Here is a place to let your words do your talking for you.
He apologized, but he's still teaching the class? What exactly was he apologizing for?
That's a little scary. Because college students are generaly dumb and don't know how to think. So he is basicaly going to be feeding his ideas about 'science' into all-too-open-but-closed minds. I had a profesor like that actualy, for geology. But he was much 'nicer' about it. (I'm guessing that the professor who wrote the email is much 'nicer' in the classroom too, like he said he is) It makes me so mad that they can get away with teaching only their own agenda in the classroom!
I'm going to grant a few things here: science is as subjective as any other method of inquiry, most people, including academics, are utterly blind to "Science" as a concept or set of abstracts. "Science" is a new religion those with liberal proclivities tend to use, however unwisely and unskillfully, as a means of support for even the most asinine argumentation.
Fair enough, mynym.
But, in the case of the Thrid Reich, we have seen how "science", and the ignorance of the people, can be manipulated to pretty horrific ends- and how a NEW science became necessary in order to protect against such abuses: a strict adherence to the "facts" seemd the best way to avoid repeating the past, no? If the psuedoscience and eugenics bullshit used by the Nazis could be debunked with "SCIENCE" the superhero, why not cling to those tenents? Surely, people are misguided these days, honey- but you have to be able to see where they're coming from. Science in this context can seem like a powerful rock upon which to rest all of our fears and biases, regradless as to if we genuinely understand the concept of science or not.
But, mynym, my love- I hear a whisper, a tremor in your voice...it sounds as though you're bitching about "the system...the system...."
That's not like you mynymie.
Are you feeling okay?
Bertie:
"Because college students are generaly dumb and don't know how to think."
Perhaps, but at least we don't use gramatically improbable and lame phrases like: "all-too-open-but-closed minds"
to illustrate our own stupidity. We have professors and beer pong for that.
"But, in the case of the Thrid Reich, we have seen how "science", and the ignorance of the people, can be manipulated to pretty horrific ends..."
You cannot blame evil on ignorance, people often know full well what they are doing, and do it anyway. Were the Nazi doctors and all the other technically proficient barbarians of Germany in those times "ignorant"? If so, then what type of knowledge were they ignorant of?
...and how a NEW science became necessary in order to protect against such abuses: a strict adherence to the "facts" seemd the best way to avoid repeating the past, no?
Technically proficient and well educated Nazis considered basic Nazi policy to be based on a strict adherence to the scientific facts of evolution. It's the Darwinist form of pseudoscience that comes to deform all knowledge.
As one noted:
Our whole cultural life for decades has been more or less under the influence of biological thinking, as it was begun particularly around the middle of the last century, by the teachings of Darwin...(Weinreich :33)
If the psuedoscience and eugenics bullshit used by the Nazis could be debunked with "SCIENCE" the superhero, why not cling to those tenents?
Who do you think debunked it while adhering to the philosophic naturalism that American Darwinists still try to define science with?
I hear a whisper, a tremor in your voice...it sounds as though you're bitching about "the system...the system...."
That's nothing that can be read into criticism of an individual college professor, so perhaps you are listening to the echo in your head instead.
One should criticize individuals and their ideas first, then the systems that they create may change. If you try to criticize the "system" first, all you are really engaging in is some moral preening.
That's not like you mynymie.
Are you feeling okay?
It's like me to feel okay, so I usually do. I try to do what I can, not what I cannot.
Do you feel okay when you try to take the weight of the world/"system"/"everyone" onto your shoulders?
There was a miss named Earnest. Perhaps she was misnamed indeed but she earnestly desired to be more earnest in her deeds. So she did a good deed and said that no one was being as earnest about it as she, no indeed!!
What exactly was he apologizing for?
Maybe it was the "big fat face" comment. What's wrong with a big fat face, I wonder? For that matter, what's the matter with fundies if it is all matter in motion. Shall we blame them for whatever is supposedly the matter with them? Is there really anything the matter with the dread fundies and the motion of their matter?
At any rate, leave it to the textual degenerates who tend to fail to understand language to fail to understand that a fundamentalist is only as good as the texts and language representing the spiritual principles that they venerate. Yes, there is this little difference between: "Kill or enslave all people necessary to establish the will of Allah on earth now." and "Love God and the Life that the Father has created, pray that His will, will again be done. Another's will exists for now so render unto the Prince of this world what is his, for you must be born again." And so on.
