TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Floridians Debate Evolution, Oranges
Pages (2): « 1 [2]

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton PKC, Intelligent Design is philosophy. It's assumptions are not based on physical science but on ancient philosophical texts. The opinion that ID should not even be discussed in any form whatsoever is akin to the creationist who wants evolution taken completely out of the classroom. Should ID be taught in the science classroom? NO. Should it be discussed in an appropriate setting? ABSOLUTELY.

no its not. its pseudo-science that does nothing but attempt to poke holes in evolutionary theory, accepts the existence of god a priori (so hardly falls into the "questioning" nature of philosophical thought).

again, saying that ID deserves to be taught is akin to saying 911 theories should be taught or "alternative" views on the holocaust should get a look-in.

NO.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN no its not. its pseudo-science that does nothing but attempt to poke holes in evolutionary theory, accepts the existence of god a priori (so hardly falls into the "questioning" nature of philosophical thought). again, saying that ID deserves to be taught is akin to saying 911 theories should be taught or "alternative" views on the holocaust should get a look-in. NO.

A psuedo-science, by definition is a field taught as science which does no adhere to the scientific method. If ID is not taught as science, but just as another philosophy, it should be taught. As for the "questioning" aspect. What ID asks philosophically is, "Does the universe imply a creator intellegence?" No, it's not scientific.

I think your hatred of religion is just as radical as evengelicals who try to have creationism taught in public schools. What is needed is a moderate comprimise, where radicals on both sides don't have it all their way.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton A psuedo-science, by definition is a field taught as science which does no adhere to the scientific method. If ID is not taught as science, but just as another philosophy, it should be taught. As for the "questioning" aspect. What ID asks philosophically is, "Does the universe imply a creator intellegence?" No, it's not scientific.

it certainly asks no such questions of that sort. at all. what it does ask is "does evolutionary theory hold true to explain the richness and diversity found on our planet?" and just as quickly answers it with "no". to compare ID to a real body of philosophical thought is a complete joke.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton I think your hatred of religion is just as radical as evengelicals who try to have creationism taught in public schools.

the difference being that i support the teaching of a theory fully supported by a wealth of evidence, and the evangelicals advocate the teachings due to their unsubstantiated "faith".

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton What is needed is a moderate comprimise, where radicals on both sides don't have it all their way.

no. why not teach my new theory that the universe was made from a methane explosion from a giant turd by super dog? im tired of religion expecting special treatment. ID is a farce and people like you that treat it with some modicum of respect are part of the problem. i fail to see how opposing the teaching of any idea we all know not to be true is considered "radical". that's just another example of people being conned by religion's unwarranted place in our societies, when we know damned well ANY other load of nonsense wouldnt see the light of day.

fuck the ID proponents, if they wanna brainwash our children with bullshit they can stick to their sunday sermons.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN it certainly asks no such questions of that sort. at all. what it does ask is "does evolutionary theory hold true to explain the richness and diversity found on our planet?" and just as quickly answers it with "no". to compare ID to a real body of philosophical thought is a complete joke.

How is it not philosophical thought? It is not scientific. It makes assumptions baded upon the axiom that there is a god. All this is philosophical.

quote:

the difference being that i support the teaching of a theory fully supported by a wealth of evidence, and the evangelicals advocate the teachings due to their unsubstantiated "faith".

Sure, but you want don't even want a philosophy class to be taught in high school. I guess to an atheist, examining one's beliefs is dangerous, because they might choose to believe there is a god even after a broad philosophical discussion.

quote:

no. why not teach my new theory that the universe was made from a methane explosion from a giant turd by super dog?

Sure, why wouldn't it have a place in a philosophy class?

quote:

im tired of religion expecting special treatment. ID is a farce and people like you that treat it with some modicum of respect are part of the problem. i fail to see how opposing the teaching of any idea we all know not to be true is considered "radical". that's just another example of people being conned by religion's unwarranted place in our societies, when we know damned well ANY other load of nonsense wouldnt see the light of day.

