tabacco
My RSS Feeds
This College Student, Bill, Deserves A Reply To Intelligent And Well-Thought Out Comment – Tabacco Responds
«
H E
»
Politics :: Business :: Historical :: War & Peace :: General :: Social Inequity :: Instructional :: Religion ::
Tabacco ::
email
posted Saturday, 18 March 2006
This College Student, Bill,
Deserves A Reply To
Intelligent And Well-Thought Out
Comment – Tabacco Responds
Bill responded to my Article, ‘COLLEGE STUDENTS: HOW TO RESPOND TO "INTELLIGENT DESIGN" REFERENCES IN SCIENCE CLASS’
http://tabacco.blog-city.com/college_students_how_to_respond_to_intelligent_design_refere.htm
Published March 6, 2006
First, Bill’s Comment:
Entry Title: COLLEGE STUDENTS: HOW TO RESPOND TO "INTELLIGENT DESIGN" REFERENCES IN SCIENCE CLASS
<edit this comment> <reply to this comment> <report as spam> IP: (Removed by Tabacco)
Bill made this comment,
The recent court rejection of the teaching of Intelligent Design in public schools seems, at least in part, to be a reaction to the religious connotations that ID carries with it. In the commonly-accessable media outlets--unless I just missed it--there was little reference to any supporting evidence that the idea might have, independent of the identity of its sponsors.
Strictly speaking, when considering the validity of the Evolution or Intelligent Design theories, the motives of their adherents should be irrelevant, shouldn't they? An idea, hypothesis or theory must stand on its own merits: does the empirical evidence support it? Both the idea of Evolution and the concept of Intelligent Design are based on inference--from the evidence available. Each draws from the same data a different conclusion, neither of which can be proved unequivocally by scientific observation. And, just as ID is dismissed off-hand because of the religious leanings of its adherents, Evolution as it is taught today, could be dismissed offhand because of the motives of its advocates. Some former atheists, who have adopted Theism or such, now admit that their own desperate attempts to hold on to Evolution as an explanation of origins were motivated by a reticence to accept any demands that an Intelligent Designer might make on them.
So we have two groups, each with its own bias. One, generally speaking, is predisposed to a religious worldview and believes in a Designer; the other, again generally speaking, is atheistic/agnostic and do not believe in an intelligent being as the first-cause.
If we are willing to consider the available evidence honestly and live with the consequences, then aren't we actually following the original, historical fundamentals of scientific investigation and inquiry? How did we ever get to the point where any idea (scientific or otherwise) that is also associated with religion, is automatically considered unacceptable in the public arena? Let's not forget that our whole legal system is based on a moral/religious framework. Albert Einstein once said, "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind" (from his Science, Philosophy and Religion: a Symposium).
Isaac Newton, one of those polymaths that have been scattered throughout human history, saw the handiwork of God in all his studies, be that Mathematics, Physics or Chemistry (from a PBS special, broadcast several months ago, about his life and work). Many other brilliant people who have excelled in the Sciences (even in the time since the speculations of Darwin) have without hesitation seen the objects of their investigation as the product of a Designer. It is a bit disingenuous to associate the idea of Intelligent Design with backward, uneducated, and ignorant religious people.
comment added :: 18th March 2006, 11:26 GMT-05
Tabacco:
First, I would like to say that Bill’s Comment has revived my hope for the current generation of young people. I am assuming that he is a college student; his Comment indicates both thinking and youth.
Usually I respond to Comments item-by-item and in the order presented. However, this time I begin at the end of Bill’s Comments.
“Many other brilliant people who have excelled in the Sciences (even in the time since the speculations of Darwin) have without hesitation seen the objects of their investigation as the product of a Designer. It is a bit disingenuous to associate the idea of Intelligent Design with backward, uneducated, and ignorant religious people.”
When I was about 14 years old, I concluded there was no God because most of the people, who professed to believe in Him, were of mediocre mental abilities. My logic was flawed. People often use flawed reasoning to arrive at the correct conclusion. However, it is impossible to use valid reasoning and arrive at the wrong conclusion. Call that last little adage a “Tabacco Theorem, Converse or Corollary”, for I have never heard anyone else utter the same phrase, though I’m sure someone has. To be honest, this is the first time I, myself, have ever said or written this idea, although instinctively I have always felt this way. My thanks to Bill for the inspiration.
