I.D. gets slammed by a federal judge

[Norman Bernstein]

Well, this is the next round in the 10 round bout between science and religion:

(see MSNBC.com for a link to the actual written judgment)


HARRISBURG, Pa. - In one of the biggest courtroom clashes between faith and evolution since the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial, a federal judge barred a Pennsylvania public school district Tuesday from teaching “intelligent design” in biology class, saying the concept is creationism in disguise.

U.S. District Judge John E. Jones delivered a stinging attack on the Dover Area School Board, saying its first-in-the-nation decision in October 2004 to insert intelligent design into the science curriculum violates the constitutional separation of church and state.

The ruling was a major setback to the intelligent design movement, which is also waging battles in Georgia and Kansas. Intelligent design holds that living organisms are so complex that they must have been created by some kind of higher force.

Jones decried the “breathtaking inanity” of the Dover policy and accused several board members of lying to conceal their true motive, which he said was to promote religion.

A six-week trial over the issue yielded “overwhelming evidence” establishing that intelligent design “is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory,” said Jones, a Republican and a churchgoer appointed to the federal bench three years ago.

The school system said it will probably not appeal the ruling, because the members who backed intelligent design were ousted in November’s elections and replaced with a new slate opposed to the policy.

[Donn]

It just came out today, and it's already in reruns! ("")

[Keith Wilson]

There was a thread on this earlier today, (the wizard of I.D.) which sank pretty quickly, even though it has some good quotes that George posted from the decision.


Any asserted secular purposes by the Board are a sham and are merely secondary to a religious objective... Defendants’ previously referenced flagrant and insulting falsehoods to the Court provide sufficient and compelling evidence for us to deduce that any allegedly secular purposes that have been offered in support of the ID Policy are equally insincere.

Accordingly, we find that the secular purposes claimed by the Board amount to a pretext for the Board’s real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom, in violation of the Establishment Clause.
136
H. Conclusion

The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board’s ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.

Both Defendants and many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general. Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs’ scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator.

To be sure, Darwin’s theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions.

[Norman Bernstein]

There was a thread on this earlier today, (the wizard of I.D.) Sorry.. I missed the original thread... I'm gonna have to catch up! smile.gif

[Norman Bernstein]

If all this makes you want to laugh, try this Doonesbury comic:

http://www.ucomics.com/doonesbury/2005/12/18/

[Meerkat]

Is this ridiculing Christianity? ;)

[Cuyahoga Chuck]

Not really. Just some Christians.

[Meerkat]

Originally posted by Cuyahoga Chuck:
Not really. Just some Christians.Ah, well, one should hate the sin and love the sinner ;)

[Norman Bernstein]

I haven't the slightest doubt that I.D. proponents will of course be offended by the comic strip... they're offended by pretty much ANY dissent from their views.

But personally, I thought the Doonesbury piece was HILAROUS smile.gif

[Meerkat]

Me too! :D

[Donn]

I haven't kept up with this subject, but has someone on the forum argued that ID should be taught in science classes?

[P.I. Stazzer-Newt]

Originally posted by Donn:
I haven't kept up with this subject, but has someone on the forum argued that ID should be taught in science classes?This appeared to be the line advanced by the legendary SamF.

[Donn]

Ahhh. Then I can understand the angst.

[Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson )]

Originally posted by Donn:
Ahhh. Then I can understand the angst.Ahhh I understand Donn is going for 25,000 post before he gets Scoted again :D :D :D

[ 12-20-2005, 07:05 PM: Message edited by: Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson ) ]

[Bruce Hooke]

Sam was the one most willing to argue the topic for page after page, but he is certainly not the only one around here who has spoken in favor of teaching ID in science classes.

[Bruce Hooke]

Originally posted by Norman Bernstein:
I haven't the slightest doubt that I.D. proponents will of course be offended by the comic strip... they're offended by pretty much ANY dissent from their views.

But personally, I thought the Doonesbury piece was HILAROUS smile.gif Actually, while the cartoon is funny, I think it rather misses the point of the arguments of the ID proponents. At least based on what I've heard, the ID proponents do not usually dispute that evolution can and does happen, they just claim that God steps in sometimes to alter the course of evolution or to help it along...

