Re: RE: MD Wisconsin School OKs Creationism Teaching

From: Scott Roberts (jse885@earthlink.net)
Date: Sat Nov 13 2004 - 04:45:48 GMT

  • Next message: mel: "RE: MD Wisconsin School OKs Creationism Teaching"

    Ian,

    No one on this list, as far back as I can remember, has denied evolution.

    If you don't want to argue about it, I would refrain from remarks about
    "people who want to believe some fairy story or other". Some, like myself,
    do not consider evolution solely through chance and natural selection to be
    a very promising theory, but I have no great desire to argue about it. I
    will respond, though, when it is put forth as a given, and I will also
    respond when people, such as yourself, do not distinguish between
    "evolution" and "evolution solely through chance and natural selection".

    - Scott

    > [Original Message]
    > From: Ian Glendinning <ian@psybertron.org>
    > To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
    > Date: 11/12/2004 6:13:38 PM
    > Subject: Re: RE: MD Wisconsin School OKs Creationism Teaching
    >
    > Mark, good luck with this line.
    > Pragmatically, you're completely correct, but I've given up on here.
    >
    > Something like "evolution" is clearly not conclusively falsifiable in any
    > general sense, whether its "actually" true or not.
    > The argument you're having depends entirely on people's motivations for
    > arguing with (or against) you.
    > No amount of "evidence" will "convince" people who "want" to believe some
    > fairy story or other.
    > No reasonable person should be arguing to "win", rather to learn I'd hope,
    > but some people seem hell-bent on preventing any useful or constructive
    > synthesis, and MD is doomed to stasis at ground zero so long as every
    > mention of evolution (which amply and pragmatically fits with MoQ) is
    > greeted with the "it's just a theory" mantra.
    >
    > Madness is the only escape from this rational trap, as I thought Pirsig's
    > sad experience had taught us.
    > There but for the grace of god [sic], go we all.
    > Let's not go there. Move on. Beyond maths and the science lab, there are
    no
    > axioms.
    > What really winds me up, as I've said so many times, are the
    > fairy-story-believers who use use rational argument when it suits their
    > motives.
    >
    > [Quote]
    > My axioms were so clean-hewn,
    > The joins of 'thus' and 'therefore' neat
    > But, I admit
    > Life would not fit
    > Between straight lines
    > And all the cornflowers said was 'blue,'
    > All summer long, so blue.
    > So when the sea came in and with one wave
    > Threatened to wash my edifice away -
    > I let it.
    > [Unquote]
    > by Marianne Jones
    > http://www.psybertron.org/2002_12_01_archive.html#90096806
    >
    > Best wishes,
    > Ian
    >
    > ----- Original Message -----
    > From: "Mark Steven Heyman" <markheyman@infoproconsulting.com>
    > To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
    > Sent: Friday, November 12, 2004 11:53 PM
    > Subject: Re: RE: MD Wisconsin School OKs Creationism Teaching
    >
    >
    > > On 12 Nov 2004 at 13:13, Charles Roberts wrote:
    > > [Scott:] ID is a theory of evolution.
    > >
    > > msh says:
    > > Sure. Just not a scientific theory. See below.
    > >
    > >
    > > scott:
    > > Evolution by chance and natural selection is a hypothesis on how this
    > > evolution comes about. ID is a different hypothesis. Neither can
    > > claim scientific conclusiveness. Both are assumed based on
    > > philosophical predispositions.
    > >
    > > msh says:
    > > Scientific conclusiveness? Of course not. There's nothing
    > > conclusive about the existence of quarks. Does this mean quantum
    > > mechanics shouldn't be taught in a physics class?
    > >
    > > The question is, which of the two hypotheses is scientifically
    > > viable? We see scientific evidence of the workings of chance
    > > mutations and natural selection every day. Just visit any neo-natal
    > > ward at any hospital. In any species, any time a male defeats a
    > > weaker male (perhaps one with genetically inferior vision) for the
    > > right to procreate, you're seeing evidence of natural selection.
    > > There is so MUCH evidence for chance and natural selection as the
    > > mechanism of evolution that it is difficult to understand why anyone
    > > would deny it. But maybe that's where one's "philosophical [or
    > > religious] disposition" comes in.
    > >
    > > >msh said:
    > > > BTW, ID is just a new name for an old argument for the existence of
    > > > God. The ID version has some highly questionable probability
    > > > calculations, but the theory itself hasn't overcome David Hume's
    > > > original arguments against it, as far as I can determine. FWIW, I'm
    > > > writing a longer piece on this, and hope to post it tonight.
    > >
    > > [Scott:] Nonsense. If the probability calculations happened to bear
    > > out, then Hume's arguments would be partially overcome.
    > >
    > > msh says:
    > > Well, maybe. But his most devastating argument remains in tact,
    > > regardless. Setting aside the fact that our observations of the
    > > evolution of life reveals a messy process that is not all that
    > > orderly, is what we humans "perceive" to be order in the universe
    > > sufficient to prove the existence of a universal designer? When
    > > someone rolls five dice and they come up sixes, is this evidence that
    > > the dice are loaded?
    > >
    > > As for the so-called probability calculations upon which ID hangs its
    > > hat, they seem to me to ignore important scientific background
    > > information, resulting in much lower probability estimates than are
    > > fairly warranted. But I'll go into this more in a later post, where
    > > I'll take a look at one of these probability filters.
    > >
    > > Best,
    > > msh
    > > --
    > > InfoPro Consulting - The Professional Information Processors
    > > Custom Software Solutions for Windows, PDAs, and the Web Since 1983
    > > Web Site: http://www.infoproconsulting.com
    > >
    > > "Thought is only a flash between two long nights, but this flash is
    > > everything." -- Henri Poincare'
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    > > Mail Archives:
    > > Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    > > Nov '02 Onward -
    > http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    > > MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
    > >
    > > To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    > > http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
    > >
    >
    >
    >
    > MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    > Mail Archives:
    > Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    > Nov '02 Onward -
    http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    > MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
    >
    > To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    > http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html

    MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 13 2004 - 04:56:15 GMT