Special treatment? Special treatment is teaching ID/creationism in a science classroom where it does not belong. Discussing ID/creationism in a philosophy class is not special treatment, but rather a place to just inform students of all philosophies which people believe today. Knowing "why" the universe "is", is hardly testable in a science laboratory. You seem to be very afraid of asking that question, becuase it is a question science cannot answer.

quote:

fuck the ID proponents, if they wanna brainwash our children with bullshit they can stick to their sunday sermons.

And you don't think that is a radical view? You don't disagree with religion, you HATE it. Hatred clouds the mind. Realize that ALL belief systems, including atheism rely on basic unprovable assumptions which are inherently religious. Everyone has faith in something, whether a god, or materialistic.

I think it would be 100% close-minded to say that any views apart from secular humanism should not even be mentioned or discussed in an academic settings, even as an elective philosophy class. On a spectrum of belief, you would be completely on far opposite side of ID proponents which I think is radical. What I'm suggesting is a great idea. ID is kept out of science classrooms, while still keeping an open mindedness in being able to still at least discuss it in a philosophy class.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton How is it not philosophical thought? It is not scientific. It makes assumptions baded upon the axiom that there is a god. All this is philosophical.

by that "logic" anything that isn't scientific is philosophical. calling ID a "philosophy" is an insult to the discipline.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Sure, but you want don't even want a philosophy class to be taught in high school.

i think its a waste, philosophy is a luxury course; people that are interested in philosophy are the type of people that go onto tertiary education, i really can't see enough of a need for it before then to justify culling other units to accommodate it. i think funding and teaching skills should be focusing on the essential subjects instead.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton I guess to an atheist, examining one's beliefs is dangerous, because they might choose to believe there is a god even after a broad philosophical discussion.

dont be a dick it has nothing to do with my beliefs. its about people propogating falsehoods under the guise of "broad philosophical discussion". i fail to see why you think promoting lies is in any way "philosophical"?

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Sure, why wouldn't it have a place in a philosophy class?

um, how about because its nonsense? a waste of time? completely contrary to what real philosophy is all about?

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Special treatment?

you're kidding right? you dont think religion gets special treatment in society? come on now, let's be serious

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Discussing ID/creationism in a philosophy class is not special treatment, but rather a place to just inform students of all philosophies which people believe today.

philosophy is a quest for knowledge and understanding, not some "catch-all" subject for all the kooks and wackos to get on their soapbox. ID is nonsense, and should be treated as such by ALL disciplines. How can you equate the lies and deliberate manipulation spread by the ID proponents with such thinkers as locke, hume or satre? Its insulting.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Knowing "why" the universe "is", is hardly testable in a science laboratory. You seem to be very afraid of asking that question, becuase it is a question science cannot answer.

i think you have a fundamental lack of understanding concerning what ID actually is if you think it in any way deals with the "why". again, its a response to evolution using bollocks pseudo-science to discredit it.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton And you don't think that is a radical view?

no, i dont think "teaching lies to children is the completely wrong way to go about things, and is only designed to placate a small number of ignorant fools" to be a radical view. its called reason.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton You don't disagree with religion, you HATE it. Hatred clouds the mind. Realize that ALL belief systems, including atheism rely on basic unprovable assumptions which are inherently religious.

atheism and religion are completely different. who do we worship, and who is going to punish us if we dont? again, this has nothing to do with my "hatred" of religion, its about changing school policy to accommodate the superstitious views of fools that have been trying to get ID taught in school.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Everyone has faith in something, whether a god, or materialistic.

empty platitudes will get you nowhere with me.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton I think it would be 100% close-minded to say that any views apart from secular humanism should not even be mentioned or discussed in an academic settings, even as an elective philosophy class.

yeah, well i think its idiotic to be promoting something we all know not to be true (not the existence of god, but the religious understanding of "evolution"). you still havent justified why you think spreading untruths is somehow ok.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton On a spectrum of belief, you would be completely on far opposite side of ID proponents which I think is radical.