[Meerkat]

Originally posted by Bruce Hooke:
...
they just claim that God steps in sometimes to alter the course of evolution or to help it along...Nah, it's the tooth fairy! Prove me wrong! ;)

[Bruce Hooke]

I just heard on the radio that the Dover School Board will not be appealing this decision. This is no surprise given that most of the ID proponents got voted off the board in November, but I wonder if it means this decision will basically become a footnote, and that this issue won't really get "dealt with" from a national perspective until a school board comes along that is interested in fighting this on up to the Supreme Court...

[Bruce Hooke]

Originally posted by Meerkat:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bruce Hooke:
...
they just claim that God steps in sometimes to alter the course of evolution or to help it along...Nah, it's the tooth fairy! Prove me wrong! ;) </font>[/QUOTE]Good point! They are very careful to pretend that they could be talking about any supernatural being, not just God! Fortunately the judge saw right through that argument!

[Donn]

Strange. Sam isn't here, no one is arguing that ID is science, yet the LWW's are doing their circle-jerk dance. Is this a pre-emptive strike? tongue.gif

[Paul G]

God designed and built George W.....

'nuff said?

[Karl A. Hilbert]

Tooth fairy? It's the Wizard of ID. Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!!

[Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson )]

Donn, It is a popular subject we are talking about it - are you about to tell people of this forum what dead horse they can beat on Lord Donn ;) Ya know most people don't care about your Donnobituary but no one stops you :D

[Bruce Hooke]

Originally posted by Donn:
Strange. Sam isn't here, no one is arguing that ID is science, yet the LWW's are doing their circle-jerk dance. Is this a pre-emptive strike? Just because nobody cares at the moment to take up the other side on this issue does not make it an irrelevant issue.

Might I suggest that if you actually want to contribute to this community you should focus on posting useful comments rather that posting garbage intended, as far as I can tell, solely to rile people up.

[Donn]

Sure, Bruce, you might suggest that. If, however, you expect me to consider your suggestion, I'd suggest that you're seriously deluded. ;) See? I put in a winkie, so you shouldn't think I'm trying to insult you.

[dmede]

Originally posted by Bruce Hooke:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Donn:
[qb]Might I suggest that if you actually want to contribute to this community you should focus on posting useful comments rather that posting garbage intended, as far as I can tell, solely to rile people up.Donn doesn't take sugestions, he only gives them.

[Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson )]

Originally posted by Donn:
I put in a winkieJust think of big bad ol Donn saying "winkie"

winkie :D
winkie :D :D :D

winkie Bwaaaaaaaaaa ha ha winkie gasp wheeze, winkie :D :D

[Donn]

Originally posted by dmede:
Donn doesn't take sugestions, he only gives them.I've never given a "sugestion"[sic]. tongue.gif

[Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson )]

Is winkie even a word grammarnazi ?

[dmede]

Originally posted by Donn:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by dmede:
Donn doesn't take sugestions, he only gives them.I've never given a "sugestion"[sic]. tongue.gif </font>[/QUOTE]
Originally posted by Donn:
If, however, you expect me to consider your suggestion, I'd >>suggest<< that you're seriously deluded. ;) See? I put in a winkie, so you shouldn't think I'm trying to insult you.Its petty, but if feels so good :D

[Donn]

God...it's just too easy! :D :D

[Memphis Mike]

You can sure tell when the booze starts flowin. It's kinda fun bein on the outside lookin in. :rolleyes:

[Meerkat]

IT's going to get worse: his (as described by Donn) shew who must be obeyed is going to be home during the transit strike in NYC. :eek: :D

[Donn]

Originally posted by Meerkat:
shew who must be obeyed ..So far, the strike hasn't bothered her much. "Shew"[sic] has to walk 15 minutes from Penn Station to her office, instead of an 8 minute subway trip.

OTOH, we have friends who have retail operations in the city, who either couldn't open at all today (a serious retail season), or had no traffic. We also have friends who have kids who couldn't go to school today. People lost their jobs today.

But go ahead and josh about it Meerkat. You're already a welfare case, and probably feel good that others are too.

