Let's put it this way: what piece of evidence can you imagine that would make you say, "You're right. There is clearly no intelligent designer."
If you take the stronger "irreducibly complex" idea, it's falsifiable in each instance you might want to posit it. It's only necessary to demonstrate a serious of steps to arrive at the posited "irreducibly complex" structure, each of which is in some way beneficial to the organism in question.
In fact, that is exactly what many evolutionists have been doing to debunk claims of irreducible complexity.
So you can falsify the hypothesis that intelligent design is NECESSARY to explain some phenomenon. You can't falsify the argument that intelligent design is a POSSIBLE explanation for some phenomenon.
God may think you're the bees knees, but he gave the good eyes to the celaphopods...
He also made the cheetah faster, the elephant stronger, the beagle with a better sense of smell, the dolphin a better swimmer, the sparrow a better flier, the lily of the field better dressed...
But, it is part of a larger trend of religious conservatives fighting tooth and nail against intellectualism in general. And that is what's killing our schools.
Up until here, your argument was pretty reasonable.
But to believe that religion is "killing our schools" is silly. Detroit turned down a multi-million dollar grant from an individual to start a charter schools because the NEA felt threatened by it. Compared to the road block to reform and progress that is the NEA, religion has negligible impact on the quality of a public education in the U.S.A.
Go look at what has happened to education in public schools in the past 10 years and get back to me.
I have nothing against organized religion.
I do have something against organized religion preaching in direct contradiction to accepted science, while providing no evidence to the contrary, other then "its in this book, so you cant teach the obvious, accepted science."
If you think religion is the problem in public schools, why do so many Catholic schools offer superior educations to public schools in the same neighborhoods?
Without a challenge from the intelligent design folks, evolutionary science would be in a rut.
It's the intelligent design folks who are pushing forward the more interesting questions: What mechanisms create information? How do you explain organic structures that appear to be irreducibly complex?
These are very interesting questions, and they would be getting nowhere near the attention they're getting if it wasn't for the intelligent design movement.
Since the "God planned it all along" argument is non-falsifiable,...
How so?
Make the question more general. Here's a foobar, something a bit different than anything else we've seen so far. Is there a way to determine whether the foobar is a thing designed by some kind of intelligence, or came about by totally natural causes?
Why is this question inherently un-falsifiable, any more or less than any other question? Why is this question extremely interesting to the geek crowd when running SETI@home, but so threatening when its object is a living thing?
. While creationists attempt to cite this uncertainty as a weakness, it is one of science's greatest strengths. There is no place for dogma in science.
Science is dogma.
That is not the scientific method, because they do not approach their hypothesis with neutrality.
Have you ever been within 100 miles of academia, let alone know anyone there? Must be nice to have such a pure, virginal view of the academic world.
Scientists should not be spending their time attempting to discredit creationists. Any attempt to answer creationists on their own ground merely adds credence to their beliefs.
What's the Ghandi quote, "First they ignore you, then they persecute you, then you win?"
I'm not going to try to forcibly teach your kids and everybody's kids that the earth is flat, or that vampires are real, or that visual basic is the One True Language, just because I happen to believe it is the case.
No, you're forcibly teaching them that everything that happens must be explained solely by mechanical, material forces and interactions. Just because you happen to believe it is the case. But that's different.
Personally, I don't feel comfortable in allowing national policy to be set by those who feel that nature exists solely for the exploitation of humans and should be used up before the imminent second coming.
Why not?
I mean, humans are just another part of nature, right? For surely you accept that there is nothing BUT nature, no? What sense in there in protecting one arbitrary part of nature from some other arbitrary part? What is the sense in saying that a world in which humans exploit nature is better than one in which they don't?
For someone trying to come across as un-religious, you certainly betray a lot of religious fervor.
May I suggest you think about why the ID folk only want *their* Intelligent Designs taught in schools?
Simple. They're just playing by the rules that secular materialists have put in place to mandate what kinds of ideas can be broached in a public school.
The whole point of Intelligent Design is that it scrupulously avoids mention of the Bible or any other religious text. So if any of those other systems want to be included in a discussion in a public classroom, I guess they need to hitch on to Intelligent Design or come up with an equivalent.
Mind you, this is something that the materialists have put in place, not Christians or any other religion.