These little differences seem to make no difference to those on the Left who have the urge to merge.
The prof's lack of tact notwithstanding, I.D. absolutely doesn't belong in a science class because the claims of I.D. are scientifically preposterous. Creationaism is worse. And the claims that the earth is only a few thousand years old and God created it all in 6 days has as much truth-value as the claim Santa really exists and he delivers presents to children made by eleves.
"Perhaps, but at least we don't use gramatically improbable and lame phrases like: 'all-too-open-but-closed minds'
to illustrate our own stupidity. We have professors and beer pong for that."
Thanks. 
What I meant by that gramatically improbable and lame phrase was that their minds are open for accepting a professor's agenda without question, because an agenda like Prof. Mirecki's is usualy what they want to hear, and because he is an educated, enlightened 'profesor' after all! However, if someone comes along later and challenges that 'fact' they learned from a trusted professor, their minds are closed to any discussion about it; they've already been told that the other side of the argument is a 'myth,' so why should they listen to anything about it? Especialy when it includes an intelligent designer to whom we might be accountable!
(I was just too lazy to say all that at the time of my last post...I have to say it makes a lot more sense than the other thing I used)
I have heard so much about ID that I'd like to scream. Instead, I will do this.
1) To any proponent of ID: I will support your wish to have ID taught in schools, on the basis of equal time, in exchange for this; that you support the right of Scientologists to teach their theory in the schools, too. After all, Thetans may exist, and may have caused the evolution of mankind.
2) To anyone who believes that our existance is proofof an intelligent designer: Devise an experiment to prove that any - ANY - system in the human body is the product of intelligent design, ie better than anything random chance could have produced. Proving that the design is better than any other possible design would be a good start.
The prof's lack of tact notwithstanding, I.D. absolutely doesn't belong in a science class because the claims of I.D. are scientifically preposterous.
What claims are you referring to, what scientists claim that they are preposterous and how have they used science to provide evidence for their views? I doubt that you know what the "claims" of ID are in the first place.
Creationism is worse. And the claims that the earth is only a few thousand years old and God created it all in 6 days has as much truth-value as the claim Santa really exists and he delivers presents to children made by eleves.
Despite an overlay of mythology, a Saint Nicholas did exist who was a kind and generous man, so given your example the "truth-value" of the story may indicate the fact that there is often truth behind a mythology, even historic truth. So what other stories could be looked into? Certainly, the story of the Flood is as universal to all people groups as any story has ever been and stands virtually unchanged from culture to culture, despite the passage of hundreds or thousands of years. I don't claim that this sort of mythological evidence is scientific. It is still likely to offer a window to the truth nonetheless.
There are also the universal legends of the dragons, the old gods (I'll get to evidence about them sometime or other.) and so on, which may also be "just like" Santa. I should note that it seems that the reason that you do not really take on Creationism and instead shift to an argument of association with respect to Santa is that you don't know much about it other than a typical atheistic argument. E.g., "It's just like Santa or somethin'. Wait, it's just like a Pink Unicorn...no, a Flying Spaghetti Monster." And so on.
I have heard so much about ID that I'd like to scream.
And how many books have you read by its propenents?
Instead, I will do this.
1) To any proponent of ID: I will support your wish to have ID taught in schools, on the basis of equal time, in exchange for this; that you support the right of Scientologists to teach their theory in the schools, too. After all, Thetans may exist, and may have caused the evolution of mankind.
What if as we write NASA scientists are studying pyramidal shapes on Mars and trying to distinguish between what could come about by natural processes of geology, erosion, wind, etc., (which are not "random," by the way) as opposed to what most likely must be the result of intelligent design? If they were studying Nature and admitting the possibility of a design inference should we all be about to scream our heads off because a pyramid on Mars could comport with Scientology, the Raelians, fundamentalist beliefs about the Nephilim, UFO cults, the New Egyptology, probably Jehovah's witnesses...and on and on? The list could go on to Darwinism itself and their ideas about the likelihood of Life, as a lot of people have a lot of ideas.
Maybe, just to be safe, we should all murmur: "That's not science, not science!" and gather as many to the Herd to murmur along with us, just in case something may comport with Scientology because everything is so craaaazy...except believing that the common ancestor of all Life was a mud puddle.
