University of California Sued Over Creationism

Intelligent Design or just happened

Rich Douglass,
I think in this statement you were agreeing with what I said, "both theories" actually point to the fact that SOMETHING has always existed all the way backward in time. This does not "seem" possible, because Mr. Douglass, I have a scientific mind and I know what a theory is. I "feel" that society and people who argue about it generally talk about both scenarios as facts rather than theories, and they tend to get angry when someone disagrees. It (theory of evolution) has not been proven to me in the same sense as gravity so I am still waiting and looking for more answers. Please note, everyone, that I am taking great care not to insult Dr. Douglass's thinking but have respectfully listened and perhaps made an attempt to defend my own thinking. I do not think all these insults are necessary (and please don't claim implying that I should not be qualified to be working on a doctorate degree is not an insult...I'll try to refrain from going too far in to the fact that though in the minority, there are people who earn doctorates from even the most prestigious universities who believe as I do, or are even fundamental Christians. I’m sure you know this is true and your comment was unwarranted and mean
and it ruins this board for me, which should be to promote learning and thought on distance learning and perhaps other topics. You could have simply said, "I disagree because..."

It could have been polite and would have been at least as effective. My final word on this is that I have defended my thoughts on this all that I'm going to so please don't bash me any further. If you think that I'm stupid, it really is not necessary to tell me so on this board. (People can read into what was said or not said or how it was said forever to try to make each other look stupid and I'm not going to do that so I don't want to discuss the topic any more).

 

Re: gnuts

Simply not so. And nothing in my post mentions you.

I think adherance to fairy tales as a basis of faith is stupid. But I don't think people are stupid for doing it, just that they're doing a stupid thing. If this distinction is meaningless to you, then I'm sure to offend you by making it. I regret this, but I don't see how to avoid it without being required to stifle my own thoughts on the subject. Surely you don't suggest that?

Manna from heaven, therefore God? Why not just God, and leave out all the silly stories?

 

Re: Intelligent Design or just happened

Sigh, okay, some more....

It is common for people to come to this board, toss out their opinions, and then claim they were "bashed" when a countering point is offered. No violation of the TOS, no ad hominem, no breach of netiquette here. Just a disagreement. I do note, however, that you didn't refute even one thing I said in response to your post, except to express your feeling that the theory of evolution (which you introduced to this discussion) wasn't supported enough to your satisfaction. Okay, sounds good to me.

Good luck in your doctoral studies.

 

The Hartford Courant ran a lengthy story on the topic of "Intelligent Design" in the Sunday Edition. You can read it here:
http://www.courant.com/news/local/northeast/hc-darwin_design.artaug28,0,3535961.story?coll=hc-headlines-northeast
Jack

 

Re: Re: Intelligent Design or just happened

Excellent example. Newtonian physics also breaks down under very large gravitational force and the forces at the subatomic levels. It is still a good useful theory even though we now know that it is not universally true.

 

Re: Re: gnuts (tone of the discussion)

Rich Douglas,

While you didn't launch ad hominem attacks on uncle janko or the others, you must concede that some of the words you chose to use such as "stupid", "fairy tales", "silly" and "myth" are inflammatory when used to describe the religious beliefs of others. Your critique of suelaine's argument was quite good but could have been just as effective without using words that will insult those who hold opposing views.

I'm not suggesting that anyone stifle their thoughts but rather express them in a manner consistent with the high standards of this forum. (unless we are talking about that fake, phony, fraud POS "Dr." Neil Hayes, if so, feel free to express yourself no matter how coarse or vulgar ... he deserves it)
http://www.knightsbridgeuniversity.com/people.html

 

Re: Re: Re: Intelligent Design or just happened

Yep... and the theory of gravity, like the theory of evolution, certainly has its problems and inconsistencies, which of course leaves room for debate, as this news article shows...

http://www.theonion.com/news/index.php?issue=4133&n=2

 

Yes but how do you get from there to Creationism or Intellegent Design? It's not an "either/or" situation.

 

Suit yourself, Rich. Like Hayes, you always do. La dracu. I'm off this thread.

 

I agree with that.

It's kind of interesting to note how many people contemptously dismiss all of the rest of the world's ancient cosmological myths, but treat the particular one that's found in their own religion as if it were objective historical fact. I've never heard any persuasive reason why one should be treated any differently than the others, beyond the inevitable 'it's my faith'.

I will say that I find cosmological myths interesting because they express people's presuppositions about their world, particularly about whatever purpose and meaning they find in it and in themselves.

I'm inclined to agree, at least when this kind of stuff is being interpreted as if it were a news story.

These kind of events are just too outlandish and out of character with what's observed in real life. Obviously counterintuitive things can and do happen, but counterintuitive things need explanation before they become credible.

David Hume made an interesting observation about the kind of miraculous events that represent violations of the natural order. He pointed out that because they are violations of what typically happens on this natural plane of being, they are unlikely by definition. And because they are unlikely, there is probably going to be an alternative natural explanation that's more likely.

Significantly, Hume was not arguing that divine intervention miracles are impossible. Rather he was talking about the rationality of believing in them. A miraculous intervention might conceivably take place, but it would nevertheless be unwise and perhaps irrational to believe in it.

Personally, I accept that it's possible that all kinds of anomalous events occur. Human understanding, in fact our basic cognitive powers themselves, are clearly limited. So the unknown probably makes itself felt in our lives more often than we we think.

