Ben Stein shows he's no Michael Moore

[Diuretic]

That's probably the longest non-answer to a post I've read. It's babble. It's irrelevant, it's vague, it has no point, there are no premises and therefore no conclusions. In short, it's noisy static instead of useful information.

It's also laughable to suggest that ID'ers aren't attacking evolutionary theory. Attacking evolutionary theory is the raison d'etre of the ID movement.

The whole idea of ID is is to attack a theory which explains observable phenomena by setting up a whole line of claims which, if accepted, must bring the observer to the conclusion that there is a creator who planned it all.

Anyway they've been debunked time and time again. ID is not science, it's theology and pretty crude theology at that.

As for your references to quantum mechanics.

Tipler made that claim in 1994. Have you checked today's date?

Heller is a Roman Catholic priest, what do you expect him to do, work to prove God doesn't exist? He won a prize yes, but you're not specific about what it was. The Templeton Prize right? The prize that is awarded by:

.... a panel of judges from the major religions of the world today.

http://www.templetonprize.org/purpose.html

Well I never! A religious person won the Templeton Prize.

frazzledgear, don't piss down my leg and tell me it's raining.

 

[José]

Originally posted by frazzledgear
The modern field of quantum mechanics tells us a few things about how the universe works.

First, it says that there says there is a basic uncertainty about the universe.

Furthermore, quantum mechanics shows us that there is a certain indeterminism to the universe.

That is, given the state of the universe, there are many possible things that could happen.

Correction:

The modern field of quantum mechanics tells us a few things about how the SUBATOMIC universe works.

First, it says that there says there is a basic uncertainty about the SUBATOMIC universe.

Furthermore, quantum mechanics shows us that there is a certain indeterminism to the SUBATOMIC universe.

That is, given the state of the SUBATOMIC universe, there are many possible things that could happen.

Quantum mechanics applied to the macrocosmos.

Schroedinger and Heisenberg are likely spinning in their graves.

No wait:

Things pronounced impossible by classical physics (like say, a spontaneous parting of the red sea) are actually possible, though unlikely, by quantum mechanics.

Quantum mechanics applied to oceanography!!!

 

[José]

frazzledgear
why there are constantly those scientists in the field who claim that their equations keep pointing towards a force that is not random and meaningless, but one with intent?

José
Because many scientists are unable to resist the temptation to double as philosophers.

 

[manifold]

That's probably the longest non-answer to a post I've read. It's babble. It's irrelevant, it's vague, it has no point, there are no premises and therefore no conclusions. In short, it's noisy static instead of useful information.

Light dawns on Marblehead!

 

[jillian]

That's probably the longest non-answer to a post I've read. It's babble. It's irrelevant, it's vague, it has no point, there are no premises and therefore no conclusions. In short, it's noisy static instead of useful information.

It's also laughable to suggest that ID'ers aren't attacking evolutionary theory. Attacking evolutionary theory is the raison d'etre of the ID movement.

The whole idea of ID is is to attack a theory which explains observable phenomena by setting up a whole line of claims which, if accepted, must bring the observer to the conclusion that there is a creator who planned it all.

Anyway they've been debunked time and time again. ID is not science, it's theology and pretty crude theology at that.

As for your references to quantum mechanics.

Tipler made that claim in 1994. Have you checked today's date?

Heller is a Roman Catholic priest, what do you expect him to do, work to prove God doesn't exist? He won a prize yes, but you're not specific about what it was. The Templeton Prize right? The prize that is awarded by:

.... a panel of judges from the major religions of the world today.

http://www.templetonprize.org/purpose.html

Well I never! A religious person won the Templeton Prize.

frazzledgear, don't piss down my leg and tell me it's raining.

Just want to add that Heller is also a Professor at the Pontifical Academy of Theology.... and we all know science comes out of church teachings.

 

[frazzledgear]

Scientists using science, that is, scientific method? Or scientists simply resorting to the old argument from design and not using science?

The fact is the people you refer to have been debunked by the scientific community and ID itself has been exposed as junk science in at least one court case.

