Meet Your Neighbors - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Aug 9, 2005

RE: Meet Your Neighbors

Date: Aug 9, 2005

Scientist wrote:

O.U. I think I will have to disagree here. Assuming we are adults, we can see how confusing this is and how even the technical vocabulary is not clearly understood. To expose children to this in school would allow I.D. to easily confuse the students and establish in their mind that both are on equal footing.

You use the term "children" referring to college students. Your view of college students' capacity to understand such matters is sure different than mine. So you and I will just have to agree to disagree. You can continue to shelter your students tender little minds from differing opinions. And that's probably best. From what I've seen here, I don't think you could handle the discussion on this particular topic in an informed manner in a classroom setting.

Date: Aug 9, 2005

Orderly Universe wrote:

Scientist wrote: O.U. I think I will have to disagree here. Assuming we are adults, we can see how confusing this is and how even the technical vocabulary is not clearly understood. To expose children to this in school would allow I.D. to easily confuse the students and establish in their mind that both are on equal footing. You use the term "children" referring to college students. Your view of college students' capacity to understand such matters is sure different than mine. So you and I will just have to agree to disagree. You can continue to shelter your students tender little minds from differing opinions. And that's probably best. From what I've seen here, I don't think you could handle the discussion on this particular topic in an informed manner in a classroom setting.

It's late, Scientist, and I'm sleepy and cranky too. Please strike that last sentence.

Date: Aug 9, 2005

Invictus wrote:

There is no valid scientific argument for "intelligent design" or whatever the terminology du jour for creationsim happens to be. There are plenty of valid philosophical arguments for it, and it happens to be part of my personal belief system. I do not pretend that my beliefs all have to be based on science.

This raises an interesting question, which may or may not be appropriate for discussion in this thread (or on this board). I'll ask it anyway; anyone who wishes to ignore it is free to do so.

Given all the competing religions that currently exist and have existed, how does one choose the "true" one?

This, of course, is the issue central to John Donne's "Satire 3," although I'm not sure that even a mind as great as Donne's manages, finally, to answer the question satisfactorily. Perhaps answering it is not even his intention.

In the meantime, any thoughts on this issue would be appreciated if you feel like sharing them.

Date: Aug 9, 2005

USM Sympathizer wrote:

Given all the competing religions that currently exist and have existed, how does one choose the "true" one?

I can't seem to get to sleep so I'll make one more comment tonight. What you say, USM Sympathizer, is the reason I do not believe that prayer should be required in the public schools. Whose prayer? This year it may be your prayer, but in ten years . . . . who knows. The same is true regarding requiring the teaching of creationism in the public schools. Whose version of creationism? (But I do think students should be made aware there are differences of opinion on the creationism/evolution topic).

I'm definitely signing off now.

Date: Aug 10, 2005

I wish that I had the academic credentials to support what I share here - that I were a scholar rather than just a "teacher" - but as someone who has taught biology to well over a thousand students, I can at least offer this perspective. Evolution is foundational to understanding biology. It is not one subtopic of a syllabus but an underlying principle that ties together concepts of biodiversity, taxonomy, interdependence, and organization. Teaching evolution from the conceptual premise of biogenesis - life from life - through the forces of natural selection - overpopulation, competition, variation, selective advantage, adaptation, speciation - is a way of unifying all the other subtopics of the life science. It still begs the issue of primary abiogenesis - the first life from non-life. In terms of that initial origin of life, we share what we know, and what we do not yet know. We examine the experiments that have been done and those that are ongoing. We add the perspective of time, billions of years, and question whether it is legitimate to think we would have all the answers in 2005. I truly don't understand the divisive and recurrent debate about creationism - cum Intelligent Design. There is nothing about the origin of life or subsequent evolution that rocks my faith.

Date: Aug 10, 2005

The one observable phenomenon on which I think we can all agree is that despite the nearly 50-50 split on this Hattiesburg American poll, the responses to various polls about the Thames presidency have been resoundingly against it, 90-10.

Jameela

Date: Aug 10, 2005

Orderly Universe wrote:

Scientist wrote: O.U. I think I will have to disagree here. Assuming we are adults, we can see how confusing this is and how even the technical vocabulary is not clearly understood. To expose children to this in school would allow I.D. to easily confuse the students and establish in their mind that both are on equal footing. You use the term "children" referring to college students. Your view of college students' capacity to understand such matters is sure different than mine. So you and I will just have to agree to disagree. You can continue to shelter your students tender little minds from differing opinions. And that's probably best. From what I've seen here, I don't think you could handle the discussion on this particular topic in an informed manner in a classroom setting.