My theorem is therefore that if you arrive at an invalid conclusion, one or more of your premises and some or all of your thinking is somehow flawed. This is the basis of my confidence in that when someone disagrees with me in a philosophical or political matter, at least one of us is incorrect. Yes, I can be wrong and have been wrong many times since I was 14.
I associate the idea of “Intelligent Design” with unscrupulous people, not with “backward, uneducated, and ignorant religious people”. In calling it “Intelligent Design” instead of “Creationism” in drag, which is what it is per the court ruling:
“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.”
http://www.livescience.com/othernews/051220_id_no.html
these advocates have lied to us in a demeaning and patronizing manner. When people lie to you, you cannot trust them – ever! From my 64 years of experience I have determined that it is impossible to deliberately deceive without lying – either lies of commission or lies of omission. “Intelligent Design” arguments include both categories.
The Court ruling, based on technicality, leaves me empty because there are much more persuasive arguments for not teaching “Intelligent Design” in the public classroom. I will publish a less sarcastic and more thoughtful Article sometime in the future. However, I consider the subject trivial and pointless, the same as I felt about the Clinton impeachment process. Both situations were fostered by disingenuous, sophistic demagogues with an agenda.
In my original Article, I stated,
“Yes, I agree that there was intelligent thought behind the creation of all life and all things; but simply saying that seems like a cop-out in a place of higher learning. I don't think God is afraid of my learning how he did it. Nor do I believe he will damn me for seeking that knowledge. Now can we get back to the whys, hows and therefores and bypass the obvious. We can save that for Sunday, the Lord's day.”
I stand by that response, which was honest, though terse. In summation on your points in the last paragraph of your Comment, I know as many people, who are liberal, anti-Bush and sincerely religious while also backward, uneducated and ignorant as there are demagogues and their “backward, uneducated, and ignorant religious people” supporters. Education or the lack of it guarantees nothing.
You have missed the point of my lone serious paragraph. “..but simply saying that seems like a cop-out in a place of higher learning”.
Your opening paragraph agrees with my own philosophy, so I will not comment further.
“Strictly speaking, when considering the validity of the Evolution or Intelligent Design theories, the motives of their adherents should be irrelevant, shouldn't they? An idea, hypothesis or theory must stand on its own merits: does the empirical evidence support it? Both the idea of Evolution and the concept of Intelligent Design are based on inference--from the evidence available.”
This is the accepted philosophy – with which I disagree in some instances. This is not to imply that my sole reason for rejecting “Intelligent Design” teaching in class rests on that disagreement. Quite the contrary! The “Intelligent Design” hypothesis is not the problem. The problem rests with the motives of the advocates and the triviality of the subject matter. Even if there were no God or intelligent thought, we still need, in science class, to study science, not the “cop-out”. This would lead to many sarcastic, trivial and redundant responses to many serious questions; some of which I trivialized in my original Article.
The “motives of the adherents” are not irrelevant, nor should they be. I “preach” to my friends and my Readers the idea of considering not only what was said, but also who said it. The enemies of Black people attempted to undermine the influence of Martin Luther King in the Black community by alluding to alleged sexual indiscretions. These same “advocates” used the same ploy with Bill Clinton.
Most Blacks realized that the question of King’s or Clinton’s indiscretions was irrelevant. It is only by questioning the motives of the advocates that you can assess that situation. The people, who tried to undermine King and Clinton, had an agenda, completely adverse to the people who supported King and Clinton. Therefore, only a complete IDIOT would allow the “truth” in those cases to change one’s support. Again, the key concept is “IRRELEVANCE”, just as it applies to the teaching of “Intelligent Design” in public schools or college. There is no educational value in stating what, to you and me, is obvious. It is irrelevant!
In mathematics, there are problems, which give irrelevant information. The student must discard the irrelevant data and use only that, which is necessary to solve the problem.
Evolution may not be proven yet, but "Jonah being swallowed by a whale" or "Eve being made from Adam’s rib" are not only completely unprovable, they are ludicrous and laughable. I consider them an insult to the Almighty! I cannot speak for God as some claim to. I speak only for myself. In fact many Biblical stories are indistinguishable from Greek mythology. You accept one and reject the other. But the distinction is without a difference.