I suppose we'd have to murmur about what is or is not science in every case of forensic science which attempts to distinguish between events or artifacts that come about by natural processes vs. those that have been shaped by design. Who honestly believes that science is or must be blind to inteliigence, intention or inferences of design?
To anyone who believes that our existance is proofof an intelligent designer: Devise an experiment to prove that any - ANY - system in the human body is the product of intelligent design, ie better than anything random chance could have produced. Proving that the design is better than any other possible design would be a good start.
What's "random chance" supposed to be, a cause without an effect or an effect without a cause? Is the way that "science, science" works to look at the matter at hand and always return the answer: "This was ultimately caused...by nothing at all!"? What is it that you think random chance is and what is it that it has produced, other than the viewpoints that you are expressing here?
Your last sentence is a false criteria as far as the way that ID is formulated. It doesn't matter as far as a design inference if the designer didn't do their job "right" or as good as you supposedly could thinking abstractly in your own mind, nor does it matter if it is malevolent or benevolent design. E.g., if there was a pyramidal shape on Mars (I do not believe that there is, by the way.) then we do not need to deny the scientific fact that it is possible to use science to distinguish between intelligent cause as opposed to natural processes (That's not to say that intelligence is "unnatural," either, as it an be quite a natural process, naturally enough.) just because we supposedly could have built one better or because we think that the designers were probably evil Nephilim demon-gods who came to earth and mixed with the daughters of men, etc.etc., nor because we just want to scream along with you at it all. It's all so craaazy, after all. We don't need to worry about that when it comes to the facts. It is what it is, a structure or form that is an anomalous pattern when opposed to natural processes, which serves as scientific evidence that a design inference may be the best explanation.
Related posts: The Parable of the Detectives
A Story of Nipples
A Plain Parable
Some touch on science, some do not, I feel no need to claim "science."
...and: Little Timmy's Story
As well as others, note that these are not scientific as most criticisms of ID are not scientific and instead are based on philosophy, a form of natural theology, etc. So that's what they deal with in heavy handed ways, the heavier the right hand, the better! But on the other hand, I might be just kidding.
If you really want to know about ID, then read the Design Inference by Dembski as well as the Design Revolution, perhaps along with Evolution: A Theory in Crisis by Denton as a record of interesting things anomalous to the Darwinian paradigm and so on.
Speaking of which, when you argue that the design could be "better" in the abstraction of your own mind the question becomes, could it be indeed? One example:
There are dozens of examples where advances in technology have emphasized the ingenuity of biological design. One fascinating example of this was the construction of the Soviet Lunakod exploratory machine, the Lunakod, which moved by articulated legs. Legs, rather than wheels, were chosen because of the much greater ease with which an articulated machine could traverse the uneven terrain likely to be met on the lunar surface. Altogether, the Lunakod eerily resembled a giant ant, so much so that it was no longer possible to look on the articulated legs of an insect without a new sense of awe and the realization that what one had once taken for granted, and superficially considered a simple adaptation, represented a very sophisticated technological solution to the problem of mobility over an uneven terrain. The control mechanisms necessary to coordinate the motion of articulated legs are far more complicated than might be imagined at first sight. As Raibert and Sutherland, who are currently working in this area, admit.(Evolution: A Theory in Crisis
'It is clear that very sophisticated computer-control programs will be an important component of machines that smoothly crawl, walk or run.'
But it is at a molecular level where the analogy between the mech anical and biological worlds is so striking, that the genius of biological design and the perfection of the goals achieved are most pronounced.
By Michael Denton :333)
That example is "only" of an ant, yet supposedly you can base an argument on designing millions of different self-replicating automata that would adapt and develope ecologically to populate a planet..."better." Not that you could, but that "chance" would, although the only thing that seems to have come about by chance are your own ideas.
I do know about ID. It is absurd on too many grounds to enumerate, not the least of which is its arrogant **humanistic** assumption that if a particular complexity cannot be fully understood in terms of some prevailing paradigm, then what can only baffle the mind of man is the design of a greater intelligence. The hubris of the ID people is staggering. We don't and never will understand everything because we are far more finite than even the IDists are willing to admit.
I make the association to Santa because it is a child's belief to think that human beings walked about w/ dinasours just a few thousand years ago (or missed them by a few hundred years). It's a claim no one should take seriously. "When I became a man, I put away childish things."