[ssor]

If you want to discuss ID ask woman about menstrual cycles and ID :D :D :D

[Osborne Russel]

Originally posted by Donn:
I haven't kept up with this subject, but has someone on the forum argued that ID should be taught in science classes?In light of the ruling they are well advised to continue to conceal their agenda.

[Osborne Russel]

Originally posted by Bruce Hooke:
At least based on what I've heard, the ID proponents do not usually dispute that evolution can and does happen, they just claim that God steps in sometimes to alter the course of evolution or to help it along...Then it's not evolution.

[dmede]

Originally posted by Donn:
God...it's just too easy! :D :D oofff, that was bad. did you get the no apostrophy too? :rolleyes:

[George.]

What a piece of work is Donn...

He is obsessed with having the highest number of posts in the forum. Just the other day he was worried about Meerkat "catching him." And yet he has almost nothing of value to post. So he posts puerile insults and acidic remarks, which become increasingly rude as cocktail hour progresses.

Great South Bay must be a very dull place in winter...

[Donn]

Originally posted by George.:
What a piece of work is Donn...

Dottie...do the math. You post 12.7% more frequently than I do. tongue.gif

[George.]

Yes, but my posts have content. Yours are just spittle...

[Donn]

My compost heap has the same sort of "content."

[Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson )]

Originally posted by Donn:
My compost heap has the same sort of "content."Example of Donnkeys "content." contribution :rolleyes:

What a twit.

[ 12-21-2005, 07:22 AM: Message edited by: Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson ) ]

[Keith Wilson]

At least based on what I've heard, the ID proponents do not usually dispute that evolution can and does happen, they just claim that God steps in sometimes to alter the course of evolution or to help it along Back to issues, gentlemen?

The essential point is that the ID folks claim there is empirical evidence of somebody (wink, wink, nudge) taking a hand in evolution. They claim to have found God’s fingerprints. They never mention God in public; otherwise they couldn’t get it into couldn’t get into high school science texts.

One of many dead giveaways that this is religion, not science, is that their first priority is to get it into science textbooks. The normal route by which new ideas come to be taught in school is research first, then general acceptance by scientists, and only then does it get taught in schools. The fact that they have decided to battle over curriculum rather than do research shows very clearly that their priority is indoctrination of youth rather than understanding the physical world.

[ 12-21-2005, 09:55 AM: Message edited by: Keith Wilson ]

[Osborne Russel]

Originally posted by Keith Wilson:
Back to issues, gentlemen?Hear, hear. What's Donn's position?

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

One of many dead giveaways that this is religion, not science, is that their first priority is to get it into science textbooks. The normal route by which new ideas come to be taught in school is research first, then general acceptance by scientists, and only then does it get taught in schools. The fact that they have decided to battle over curriculum rather than do research shows very clearly that their priority is indoctrination of youth rather than understanding the physical world.
What oft was thought, but ne'er so well expressed! Well said, Keith. smile.gif

[sharpie]

The normal route by which new ideas come to be taught in school is research first, then general acceptance by scientists, and only then does it get taught in schools. Wow! This means that Marx's dialectical materialism is science! :rolleyes:

What a crock of naieve tripe.

[George.]

:rolleyes:

No, sharpie.

Repeat after me.

All horses have asses.

You have an ass.

Therefore, you are a horse.

Get it?

[Meerkat]

"Marxism" is "political science", which not only is not science, it's not good politics! ;)

[sharpie]

George., you are so clever! And Meerkat's a scholar. Who can stand against such brilliance?

[Keith Wilson]

Ooooh, is that Dutch?

Nevertheless:

Dialectical materialism is philosophy (not particularly good philosophy, even) which once tried to masquerade as science, much like ID in that repect. Almost everybody knows better now. What does it have to do with ID?

[Sam F]

Tut tut Keith... Don't you know that the Scientific Materialism that Darwinism is founded on is philosophy too? Sure you do. :D
You'll have to do better than that!

[Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson )]

Originally posted by Sam F:
Tut tut Keith... Don't you know that the Scientific Materialism that Darwinism is founded on is philosophy too? Sure you do. :D
You'll have to do better than that!federal judge did better than that!

