--- 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: > > > > --- 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.
I also said SCI was borderline, Shemp, and that I thought it was appropriate for the courts to *err* on the side of caution. And I said fundie ID was *not* borderline but clearly over the line. > > > 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... Not fundie ID. You're not reading what I'm writing. The fundies don't *want* to complement evolution, they want it to be seen as incorrect. > > > 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". Non sequitur. Read it again, Shemp. > > > 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. Documentation, please, that (a) this is what he believes, and (b) that it rules out evolution after the universe emerges from the bowels of the lotus petal. Is evolution taught at MUM? > > 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? Evolution involves random mutations, Shemp. > 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 Right. > and, as you and I know, its founder and guru, MMY, certainly > believes in a Designer, just as the Fundies do! Not the same kind of Designer. Ha ha ha, do you > think MMY is some sort of Alan Dershowitz secular-type who believes > in separation of church and state? Hmmm, wonder why he calls it *Science* of Creative Intelligence? Your formulation is off. It's more complicated than that, but I don't have time to get into it. Basically, he doesn't see a separation between spirituality and science; he thinks spirituality is scientific. The basis for separation of church and state is a misunderstanding about the nature of the universe, the notion that divine and mundane are two different realms. > > 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" Different issue entirely. Did he disagree with evolution? (My response to Einstein: God *does* play dice with the universe, but He can calculate the odds to infinity.) ------------------------ 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/