As I said, I have no problem with theology and I obviously have none with science. I have a major problem with those who want to dress up theology as science when it patently isn't.

Are you under the impression that it is a COURT that can determine science? Wow, what a throwback to Galileo's time. Yeah, a court led by some atheist or ultraliberal judge is surely the best way to decide science. Just like a court led by some Catholic bishop was the best way to determine science in the past.

We have lived under a materialism paradigm for nearly 200 years now. A paradigm is the perspective we use to organize and observe the information we collect. Unlike scientific theories, a paradigm cannot be first tested for accuracy. It is tested by applying it and it continues until a paradigm shift. Paradigm shifts occur when we are confronted with something that cannot possibly be explained or comprehended under the current one and our perspective is forced to change in order to try and comprehend it.

A materialism paradigm says that EVERYTHING, every possible fact, everything seen and unseen or known to exist in whatever form it exists, without exception, even human history - in our universe is causally dependent on physical processes and reducible to those physical processes.

More and more scientists are coming to the realization that there is something wrong with this paradigm. It includes everything - yet that means including intangibles that have NO material substance, no physical process and no physical measurement. Will and self-awareness are also part of our universe and everyone KNOWS they exist -for a fact. But since they have no material substance, it cannot possibly be explained, measured or comprehended under a materialism perspective.

If our materialism paradigm were THE true perspective of reality, then humans SHOULD be nothing but biological computers with no self-awareness and lacking free will. All actions of a human would be due to nothing but a set of responses to environmental pressures and corresponding chemical changes within the body. With enough knowledge, those responses would be entirely predictable and measurable for any possible combination of environmental pressures and internal chemical processes for any and all humans. Just as once we know the operating system of any computer, we can accurately predict how a computer will respond to any typed commands. In fact, this is exactly how Darwin viewed all life. Life is nothing but bags of biological processes meaninglessly responding to environmental pressures.

A materialism paradigm cannot possibly explain intangibles we know exist -but have no material substance to them whatsoever. Things like free will, conciousness and self-awareness. That means there is a flaw with our current paradigm that has already attempted to include and explain such intangibles, but never can. If we are still unable to comprehend something under a current paradigm -then the paradigm itself is flawed -NOT that which we are trying to comprehend.

There are scientists whose goal is a paradigm shift in order to comprehend those things we know exist but cannot possibly understand with a materialism paradigm. And SHOULD try to comprehend because we know for a FACT that such intangibles have a tremendous impact and play a significant role in the material world. Self-awareness, will and conciousness are an integral part of life itself, life clearly is NOT just a bag of biological processes meaninglessly responding to environmental pressures as this paradigm insists. Self-awareness, conciousness and will are not even necessary for life, no creature needs selfl-awareness to respond to environmental pressures any more than a computer needs self-awareness to respond to typed commands.

Worse yet, these intangibles are proven NOT to be due to a physical process. You can remove either half of a person's brain and their self-awareness, conciousness and will exist untouched. Just like chopping off your arm doesn't change any of those either. Only the ability to properly operate the body is changed by removing half the brain. And we have NO explanation for why that is true under THIS paradigm. If this paradigm were THE true perspective on reality, then it insists that self-awareness is a physical process. If that were true, then removing half the brain should leave a person with HALF the self-awareness, half the will and half the conciousness. But it doesn't. This paradigm fails to allow us to comprehend those intangibles. Yet those intangibles play a significant role in our material world. Are they NOT worth comprehending or what? The fact our current paradigm cannot possibly include such nonphysical things -means our paradigm is much too narrow.

Those stuck on a materialism paradigm, convinced it is THE only true perspective of reality possible -will resist any paradigm shift. Those convinced their current paradigm was THE only true perspective of reality have always resisted throughout history. But because we cannot comprehend such intangibles with our current paradigm is THE proof it is too narrow of a perspective. This paradigm will never allow us to comprehend such intangibles and the intellectually honest admit it. But it still makes sense somehow to many people to demand we stick with it anyway and denounce any and all who offer a theory that falls outside the current, but flawed paradigm. Resisting the need to change one's perspective in order to comprehend something always makes good science, doesn't it?