Universal flood & dragon myths--oh, wow. But it is precisely what someone should expect. Floods and lizards & human imagination are nearly universal as well. There is no mystery here.
"It is what it is, a structure or form that is an anomalous pattern when opposed to natural processes, which serves as scientific evidence that a design inference may be the best explanation."
Your statement is an excellent example of what I said above: ID trades on the "arrogant **humanistic** assumption that if a particular complexity cannot be fully understood in terms of some prevailing paradigm, then what can only baffle the mind of man is the design of a greater intelligence."
The argument amounts to little more than saying: An Intelligent Designer must have designed x because we are unable to explain x w/o positing an Intelligent Designer." In short, God must exist because we are not nearly as smart as we think we are.
Although it's true we are not nearly as smart as we think we are, we are smart enough to know that is a dumb argument.
"....assumption that if a particular complexity cannot be fully understood in terms of some prevailing paradigm, then what can only baffle the mind of man is the design of a greater intelligence."
That's wrong. There is no such baffling assumption necessary to detect intelligent agency vs. naturalistic accident or process, in fact it can be quite the opposite.
The argument amounts to little more than saying: An Intelligent Designer must have designed x because we are unable to explain x w/o positing an Intelligent Designer." In short, God must exist because we are not nearly as smart as we think we are.
Who has made that argument and where was it made? It seems clear that these are just your own thoughts, which are also incorrect because ID is based on an inference to design as the result of a study of intelligent agency, technology, etc. It's based on what we do know about intelligence and its impact on information or an artifact, not what we're just baffled by. Is a forensic scientist who argues that a series of events has a low probability of coming about by natural processes while there is also evidence for a design inference actually arguing, "I just can't understand how these things happen! Therefore, it happened by malevolent design."
Universal flood & dragon myths--oh, wow. But it is precisely what someone should expect. Floods and lizards & human imagination are nearly universal as well. There is no mystery here.
I'm not going to go through mythology with you because the topic here is ID, not Creationism.
Of course you would make that form of argument and stick to it alone, as that is probably all you know. It is common. E.g.
The argument-from-ignorance objection has been spectacularly successful at shutting down discussion about intelligent design. In fact, among Western intellectuals it functions like a mantra. One merely repeats it whenever the question of design is raised. Design is thus put to flight and calm is restored.(The Design Revolution
[....]
Perhaps that’s why Australian philosopher Alan Olding, in commenting on the persistent use of the argument-from-ignorance or god-of-the-gaps objection against the work of Michael Denton and Michael Behe, writes, “The phrase ‘god of the gaps’ is nothing more than a question-begging insult meant to stop the flow of argument before it has barely started.” (See his article “Maker of Heaven and Microbiology,” Quadrant, January-February 2000.)
To see that the argument-from-ignorance objection is not a magic wand for silencing intelligent design, let’s begin with a reality check. When the argument-from-ignorance objection is raised against intelligent design, who exactly is accused of being ignorant? [E.g., where do you get the idea that ID proponents are arguing, "I'm baffled by this, I just can't understand it!"?] It’s natural to think that the ignorance here is on the part of design theorists, who want to attribute intelligent agency to biological systems. If only those poor design theorists understood biology better, those systems would readily submit to mechanistic explanation. Thus, when I lecture on university campuses about intelligent design, a biologist in the audience will often get up dur ing the question-and-answer time to inform me that just because I don’t know how complex biological systems might have formed by the Darwinian mechanism doesn’t mean it didn’t happen that way. I then point out that the problem isn’t that I personally don’t know how such systems might have formed but that the biologist who raised the objection doesn’t know how such systems might have formed—and that despite having a fabulous education in biology, a well-funded research laboratory, decades to put it all to use, security and prestige in the form of a tenured academic appointment, and the full backing of the biological community, which has also been desperately but unsuccessfully trying to discover how such systems are formed for more than one hundred years.
Who is ignorant here? Not just the design theorists, but the scientific community as a whole. In fact, it’s safe to say that the biological community is clueless about the emergence of biological complexity. How so? Because the material mechanisms to which the biological community looks to explain biological complexity provide no clue for how those systems might realistically have come about. The problem, therefore, is not ignorance or personal incredulity but global disciplinary failure (the discipline here being biology) and gross theoretical inadequacy (the theory here being Darwin’s).