You know that most of Europe and a few other countries for some reason or other backs Kerry, right (worldwide polls put Kerry at 70%, Bush at sub-20%, with only Korea and one other nation backing Bush)?
The reason for this is simple. The U.S. is the only rich kid in a poor neighborhood with a nice football (American or Rest of the World football, for this illustration it doesn't matter). So when the kids get together, all the rest of the kids suggest the best way to decide things is for everyone to have one vote over how to use that football. On the other hand, the kid with the football thinks the fact that it's his football means he should decide how the football is used.
Kerry is the kid who, even thought it will be his football, will give in to what all the other kids want so he can be liked and popular.
So yeah, of course the poorer kids would prefer that Kerry have the football than that other rich kid.
We didn't catch many of the terrorists behind 9/11 because Bush allowed them to leave by plane the next day to Saudi Arabia, when all other planes in the country were grounded. Among them were several members of the bin Laden family. Authorized by the president himself.
Dude, the fact that there were Saudis who left the U.S. is not the same thing as saying there were terrorists who left the U.S. This may come as a shock to you, but it may even be possible that there are relatives of bin Laden WHO ARE NOT THEMSELVES TERRORISTS.
Mind bending thought, I know, but try to wrap your mind around it.
At least abortion is a well reasoned choice, where you take responsibility for your own action when it matters: before you make a mistake that leads to years of easy-to-measure human suffering.
But doesn't that apply equally to those with the misfortune to have been actually born, and, in your eyes, are experiencing "easy-to-measure human suffering"? Wouldn't the consistent position to abort these poor souls, too, even now? Is that not the most humane thing?
However, I do agree with your point that it is the snuffing out of a potential human life. It just doesn't bother me, what with the overpopulation and AIDS killing a zillion people a day.
Basically, it looks like you're able to justify the ending of pretty much any human life except your own. Or am I wrong in assuming you draw a distinction even there?
To really clear the air, I'd even let you say life began with conception, and that abortion was actually killing a real live person. I just wouldn't call it murder, with all the punishment attached
Of course. Because you're safely out of the womb. I mean, who cares for rights for anyone in a different situation or stage of life than your own, right?
By the way, real funny remark about the potty training. As the father of an 8 month old and 2 1/2 year old, I was greatly amused by that.
Generally, attempts at humor reveal a lot about a person's true beliefs, so I recommend anyone reading your comments keep that remark in mind.
Think of it. We have soldiers fighting iraqis so we can make them obey Allawi instead of somebody else. That does not seem right to me. If the people of sadr city don't want to be ruled by Allawi and instead want to follow Muqtada why should we care?
Where to begin?
Remember the Taliban? Not too long ago, we were all thinking "Pretty bad guys, but not our problem." Then it turned out they were instrumental in the death of 3,000 Americans.
Just listen to what the Al Sadr's, the Zarqawi's, etc. are saying. They want nothing more or less than to create another Taliban-ish state, and their long term objective is the eradication of all who hold any view except their narrow interpretation of Islam.
The other obvious thing is that there is an election planned for January, and the Iraqi's can pick anyone they want, as long as it's really the IRAQI PEOPLE who are doing the picking. Do some reading, and you'll discover that there are a lot of Iraqi's who would prefer something other than another totalitarian theocracy as their system of government.
Of course, you probably the believe such an election will never happen, just like the Afghani's were unable to hold a successful election, where all the predictions about massive violence and voters unable to get to the polls came true.
As for Afghanistan, I'm going off of recent news reports, and sitting down for hours talking with soldiers that had just got back from there and had hundreds of photos they had taken. First hand.
And what did they say? Can you be more specific?
And speaking of pulling things out of your sphincter, the majority of military polled IN IRAQ were critical of Bush, not supportive.
From the link you cited:
This critical view comes from a military group that has a more favorable view of President Bush, Iraq, the economy and the nation's direction than Americans in general.
If Iraq wasn't involved, why in the hell did we attack them right in the middle of our real war on terror?
Because instead of looking backward at 9/11, it was necessary to brainstorm what the next threat might be. The Bush administration came to the conclusion that was Saddam Hussein. I think a case can still be made that Bush was right, but of course a lot of people think otherwise.
And Afghanistan, maybe 5% of that country is a democracy, the other 95% is a haven to terrorists, run by warlords, and one giant greenhouse for opium.