 

[ReillyT]

Are you under the impression that it is a COURT that can determine science? Wow, what a throwback to Galileo's time. Yeah, a court led by some atheist or ultraliberal judge is surely the best way to decide science. Just like a court led by some Catholic bishop was the best way to determine science in the past.

I couldn't manage to read further than this, but I thought I would let you in on the fact that the judge in that particular court case was a Republican appointee. Reagan I think? As far as I know, neither atheist nor ultraliberal.

 

[Uknow_me72]

You know there are a lot of scientific things out there that can not be explained. They say that they may never know why some things occur or come up with their idea of what may have happened.

The simple fact is with out God this world or life doesn't exist. Once we start adding God in the equation and understanding how his sciences works a true understanding of scientific means will reveal itself.

Noble Peace Prize will not be a big enough reward for that discovery.

 

[frazzledgear]

I couldn't manage to read further than this, but I thought I would let you in on the fact that the judge in that particular court case was a Republican appointee. Reagan I think? As far as I know, neither atheist nor ultraliberal.

Yeah that must explain why David Souter, appointed by a Republican, is a raging liberal. Who appoints a judge does not determine that judge's political leanings.

Try to force yourself to read and understand what I wrote. It actually has some relevance. You missed the point of that first paragraph -a judge of LAW cannot possibly determine SCIENCE. And didn't bother read the other paragraphs which were about something else entirely.

 

[ReillyT]

You missed the point of that first paragraph -a judge of LAW cannot possibly determine SCIENCE. And didn't bother read the other paragraphs which were about something else entirely.

Perhaps, but apparently a judge can determine what is not science.

 

[Shogun]

so, when are the thumpers going to stop crying about not being accepted by science and start conducting experiments with their dogma? Im assuming that bob jones U has a science department even if they teach biology strait from the old testement?

 

[José]

Shogun
So, when are the thumpers going to stop crying about not being accepted by science and start conducting experiments with their dogma?

José
As soon as they invent a theometer to detect supernatural interventions in the Universe.

 

[Diuretic]

Are you under the impression that it is a COURT that can determine science? Wow, what a throwback to Galileo's time. Yeah, a court led by some atheist or ultraliberal judge is surely the best way to decide science. Just like a court led by some Catholic bishop was the best way to determine science in the past.

We have lived under a materialism paradigm for nearly 200 years now. A paradigm is the perspective we use to organize and observe the information we collect. Unlike scientific theories, a paradigm cannot be first tested for accuracy. It is tested by applying it and it continues until a paradigm shift. Paradigm shifts occur when we are confronted with something that cannot possibly be explained or comprehended under the current one and our perspective is forced to change in order to try and comprehend it.

A materialism paradigm says that EVERYTHING, every possible fact, everything seen and unseen or known to exist in whatever form it exists, without exception, even human history - in our universe is causally dependent on physical processes and reducible to those physical processes.

More and more scientists are coming to the realization that there is something wrong with this paradigm. It includes everything - yet that means including intangibles that have NO material substance, no physical process and no physical measurement. Will and self-awareness are also part of our universe and everyone KNOWS they exist -for a fact. But since they have no material substance, it cannot possibly be explained, measured or comprehended under a materialism perspective.

If our materialism paradigm were THE true perspective of reality, then humans SHOULD be nothing but biological computers with no self-awareness and lacking free will. All actions of a human would be due to nothing but a set of responses to environmental pressures and corresponding chemical changes within the body. With enough knowledge, those responses would be entirely predictable and measurable for any possible combination of environmental pressures and internal chemical processes for any and all humans. Just as once we know the operating system of any computer, we can accurately predict how a computer will respond to any typed commands. In fact, this is exactly how Darwin viewed all life. Life is nothing but bags of biological processes meaninglessly responding to environmental pressures.