Bwaaaaa ha ha :D
SamF you LOST
Slammed by a federal judge

KO
http://strangecosmos.com/images/content/104623.gif

[ 12-21-2005, 10:58 PM: Message edited by: Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson ) ]

[Sam F]

Good use of bandwidth Joe. Very cogent reasoning and very intellectual!
But surely even you should know by now that on a given day one can find a federal judge who'll say anything... such as ending an election recount for instance. You agreed with that didn't you? Just because a federal judge (actually 5 of them IIRC) said so. Right?

[Meerkat]

Originally posted by Sam F:
Don't you know that the Scientific Materialism that Darwinism is founded on is philosophy too? Hmmm... you can bandy the term around well enough, but can you define "scientific materialism?"

I can't seem to find this term in a dictionary... ;)

[Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson )]

Originally posted by Sam F:
Good use of bandwidth Joe. Very cogent reasoning and very intellectual!There is always Tolstoy ;)

[ssor]

BS is kinda like porn, not very easy to discribe but you sure do recognize it when you see it.

[Sam F]

Originally posted by Meerkat:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Sam F:
Don't you know that the Scientific Materialism that Darwinism is founded on is philosophy too? Hmmm... you can bandy the term around well enough, but can you define "scientific materialism?"

I can't seem to find this term in a dictionary... ;) </font>[/QUOTE]Aw come on Meer. You can certainly find Materialism in a dictionary and I know you understand how to use a search engine. Try Naturalism aka Scientific Materialism.
Or simply go to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_materialism


Naturalism is any of several philosophical stances, typically those descended from materialism and pragmatism, that do not distinguish between the supernatural and the natural... This approach is also known as scientific materialism or as methodological materialism. The second approach refers to the metaphysical assumption that the natural world is all that exists.

[Meerkat]

Materialsim:
# Philosophy. The theory that physical matter is the only reality and that everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena.Can't quite seem to find the word "scientific" in there... hmmmm! ;)

I've always thought that science was based on the scientific method. You trying to create something different - like a specious argument about philosophy? ;)

You, or I for that matter, can believe anything you want. You just can't prove it. That's the essential difference.

[Karl A. Hilbert]

Darwin the man may have operated under a personal philosophy of scientific materialism, but his theory was not "founded" on it. The ghost and the machine are two different things.

Spelling twice

[ 12-22-2005, 12:25 AM: Message edited by: Karl A. Hilbert ]

[Meerkat]

BTW, look up the difference between "philosophy" and "methodology". You just might find it illuminating!

[Meerkat]

Hmmm... I seem to have stopped Sam in his tracks! :D

[Keith Wilson]

Oh, give it up Sam.

Darwinian evolution is a description of events in the physical world; of what happened and how it happened. It has no necessary connection to any philosophical idea except the same one that underlies all science: that the way to learn about the physical world is through observation and experiment.

Very good, Meerkat. "Scientific materialism" is not science and is not necessary for science.

[ 12-22-2005, 12:17 PM: Message edited by: Keith Wilson ]

[sharpie]

Darwinian evolution is a description of events in the physical world; of what happened and how it happened. It has no necessary connection to any philosophical idea except the same one that underlies all science: that the way to learn about the physical world is through observation and experiment. You keep saying this in mantra like fashion as if it will keep the bogey man away. It doesn't, however. Darwin's assertions about Finches beaks have been philosophically enlarged to account for the evolution of all life despite evidence to the contrary. There is much philosophy that undergirds scientific thinking whether you like it or not. Note American Scientist Will Provine who says:

"Modern science directly implies the world is organized strictly in accordance with deterministic principles or chance. There are no purposive principles whatsoever in nature. There are no gods and no designing forces rationally detectable." Now this is only one example out of many. So, please to stop with the purist approach to science. It is really pathetic.

Oh! And Meerkat is still a scholar.

[Karl A. Hilbert]

Where's Thomas Paine when you need him?

[George.]

Sharpie, sharpie. For every scientist that says there is no god, I'll show you ten fundies who say there is no science. So what?

[George.]