You're pulling this out of your sphincter. As far as I know, the entire country successfully voted. Do you have evidence otherwise?
Bush takes a few pictures and soundbites, and wants us to ignore everything else we see on TV and hear from those coming back from military service there.
Over 2/3 of military personnel and families support President Bush.
But by 2:00 PM on September 11th, 2001 he had pinned the attacks on Iraq, without evidence or reason, and never once wavered from that position.
No one in the Bush administration has ever stated that Saddam Hussein or Iraq was directly involved in the September 11th attacks.
I thought it was the conservatives that believed in government "of the people, by the people, for the people", not "of the big business, by the big business, for the big business".
No, it's not conservatives who have the knee jerk "business is evil mentality". That would be the liberals.
Over and over and over again Bush has sided with big business, and time and time again the losers are the American taxpayers, citizens, Constitution, and the environment.
Everyone who pays taxes in America got some kind of tax cut during Bush's administration. As for the environment, I haven't heard anyone refute what Bush said during the second debate, that air quality is BETTER under his administration, etc. For the most part, it's the HUMANS SUCK! crowd that has been producing the overblown rhetoric on Bush and the environment.
"kicking the evil-doers @sses"? Well, if he really cared about fighting terrorism, he would have fought terrorism. But by 2:00 PM on September 11th, 2001 he had pinned the attacks on Iraq, without evidence or reason, and never once wavered from that position.
Whatever your view of the Iraq war, do you seriously want to argue that Saddam was not an evil-doer? Or that his ass has not been kicked?
Meanwhile, only a small corner of Afghanistan is even remotely in our control, we have pulled out all of our troops but just enough to say we're still there (but far from enough to be effective),
Uh, it's good that Afghanistan is not "in our control" as it is a sovereign DEMOCRATIC nation that just had it's first election in history. The fact we are able to pull troops out of there is an indication of success.
Automotive mechanics
Carpentry (soon to branch out and study architecture and general contracting)
Farming/survival/self-sufficiency
Electronics (ok, this isn't too far from software, and about the same endangered status).
Just want to say, those are some pretty industrious hobbies you got for yourself. I imagine you don't spend much time sitting around watching TV, do you?:)
And on the surface, Bush appears to be a committed, conservative Christian who is really kicking the evil-doers @sses and loves America so much it hurts.
I can't believe Bush thinks "get a job" is an economic policy, which is why my wife and I are voting for Kerry this year.
The government can really only do 3 things to stimulate the economy.
Increase government spending.
Lower interest rates.
Lower taxes.
No one can say Bush didn't cut taxes. Nobody can say Bush hasn't been spending government money like crazy. Interest rates have been effectively zero for much of the past couple of years.
As far as what the government can do, the accelerator is already pushed down to the floor. Sorry to disappoint you, but there's nothing more Kerry will be able to do to get you a job than has already been done. If you listened carefully during the debates, you heard Kerry say that not even he could end the continued offshoring of American jobs.
I know most Americans think that the President (whether Democrat or Republican) has magic powers that he can use to bestow or with hold prosperity on every citizen. Unfortunately, it doesn't quite work that way.
Peace be with you, -jimbo
ps My educational track was pretty much equivalent to your wife's (BS Logic and Computation, MA Linguistics). It's an awfully fun and interesting field, but not a high volume of jobs. Today I'm employed as a lowly ecommerce developer, but it keeps my family clothed, fed and sheltered. Perhaps the government would be a good place to look for work in that field now, as others have suggested.
Slashdot Mirror
It's the economy. There is no issue more pressing.
And what's Kerry going to do that will get the economy moving faster than it's moving under Bush?
Peace be with you,
-jimbo
Let's put it this way: what piece of evidence can you imagine that would make you say, "You're right. There is clearly no intelligent designer."
If you take the stronger "irreducibly complex" idea, it's falsifiable in each instance you might want to posit it. It's only necessary to demonstrate a serious of steps to arrive at the posited "irreducibly complex" structure, each of which is in some way beneficial to the organism in question.
In fact, that is exactly what many evolutionists have been doing to debunk claims of irreducible complexity.
So you can falsify the hypothesis that intelligent design is NECESSARY to explain some phenomenon. You can't falsify the argument that intelligent design is a POSSIBLE explanation for some phenomenon.
