RoR: Forum

It doesn't matter how close to or far away from science and religion ID is. What it is is a holistic approach, and that will not do in a government built on separation of church and state. In the premodern world, or even the emerging modern world, ID would not be anything unusual, because art, morals, and science were not separated. Modernism is not perfect, but one place where it shines is in the dignity it provided. This means a lot of things- ending slavery, ending the oppression of science by the church, ending aristocratic rule, and so on. To put a point on it, science was free to develop, the monological approach was allowed to develop. I believe that the separation of art, morals, and science represents a covenant in a true democratic society, a covenant that must not be broken.

It does not mean that ID couldn't be presented as a concept in schools, but it would be hard to do it without having people breathing down your back. It could be presented in secondary schools, but it would have to be somewhere like the world religion classes. Maybe it should be presented, because if it is not, the curiosity can be used to strategic advantage. The kids already are getting a good wind of this. But it cannot be in a science class, because it is not pure science, it is science that, albeit through subtle implication, points to deism. That is a fact because it cannot point anywhere else.

It's kind of ironic that the fundamentalists are using ID. ID is not unlike many postmodern, non-fundamentalist postures. This stuff is in mainstream discussion (books like Paul Davies', etc.) It's just another thing where someone is trying to bring in The Big Paradigm. I'm not even sure it's that, it's more like a smuggling job, and a good one at that. On the surface, of the art/morals/science categories it only looks like science is there. But, if you look where it points, it points to deism. If you backtrack that, it goes deism, religion, morals. So, one of the three categories got blended in, and that's no good. If you are going to do synthesis and integration, that is in the personal realm. You have to have your right to do so protected. Oddly enough, that is exactly the sniveling defense that is being used to introduce ID into schools. Not on my dime, my misguided Christian brothers and sisters.

I'm not even going to the more obvious paper trail you get if you play a game of follow-the-proposed new curriculum, which without exception has traced back to certain cadres of religious people.

As an adult, I have no problem with people who base their individual spiritual consciousness on the idea of something in the ID or creationist categories, anymore than I do with atheists. I don't even have a problem with scientific materialists, other than when I point out that they can't answer the Big Question with their monological-based approach, either. It has not been answered by anyone. We have The Big Bang (sort of). What I do have a problem with is anyone who wants to horn in on a science class that promises or implies more than the scientific method allows.

As a former Objectivist, now Unitarian, I absolutely reject the concept of teaching ID in science classes, mainly because I deeply resent the use of this kind of tactic by the religious right. It is sleazy, it is lowbrow.

(Edited by Rich Engle on 12/23, 11:04am)

Post 21

Friday, December 23, 2005 - 10:42am

http://news.yahoo.com/comics/uclickcomics/20051223/cx_tt_uc/tt20051223

Post 22

Friday, December 23, 2005 - 10:52am

Rodney Rawlings wrote:

Even "one-third" has no final digit: 0.3333333333 ...

However, you know the next digit is always 3. For an irrational number you can't so predict the next digit.

Post 23

Friday, December 23, 2005 - 11:04am

Robert,

The fossil record, like any body of inductive evidence, does not require completeness to permit knowledge. As for your statement that "no one in the field makes the (extraordinary) claim that the fossil record is (complete) enough to draw these conclusions" - that is simply false: that the fossil record is enough for these conclusions, is a fact recognized by every evolutionary biologist who is not grinding a supernatural axe.

And your perverting the sense by snipping the import out of one of my sentences - you snipped "that were not yet suitable for any function" out of "most components of evolved systems did not evolve in complexity from more primitive forms that were not yet suitable for any function" - that is just too lawyerly. Your having done it where everyone can see, as you have, can help the reader identify the state of this "debate."

(Edited by Adam Reed
on 12/23, 11:18am)

Post 24

Friday, December 23, 2005 - 11:28am

It's amazing how far a little political clout and a little razzle-dazzle dog and pony action for the decent working stiff can get you.

ID points to religion. Universal Intelligence=God, any way you slice it or dice it. God=religion.

We have separation of church and state. The founding fathers wanted it that way because they didn't just fall off the turnip truck. These were virtually all men of God, for chrissakes!

If it is even mildly flavored with one drop of religion, it cannot be taught in the fucking schools.

If was done the way these yo-yos really want it done, it would have to be done as a standalone class, because it blends science with religion. How would you like your kid having to take a mandatory religion class? Let's say you stuck it out in rough school system because you have issues with parochial education (or just can't afford it, even)- how would you like that thrown down the lane at you?

I despise the way these people whine. I despise the way they operate. They are self-delusional beyond belief. They vaccilate between telling us what some supposed majority wants, and acting like minority victims.

I have only two answers for this behavior. The first is that they are incapable of being honest with themselves, because they don't have the balls to be what they are. In a way, I can respect a blatant racist more because at least it's what you see is what you get- they're authentic in their hatred and ignorance. Just come out and say it: WE ARE FUNDAMENTALIST CHRISTIANS, AND SO ARE YOU. TIME TO TAKE BACK AMERICA.