But I don't think that it's rational to be credulous concerning these things. It isn't smart to blithely believe in anything that we want to believe. So I don't assert the literal reality of wonders and apparitions, though I do find them fascinating in a more non-committal and agnostic way. My world is open-ended with distinct boundaries replaced by a void labeled 'unknown'. But if I'm expected to accept cognitive truth-claims about stuff that lies over that line, then the extension of 'known' into 'unknown' territory has to be credible and justifiable.

Interestingly, religious believers typically are themselves resolute David Humes when it comes to everyone else's religion. But when the topic turns to their own, then suddenly we hear 'it's my faith'. That's perfectly fine, but it clearly lacks the broader objective justification that's necessary before individuals outside their particular faith-community will find it persuasive.

I think that myths often do make sense as teaching stories, as stories with edifying morals. They might even be true, in much the same way that a good novel can reveal truths.

But if they are taken that way, then there's no reason why the myths of many religions can't be equally edifying, even when their story details are directly contradictory.

Personally, I'm inclined to think of all of the world's religions as embodying human intuitions about ultimate questions. I certainly respect and value that. So I assume that all the religions have something to teach me.

But it's foolish to confuse any of these stories with what science is doing. (A rationalistic natural theology might conceivably be possible, though I seriously doubt it. But the cosmological myths aren't really natural theology at all.)

 

Re: Re: Re: gnuts (tone of the discussion)

I didn't argue "suelaine's" facts so much as her butchering of what is and is not theory, and what theory is and is not. This is inconsistent with someone's status as a doctoral student.

I'm not going to back down from calling it (not them, IT) "stupid." That's what I think.

 

I say one thing that you find insulting, even though I didn't direct it at you, and now I'm Neil Hayes? A little rash, eh?

 

Amen brother..... I couldn't have said it better myself. And, no, I do not think you are being personally insulting to Uncle Janko or anyone else who holds strong religious beliefs - they just have to learn to be challenged, since the premises upon which faith is built are shaky at best.

On another tangent here.... I recently moved to WV and frequently take drives through the beautiful countryside, only to be constantly offended visually and intellectually by the trashiness and unkempt nature of the property around here. People will spend a few hundred bucks putting up a fake replica of the crucifixion scene (the yellow cross, with two blue ones on each side? Ever seen it?) on nearly every hilltop available, but will leave their yards full of old automobiles and farm machinery - rusting away to the Glory of God.

I drove by a place today where the guy had all these signs painted on the side of his trailer/religious compound saying stuff about YAHWEH and "Christ is King"..... I almost felt like getting his phone number and calling him to say..... "You know, I also speak to Jesus on a daily basis, and he told me to clean up your goddamned mess or you're NEVER gettin' into heaven lookin' like a slob! Handling snakes is one thing, but cleanliness is close to godliness...."

Also, those fake crucifixion scenes would impress me a lot more if they actually nailed up a few of their cousins and in-laws/outlaws on them..... THEN we'd be seeing something worth lookin' at our here in the hills!

Oh yes.... here's a nice link that shows another pro-creation theory just gaining new credibility apparently in the pseudo-scientific college crowd.....

http://www.theonion.com/news/index.php?issue=4133&n=2

 

Jack, that was a great article. Thanks a lot.

I underline the following:

I think this summarizes this issue. Science is demolishing long-held ideas about God, and some are vainly struggling to reconcile the new perspectives contributed by science with the classic Biblical view of the universe.

 

No, you're not Hayes. Hayes has two fake doctorates. You have one real one. He is a heckler. You are a leader. One expects crudeness and incivility from him. One does not expect it from you.
-------------------
Used to being challenged, Carl? Did you notice that I said the suit against UC was wrong? Do you notice me arguing religion with Bill, or TomH, or Sensei Abner, all of whom are able to post civilly? Have you ever at any time heard me defend so-called creation science? Or argue that it should be taught in public schools on any level? I have spent exactly one year in a tertiary school where I agreed with the school's view of religion. All the schools from which I hold degrees are either secular or liberal. I never found religious agreement a prerequisite to getting a good education. I still don't. But Dr Douglas chose to be insulting, then ran from his words (like Neil Hayes).

I have defended Rich against his detractors for years. No, he never asked me to do so, and, no, I am sure my inconsequential defence of him counts for almost nothing in the broader scheme of things, although it did gain me the animosity of some of the same psychos, has-beens, never-wases, and pathetic wannabes who are evilly obsessed with Rich and his doctorate.

I continue to admire his personal academic accomplishments and am grateful for his leadership in distance education. I wish him all the best in his learning and teaching endeavours. He is entitled to his religious or anti-religious views and to express them in any way he wishes. And I am entitled to think him a churl for his indifference to the canons of civility when it comes to his well-wishers.

Basta.

 

"...psychos, has-beens, never-wases, and pathetic wannabes who are evilly obsessed with Rich and his doctorate."

Gor blyme, you don't mean ME, do you guvner?

 

some of the same psychos, has-beens, never-wases, and pathetic wannabes who are evilly obsessed with Rich and his doctorate.

Am I a pathetic wannabe obsessed with Rich's doctorate?

 

OK Unk..... I accept your chastisement..... gracefully! Just interesting to me to see that this has put such a "bee in your bonnet", as we used to say in olden tymes Wisconsin.....

 

The "Eat Cheese or Die" state?

 

I thought it was the "Drink Old Milwaukee or Die" state!