i think it is radical that we are forced to adopt the superstitions of other people just because they say so. philosophy is all about logic and reason, which is why ID has NO place there.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton What I'm suggesting is a great idea. ID is kept out of science classrooms, while still keeping an open mindedness in being able to still at least discuss it in a philosophy class.

fuck i get sick and tired of people substituting "open mindedness" for"stupidity". it really gets my goat. make sure you dont leave your mind so open your brain falls out. if youre in one of your economics classes, and decide 2+2 definitely equals for, are you being narrow-minded when you ignore people that say the answer is 5??

I have to disagree with you, Krypton, on the idea that ID is philosophy. Philosophical positions are arrived at by logical deduction in an attempt to provide an explenation for a condition/reality, which is undertaken in the pursuit of knowledge/truth. ID was not developed in this way, rather, ID was developed as a response to the theory of evolution. The goal of those who toiled away developing ID was to find a non-denominational counter position to evolution, or to use softer language, to reconsile the science of evolution with the creation myths of the great religious families. It is more akin to sophism then philosophy.

All that being said, I must ask you PKC... how would you feel if the creation myths of the various great religions were taught in a philosophy class? Anyone not taking a literal view of religious texts could easily interpret the creation myths of nearly all the world religions to be allagories for evolution; exploring these myths could at very least give great insight into how bronze aged cultures interpreted what they observed into a format they could understand given their limited (by our standards) knowledge. If nothing else, the creation myths of the great religions are primitive and unrefined philosophies.

Finally, as I stated before, high school is not the place for philisophical or theological study. Both of these pursuits are better left for university students or independant study as there is far too much other material to cover in high school that is of greater benefit to more people. Philosophy and theology should be studied in a quest for personal growth and understanding... high school is a place for practical instruction.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard All that being said, I must ask you PKC... how would you feel if the creation myths of the various great religions were taught in a philosophy class? Anyone not taking a literal view of religious texts could easily interpret the creation myths of nearly all the world religions to be allagories for evolution; exploring these myths could at very least give great insight into how bronze aged cultures interpreted what they observed into a format they could understand given their limited (by our standards) knowledge. If nothing else, the creation myths of the great religions are primitive and unrefined philosophies.

i dont have a problem with things like that being taught, in classes like "philosophy of religion" or "history of religion", because the FACTS are that "the egyptians believed this..." or "the aztecs worshipped these..." etc. i have a problem with ID because it is KNOWN to be false, and i fail to see the virtue in promoting lies to muddy what is a fantastic field of scientific endeavour. its central(only?) goal is to find ONE organism that contradicts evolution, in an effort to "prove" evolution wrong. it irks me that someone as obviously bright as krypton can confuse that with philosophical enquiry - ie the ID proponents are halfway there already! the more we pander to these interests the more problematic the debate becomes, and the more of a foothold it gets.

i might be too biased these days, pat condell has lit a fire under me haha! i used to be more in line with krypton, but mister opus sorted me out! but im now of the opinion that "toleration" is not the way to go anymore.

ID is no doubt already taught in religious studies in private schools in the US and possibly here too. i think that's enough pandering for one sector of society for a theory that holds ZERO water.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN i dont have a problem with things like that being taught, in classes like "philosophy of religion" or "history of religion", because the FACTS are that "the egyptians believed this..." or "the aztecs worshipped these..." etc. i have a problem with ID because it is KNOWN to be false, and i fail to see the virtue in promoting lies to muddy what is a fantastic field of scientific endeavour. its central(only?) goal is to find ONE organism that contradicts evolution, in an effort to "prove" evolution wrong. it irks me that someone as obviously bright as krypton can confuse that with philosophical enquiry - ie the ID proponents are halfway there already! the more we pander to these interests the more problematic the debate becomes, and the more of a foothold it gets. i might be too biased these days, pat condell has lit a fire under me haha! i used to be more in line with krypton, but mister opus sorted me out! but im now of the opinion that "toleration" is not the way to go anymore. ID is no doubt already taught in religious studies in private schools in the US and possibly here too. i think that's enough pandering for one sector of society for a theory that holds ZERO water.