Finally, though it has nothing to do with my Article or your response, and I add it only as “irrelevant’ but true. Organized religions have been responsible for most wars, most genocides, most social inequities, most of the evils on earth in all times of recorded history.
I think of science as the motor on the Rolls Royce and religion as the brake. What sane owner of a Rolls Royce would drive with the brake on all the time! Religion was wrong about the solar system, wrong about slavery, wrong about segregation, is still wrong about the subservience of women, wrong in putting church profits over human considerations, wrong about Galileo, wrong about Saint Joan, wrong – wrong – wrong!
Personally, I believe that God is more satisfied with the scientists than he is with the preachers. Most preachers, particularly the better-known ones, have very little in common with Jesus Christ. I think that Jesus Christ would be extremely disturbed by the actions of George W. Bush and his QuasiCon friends, as well as Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Jimmy Sweigart, Jimmy Baker, L. Ron Hubbard, Sun Myung Moon, Reverend Ike etc. etc. etc.
After all those wrongs, is it reasonable (using a variation of Ockam’s Razor) to assume they are right now about evolution? I would trust scientists, who seek the truth, long before religious teachers, who seek riches and a larger congregation. Again, we arrive at motive. Motive is extremely important. No, an idea cannot stand on its own with no regard to relevancies and corroborating contingencies. I admire your efforts, but I strongly disagree with your conclusions. I think you have eliminated too many possibilities based solely on prejudices, accepted truths, ridiculous theorems and superstition.
I prefer to follow Sherlock Holmes’ philosophy. Throw out the untenable, once you prove it to be untenable; and what is left must be the truth, no matter how unreasonable it may seem. Using this philosophy, I think "evolution" fits in comfortably. But, that’s why it is called a “theory”, rather than a fact. Even “Intelligent Design” is only a theory, not a proven fact. And what’s more, it will never ever be a proven fact while anyone lives. But you must include all the possibilities; and you must not exclude any possibility based on spurious or prejudicial ideas.
Your remark,
“So we have two groups, each with its own bias. One, generally speaking, is predisposed to a religious worldview and believes in a Designer; the other, again generally speaking, is atheistic/agnostic and do not believe in an intelligent being as the first-cause.”
is simplistic and inaccurate. You cannot divide the whole world into two groups – ask the Irish Catholics and Irish Protestants, if you don’t believe me. Which group do these two antagonistic groups belong? I am not predisposed to religion, but I know there is intelligent thought behind the laws of Newton, Kepler, Avogadro, Einstein’s E=MC2, Teller, Bohr, etc. etc.
I am offended by your presumptuous implication!
“A little learning is a dangerous thing!”
Sophists often ask the wrong question, which leads to an irrelevant answer. Try asking the right question and seeking a relevant answer. In a seat of higher learning, “Intelligent Design”, which may be true, is nevertheless irrelevant as intellectual fodder. As I stated in my original Article,
“Now can we get back to the whys, hows and therefores and bypass the obvious. We can save that for Sunday, the Lord's day.”
INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS NOT AN ALTERNATIVE TO EVOLUTION; THE TWO ARE COMPATIBLE. THAT IS THE ERROR IN THINKING BY THOSE, WHO WOULD INSERT ITS TEACHING IN PLACES OF HIGHER LEARNING.
T.A.B.A.C.C.O. (Truth About Business And Congressional Crimes Organization)
Deserves A Reply To
Intelligent And Well-Thought Out
Comment – Tabacco Responds
Bill responded to my Article, ‘COLLEGE STUDENTS: HOW TO RESPOND TO "INTELLIGENT DESIGN" REFERENCES IN SCIENCE CLASS’
http://tabacco.blog-city.com/college_students_how_to_respond_to_intelligent_design_refere.htm
Published March 6, 2006
First, Bill’s Comment:
Entry Title: COLLEGE STUDENTS: HOW TO RESPOND TO "INTELLIGENT DESIGN" REFERENCES IN SCIENCE CLASS
<edit this comment> <reply to this comment> <report as spam> IP: (Removed by Tabacco)
Bill made this comment,
The recent court rejection of the teaching of Intelligent Design in public schools seems, at least in part, to be a reaction to the religious connotations that ID carries with it. In the commonly-accessable media outlets--unless I just missed it--there was little reference to any supporting evidence that the idea might have, independent of the identity of its sponsors.