Wow!! You must be getting sleepy and cross. I gave you two reasons. My reference to children means high school students. The reasons I gave for college students were: 1) The technical language is confusing even to science students. (You and others have demonstrated how you confuse the terms.) 2) Since I.D. is NOT a scientific theory in what course would you present it? But the main issue is WHY????? It is just a belief by some people. There are billions of beliefs out there. Why bring this up? You have never provided a valid reason for doing this.

Date: Aug 10, 2005

Orderly Universe wrote:

It's late, Scientist, and I'm sleepy and cranky too. Please strike that last sentence.

Sorry, O.U., I responded to that post before I read this one---and it's early for me and my coffee. But I did respond to you points. I will be in and out during the day and will check on this thread. Have a good day.

Date: Aug 10, 2005

USM Sympathizer wrote:

Invictus wrote: There is no valid scientific argument for "intelligent design" or whatever the terminology du jour for creationsim happens to be. There are plenty of valid philosophical arguments for it, and it happens to be part of my personal belief system. I do not pretend that my beliefs all have to be based on science.

USM Sympathizer :This raises an interesting question, which may or may not be appropriate for discussion in this thread (or on this board). I'll ask it anyway; anyone who wishes to ignore it is free to do so. Given all the competing religions that currently exist and have existed, how does one choose the "true" one? This, of course, is the issue central to John Donne's "Satire 3," although I'm not sure that even a mind as great as Donne's manages, finally, to answer the question satisfactorily. Perhaps answering it is not even his intention. In the meantime, any thoughts on this issue would be appreciated if you feel like sharing them.

I find these questions extremely interesting and USM Sympathizer directs our attention to the issue. For Invictus: What is an invalid philosophy? Seems like people can have as many philosophies as religions. How do you determine a "valid" one?

All of the "valid philosophy arguments" I have heard for I.D. rest on some religious premise. Also if there are logical arguments for I.D., why must it be part of your "belief "system?

I will be in and out during the day to check on this interesting thread.

Date: Aug 10, 2005

http://store.aetv.com/html/product/index.jhtml?id=74119

Just to spice things up a bit, I stumbled across a DVD entitled "Ape to Man" on the History Channel site.

Date: Aug 10, 2005

Orderly Universe wrote:

.... (But I do think students should be made aware there are differences of opinion on the creationism/evolution topic). I'm definitely signing off now.

Why do you feel this is so necessary, O.U.? Can't we just let students know there are billions of different belief systems and many, many "creation" stories? This is not news and most children are exposed to a religion way before any real science, if they ever get to science as science.

Date: Aug 10, 2005

Biology Teacher wrote:

I wish that I had the academic credentials to support what I share here - that I were a scholar rather than just a "teacher" - but as someone who has taught biology to well over a thousand students, I can at least offer this perspective. Evolution is foundational to understanding biology. It is not one subtopic of a syllabus but an underlying principle that ties together concepts of biodiversity, taxonomy, interdependence, and organization. Teaching evolution from the conceptual premise of biogenesis - life from life - through the forces of natural selection - overpopulation, competition, variation, selective advantage, adaptation, speciation - is a way of unifying all the other subtopics of the life science. It still begs the issue of primary abiogenesis - the first life from non-life. In terms of that initial origin of life, we share what we know, and what we do not yet know. We examine the experiments that have been done and those that are ongoing. We add the perspective of time, billions of years, and question whether it is legitimate to think we would have all the answers in 2005. I truly don't understand the divisive and recurrent debate about creationism - cum Intelligent Design. There is nothing about the origin of life or subsequent evolution that rocks my faith.

Thanks for an excellent explanation, Biology Teacher. You must be a very good teacher.

Date: Aug 10, 2005

Scientist wrote:

Also if there are logical arguments for I.D., why must it be part of your "belief "system?

I make a distinction between a "logical argument" & a "scientific argument." While scientific arguments are (mainly) logical -- and not always, if we figure T.S. Kuhn was even partly right -- logical arguments do not have to be scientific.

Date: Aug 10, 2005

Invictus wrote:

Scientist wrote: Also if there are logical arguments for I.D., why must it be part of your "belief "system?

Invictus wrote:I make a distinction between a "logical argument" & a "scientific argument." While scientific arguments are (mainly) logical -- and not always, if we figure T.S. Kuhn was even partly right -- logical arguments do not have to be scientific.

Good morning, Invictus. I understand that a "logical" argument satisfies the "rules" of logic and although "valid" may not be true. Are you saying you know of "valid" arguments, but they don't ring true to you and so you must "believe" in I.D.?

