intelligent design
I have two objections to your argument here, Charles.
First, you are evaluating religion based on the criteria for evaluating
science. That says that religion isn't science. Well, I wan't saying it is
and, with some possible exceptions, that's
what i'm trying to understand is why intelligent design is supposed to
be taught in science classrooms if its proponents do not think it
scientific? i don't have behe to hand, but clearly ID proponents do see
ID as explanatory in a way that is supposed to show up in a science
classroom. many
On 12/8/05, Charles Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
intelligent design
I have two objections to your argument here, Charles.
First, you are evaluating religion based on the criteria for evaluating
science. That says that religion isn't science. Well, I wan't
I also didn't say all that, but all the double negatives make it impossible to reply. A clerical error is no more scientific than a Clerical error.The Sandwichman Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:I didn't say all that. But I agree.
Find your next car at Yahoo! Canada Autos
Jeffrey Fisher [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:it seems pretty simple, really: either intelligent design is a scientific hypothesis or it isn't. if there is a "mythical" (interesting choice of words) conflict between science and religion, it is as much religious as scientists who keep it alive.No, it's
On 12/8/05, Sandwichman wrote:
.I don't think it is either scientists or priests who promote a
mythical conflict between science and religion. It is, rather,
newspaper editors and talk show producers. That is to say, the class
of salaried intellectuals-in-uniform who populate the
There are two layers of ideology in textbooks. On the one level in disciplines
such as
economics, the practitioners themselves have gone through highly ideological
indoctrination. On another level, the companies that see the textbook as a
commodity to be
marketed are concerned to make the
On 12/8/05, Sandwichman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jeffrey Fisher [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
it
seems pretty simple, really: either intelligent design is a scientific
hypothesis or it isn't. if there is a mythical (interesting choice of
words) conflict between science and religion, it is as much
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:then how do you explain the case of a bunch of religious folks inPennsylvania who got elected to the school board and then introducedID into the school science curriculum?Surrogates. People who make a gaudy display of their religiousity are not thereby "more
And Oxford just agreed to a second edition of The Dynamics of Social
Welfare Policy. The market is different in social work schools, but they've
agreed to push it even more aggresively as the left in social welfare
policy.
Joel Blau
Original Message:
-
From: Jim Devine [EMAIL
Good point, but how long has it been since Hunt Sherman?
On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 09:00:27AM -0800, Jim Devine wrote:
Michael Perelman writes:
Would [a company be] willing to take a chance on and market rather than
publish another me-too textbook[?] You know the answer in advance.
Jeffrey Fisher [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:for example, "Dembski, in Signs of Intelligence, claimsLook, I'm not interested in getting sucked into a debate about the merits or otherwise of intelligent design. I have bigger fish to fry.I'm more interested in the designs of intelligence.we
On 12/8/05, Sandwichman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jeffrey Fisher [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
for example, Dembski, in Signs of Intelligence, claims
Look, I'm not interested in getting sucked into a debate about the
merits or otherwise of intelligent design. I have bigger fish to
fry.I'm more
is it fair or helpful to ask what you think of gilkey's argument in _creationism on trial_?
On 12/8/05, Jeffrey Fisher [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 12/8/05, Sandwichman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jeffrey Fisher [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
for example, Dembski, in Signs of Intelligence, claims
Jeffrey Fisher [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: is it fair or helpful to ask what you think of gilkey's argument in _creationism on trial_?Never heard of him.The Sandwichman
Find your next car at Yahoo! Canada Autos
But you left out supposed to be, Charles. Very often X utters some
speculative anecdote, Y repeats it as if it was an observation based on
evidence then Z enshrines it in a textbook, without giving a source, as well
established fact. Then alpha, beta, gamma, delta and omega recite the
I have two objections to your argument here, Charles. First, you are evaluating religion based on the criteria for evaluating science. That says that religion isn't science. Well, I wan't saying it is and, with some possible exceptions, that's not what the ID folks claim either. I'm sure
Re: intelligent design
CB: This is sort of true, but there is a qualitative difference
between the
faith -2 that you refer to and the Faith-1 that I refer to. The
Job-type-1 Faith demands in principle that we believe without
evidence.
