Re: RE: MD Wisconsin School OKs Creationism Teaching

From: Ian Glendinning (ian@psybertron.org)
Date: Sat Nov 13 2004 - 11:43:23 GMT

  • Next message: David Morey: "Re: RE: MD Wisconsin School OKs Creationism Teaching"

    Scott,

    I'm more than happy to distinguish
    "evolution"
    from
    evolution "solely" by chance and natural "selection"

    (Though I find the choices of the words "solely"and "selection"
    pejorative, - just looking for an argument.)

    In fact when I say "evolution" all I mean is ...
    Evolution by any "natural (real, believable, true) processes".
    (physical, biological, sociological and intellectual, whatever processes)
    Something changes in one generation (for whatever reason), and is
    Preserved or re-inforced in a subsequent generation (by whatever mechanism).

    It's credible, testable and falsifiable (in part) against lots of evidence,
    and consistent with everyday experience, even thoughtful, analytical
    everyday experience. I just do not need a fairy story to believe it.

    This is at least the tenth time round this loop in my short two years on
    MoQ.

    Ian
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Scott Roberts" <jse885@earthlink.net>
    To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
    Sent: Saturday, November 13, 2004 4:45 AM
    Subject: Re: 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
    >

    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 - 11:45:51 GMT