--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "shempmcgurk" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "shempmcgurk" > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "authfriend" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > wrote: > > > > > Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity with New "Intelligent > > > Falling" > > > > > Theory > > > > > > > > > > http://www.theonion.com/news/index.php?issue=4133&n=2 > > > > > > > > Funny stuff. > > > > > > > > But I find it ironic that all of us here on this "TM" forum are > > > > joining in the jibes. After all, "creative intelligence" and > SCI > > > > was virtually the same attempt at secularizing something > > spiritual > > > > and religious...and didn't we all participate in it? > > > > > > I supported the court decision against teaching > > > TM in public high schools, actually. > > > > > > But there *is* a difference between the version of > > > Intelligent Design that is currently being pushed > > > and SCI. This version of ID is said to be *an > > > alternative theory* to that of evolution. > > > > > > In contrast, evolution could be taught just as it > > > is now in the context of SCI; there's no > > > incompatibility, no "alternative" quality at all. > > > Evolution would be considered to be an expression > > > of creative intelligence. > > > > > > Intelligent Design in its more generic form, as opposed > > > to the fundie version, doesn't require belief in *an > > > intelligent divine being*. In that sense, SCI is indeed > > > very similar. > > > > > > SCI is borderline where the First Amendment is concerned, > > > and the courts were right to err on the side of caution, > > > IMHO. But the fundie version of ID is a big step *over* > > > the line. > > > > > > If the same legal standards are applied to fundie ID > > > as were applied to TM/SCI in New Jersey, ID will never > > > get through. > > > > I agree...but that was because SCI did, indeed, cross the line. > > Er, then you *don't* agree, Shemp. I just got > done saying SCI was borderline.
No, you just got done saying that ID would never get through, just like SCI and, above, you agreed with the decision in the SCI case. > > > If the Fundies can water down ID enough for legal purposes, > > They can't and still have it do what they want, as I > pointed out. The whole purpose is to provide an > *alternative* to evolution, to suggest that evolution > might be in error. Maybe it will compliment evolution, just as SCI can... > > > they may have something that is very similar to SCI. > > I don't think you really read what I wrote, Shemp. > > If it were that similar to SCI, (a) it wouldn't serve > the purpose they want, and (b) it *still* wouldn't > pass legal muster if the same standards were used as > for TM in New Jersey. "similar" isn't the "same". > > > Funnily enough, I'm sure if you presented ID to MMY today, he'd > > probably like it very much! > > Not the fundie version, which denies the validity of > evolution. And do you honestly think MMY believes in evolution? Ha! MMY believes the universe was created in the bowels of a lotus petal. > SCI, as I noted, simply sees evolution, > with all its apparent randomness, as an expression of > creative intelligence; randomness is part of the > design. > > Fundie ID can't tolerate the notion of randomness. There IS no randomness in nature and SCI certainly doesn't say that. Where did you get that idea? Randomness -- and entropy for that matter -- is a state of consciousness. > > And again, fundie ID requires belief in a Designer, > a sentient deity who reaches down and tweaks things > according to a plan. SCI does not. Not when SCI is presented properly. But, of course, it doesn't rule it out and, as you and I know, its founder and guru, MMY, certainly believes in a Designer, just as the Fundies do! Ha ha ha, do you think MMY is some sort of Alan Dershowitz secular-type who believes in separation of church and state? > > There are perfectly respectable scientists who > believe in the more abstract, nonfundie version > of Intelligent Design, including Einstein, but > who actively reject the notion of a Designer > doing any tweaking. No, you got it wrong. Einstein was very much in the camp of the Fundies as YOU describe them above when you said "Fundies can't tolerate the notion of randomness". Einstein hated "randomness" and said as such when he rejected the idea of quantum mechanics: "God does not play dice with the universe" ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
