), with the responsibility for copying the Quixote, the printing press having then gained no currency in the wilderness of what is now known as the department of Auvergne. Unable to speak or read Spanish, a language they not unreasonably detested, the brothers copied the Quixote over and over again, re-creating the text but, of course, compromising it as well, and so inadvertently discovering the true nature of authorship. Thus they created Fernando Lor's Los Hombres d'Estado in 1585 by means of a singular series of copying errors, and then in 1654 Juan Luis Samorza's remarkable epistolary novel Por Favor by the same means, and then in 1685, the errors having accumulated sufficiently to change Spanish into French, Moliere's Le Bourgeois Gentilhomme, their copying continuous and indefatigable, the work handed down from generation to generation as a sacred but secret trust, so that in time the brothers of the monastery, known only to members of the Bourbon house and, rumor has it, the Englishman and psychic Conan Doyle, copied into creation Stendhal's The Red and the Black and Flaubert's Madame Bovary, and then as a result of a particularly significant series of errors, in which French changed into Russian, Tolstoy's The Death of Ivan Ilyich and Anna Karenina. Late in the last decade of the 19th century there suddenly emerged, in English, Oscar Wilde's The Importance of Being Earnest, and then the brothers, their numbers reduced by an infectious disease of mysterious origin, finally copied the Ulysses into creation in 1902, the manuscript lying neglected for almost thirteen years and then mysteriously making its way to Paris in 1915, just months before the British attack on the Somme, a circumstance whose significance remains to be determined."

I sit there, amazed at what Borges has recounted. "Is it your understanding, then," I ask, "that every novel in the West was created in this way?"

"Of course," replies Borges imperturbably. Then he adds: "Although every novel is derived directly from another novel, there is really only one novel, the Quixote."


 

Stephen C. Meyer

 

Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington - Article by Stephen C. Meyer

 

 

 

William Dembski

 

"Does Evolution Even Have A Mechanism?" (address by mathematician William Dembski to the Am. Museum of Nat. History)

 

Consider, for instance, a configuration space comprising all possible character sequences from a fixed alphabet (such spaces model not only written texts but also polymers like DNA, RNA, and proteins). Configuration spaces like this are perfectly homogeneous, with one character string geometrically interchangeable with the next. The geometry therefore precludes any underlying mechanisms from distinguishing or preferring some character strings over others. Not material mechanisms but external semantic information (in the case of written texts) or functional information (in the case of polymers) is needed to generate specified complexity in these instances. To argue that this semantic or functional information reduces to material mechanisms is like arguing that Scrabble pieces have inherent in them preferential ways they like to be sequenced. They don’t. Michael Polanyi offered such arguments for biological design in the 1960s.

 

"Evolutionary Logic" by William Dembski

International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design

 

I also highly recommend William Dembski’s information-theory critique of Darwinism titled “No Free Lunch.”

 


Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Post 14

Monday, August 15, 2005 - 4:06amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The Grammarian,

Why don't you actually post something that supports ID instead of linking to a whole bunch of sites we could refute, which you would then take no responsibility for and then endlessly link more sites?

If anything, your links might prove that ID theorists can't explain how every detail in evolution works... but surely none of it will shed the slightest evidence of an intelligent being (other than a human) at work creating beings, DNA, RNA, or anything at all.

Post 15

Monday, August 15, 2005 - 5:51amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Robert Davison wrote:
Have you never hired an interior decorator?
Robert, Robert, Robert, your enigmas continue to confound me.   Are you saying this as a humorous way of looking at how the ID advocates argue in favor of a Creator. i.e., a "Fabulous Interior Decorator" who created the Universe, "a fabulous interior"?

If so, you really need to work on your explication skills.  You could have saved me the effort of asking all these questions by providing context, context, context!

If not, you still need to follow the directions in the preceding two sentences so we can know what in the world you are trying to say.


Post 16

Monday, August 15, 2005 - 7:12amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"Cogito ergo sum". I think, therefore I am.

One must exist in order to experience, and the fact that you experience is convincing proof you exist.

Your body is not a single "thing", it is a composite. It is comprised of billions of elemental particles - a myriad of individual existences each with its own identity. Two independent elements cannot share their existence or experience a common identity any more than they could simultaneously occupy the same space. It is not possible for something to 'be' more than (or less than) a single existence, so the identity you experience must be that of a single element - or entity - hidden within the assemblage of your body.

This isn't rocket science. It has nothing to do with religion. It is simple reasoning and elementary deduction. You are a single entity - an elemental particle which some call a 'soul'. You don't have a soul, you are a soul. And while you are alive, you have a body. When you die, it will fall off (which can be VERY embarrassing as well as downright inconvenient).

Life is no chemical accident, nor was it divinely conceived. Both popular contemporary theories fail to consider the likelihood that it arose as a spectrum of elementary life forms learned to manipulate the resources of this planet - wear the mud so to speak. Unfortunately, that mud conceals us rather well and although we humans have (hopefully) developed a level of consciousness slightly more sophisticated than the amoebae, our species has not yet been able to isolate and identify that element within the human body which compiles and compels our corporal garb.


Post 17

Monday, August 15, 2005 - 9:03amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
There is an excellent book by Robert T. Pennock called Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics ... it is a collection of original ID writings, and the fallasies as pointed out by noted critics... MIT Press.

Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Post 18

Monday, August 15, 2005 - 9:18amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I've noticed that the trolls are taking advantage of Linz's sabbatical and are invading in force. SOLO, like any other site, cannot remain useful if it is taken over by trolls, which is what appears to be happening. I hope that the management of SOLO will take appropriate action.

(Edited by Adam Reed
on 8/15, 9:25am)


Post 19

Monday, August 15, 2005 - 9:32amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Adam,

Are you starting to find merit in Linz's KASS attitude?

Quick Linz, give these trolls a lynching for us! ;-)


Post to this threadPage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Page 7Page 8Page 9Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.