Peace be with you,
-jimbo
God may think you're the bees knees, but he gave the good eyes to the celaphopods...
He also made the cheetah faster, the elephant stronger, the beagle with a better sense of smell, the dolphin a better swimmer, the sparrow a better flier, the lily of the field better dressed...
Your point is?
Peace be with you,
-jimbo
Did Christ point to the crowds or the Scribes in his famous "you brood of vipers" line?
He pointed to the crowds of Scribes.
Peace be with you,
-jimbo
But, it is part of a larger trend of religious conservatives fighting tooth and nail against intellectualism in general. And that is what's killing our schools.
Up until here, your argument was pretty reasonable.
But to believe that religion is "killing our schools" is silly. Detroit turned down a multi-million dollar grant from an individual to start a charter schools because the NEA felt threatened by it. Compared to the road block to reform and progress that is the NEA, religion has negligible impact on the quality of a public education in the U.S.A.
Peace be with you,
-jimbo
Go look at what has happened to education in public schools in the past 10 years and get back to me.
I have nothing against organized religion.
I do have something against organized religion preaching in direct contradiction to accepted science, while providing no evidence to the contrary, other then "its in this book, so you cant teach the obvious, accepted science."
If you think religion is the problem in public schools, why do so many Catholic schools offer superior educations to public schools in the same neighborhoods?
Peace be with you,
-jimbo
The evidence for evolution is overwhelming.
Without a challenge from the intelligent design folks, evolutionary science would be in a rut.
It's the intelligent design folks who are pushing forward the more interesting questions: What mechanisms create information? How do you explain organic structures that appear to be irreducibly complex?
These are very interesting questions, and they would be getting nowhere near the attention they're getting if it wasn't for the intelligent design movement.
Peace be with you,
-jimbo
It's when people try forcing their beliefs on me and tell me that their way is the one true way that I start to get a little indignant.
Wouldn't it be more prudent to just ignore them?
Easier on the blood pressure, too.
Peace be with you,
-jimbo
Since the "God planned it all along" argument is non-falsifiable,...
How so?
Make the question more general. Here's a foobar, something a bit different than anything else we've seen so far. Is there a way to determine whether the foobar is a thing designed by some kind of intelligence, or came about by totally natural causes?
Why is this question inherently un-falsifiable, any more or less than any other question? Why is this question extremely interesting to the geek crowd when running SETI@home, but so threatening when its object is a living thing?
Peace be with you,
-jimbo
. While creationists attempt to cite this uncertainty as a weakness, it is one of science's greatest strengths. There is no place for dogma in science.
Science is dogma.
That is not the scientific method, because they do not approach their hypothesis with neutrality.
Have you ever been within 100 miles of academia, let alone know anyone there? Must be nice to have such a pure, virginal view of the academic world.
Scientists should not be spending their time attempting to discredit creationists. Any attempt to answer creationists on their own ground merely adds credence to their beliefs.
What's the Ghandi quote, "First they ignore you, then they persecute you, then you win?"
Peace be with you,
-jimbo
I'm not going to try to forcibly teach your kids and everybody's kids that the earth is flat, or that vampires are real, or that visual basic is the One True Language, just because I happen to believe it is the case.
No, you're forcibly teaching them that everything that happens must be explained solely by mechanical, material forces and interactions. Just because you happen to believe it is the case. But that's different.
I guess.
Peace be with you,
-jimbo
Personally, I don't feel comfortable in allowing national policy to be set by those who feel that nature exists solely for the exploitation of humans and should be used up before the imminent second coming.
Why not?
I mean, humans are just another part of nature, right? For surely you accept that there is nothing BUT nature, no? What sense in there in protecting one arbitrary part of nature from some other arbitrary part? What is the sense in saying that a world in which humans exploit nature is better than one in which they don't?
For someone trying to come across as un-religious, you certainly betray a lot of religious fervor.
Peace be with you,
-jimbo
May I suggest you think about why the ID folk only want *their* Intelligent Designs taught in schools?
Simple. They're just playing by the rules that secular materialists have put in place to mandate what kinds of ideas can be broached in a public school.
The whole point of Intelligent Design is that it scrupulously avoids mention of the Bible or any other religious text. So if any of those other systems want to be included in a discussion in a public classroom, I guess they need to hitch on to Intelligent Design or come up with an equivalent.