I don't want to make a big deal of this, but would like to understand. Personally I try not to use belief. I often say, "I don't know" or provide the evidence for each side of an issue I haven't resolved yet. I don't believe in believing, and the current situation with terrorism has made this position even stronger in me.

Date: Aug 10, 2005

Scientist wrote:
I don't want to make a big deal of this, but would like to understand. Personally I try not to use belief. I often say, "I don't know" or provide the evidence for each side of an issue I haven't resolved yet. I don't believe in believing, and the current situation with terrorism has made this position even stronger in me.

Belief systems work better for "ultimate" causality questions & generally fail for "proximate" questions. ("What existed before the Big Bang?" vs "What should I eat for lunch?") Science works better for answering proximate questions. ("Should I have low-fat dressing on this salad?") This has not stopped religions from providing some pretty proximate answers. ("Ham & cheese po'boys are strictly verboten!")

Whether a supernatural intelligence kicked off the Big Bang may or may not be an important question for you. What preceded the Big Bang may or may not be an important question for you. At this juncture in history, it remains utterly untestable. Regardless of what cosmologists want us to think, once you starting talking about what may happen over on the other side of Time, everything becomes an article of faith & there's not much difference between Stephen Hawking & Bill Graham, except fo the wheelchair & the stadium crusades. On the other hand, biological science does a pretty fair job explaining how macromolecules arose, how simple lifeforms evolved into complex organisms, how speciation occurs, etc. Organic evolution (macro- or micro- flavors) doesn't require belief in the supernatural ... once you get that Big Bang over with.

Science can happily answer "How" without worrying at all with "Why." Religion prefers to answer "Why" without worrying at all with "How." (Intelligent design "theorists" want to take this to extremes. Teilhard de Chardin did a whole lot better job outlining orthogenesis than most fundamentalist preachers, but teleology by any other name is still just teleology. Do porpoises have flippers so they can swim faster, or do porpoises swim faster because they have flippers?)

Thomas Huxley is reported to have smacked Bishop Samuel Wilberforce with the immortal line, "I would rather be the offspring of two apes than be a man and afraid to face the truth." What isn't often repeated is what Huxley muttered as he rose for his rebuttal of Soapy Sam: "The Lord hath delivered him into my hands." Yes, it was likely sarcasm, but it could've been a prayer of thanksgiving.

From the conclusion of Darwin's Origin (emphasis mine):
"Authors of the highest eminence seem to be fully satisfied with the view that each species has been independently created. To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual. When I view all beings not as special creations, but as the lineal descendants of some few beings which lived long before the first bed of the Silurian system was deposited, they seem to me to become ennobled."

Looks to me like Charles whacked the ball over into the physicists' court. Methinks fundamentalists really have a bone to pick with cosmologists & physicists. But when we get down to the brass tacks of the "creation-evolution controversy," it's not about science (or even religion). It's about control of public education. And since far more kids study biology than physics or cosmology in the public schools, biology is the target they have selected.

I hope I have successfully evaded your question. It's been some years since I actively occupied a classroom & I'm a bit out of practice!

Date: Aug 10, 2005

In the preceding, I did intend to write Billy Graham, the evangelist & not Bill Graham, the late rock concert impressario!

Date: Aug 10, 2005

Scientist, I'm sorry to be so late getting back to you. You seem to be bothered by the fact that I and others subscribe to the scientific theory of evolution and at the same time have religious convictions. I do believe there is a higher power that set this orderly universe in motion with all of its marvelous and complex scientific laws and principles that appear in the textbooks of biology, chemistry, physics, and other disciplines. My religious beliefs are based on faith, not on science. My religious convictions in no way alter my simultaneous acceptance of the scientific theory of evolution, just as I accept other scientific principles. I also believe in the separation of church and state, and I oppose Mr. Bush's proposal that "intelligent design" (a disguised term for "creationism") be mandated as a topic to be taught in the public schools. I oppose that on two counts: (1) It would be dangerous and an infringement on academic freedom for the federal government to dictate what should be taught in any discipline, and (2) some local school boards might interpret it as a mandate to teach a particular "religion" in the public schools.

Date: Aug 10, 2005

Invictus wrote:

Scientist wrote:I don't want to make a big deal of this, but would like to understand. Personally I try not to use belief. I often say, "I don't know" or provide the evidence for each side of an issue I haven't resolved yet. I don't believe in believing, and the current situation with terrorism has made this position even stronger in me.

