| Chronology | Current Month | Current Thread | Current Date |
| [Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |
3.8?? Does that qualify as an earthquake in NC?? :-)
Wes (from CA)
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Cockman, Jr." <cockmanje@APPSTATE.EDU>
To: <PHYS-L@LISTS.NAU.EDU>
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2005 6:29 AM
Subject: Re: ID defenders
I'm a little foggy on ID. Does it teach a particular creation story
(plenty
here: http://www.magictails.com/creationlinks.html )? Does it teach a
young
universe? Does it attempt to describe the designer (flying spaghetti
monster, etc.)? How much about the designer is assumed in the teaching
of
ID?
Also, I felt my first ever earthquake yesterday (8/24/05) evening at
11:15
PM ET. A magnitude 3.8 centered below Hot Springs, NC, probably seventy
miles distant.
John Cockman
----- Original Message -----
From: "R. McDermott" <rmcder@PEOPLEPC.COM>
To: <PHYS-L@LISTS.NAU.EDU>
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2005 3:11 PM
Subject: Re: ID defenders
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Denker" <jsd@AV8N.COM>
To: <PHYS-L@LISTS.NAU.EDU>
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2005 9:06 AM
Subject: Re: ID defenders
Monce, Michael N. wrote:
I'm not defending ID, but just pointing out that censorship, and s=
upression of opinion and debate, are certainly not limited to one sid=
e of the political spectrum.
That's true, and well said.
For moderation,
I'm in favor of getting the correct answer.
What constitutes "correct"? I understand "in agreement with the
evidence",
but "correct"?
Moderation and compromise are
often _but not always_ the path to the correct answer.
To cite a favorite example: If somebody says the moon is made of green
cheese, he's wrong. He is not partly right. He is not moderately
right.
Agreed, we can establish that an idea is incorrect by direct testing.
How
do we establish that an idea is "correct"?
We should not compromise between his "opinion" and the scientific
evidence.
Agreed, but neither should we blindly assume that we are "correct". In
fact, that is patently unscientific!
As Winston Churchill said, when somebody's house is on fire, we should
not
stand impartial between the fire brigade and the fire.
I'm not saying we should stifle debate or prevent people from
expressing
their opinions, but neither should we give equal weight and equal
class-time
to all opinions. As Arno Penzias said, to do that would give the
biggest
advantage to the biggest liar.
What is often overlooked is that there are TWO extreme points of view on
display in this disagreement:
On the one hand, we have people desparately attempting to support a
literal
interpretation of the Bible, but choosing a very poor instrument for
that
support. Science requires evidence leading to an explanation which is
then
tested repeatedly. There is no way to test ID, and frankly, science
would
negate faith if it were possible to imploy scientific methods to
faith-based
beliefs. The two, imo, are incompatible.
On the other hand, we have people openly antagonistic to religion who
point
to science as a refutation of religious belief. You mention
"correctness"
and getting the "right answer", others have mentioned "truth". But what
science produces are explanations for observations, and those
explanations
are subsequently tested for falsifiablity (shoot, is that a word?).
Clearly, then, the explanations are NEVER to be assumed to be "correct",
"fact", or "the truth". What we have is varying degrees of confidence
in
our explanations based upon the number and duration of challenges made
on
those explanations. Imo, we are on very dangerous ground when we insist
that science provides "proof" or "truth", and I think this should be
self-evident by the numerous examples of the fallability of scientific
explanation.
We should never say "we know that" when we should more properly state
that
"we believe that", or "the currectly-accepted theory is that". If you
want
to add that we're 95% confident, that's fine too. But no scientist,
imo,
is
justified in saying or implying that "I know" or "we know". Now I've
heard
objections to that from people who feel that this opens the door to
religious extremists to support their beliefs, ignoring that failing to
do
that just as firmly closes the door and leads to alienating the vast
majority of religious people who do not require that the Bible be
literally
interpreted. If the ANTI-religious "science" people didn't spend so
much
time driving moderate Christians to side with the handful of literal
interpretation extremists, there wouldn't be nearly the support for ID
that
we find around us!
Would it be a disaster for science if we said "Background radiation in
space, and the apparent receeding motion of the objects in space
strongly
suggests that the universe began with a 'Big Bang', rather than saying
"The
universe began with the 'Big Bang'?" Or "We have observed that
organisms
can change characteristics over time in response to outside influences.
We
see that species can diverge resulting in new breeds with widely
different
characteristics. We have even seen the development of new species
(cannot
breed). All of this evidence leads us to believe that at one time, long
ago, there may have been far fewer organisms or maybe only one organism
that
has gradually produced all that we see around us", rather than saying
"Life
began with single-celled organisms"?
Who cares if a handful of people elect to believe that the Bible is
literally true? Isn't it more important that everyone understand that
evolution as a PROCESS is indisputable (since it is demonstrable) rather
than trying to shove oogenesis (life from non-life) or macroevolution
(that
complex organisms evolved from simple) down their throats when these are
NOT
demonstrable (or at least I haven't seen it)? IS it SO important to try
to
prove these people wrong that we claim to KNOW what took place?
Wouldn't
it
be better to simply state the evidence and what we THINK it means?
As a Christian and a scientist, I have no problem reconciling the two as
I,
like many Christians, do not require the Biblical Creation to be
literally
true. What frosts me personally is to have supposedly scientific people
in
school tell or imply to my children that what I happen to believe is
unequivocally wrong. Oogenesis is currently untestable. So far as I
know,
so is macroevolution. Whatever our personal degree of confidence in
these
hypotheses may be, or even whether we personally believe that they rise
to
the level of theory, they certainly cannot in good conscience be
considered
to be right beyond a shadow of a doubt. IMO, we have no business
treating
them as if they were. Your mileage may vary.