Originally posted by sharpie:
... despite evidence to the contrary. Read the Pennsylvania court's ruling. It is very well written, lucid, and clear. And it deals swiftly with all your arguments against evolution, and for ID, or any other mythology. In fact, it deals with all of Sam's arguments, and even with the best arguments put forth by the best ID champions - Dembsky and the lot of them. And it finds them all wanting. Badly wanting. And it clearly demonstrates their flaws.

Oh, and it was written by a conservative judge appointed by Bush. Who found that evolution is good science, ID is not science, and ID proponents are just religion-pushers in disguise. And liars.

[sharpie]

Sharpie, sharpie. For every scientist that says there is no god, I'll show you ten fundies who say there is no science. So what? George., Yes, so what? What makes you think I care about what the fundies say? I would imagine they are as wrong as the scientists who conclude from their "science" that there is no designer because such a conclusion from "science" is not itself scientific. On this I would agree with Mr. Wilson. However, I would not agree that that science taught in school is unalloyed with philosophical positions that run contrary to reason and so science. One would have to have one's one's head stuck so far up the proverbial horse's behind that he would have become both deaf and blind.

[Keith Wilson]

There are no gods and no designing forces rationally detectable. Please tell us how one would rationally detect gods or designing forces. This should be good.

[sharpie]

Please tell me how one does not? This should be good.

[peb]

Originally posted by Keith Wilson:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> There are no gods and no designing forces rationally detectable. Please tell us how one would rationally detect gods or designing forces. This should be good.</font>[/QUOTE]Keith,

(side note: I just briefly looked into this thread and I stumble onto this post. Now I will admit that I have only gone back a little bit to pick up the context, but anyway...)

So you do not think the existense of God is a reasonable (rational) belief? Yet you say that your are arguing from a point of view that " has no necessary connection to any philosophical idea ".

Now, if this is not a contradiction,
I do not know what one is.

[Sam F]

Originally posted by Meerkat:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Materialsim:
# Philosophy. The theory that physical matter is the only reality and that everything,
including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter and
physical phenomena.Can't quite seem to find the word "scientific" in there...
hmmmm! </font>[/QUOTE]Come on Meer I gave you the definition and it’s synonym which you can most certainly
find in any decent dictionary. To make matters worse, the definition you quoted above
only makes my case. Do you seriously suggest that Darwin’s Scientific Materialism isn’t
in concert with the definition?


Originally posted by Meerkat:
I've always thought that science was based on the scientific method. You trying to
create something different - like a specious argument about philosophy?
Please note that I didn’t bring up philosophy. If you want to object to using the term
in this discussion then I suggest that you direct your criticism to Keith.
On the principle of reciprocity (i.e. if it’s good for the goose, it’s good for the gander) if
someone wants to use an argument to make his case, he should be fairly confident that he
doesn’t undermine his own cause in the process. Criticizing another’s argument on the
grounds that it’s philosophy is highly ineffective when one’s own argument is founded on
an unacknowledged philosophy.


Originally posted by Meerkat:
You, or I for that matter, can believe anything you want. You just can't prove it.
That's the essential difference. But Meer, this isn’t a matter of belief. You claim that Scientific Materialism doesn't
exist, but I’ve proved that it does. This is a simple matter of fact. Arguing otherwise is to
use your own words: “specious”. ;)

[Meerkat]

Originally posted by Sam F:
Please note that I didn’t bring up philosophy. If you want to object to using the term
in this discussion then I suggest that you direct your criticism to Keith.
On the principle of reciprocity (i.e. if it’s good for the goose, it’s good for the gander) if
someone wants to use an argument to make his case, he should be fairly confident that he
doesn’t undermine his own cause in the process. Criticizing another’s argument on the
grounds that it’s philosophy is highly ineffective when one’s own argument is founded on
an unacknowledged philosophy.

Actually, you DID bring up philosophy! I refer you to your earlier post:

Originally posted by Sam F:
Tut tut Keith... Don't you know that the Scientific Materialism that Darwinism is founded on is philosophy too? (Emphaiss added)

[sharpie]

Uh, Mr. F, ya oughtn't argue with a scholar of that cat's caliber. Ya might be outgunned.

[Sam F]

Originally posted by Keith Wilson:
... Darwinian evolution is a description of events in the physical world; of
what happened and how it happened. Keith that’s another “Just so story”.