Invictus wrote:Belief systems work better for "ultimate" causality questions & generally fail for "proximate" questions. ("What existed before the Big Bang?" vs "What should I eat for lunch?") Science works better for answering proximate questions. ("Should I have low-fat dressing on this salad?") This has not stopped religions from providing some pretty proximate answers. ("Ham & cheese po'boys are strictly verboten!") Whether a supernatural intelligence kicked off the Big Bang may or may not be an important question for you. What preceded the Big Bang may or may not be an important question for you. At this juncture in history, it remains utterly untestable. Regardless of what cosmologists want us to think, once you starting talking about what may happen over on the other side of Time, everything becomes an article of faith & there's not much difference between Stephen Hawking & Bill Graham, except fo the wheelchair & the stadium crusades. On the other hand, biological science does a pretty fair job explaining how macromolecules arose, how simple lifeforms evolved into complex organisms, how speciation occurs, etc. Organic evolution (macro- or micro- flavors) doesn't require belief in the supernatural ... once you get that Big Bang over with. Science can happily answer "How" without worrying at all with "Why." Religion prefers to answer "Why" without worrying at all with "How." (Intelligent design "theorists" want to take this to extremes. Teilhard de Chardin did a whole lot better job outlining orthogenesis than most fundamentalist preachers, but teleology by any other name is still just teleology. Do porpoises have flippers so they can swim faster, or do porpoises swim faster because they have flippers?) Thomas Huxley is reported to have smacked Bishop Samuel Wilberforce with the immortal line, "I would rather be the offspring of two apes than be a man and afraid to face the truth." What isn't often repeated is what Huxley muttered as he rose for his rebuttal of Soapy Sam: "The Lord hath delivered him into my hands." Yes, it was likely sarcasm, but it could've been a prayer of thanksgiving.From the conclusion of Darwin's Origin (emphasis mine):"Authors of the highest eminence seem to be fully satisfied with the view that each species has been independently created. To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual. When I view all beings not as special creations, but as the lineal descendants of some few beings which lived long before the first bed of the Silurian system was deposited, they seem to me to become ennobled." Looks to me like Charles whacked the ball over into the physicists' court. Methinks fundamentalists really have a bone to pick with cosmologists & physicists. But when we get down to the brass tacks of the "creation-evolution controversy," it's not about science (or even religion). It's about control of public education. And since far more kids study biology than physics or cosmology in the public schools, biology is the target they have selected. I hope I have successfully evaded your question. It's been some years since I actively occupied a classroom & I'm a bit out of practice!

Thanks for a wonderful post, Invictus. There is nothing here I can disagree with. However I would like to make a point about cosmology. People may not realize that language breaks down in some places and makes discussion nonsense. For example you said, “Whether a supernatural intelligence kicked off the Big Bang may or may not be an important question for you. What preceded the Big Bang may or may not be an important question for you."

If the universe is "everything that exist" or "all that exists" and if god exists, then by definition god is part of the universe. So how did the universe have a beginning, but god didn't? This question forces some to make an exception for god and state god is separate from the universe. But that means from the definition of terms god doesn't exist unless we change the meaning of the word exist. See all of the problems.

The university is space-time and began at the Big Bang. The statement "before the Big Bang" makes as much sense as saying something is north of the north pole. There was no before the Big Bang and without time there is no cause-effect and no logic or language.

All of this can be avoided by just not paying attention to the meaning of words. Throw out a bunch of good sounding words to lay people who don't understand logical fallacies and it all sounds nice.

This has been a very interesting thread and I thank all that participated.

Date: Aug 10, 2005

Orderly Universe wrote Scientist, I'm sorry to be so late getting back to you. You seem to be bothered by the fact that I and others subscribe to the scientific theory of evolution and at the same time have religious convictions. I do believe there is a higher power that set this orderly universe in motion with all of its marvelous and complex scientific laws and principles that appear in the textbooks of biology, chemistry, physics, and other disciplines. My religious beliefs are based on faith, not on science. My religious convictions in no way alter my simultaneous acceptance of the scientific theory of evolution, just as I accept other scientific principles. I also believe in the separation of church and state, and I oppose Mr. Bush's proposal that "intelligent design" (a disguised term for "creationism") be mandated as a topic to be taught in the public schools. I oppose that on two counts: (1) It would be dangerous and an infringement on academic freedom for the federal government to dictate what should be taught in any discipline, and (2) some local school boards might interpret it as a mandate to teach a particular "religion" in the public schools.

You and Invictus are right. It's all about the control of public education. Not the pedogogical part, but the content part.