A materialism paradigm cannot possibly explain intangibles we know exist -but have no material substance to them whatsoever. Things like free will, conciousness and self-awareness. That means there is a flaw with our current paradigm that has already attempted to include and explain such intangibles, but never can. If we are still unable to comprehend something under a current paradigm -then the paradigm itself is flawed -NOT that which we are trying to comprehend.

There are scientists whose goal is a paradigm shift in order to comprehend those things we know exist but cannot possibly understand with a materialism paradigm. And SHOULD try to comprehend because we know for a FACT that such intangibles have a tremendous impact and play a significant role in the material world. Self-awareness, will and conciousness are an integral part of life itself, life clearly is NOT just a bag of biological processes meaninglessly responding to environmental pressures as this paradigm insists. Self-awareness, conciousness and will are not even necessary for life, no creature needs selfl-awareness to respond to environmental pressures any more than a computer needs self-awareness to respond to typed commands.

Worse yet, these intangibles are proven NOT to be due to a physical process. You can remove either half of a person's brain and their self-awareness, conciousness and will exist untouched. Just like chopping off your arm doesn't change any of those either. Only the ability to properly operate the body is changed by removing half the brain. And we have NO explanation for why that is true under THIS paradigm. If this paradigm were THE true perspective on reality, then it insists that self-awareness is a physical process. If that were true, then removing half the brain should leave a person with HALF the self-awareness, half the will and half the conciousness. But it doesn't. This paradigm fails to allow us to comprehend those intangibles. Yet those intangibles play a significant role in our material world. Are they NOT worth comprehending or what? The fact our current paradigm cannot possibly include such nonphysical things -means our paradigm is much too narrow.

Those stuck on a materialism paradigm, convinced it is THE only true perspective of reality possible -will resist any paradigm shift. Those convinced their current paradigm was THE only true perspective of reality have always resisted throughout history. But because we cannot comprehend such intangibles with our current paradigm is THE proof it is too narrow of a perspective. This paradigm will never allow us to comprehend such intangibles and the intellectually honest admit it. But it still makes sense somehow to many people to demand we stick with it anyway and denounce any and all who offer a theory that falls outside the current, but flawed paradigm. Resisting the need to change one's perspective in order to comprehend something always makes good science, doesn't it?

Yes a court - a dispassionate trier or fact that showed ID isn;t science but theology.

Interesting post though, full of the ID propaganda that has been exposed as just that.

I'll say it again - ID is not science, it's religion.

 

[Diuretic]

You know there are a lot of scientific things out there that can not be explained. They say that they may never know why some things occur or come up with their idea of what may have happened.

The simple fact is with out God this world or life doesn't exist. Once we start adding God in the equation and understanding how his sciences works a true understanding of scientific means will reveal itself.

Noble Peace Prize will not be a big enough reward for that discovery.

Facts can be proven. That's what science is about, facts. Theology is about faith. Let's not confuse the two. You have a belief in God, that's fine, no problem with that. But you have a belief in your God, the existence of your God isn't a fact. Science won't pronounce on God one way or the other for the simple reason that absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.

 

[Diuretic]

Shogun
So, when are the thumpers going to stop crying about not being accepted by science and start conducting experiments with their dogma?

José
As soon as they invent a theometer to detect supernatural interventions in the Universe.

They don't need a thermometer, just something to measure disturbances in the Force......

 

[frazzledgear]

Perhaps, but apparently a judge can determine what is not science.

Sure. About as well as a Catholic bishop can. Once you turn such decisions over to a court, bishops or some other similar forum -then it doesn't matter what their qualifications are, because those who want judges or Catholic bishops to make that decision aren't even seeking scientific truth anymore. They are merely seeking to use the force of LAW to impose their THEIR paradigm and way they perceive the world on all others.

While you keep insisting a courtroom is the proper place to make such determinations, maybe you forgot, but that sure didn't work out too well for Darwinism at one point when those VERY same courts upheld a ban on the teaching of evolution. Was it the proper place to decide what is and is not science THEN? People who insist it is are actually insisting that all science MUST fall in line with the current paradigm of the day and not allowed outside that paradigm -and that is hogwash. It was hogwash in the past and it is still hogwash, it will always be hogwash.

