Invoking The Voyagers Against Id Options

[Bob Shaw]

Hey guies please re-read the Gospels, there is no mention of disputes on creation or evolution, just of loving each others.

Richard:

Cthulhu surely *does* love humanity, oh yessssssss. And you know where you stand with Him, which is hopefully at the far end of the lunchtime queue!

Aiiiiii!

Bob Shaw

[Guest_Richard Trigaux_*]

Richard:

Cthulhu surely *does* love humanity, oh yessssssss. And you know where you stand with Him, which is hopefully at the far end of the lunchtime queue!

Aiiiiii!

Bob Shaw

No problem, I fixed him: offering him the spaghetti monster to eat, which will take and endless time, so we can enjoy life forever too. Heee heee this is applied theology

[ljk4-1]

Weisberg Addresses I.D.

Prof encourages sharing evolution's 'beautiful' side

By Tamar Weinstock

Cornell Sun Contributor

A CBS News Public Opinion Survey in Oct. 2005 found that only 15 percent of Americans think that humans evolved and God did not guide the process, according to Prof. Michael Weisberg, philosophy, University of Pennsylvania. Weisberg presented a lecture on the topic yesterday, attempting to address the question of why many people do not accept the notion of evolution.

Weisberg spoke about the heated evolution and intelligent design debate, focusing on how educators and students can work to combat the intelligent design movement and promote the public's acceptance of evolutionary theory. He emphasized the importance of increasing scientific literacy in America. He also noted that understanding of evolution is decoupled from acceptance of evolution.

"You can teach all you want; that's not going to do it," Weisberg said.

Instead, he advocated not only telling people about the details of evolution but also inspiring them with the ideas.

According to Weisberg, "exciting people and showing geeky documentaries like Life on Earth to your friends" will make a big difference. Weisberg advocated increasing the positive associations with evolutionary theory by focusing on the things that are "beautiful" about Darwin's idea, such as the tree of life and the notion that all of life is unified.

Weisberg did not accept the explanation that poor scientific reasoning, lack of understanding and perceived negative consequences completely explains the rejection of evolution.

The solution, therefore, lies not only in education but in doing outreach and going out to the communities, according to Weisberg. He was a consultant on the Dover, P.A. intelligent design case. In 2004, the Dover School Board required that a disclaimer be taught with regards to the gaps in evolutionary theory and the existence of other options to explain the origins of life. The federal lawsuit against the Dover School Board ended with a "resounding victory for the enlightenment," according to Weisberg, as the judge decided that intelligent design is not a science.

"I.D. has basically been put into the grave by the Dover case," Weisberg said.

Khullat Munir '09 provided a different perspective.

"I.D.'s list-serve is one of the most active ones on campus. It's scientific and ties into people's core beliefs." She was glad "to hear a person with actual authority talk about the subject."

"He is very intelligent and is articulate at explaining what was at stake at a great public moment, and we have a responsibility to consider the implications," said Prof. Michele Moody-Adams, director of the program on ethics and public life, which sponsored the lecture.

Adam Becker '06, a philosophy and physics major, echoed this sentiment.

"We have an intellectual responsibility to discuss this sort of thing, especially in a representative government," Becker said.

http://www.cornellsun.com/media/paper866/n....cornellsun.com

[Guest_Richard Trigaux_*]

ljk4-1, your last post shows us that things are not so simple. We cannot promote evolution by just "showing how fun it is" or "increasing science literacy". Because the idea of a god kindly creating us and taking us in a paradise after our death, this idea is much more funnier and appealing than the idea of a random evolution and a forever unconsciousness after death. And this problem is much more deeply rooted in the US, which is basically, remember, a religious country, than, say, in atheist France.

My modest contribution would be that:

-science may adopt a more modest profile, and admit that, besides things which it knows, there are things which it don't know, for instance what caused the appearance of the big bang. And that metaphysical explanations cannot be just excluded as "irrationnal".

-similarly science is not a guru: knowledge of physics cannot infer positions in domains such as morals and the purpose to give to our lives. (or it will be definitively another science). There is however many "morals" made in the name of science (implicitely, and sometimes explicitely). For instance, if we know to take an embryo to a woman and put it in another woman's womb, thus this MUST be done and oponents are "opposed to progress".

-science must stop despising as "irrational" or "cultural" or "belief" any other knowledge in morals, etc. When a christian or a muslim hears that, he simply shuts down the TV or look at the movie on the other channel.

On their side, religious people have their share of the job, such as thinking more rationaly, rejecting a priori dogma and statements, etc. Today it is difficult to ignore science and its fantastic possibilities.

[ljk4-1]

The Other Intelligent Design Theories

Intelligent Design is only one of many “alternatives” to Darwinian evolution

by David Brin

There is rich irony in how the present battle over Creationism v. Darwinism has taken shape, and especially the ways that this round differs from previous episodes. A clue to both the recent success — and the eventual collapse — of “Intelligent Design” can be found in its name, and in the new tactics that are being used to support its incorporation into school curricula. In what must be taken as sincere flattery, these tactics appear to acknowledge just how deeply the inner lessons of science have pervaded modern culture.

The full article here:

http://www.skeptic.com/the_magazine/featur...ID_theories.php

[Guest_Richard Trigaux_*]

The simple fact that ID proponents used "tactics" to enter into the education system, while bypassing the mandatory science examination and checking, speaks against them much more efficiently than any "debate" on their hypothesis itself.

Did Einstein used "tactics" to be taugh at school prior to any checking?

[ljk4-1]

Physics, abstract
physics/0510102

From: Stephen D. H. Hsu [view email]

Date (v1): Tue, 11 Oct 2005 20:15:52 GMT (5kb)

Date (revised v2): Tue, 6 Dec 2005 06:20:04 GMT (7kb)

Date (revised v3): Sat, 3 Jun 2006 04:36:35 GMT (7kb)

Message in the Sky

Authors: S. Hsu, A. Zee

Comments: 3 pages, revtex; to appear in Mod.Phys.Lett.A

Subj-class: Popular Physics

We argue that the cosmic microwave background (CMB) provides a stupendous opportunity for the Creator of universe our (assuming one exists) to have sent a message to its occupants, using known physics.

Our work does not support the Intelligent Design movement in any way whatsoever, but asks, and attempts to answer, the entirely scientific question of what the medium and message might be IF there was actually a message. The medium for the message is unique.

We elaborate on this observation, noting that it requires only careful adjustment of the fundamental Lagrangian, but no direct intervention in the subsequent evolution of the universe.

http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510102