Date: Aug 10, 2005

Orderly Universe wrote:

Scientist, I'm sorry to be so late getting back to you. You seem to be bothered by the fact that I and others subscribe to the scientific theory of evolution and at the same time have religious convictions. I do believe there is a higher power that set this orderly universe in motion with all of its marvelous and complex scientific laws and principles that appear in the textbooks of biology, chemistry, physics, and other disciplines. My religious beliefs are based on faith, not on science. My religious convictions in no way alter my simultaneous acceptance of the scientific theory of evolution, just as I accept other scientific principles. I also believe in the separation of church and state, and I oppose Mr. Bush's proposal that "intelligent design" (a disguised term for "creationism") be mandated as a topic to be taught in the public schools. I oppose that on two counts: (1) It would be dangerous and an infringement on academic freedom for the federal government to dictate what should be taught in any discipline, and (2) some local school boards might interpret it as a mandate to teach a particular "religion" in the public schools.

Thanks for replying O.R. I have no problem with what you posted above. Everyone is entitled to his or her own beliefs. I just wish they would keep their beliefs private and out of public schools.

I do think that all who practice "belief" as a system to arrive at "truth" have a responsibility to correct this notion. Belief is not Truth. This method (belief) can and has been used by many to do harm, as is occurring worldwide now. The only antidote for this that I know of is rational thinking based on evidence.

I don't mean to offend, but this issue is coming to a head worldwide. I'm not sure modern civilization can survive it.

Someone on this thread ask the question, "How do you tell which of all the religions is the true one?" No one has yet tried to answer the question. All religions can't be true becasue the contradict one another. However all can be false. That is an option no one seems to consider.

Date: Aug 10, 2005

I haven't visited this board in quite a while and I'm sorry I didn't have time to completely read this thread. This is a subject in which I have some interest however. If there are some who are interested there is some fascinating information at the URL's below:

www.reasons.org

www.discovery.org

I did enjoy the reading I was able to do and thanks to all for your contributions.

Date: Aug 10, 2005

Scientist wrote:

I don't mean to offend, but this issue is coming to a head worldwide.

This is something you don't need to worry about. We'll survive. Religious persecution has existed for centuries. That's one of the reasons some people moved to this great country.

Date: Aug 10, 2005

Scientist wrote:

"How do you tell which of all the religions is the true one?" No one has yet tried to answer the question.

My guess is that no one has answered the question because no one wants to impose their religious view on you. My, you're unnecessarily argumentative.

Date: Aug 10, 2005

Statue of Liberty wrote:

This is something you don't need to worry about. We'll survive. Religious persecution has existed for centuries. That's one of the reasons some people moved to this great country.

Never before, though, have religious fanatics (or independent fanatics of any kind) had portable atomic weapons at their disposal, as may very soon happen. I suspect we all have a LOT to worry about.

Date: Aug 10, 2005

I must add one other comment. That is simply that to equate intelligent design with creationism is just not accurate. There are some very credible scientists who have NO belief in any diety who subscribe to intelligent design. It is absolutely true, however, that some would love to use ID as a means of accomplishing their religious goals. If one appeals to the rules of logic and the scientific process it is the evidence which must speak and not one's firmly held beliefs, whether those beliefs are placed in a divine being or in science.

Thanks,

Date: Aug 10, 2005

2 cents wrote:

Never before, though, have religious fanatics (or independent fanatics of any kind) had portable atomic weapons at their disposal, as may very soon happen. I suspect we all have a LOT to worry about.

Now that's an entirely different topic altogether. That we DO have to worry about.

Date: Aug 10, 2005

What a thoughtful read. My education continues to expand. Great thread.

Date: Aug 10, 2005

Scientist wrote:
Thanks for an excellent explanation, Biology Teacher. You must be a very good teacher.

Thank you, Scientist. What a kind response!

Date: Aug 10, 2005

Scientist wrote: "How do you tell which of all the religions is the true one?" No one has yet tried to answer the question.

Texas Toast wrote: My guess is that no one has answered the question because no one wants to impose their religious view on you. ...

T.T, I was not asking for "someone to impose their religion on me". Rather I was asking for a method that could be used to determine the "true religion.

USM Sympathizer asked the question earlier. Here is the post:

"This raises an interesting question, which may or may not be appropriate for discussion in this thread (or on this board). I'll ask it anyway; anyone who wishes to ignore it is free to do so.

Given all the competing religions that currently exist and have existed, how does one choose the "true" one?

This, of course, is the issue central to John Donne's "Satire 3," although I'm not sure that even a mind as great as Donne's manages, finally, to answer the question satisfactorily. Perhaps answering it is not even his intention.

In the meantime, any thoughts on this issue would be appreciated if you feel like sharing them."