Mind you, this is something that the materialists have put in place, not Christians or any other religion.
Peace be with you,
-jimbo
You know that most of Europe and a few other countries for some reason or other backs Kerry, right (worldwide polls put Kerry at 70%, Bush at sub-20%, with only Korea and one other nation backing Bush)?
The reason for this is simple. The U.S. is the only rich kid in a poor neighborhood with a nice football (American or Rest of the World football, for this illustration it doesn't matter). So when the kids get together, all the rest of the kids suggest the best way to decide things is for everyone to have one vote over how to use that football. On the other hand, the kid with the football thinks the fact that it's his football means he should decide how the football is used.
Kerry is the kid who, even thought it will be his football, will give in to what all the other kids want so he can be liked and popular.
So yeah, of course the poorer kids would prefer that Kerry have the football than that other rich kid.
Hope that analogy didn't break down too much.
Peace be with you,
-jimbo
We didn't catch many of the terrorists behind 9/11 because Bush allowed them to leave by plane the next day to Saudi Arabia, when all other planes in the country were grounded. Among them were several members of the bin Laden family. Authorized by the president himself.
Dude, the fact that there were Saudis who left the U.S. is not the same thing as saying there were terrorists who left the U.S. This may come as a shock to you, but it may even be possible that there are relatives of bin Laden WHO ARE NOT THEMSELVES TERRORISTS.
Mind bending thought, I know, but try to wrap your mind around it.
Peace be with you,
-jimbo
At least abortion is a well reasoned choice, where you take responsibility for your own action when it matters: before you make a mistake that leads to years of easy-to-measure human suffering.
But doesn't that apply equally to those with the misfortune to have been actually born, and, in your eyes, are experiencing "easy-to-measure human suffering"? Wouldn't the consistent position to abort these poor souls, too, even now? Is that not the most humane thing?
Peace be with you,
-jimbo
However, I do agree with your point that it is the snuffing out of a potential human life. It just doesn't bother me, what with the overpopulation and AIDS killing a zillion people a day.
Basically, it looks like you're able to justify the ending of pretty much any human life except your own. Or am I wrong in assuming you draw a distinction even there?
To really clear the air, I'd even let you say life began with conception, and that abortion was actually killing a real live person. I just wouldn't call it murder, with all the punishment attached
Of course. Because you're safely out of the womb. I mean, who cares for rights for anyone in a different situation or stage of life than your own, right?
By the way, real funny remark about the potty training. As the father of an 8 month old and 2 1/2 year old, I was greatly amused by that.
Generally, attempts at humor reveal a lot about a person's true beliefs, so I recommend anyone reading your comments keep that remark in mind.
Peace be with you,
-jimbo
Think of it. We have soldiers fighting iraqis so we can make them obey Allawi instead of somebody else. That does not seem right to me. If the people of sadr city don't want to be ruled by Allawi and instead want to follow Muqtada why should we care?
Where to begin?
Remember the Taliban? Not too long ago, we were all thinking "Pretty bad guys, but not our problem." Then it turned out they were instrumental in the death of 3,000 Americans.
Just listen to what the Al Sadr's, the Zarqawi's, etc. are saying. They want nothing more or less than to create another Taliban-ish state, and their long term objective is the eradication of all who hold any view except their narrow interpretation of Islam.
The other obvious thing is that there is an election planned for January, and the Iraqi's can pick anyone they want, as long as it's really the IRAQI PEOPLE who are doing the picking. Do some reading, and you'll discover that there are a lot of Iraqi's who would prefer something other than another totalitarian theocracy as their system of government.
Of course, you probably the believe such an election will never happen, just like the Afghani's were unable to hold a successful election, where all the predictions about massive violence and voters unable to get to the polls came true.
Peace be with you,
-jimbo
As for Afghanistan, I'm going off of recent news reports, and sitting down for hours talking with soldiers that had just got back from there and had hundreds of photos they had taken. First hand.
And what did they say? Can you be more specific?
And speaking of pulling things out of your sphincter, the majority of military polled IN IRAQ were critical of Bush, not supportive.
From the link you cited:
This critical view comes from a military group that has a more favorable view of President Bush, Iraq, the economy and the nation's direction than Americans in general.
