--- 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: > > > > > --- 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.
Well, more power to them if they can be successful in doing that. Of course, they'll have to do it from a scientific basis, so good luck to them...but they shouldn't be denied the opportunity, should they? > > > > > 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, Documentation? I don't need no stinkin' documentation. MMY is a monk from the Vedic tradition. Didn't Brahma create the universe from within a lotus flower? If I am incorrect on that, then replace the lotus flower creation story with an equally impossible alternate supernatural story from the Vedas. > and (b) that it rules out evolution after the universe > emerges from the bowels of the lotus petal. Who said it does? I myself believe in evolution AND in God and all that...I've never seen a conflict and, indeed, think that creationism and evolution are entirely compatible... > > Is evolution taught at MUM? ...that's where I learned it... > > > > 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" are constructs to explain perfect orderliness that limited consciousness can't comprehend the orderliness and perfection in. That's why Einstein didn't like quantum mechanics; the idea that you can't predict with 100% certainty where an electron will be at any point just didn't sit comfortably with him. The fact that science can's predict where a particular electron is going to be at any particular moment -- only the PROBABILITY of where it will be -- doesn't mean there isn't 100% orderliness and intelligence guiding the placement and direction of that particular election, only that WE, with our limited consciousness and limited scientific knowledge, resources and equipment, can't figure out where it will be. But "nature" or wholeness or whatever you want to call it DOES know exactly where that electron will be. > > > 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? Yeah, I've been wondering that lately, too! > > Your formulation is off. It's more complicated than > that, but I don't have time to get into it. Well, then, I don't want you to worry your pretty little head. Go eat a bon-bon. > 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. Actually, the "randomness" observed in any rhealm of scientific enquiry is pretty much similar to the so-called "randomness" of quantum mechanics in that they are all considered "random". > 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/