But you left out "supposed to be," Charles. Very often X utters some speculative anecdote, Y repeats it as if it was an observation based on evidence then Z enshrines it in a textbook, without giving a source, as well established fact. Then alpha, beta, gamma, delta and omega recite the
there is nothing intelligent about that design it is intelligible. this is similar to what i heard today socially responsible corporations
Yahoo! Personals
Let fate take it's course directly to your email.
See who's waiting for you Yahoo! Personals
* From: Sandwichman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Whether we like it or not, we DO accept a lot of what we know on faith.
Even with science, we assume that some scientist somewhere has done due
diligence with the original data and that the scientist's findings are being
faithfully transmitted to us.
Charles Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: CB: This is sort of true, but there is a qualitative difference between the"faith -2 " that you refer to and the "Faith-1" that I refer to. TheJob-type-1 Faith demands in principle that we believe without evidence.There may, in principle, be a
-clip-
So, according to ID, God created critters that kill their mates during the
sex act? and parasites which destroy their hosts?
ID tells us to glory in our ignorance, attributing good unexplained events
(etc.) to God's acts and bad ones to the Devil (or ignoring such events
altogether). (Of
Whether we like it or not, we DO accept a lot of what we "know" on faith. Even with science, we assume that some scientist somewhere has done due diligence with the original data and that the scientist's findings are being faithfully transmitted to us. People have made fun of Intelligent
On 12/2/05, Sandwichman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Whether we like it or not, we DO accept a lot of what we know on faith.
Even with science, we assume that some scientist somewhere has done due
diligence with the original data and that the scientist's findings are being
faithfully
Greetings Economists,
Sandwichman writes,
we know on faith
Doyle,
I think Charles argument though is quite to the point, if we can't know
something by definition then talking about faith is irrelevant. All
one is stating with the term belief, is that emotion structure allows
us to hold a set of
On 12/2/05, Doyle Saylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Doyle,
I think Charles argument though is quite to the point, if we can't know
something by definition then talking about faith is irrelevant. All
one is stating with the term belief, is that emotion structure allows
us to hold a set of
Greetings Economists,
I like what Charles says:
Charles writes,
The explanation that it is caused by the design of an intelligence says
the
cause is some being like humans ( God is in humans'image; has
intelligence
which characterizes us alone). That is , that we _know_ something about
the
The explanation that something is random is saying there are causes, but we
don't know what they are. It admits that we don't know everything.-
The explanation that it is caused by the design of an intelligence says the
cause is some being like humans ( God is in humans'image; has intelligence
FWIW, here's a little dialogue that resulted from my sending of my
little story to a philosophy professor:
[him:]
1.Intelligent design is properly a philosophical theory, not a
scientific theory...
[me:] right, but ID _pretends_ to be scientific, or something that should be
taught as
Randomness may be ontological as well and not simply the result of our
ignorance of the complexity of biophysical world. ... Perhaps even
more disconcerting is that in many contexts we lack adequate decision
procedures for determing whether the randomness at issue is
ontological or simply
On 11/30/05, Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
right. But if we want to understand what's going on, an effort should
be made to minimize the role of epistemological randomness (rather
than glorying in it, the ID perspective). There will likely be
ontological randomness remaining...
(BTW,
Back in July, I was driving in Austin, Texas, and my extremely small
car was hit by a truck. To my surprise, no-one was hurt, even though
the car itself was totalled. Instead of collapsing and hurting me and
the passengers (my family), the car was pushed into traffic. Luckily,
the traffic was very
At around 29/11/05 2:22 pm, Jim Devine wrote:
On the other hand, the luck theory is very clear: there's no way that
every single event in a very complex universe could ever be explained
or predicted. There's no way that sufficient information could be
collected to make the kind of explanation
On 11/29/05, ravi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I see it somewhat opposite: Darwinian theory, or any scientific theory,
is always incomplete, for reasons of complexity you mention above, and
other logical issues. However, the word 'luck' does poorly in addressing
this issue of contingency.
35 matches
Mail list logo