Originally posted by Keith Wilson:
It has no necessary connection to any philosophical idea except the same one that
underlies all science: that the way to learn about the physical world is through
observation and experiment.Keith you’ve jumped the tracks again. Observation and experiment are not Materialism.
The Catholic Bishop of Lincoln, Robert Grosseteste who was also the founder of the modern scientific method would certainly agree that the physical world should be investigated through observation and experiment but he was no materialist like Darwin - or like so many who
confuse Materialist philosophy with science.


Originally posted by Keith Wilson:
Very good, Meerkat. "Scientific materialism" is not science and is not necessary for
science. No Keith. It’s not very good at all. Didn’t you notice in earlier discussions that my whole
point revolved around scientific materialism NOT being a synonym of science?

[Meerkat]

Originally posted by Sam F:
But Meer, this isn’t a matter of belief. You claim that Scientific Materialism doesn't
exist, but I’ve proved that it does. This is a simple matter of fact. Arguing otherwise is to
use your own words: “specious”. ;) I never made any such claim. Scientific Materialism does exist - it's a philosophy, with the same ranking as any other philosophy/theology: a matter of unfounded speculation.

Science is founded on the Scientific Method. It's a methodology, not a philosophy.

[Meerkat]

BTW, who makes the claim that "Darwinism" is founded on Scientific Materialism?

[Sam F]

Well done Peb.

[High C]

Originally posted by sharpie:
Uh, Mr. F, ya oughtn't argue with a scholar of that cat's caliber. Ya might be outgunned.What're you, his cousin? Meer, a scholar?
:confused: tongue.gif :D :eek: :D

[Meerkat]

Originally posted by High C:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by sharpie:
Uh, Mr. F, ya oughtn't argue with a scholar of that cat's caliber. Ya might be outgunned.What're you, his cousin? Meer, a scholar?
:confused: tongue.gif :D :eek: :D </font>[/QUOTE]Gaitorbait speaks! ;) :D

[Wild Wassa]

CNNN and N's Australian journalist Julian Morrow went deeply into the US Bible-belt to see what people think of an ape called 'Chumba' who has hired a bunch of lawyers and is going to court to prove that he's related to humans.

Foregoing the published replies, because they prove we are related to apes ... what do you think? ... "There are no chimps on my family tree, so back off Chumba."

If Chumba's lawyers win in court, should Chumba be entitled to welfare?

It must be an insult to Gorillas knowing that they are related to some of us, from a Gorilla's point of view, for sure and God bless.

Warren.

Ps, Sharpie G'day do you know Oyster? ... it's good to see you back Mate.

[ 12-23-2005, 01:31 AM: Message edited by: Wild Wassa ]

[George.]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/opinion/ssi/images/Toles/c_12232005_520.gif

[Keith Wilson]

Observation and experiment are not Materialism.Of course not, but they are science. Materialism as a philisophical belief certainly exists, as do materialists. However, it has no necessary connection to science, which is a description of and a way of studying the physical world. I’m not a materialist myself. Science says that the only valid way to learn about the physical world is through observation and experiment. Materialism goes much further, and says something completely unwarranted, IMHO: that those things which can be understood through observation and experiment are all that exists. Materialism on non-materialsm is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT to any discussion about the evolution of life on Earth.


So you do not think the existence of God is a reasonable (rational) belief? Yet you say that your are arguing from a point of view that " has no necessary connection to any philosophical idea ". No, peb, sorry, I didn't put it very well, too short and glib. I don’t think that the existence of God or Gods has been demonstrated by the methods of science, by observation and experiment. This is ID's central claim: that we have found God's fingerprints on the creation. I don’t claim that belief in God is necessarily irrational. And I certainly have philosophical convictions myself; I’m scarcely the pure objective personification of science. Those who do science can and do believe all sorts of things, subscribe to all sorts of philosophies and religions, (short of biblical literalism) and can study the physical world in just the same way.

[ 12-23-2005, 01:46 PM: Message edited by: Keith Wilson ]

[George.]

More evidence for intelligent design has just surfaced...

http://cache.boston.com/resize/bonzai-fba/AP_Photo/2005/12/21/1135200091_5874/410w.jpg