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?

___________________
"The Greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." -Stephen Hawking
"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me— and there was no one left to speak out for me." -Martin Niemöller

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.

___________________
"The Greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." -Stephen Hawking
"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me— and there was no one left to speak out for me." -Martin Niemöller

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:

___________________
"The Greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." -Stephen Hawking
"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me— and there was no one left to speak out for me." -Martin Niemöller

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.

___________________
"The Greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." -Stephen Hawking
"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me— and there was no one left to speak out for me." -Martin Niemöller

****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.....

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

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

___________________