Science that falls outside the current paradigm either has legitimacy to it that will be found and expanded upon by others and a courtroom can only delay that but never stop it. Or it will have none and will die its own natural death. Courts can ONLY be used to enforce the current paradigm, it cannot EVER determine what is and is not science or what is and is not scientific truth. It cannot even demand that scientists perceive the world and information they collect as THEY tell them to. But you present a perfect example of the kind of resistance seen when people feel threatened by a paradigm shift -and an insistence that unless a scientist adheres to THEIR view of the world, what that scientist produces is not "real" science.

The theory of evolution was legally banned from the classroom ONLY because it was science that fell outside the paradigm of the day. People went to court for a legal "right" to demand that all scientists adhere to the paradigm of that time, insisting that all scientists must view the world as they did and view all information collected by those same rules of perception. And a court ruled that Darwinism was NOT legitimate science because the science did not abide by the rules of perception used by everyone else. It failed to prevent that paradigm shift anyway.

But the materialism paradigm we moved to still falls short as well. Any intellectually honest person knows that. When you cannot comprehend something you know for a FACT exists in our world by operating under the "rules" of the current paradigm -it means there is a shortcoming in the current paradigm and a shortcoming in those rules of perception being used. Not a shortcoming with what we are trying to comprehend. Those things will NEVER be understood and comprehended until we do make that paradigm shift.

Whether there is a need for a paradigm shift or not -a change in how we perceive the world and perceive the information we collect, observe and attempt to comprehend - is always determined by those things we WANT to comprehend that just are not comprehensible and knowable under the "rules" of the current paradigm. Science itself always makes that determination of paradigm shift, but never without a struggle -which has been at times, a really vicious struggle. But it is why those stuck fast to the current paradigm end up resorting to a courtroom to try and force all others to view the world and the information they collect by the rules of THEIR perception only. But no one benefits -especially not scientific advancement.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Facts can be proven. That's what science is about, facts. Theology is about faith. Let's not confuse the two. You have a belief in God, that's fine, no problem with that. But you have a belief in your God, the existence of your God isn't a fact. Science won't pronounce on God one way or the other for the simple reason that absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.

Really? Prove life started the way science says it started. Prove man evolved from an ape like creature and also that mice and men must have evolved from a single species at one time.

Prove the big bang happened. Prove the Universe is expanding. Shall I go on?

 

[José]

Originally posted by Diuretic
They don't need a thermometer, just something to measure disturbances in the Force......

Theometer is not a typo...

This would be a new kind of measuring device necessary to detect and quantify miraculous interventions.

Theo (God) meter

 

[José]

Originally posted by frazzledgear
More and more scientists are coming to the realization that there is something wrong with this paradigm. It includes everything - yet that means including intangibles that have NO material substance, no physical process and no physical measurement. Will and self-awareness are also part of our universe and everyone KNOWS they exist -for a fact. But since they have no material substance, it cannot possibly be explained, measured or comprehended under a materialism perspective.

If our materialism paradigm were THE true perspective of reality, then humans SHOULD be nothing but biological computers with no self-awareness and lacking free will. All actions of a human would be due to nothing but a set of responses to environmental pressures and corresponding chemical changes within the body. With enough knowledge, those responses would be entirely predictable and measurable for any possible combination of environmental pressures and internal chemical processes for any and all humans. Just as once we know the operating system of any computer, we can accurately predict how a computer will respond to any typed commands. In fact, this is exactly how Darwin viewed all life. Life is nothing but bags of biological processes meaninglessly responding to environmental pressures.

This is a colossal pile of crap.

All available evidence point to the conclusion that the human self is the result of an extraordinarily complex electrochemical phenomenon that occurs inside our brains that we still don’t fully understand.

However, neuroscience is advancing by leaps and bounds and there’s not a single shred of evidence of any immaterial substance responsible for human cognition.

 

[Diuretic]

Theometer is not a typo...

This would be a new kind of measuring device necessary to detect and quantify miraculous interventions.

Theo (God) meter

Damn I missed it! That's a hoot!