-----Platt, Thursday, July 12, 2007 16:54----- It will be interesting to see how the courts treat the question of allowing Muslim religious practices to take place during school hours on school property. I understand this is being permitted in some cities. In any event, I don't see the harm in allowing "Intelligent Design" to be introduced as a separate evolutionary theory. I don't think it threatens an establishment of religion as conceived by the Founding Fathers. Further, it teaches what science itself preaches -- knowledge is not absolute. -----
Intellectual knowledge is never absolute and, as Pirsig says, the power of science lies in its Dynamic eraser, its willingness to change as new evidence is considered and its avoidance of dogmatism. If "Intelligent Design" were a theory accepted by scientists, I would have no problem with it being taught along side Darwinian natural selection in science classes just as I would have no problem with M theory being taught alongside Superstring theory in science classes. However, these competing speculative theories in cosmology have testable hypotheses that would allow one of them to be disproved. "Intelligent Design" does not appear to have any testable hypotheses and does not qualify as a scientific theory. If one wants to have it taught in Social Studies or World Cultures or Comparative Religion, I offer my endorsement. Just don't try to teach it in a science classroom, as that puts science right back in the lap of religious dogma, a clear case of Society subverting Intellect. Given that, teaching "Intelligent Design" as science in a public school does violate the Establishment clause of the U.S. Constitution, as Judge Jones found. -----Platt, Thursday, July 12, 2007 16:54----- I have no problem with gays getting "married" without a formal contract recognized by the state. But "married" as recognized by the state means a union of a man and women to procreate and raise children within a family setting, long recognized by societies throughout the world and over eons of time as the best arrangement for insuring long term social viability. Thus, I don't feel maintaining the status quo regarding marriage is "anti- gay." ----- "Married" as *currently* recognized by most states means a union of a man and a woman, whether or not they procreate and raise children. I am legally married to a woman with no intention of fathering children. If some states want to recognize legally the same social pair-bond between same-sex couples, why interfere other than to advance a prejudice against gays? What effect on long-term social viability would allowing that legal recognition have? Do you think heterosexuals will suddenly stop getting married to each other & procreating if they knew that they could instead get married to someone of their own sex instead? Do you think gay couples shouldn't raise children? I know committed gay couples who adopt children now even without the benefit of legally recognized marriage. That's become quite common. Is that dynamic of loving, committed couples adopting unwanted children undermining our social viability? Your appeal to tradition makes no sense to me in this context. -----Platt, Thursday, July 12, 2007 16:54----- It's not so much my line of reasoning as Pirsig's which is spelled out in detail in Lila. Basically the scientific subject-object mindset prevalent today considers morality, if it considers it at all, as completely subjective, a matter of personal whim. Pirsig explains: "From the perspective of a subject-object science, the world is a completely purposeless, valueless place. There is no point in anything. Nothing is right and nothing is wrong. Everything just functions, like machinery. There is nothing morally wrong with being lazy, nothing morally wrong with lying, with theft, with suicide, with murder, with genocide. There is nothing morally wrong because there are no morals, just functions. Now that intellect was in command of society for the first time in history, was this the intellectual pattern it was going to run society with?" (Lila, 22) ----- Yes, I'm familiar with that quotation. My confusion on this stems from your reference to this point in context of saying that socialism & communism were intellectual patterns trying to control society. I don't understand the connection. I think socialism & communism both make strong moral judgments, coming down in favor of human equality, against class distinctions, etc. I don't see either socialism or communism as sciences, however, and don't see how they are devoid of values. Sorry I'm still missing it. I realize in looking over this thread that since I keep cutting out the text where we agree to keep my posts of manageable length, that it seems from the text that we only disagree, but in fact despite these divergences we have significant common ground. moq_discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