Now, such vast ignorance is not something one typically wants to advertise. A few biologists, however, have now come clean. These include James Shapiro and Franklin Harold, neither of whom supports intelligent design. In a review of Michael Behe’s book Darwin’s Black Box (National Re view, September 16, 1996), James Shapiro, a molecular biologist at the University of Chicago, conceded that
'there are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations. It is remarkable that Darwinism is accepted as a sat isfactory explanation for such a vast subject—evolution—with so little rigorous examination of how well its basic theses work in illuminating specific instances of biological adaptation or diversity.'
Five years later, cell biologist Franklin Harold wrote a book for Oxford University Press titled The Way of the Cell. In virtually identical language, he noted, “There are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.”
David Ray Griffin, also no supporter of intelligent design, is a philosopher of religion with an interest in biological origins. Commenting on the evolutionary literature that purports to explain how evolutionary transitions lead to increased biological complexity, he writes (in his book Religion and Scientific Naturalism),
'There are, I am assured, evolutionists who have described how the transitions in question could have occurred. When I ask in which books I can find these discussions, however, I either get no answer or else some titles that, upon examination, do not in fact contain the promised accounts. That such accounts exist seems to be something that is widely known, but I have yet to encounter someone who knows where they exist.'
At a recent debate with Brown University biologist Kenneth Miller, I quoted Franklin Harold on the absence of detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of complex biological systems. Miller did not challenge Harold’s claim. Instead, he impugned Harold’s credibility by remarking that Harold was old, having retired fifteen years ago. Presumably Miller was implying that Harold’s age put him out of touch with current biological research. But if so, wouldn’t the editors at Oxford University Press have declined to publish Harold’s book? Age used to command authority and respect, and it still does, so long as one remains faithful to Darwinian ortho doxy. (Witness the homage paid to Ernst Mayr, who is ancient.) But if you challenge biology’s most sacred icon—Darwinism—or even state unpleasant facts about it as a loyalist merely wishing to be honest about the situa tion, don’t expect respectful treatment, whatever your age or accomplishments.
By William Dembski :213-215)
And so on.
Where did you get the idea that ID proponents are arguing that things are just baffling or inexplicable?
Quote: I do know about ID. It is absurd on too many grounds to enumerate, not the least of which is its arrogant **humanistic** assumption that if a particular complexity cannot be fully understood in terms of some prevailing paradigm, then what can only baffle the mind of man is the design of a greater intelligence.
This Evolution/Naturalism of the Gaps and evidence of a classic case of projection.
What exactly about ID is absurd? Why can't intelligent manipulation of biological information affect evolution?
Humans have used intelligence to affect their own evolution (see morphological effects of agriculture and horticulture) so why should we assume that we alone have the ability to intelligently form and manipulate information in nature?
That assumption is the only arrogant "humanistic" here that I can see.
This comment is for Dana,
I am reticent to involve myself in this quite lengthy debate. I did, however, wish to ask for your opinion on the following.
"...it is not to be conceived that mere mechanical causes could give birth to so many regular motions...This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being."
Would you agree that this represents the claims of Intelligent Design? and b. If so, is this the type of claim which you deem to be "scientifically preposterous?"
Sincerely,
Carl
Why can't intelligent manipulation of biological information affect evolution?
It's likely that the more that biotech advances, the more ID will become an issue in recognizing the artifacts of intelligent agency as represented in technology. This is generally the way of knowledge, we only recognized the way that the lense of the eye worked after we had evolved our own similar technology in lenses. Providence* tends to combine it, as the principles of the microscope reveal the principles that the technology of the eye has to use. And so on, things seem structured to unfold and evolve in various ways put in the poetic way: Those who have eyes, let them see.
*Progressives believe in "progress" and scientism as opposed to the Founder's belief in Providence in the way the human race is layed out to be run, by design. E.g. Benjamin Franklin, a scientist who believed in ID.
Would you agree that this represents the claims of Intelligent Design?
I doubt any progressive will try to answer that so let me: "Why, that's just like believing that Santa is driving his sleigh to move the stars! That's childish, now leave me to merging into my Mommy Nature."
Every other sentence is a projection of their own lack of judgment, as their mind is from the Left.
Commenting by HaloScan