Peace be with you,
-jimbo
It seems to me that fertility is the natural price to pay for immortality.
I dunno. A world without children sounds kind of dreary to me.
Peace be with you,
-jimbo (father of two)
If Iraq wasn't involved, why in the hell did we attack them right in the middle of our real war on terror?
Because instead of looking backward at 9/11, it was necessary to brainstorm what the next threat might be. The Bush administration came to the conclusion that was Saddam Hussein. I think a case can still be made that Bush was right, but of course a lot of people think otherwise.
And Afghanistan, maybe 5% of that country is a democracy, the other 95% is a haven to terrorists, run by warlords, and one giant greenhouse for opium.
You're pulling this out of your sphincter. As far as I know, the entire country successfully voted. Do you have evidence otherwise?
Bush takes a few pictures and soundbites, and wants us to ignore everything else we see on TV and hear from those coming back from military service there.
Over 2/3 of military personnel and families support President Bush.
Peace be with you,
-jimbo
But by 2:00 PM on September 11th, 2001 he had pinned the attacks on Iraq, without evidence or reason, and never once wavered from that position.
No one in the Bush administration has ever stated that Saddam Hussein or Iraq was directly involved in the September 11th attacks.
I thought it was the conservatives that believed in government "of the people, by the people, for the people", not "of the big business, by the big business, for the big business".
No, it's not conservatives who have the knee jerk "business is evil mentality". That would be the liberals.
Over and over and over again Bush has sided with big business, and time and time again the losers are the American taxpayers, citizens, Constitution, and the environment.
Everyone who pays taxes in America got some kind of tax cut during Bush's administration. As for the environment, I haven't heard anyone refute what Bush said during the second debate, that air quality is BETTER under his administration, etc. For the most part, it's the HUMANS SUCK! crowd that has been producing the overblown rhetoric on Bush and the environment.
"kicking the evil-doers @sses"? Well, if he really cared about fighting terrorism, he would have fought terrorism. But by 2:00 PM on September 11th, 2001 he had pinned the attacks on Iraq, without evidence or reason, and never once wavered from that position.
Whatever your view of the Iraq war, do you seriously want to argue that Saddam was not an evil-doer? Or that his ass has not been kicked?
Meanwhile, only a small corner of Afghanistan is even remotely in our control, we have pulled out all of our troops but just enough to say we're still there (but far from enough to be effective),
Uh, it's good that Afghanistan is not "in our control" as it is a sovereign DEMOCRATIC nation that just had it's first election in history. The fact we are able to pull troops out of there is an indication of success.
Peace be with you,
-jimbo
Automotive mechanics Carpentry (soon to branch out and study architecture and general contracting) Farming/survival/self-sufficiency Electronics (ok, this isn't too far from software, and about the same endangered status).
Just want to say, those are some pretty industrious hobbies you got for yourself. I imagine you don't spend much time sitting around watching TV, do you? :)
Peace be with you,
-jimbo
And on the surface, Bush appears to be a committed, conservative Christian who is really kicking the evil-doers @sses and loves America so much it hurts.
Have you evidence to the contrary?
Peace be with you,
-jimbo
I can't believe Bush thinks "get a job" is an economic policy, which is why my wife and I are voting for Kerry this year.
The government can really only do 3 things to stimulate the economy.
No one can say Bush didn't cut taxes. Nobody can say Bush hasn't been spending government money like crazy. Interest rates have been effectively zero for much of the past couple of years.
As far as what the government can do, the accelerator is already pushed down to the floor. Sorry to disappoint you, but there's nothing more Kerry will be able to do to get you a job than has already been done. If you listened carefully during the debates, you heard Kerry say that not even he could end the continued offshoring of American jobs.
I know most Americans think that the President (whether Democrat or Republican) has magic powers that he can use to bestow or with hold prosperity on every citizen. Unfortunately, it doesn't quite work that way.
Peace be with you,
-jimbo
ps My educational track was pretty much equivalent to your wife's (BS Logic and Computation, MA Linguistics). It's an awfully fun and interesting field, but not a high volume of jobs. Today I'm employed as a lowly ecommerce developer, but it keeps my family clothed, fed and sheltered. Perhaps the government would be a good place to look for work in that field now, as others have suggested.