It's strange to see that we are more or less on the same page on this issue... seriously, how rare is that?

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard It's strange to see that we are more or less on the same page on this issue... seriously, how rare is that?

haha, i dunno man. outside theology i think we agree on a fair bit!

like, tits are good yes?

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN haha, i dunno man. outside theology i think we agree on a fair bit! like, tits are good yes?

indeed they are.





(quick duck, before we get accused of bringing COR influence to the PDD)

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton A psuedo-science, by definition is a field taught as science which does no adhere to the scientific method. If ID is not taught as science, but just as another philosophy, it should be taught. As for the "questioning" aspect. What ID asks philosophically is, "Does the universe imply a creator intellegence?" No, it's not scientific. I think your hatred of religion is just as radical as evengelicals who try to have creationism taught in public schools. What is needed is a moderate comprimise, where radicals on both sides don't have it all their way.

There is nothing to "teach".

Evolution can be taught, because a brilliant man triggered a snowball torrent of information and travelled the world collecting proofs and information.

Intelligent Design is a hack excuse for religious extremists to attempt to wrestle back control of ignorance over the population.

I'm pretty sure we all realize and know that the universe exhibits some natural form of intelligence, since we're here at all somehow. But the fact remains that using that vague idea and turning it into a political hotpoint in order to get votes and power in the name of real sciences attempting to discover our world with actual experimentation is just insulting to the notion of what science is.

Besides, "intelligence" is really just a word that really means nothing in most contexts, simply denoting a heirarchy of sorts of what is more complex than something else. It's smoke and mirrors.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Shibby I'm pretty sure we all realize and know that the universe exhibits some natural form of intelligence, since we're here at all somehow.

wouldnt that mean that universes cant exist without "intelligence"? im not sure im ready to buy that.

quote:

remember it's a lot of conspiracy theories which haven't been proven, but they make a good case...

yeah, well i think its idiotic to be promoting something we all know not to be true (not the existence of god, but the religious understanding of "evolution"). you still havent justified why you think spreading untruths is somehow ok.

i think it is radical that we are forced to adopt the superstitions of other people just because they say so. philosophy is all about logic and reason, which is why ID has NO place there.
[/quote]

Spreading untruths? Forcing superstitions? I'm only advocating a discussion of the subject within the framework of philosophy, ethics, etc. As you said, philosophy is about questioning. ID should be discussed and questioned. Ask, "Is it science?" Then logically, discuss it. "Is ID in science discussion ethical?" Discuss it. In fact, such a discussion would more than likely prove within a logical argumentative framework (syllogism), that ID is not science.

I don't know your idea of a philosophy class, but mine does not just teach you the doctrines of philosophy, history, etc. In my philosophy class, we discuss modern day controversies such as ID/Evolution, and we debate the subject using logic to conclude ethicalness, etc.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN no its not. its pseudo-science that does nothing but attempt to poke holes in evolutionary theory, accepts the existence of god a priori (so hardly falls into the "questioning" nature of philosophical thought). again, saying that ID deserves to be taught is akin to saying 911 theories should be taught or "alternative" views on the holocaust should get a look-in. NO.

Tell me something, do you understand the disticntion between a theory and a rigerous proof? There is no rigerous scientific proof for any theory on 9-11, the pancake theory included. That thing called evidence, isn't available to be analyzed... you know, a good majority of the remains of the WTC that were shiped of to Asia and China. And why is the holocaust such a special historical events, that unlike any other historical events, is excluded from being critically analyzed or revised? It is obviously going to take quite a few more decades before the people get over their holocaust guilt complex and all the ludicrous social norms and conditioning consequently resulting from it. History is a collection of revisionism btw. Any historian worth his salt will always try to filter out and seperate as much inaccuracies and fabrications to get a more accurate and honest understanding from historical records. Just because a subject is a social taboo doesn't warrant academic censorship, unless you support actions similar to those of the papacy during the dark ages. Or do you champion freedom of thought and the persuit of knowledge and understanding?