But, alas, hypocrisy does not allow for such cleanliness of purpose.

The second is that they are a pack of willfully underhanded, backstabbing, sneaky little bitches.

I tend to hedge towards option two.

rde
Spirit forgive me, but fuck those assholes.

(Edited by Rich Engle on 12/23, 11:40am)

Post 25

Friday, December 23, 2005 - 1:06pm

Yes, it's a rational number. All I meant was that even simple ratios can require endless digits in decimal form.

Post 26

Saturday, December 24, 2005 - 6:31am

Ethan,

My interest is not in defending ID. ID merely begs the question about the origins of life. I have a passionate interest in the question of the origin of life, however, and if I have to commit heresy by discussing evolution's inability to get at that answer, so be it.

Post 27

Saturday, December 24, 2005 - 6:45am

Rodney,

1/3 of three apples is l. One third of a dollar results in the string of threes you refer to.

Pi is the ratio of the circumference to the diameter of a circle. We are able to measure triangles, squares, cubes, even romboids with precision, so why is it that the precise measurement of a circle eludes us. The hypotenuse was no mean task.

But Aaron is correct we know enough to "enough to guide spacecraft to Pluto" just as bowlers know enough to throw a strike.

All of this is a diversion, however, from my real interest which is, in case I haven't been redundant enough, the origin of life.

Post 28

Saturday, December 24, 2005 - 7:29am

Robert:

Pi is the ratio of the circumference to the diameter of a circle. We are able to measure triangles, squares, cubes, even romboids with precision, so why is it that the precise measurement of a circle eludes us. The hypotenuse was no mean task.

A circle is not a physical thing that we can "measure", it's a mathematical construct, just as the number pi. And the number pi is not a rational number, so it doesn't have a finite decimal expansion, that's all. There is nothing that "eludes" us, everything is crystal clear.

Post 29

Saturday, December 24, 2005 - 7:44am

Robert:

I have a passionate interest in the question of the origin of life, however, and if I have to commit heresy by discussing evolution's inability to get at that answer, so be it.

Evolution is very well able to answer the question of the origin of life in principle. That we at the moment only have very tentative theories is due to the fact that such theories are very difficult to test, as the first replicating molecules probably haven't left any traces like the fossil record of later stages in the evolution. That science is not the same as omniscience is no reason to embrace pseudoscience, however.

Post 30

Saturday, December 24, 2005 - 9:19am

"Pi is the ratio of the circumference to the diameter of a circle. We are able to measure triangles, squares, cubes, even rhomboids with precision, so why is it that the precise measurement of a circle eludes us? The hypotenuse was no mean task."

Robert, your above comment possibly shows merely that you know little about mathematics. But I am inclined to think that it also shows you believe this world to be only one of an infinite number of possible worlds. This would be in line with ID, which implies that view. In either case, I'll drop out here.

(Edited by Rodney Rawlings on 12/24, 9:21am)

Post 31

Saturday, December 24, 2005 - 10:19am

Dragonfly wrote:

A circle is not a physical thing that we can "measure", it's a mathematical construct, just as the number pi.

That seems a very Platonic idea of 'circle' and 'pi'. What do you call the shape at either end of a physical cylinder? We can measure its circumference and diameter and their ratio will be close to pi. We can not "measure" the mathematician's abstract circle, but the circumference of such abstract circle can be computed, relative to its diameter, with this infinite series:

pi= 4*(1-1/3+1/5-1/7+1/9-1/11+ ...)

(Edited by Merlin Jetton on 12/24, 10:20am)

Post 32

Saturday, December 24, 2005 - 10:56am

Merlin:

That seems a very Platonic idea of 'circle' and 'pi'. What do you call the shape at either end of a physical cylinder?

Mathematics is of course a very useful tool for describing the physical world, but we shouldn't confuse the abstract ("Platonic") concepts of mathematics with the physical objects to which we apply these concepts.

We can measure its circumference and diameter and their ratio will be close to pi.

Sure, but that's not relevant to this discussion (Robert: "why is it that the precise measurement of a circle eludes us?").

We can not "measure" the mathematician's abstract circle, but the circumference of such abstract circle can be computed, relative to its diameter, with this infinite series:

pi= 4*(1-1/3+1/5-1/7+1/9-1/11+ ...)

That's correct, but this series is very impractical for calculating pi, as it converges very slowly. For computer calculations other algorithms are used.

Post 33

Saturday, December 24, 2005 - 7:02pm

Dragonfly,

Since you seem to be the only one not throwing tantums, I will continue with you.

You say:

That science is not the same as omniscience is no reason to embrace pseudoscience, however.

It is not that easy. Yes there are the labels science and pseudoscience. But they describe the politics of science. Germ theory was once pseudoscience as were stones falling from the sky, cataclysm and moving continents. The established order has a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.

Bear in mind, however, that we have changed the subject. We are no longer discussing ID and should perhaps move to another thread if you have an interest in pursuing this topic.

Post 34

Saturday, December 24, 2005 - 7:04pm