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN wouldnt that mean that universes cant exist without "intelligence"? im not sure im ready to buy that.

I would say the universe has an unquestionable frame of order from the movements of planets, to single celled organisms, to quantum particles. They all behave in predictable patterns. Now, saying God is responsible for this would obviously be jumping the scientific mountain. Then again, the very nature of the universe does in my opinion justify a faith in an "orderer". Despite this, such a subject would not be right in a science classroom. I would probably call myself an evolutionary theist.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton I would say the universe has an unquestionable frame of order from the movements of planets, to single celled organisms, to quantum particles. They all behave in predictable patterns. Now, saying God is responsible for this would obviously be jumping the scientific mountain. Then again, the very nature of the universe does in my opinion justify a faith in an "orderer". Despite this, such a subject would not be right in a science classroom. I would probably call myself an evolutionary theist.

That's one thing I never undrestood, why religious fundamentalist have an issue with the theory of evolution. Like yourself, I'm a theist who doesn't have a problem with the theory of evolution. I guess that's why they're called fundamentalists.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z That's one thing I never undrestood, why religious fundamentalist have an issue with the theory of evolution. Like yourself, I'm a theist who doesn't have a problem with the theory of evolution. I guess that's why they're called fundamentalists.

They take the Bible as 100% literal. The bible does contain many books which are historical in nature. But then again, there are many books which contain allagories and symbolism so complex, a scholar can only hope to explain in literal terms (book of revelations, ezekial, etc.) I would not take the "6 days of genesis" as literal. I would especially not believe the "6000 year old earth creationism". Do you know how they came up with 6000 years? They used biblical geneologies! No scientific age measurements whatsoever. Additionally, billions of stars light takes millions of years to reach earth, pointing to a universe far older than 6000 years. Unless light travels faster..

Here is my main point. IDers point to complexity of the universe, yet they fail to really understand how complex it is, the time, and changes which took place as life evolved. This, is far more complex than the creationism viewpoint. In my opinion, they are limiting god, which if god is limited, "he" isn't god.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton They take the Bible as 100% literal. The bible does contain many books which are historical in nature. But then again, there are many books which contain allagories and symbolism so complex, a scholar can only hope to explain in literal terms (book of revelations, ezekial, etc.) I would not take the "6 days of genesis" as literal. I would especially not believe the "6000 year old earth creationism". Do you know how they came up with 6000 years? They used biblical geneologies! No scientific age measurements whatsoever. Additionally, billions of stars light takes millions of years to reach earth, pointing to a universe far older than 6000 years. Unless light travels faster.. Here is my main point. IDers point to complexity of the universe, yet they fail to really understand how complex it is, the time, and changes which took place as life evolved. This, is far more complex than the creationism viewpoint. In my opinion, they are limiting god, which if god is limited, "he" isn't god.

I think you'll like this clip:

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Spreading untruths?

yes, that's all that matters. ID is nonsense and shouldnt be given the time of day. next.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z Tell me something, do you understand the disticntion between a theory and a rigerous proof? There is no rigerous scientific proof for any theory on 9-11, the pancake theory included.

well, there's been a number of engineering studies, peer-reviewed and all! thats the best youre gonna get under such circumstances.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z you know, a good majority of the remains of the WTC that were shiped of to Asia and China.

yeah, eventually but not "illegally".

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z And why is the holocaust such a special historical events, that unlike any other historical events, is excluded from being critically analyzed or revised?

i never said there's a problem with critical analysis or revision, i was talking denialism, which possesses some of the same techniques as 911 enquiry, or intelligent design.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z Or do you champion freedom of thought and the persuit of knowledge and understanding?

i champion freedom of thought, but not when its dishonest, illogical or is tied to un-changeable agendas. to confuse ID or holocaust denial with "free thought" is laughable imo.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton would say the universe has an unquestionable frame of order from the movements of planets, to single celled organisms, to quantum particles. They all behave in predictable patterns.

well of course, how would you expect any universe to perform/exist that possessed intelligent life in it? a universe would have to be rational, stable etc.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Now, saying God is responsible for this would obviously be jumping the scientific mountain. Then again, the very nature of the universe does in my opinion justify a faith in an "orderer". Despite this, such a subject would not be right in a science classroom. I would probably call myself an evolutionary theist.

thse kinds of discussions already occur in the philosophy classrooms, ID is not a philosophy however, and works differently.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN wouldnt that mean that universes cant exist without "intelligence"? im not sure im ready to buy that.

Which is why I added the following statement about intelligence not existing at all except as an idea.

But yes, I wouldn't buy that either (regarding how universes can and can't exist). I'm sure it could be anything, most of which we probably can't even fathom.

I think perhaps a more central issue is what consciousness actually is beyond what we know of it, and if all universes are conscious in some way, if not necessarily "our" way.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN well, there's been a number of engineering studies, peer-reviewed and all! thats the best youre gonna get under such circumstances.

...exploring only one hypothesis, the one with the least probability, with selective inclusion and exclusion of evidence.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN yeah, eventually but not "illegally".

It's illegal to remove evidence from a crime scene, prior to investigation, what's so hard to understand about that?

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN i never said there's a problem with critical analysis or revision, i was talking denialism, which possesses some of the same techniques as 911 enquiry, or intelligent design.

There's plenty of 'denialism' surrounding 9-11, proposing the least plausible hypothesis, violating the laws of physics (conservation of energy/momentum) as the only explanation, belief in a conspiracy theory about a 19 hijackers coming from a non-existent group (or "network" rather), several of with are alive but were supposedly on planes that crashed, and then labeling anything else as insane certainly sounds like denial to me. The list of facts go on and on, but that's irrelevant to anyone in denial.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN i champion freedom of thought, but not when its dishonest, illogical or is tied to un-changeable agendas. to confuse ID or holocaust denial with "free thought" is laughable imo.

That's the whole purpose of revision, to remove the dishonest and logically inconsistent elements from history. You only proved my point about cultural taboos and conditioning by labeling it "holocaust denial." Take a good long look at my sig, which hasn't changed in years, which you already know. Does it look like I think it's a work of fiction or an actual event lol? About ID, I wasn't even talking about ID and I've already stated in the past that it's not a scientific theory not do I have a problem with the theory of evolution, so I don't know how you tied that one in to what I was responding to. I'm guessing you haven't even bothered looking in to the subject (holocaust), which is understandable, I used to have the same complexes and hangups about the issue in the past. "How dare I even consider looking at a critical evaluation of the evidence (for actual details and numbers), records, and historical accounts surrounding the text book version of the events? That is SO anti-semitic!" Then I realized that notion was absolute bullshit, and became conscious of my cultural conditioning that impaired my ability to think critically about the subject. BTW, the guy who introduced me to some revisionist material was a Jewish guy who I reactively called an anti-semite at first lol.

****ARRGGHHH!!!****

Damn wheel's stuck to the left. It wants to go to 9/11 Conspiracy Road, but...we.....gotta.....keep it.....straight ahead to......Evolution Avenue.

I swear this damn car needs maintenance. The Mrs. must have driven it last.....

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z I'm guessing you haven't even bothered looking in to the subject (holocaust), which is understandable, I used to have the same complexes and hangups about the issue in the past.

im a student of WW2 history, i know plenty. nothing that makes me feel the need to delve any "deeper", and i certainly dont have any "hangups" about research (thats retarded) the only thing i DO have is 911 fatigue.

and LOL at mr opus

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.