Strictly speaking, when considering the validity of the Evolution or Intelligent Design theories, the motives of their adherents should be irrelevant, shouldn't they? An idea, hypothesis or theory must stand on its own merits: does the empirical evidence support it? Both the idea of Evolution and the concept of Intelligent Design are based on inference--from the evidence available. Each draws from the same data a different conclusion, neither of which can be proved unequivocally by scientific observation. And, just as ID is dismissed off-hand because of the religious leanings of its adherents, Evolution as it is taught today, could be dismissed offhand because of the motives of its advocates. Some former atheists, who have adopted Theism or such, now admit that their own desperate attempts to hold on to Evolution as an explanation of origins were motivated by a reticence to accept any demands that an Intelligent Designer might make on them.
So we have two groups, each with its own bias. One, generally speaking, is predisposed to a religious worldview and believes in a Designer; the other, again generally speaking, is atheistic/agnostic and do not believe in an intelligent being as the first-cause.
If we are willing to consider the available evidence honestly and live with the consequences, then aren't we actually following the original, historical fundamentals of scientific investigation and inquiry? How did we ever get to the point where any idea (scientific or otherwise) that is also associated with religion, is automatically considered unacceptable in the public arena? Let's not forget that our whole legal system is based on a moral/religious framework. Albert Einstein once said, "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind" (from his Science, Philosophy and Religion: a Symposium).
Isaac Newton, one of those polymaths that have been scattered throughout human history, saw the handiwork of God in all his studies, be that Mathematics, Physics or Chemistry (from a PBS special, broadcast several months ago, about his life and work). Many other brilliant people who have excelled in the Sciences (even in the time since the speculations of Darwin) have without hesitation seen the objects of their investigation as the product of a Designer. It is a bit disingenuous to associate the idea of Intelligent Design with backward, uneducated, and ignorant religious people.
comment added :: 18th March 2006, 11:26 GMT-05
Tabacco:
First, I would like to say that Bill’s Comment has revived my hope for the current generation of young people. I am assuming that he is a college student; his Comment indicates both thinking and youth.
Usually I respond to Comments item-by-item and in the order presented. However, this time I begin at the end of Bill’s Comments.
“Many other brilliant people who have excelled in the Sciences (even in the time since the speculations of Darwin) have without hesitation seen the objects of their investigation as the product of a Designer. It is a bit disingenuous to associate the idea of Intelligent Design with backward, uneducated, and ignorant religious people.”
When I was about 14 years old, I concluded there was no God because most of the people, who professed to believe in Him, were of mediocre mental abilities. My logic was flawed. People often use flawed reasoning to arrive at the correct conclusion. However, it is impossible to use valid reasoning and arrive at the wrong conclusion. Call that last little adage a “Tabacco Theorem, Converse or Corollary”, for I have never heard anyone else utter the same phrase, though I’m sure someone has. To be honest, this is the first time I, myself, have ever said or written this idea, although instinctively I have always felt this way. My thanks to Bill for the inspiration.
My theorem is therefore that if you arrive at an invalid conclusion, one or more of your premises and some or all of your thinking is somehow flawed. This is the basis of my confidence in that when someone disagrees with me in a philosophical or political matter, at least one of us is incorrect. Yes, I can be wrong and have been wrong many times since I was 14.
I associate the idea of “Intelligent Design” with unscrupulous people, not with “backward, uneducated, and ignorant religious people”. In calling it “Intelligent Design” instead of “Creationism” in drag, which is what it is per the court ruling:
“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.”
http://www.livescience.com/othernews/051220_id_no.html
these advocates have lied to us in a demeaning and patronizing manner. When people lie to you, you cannot trust them – ever! From my 64 years of experience I have determined that it is impossible to deliberately deceive without lying – either lies of commission or lies of omission. “Intelligent Design” arguments include both categories.
The Court ruling, based on technicality, leaves me empty because there are much more persuasive arguments for not teaching “Intelligent Design” in the public classroom. I will publish a less sarcastic and more thoughtful Article sometime in the future. However, I consider the subject trivial and pointless, the same as I felt about the Clinton impeachment process. Both situations were fostered by disingenuous, sophistic demagogues with an agenda.
In my original Article, I stated,
“Yes, I agree that there was intelligent thought behind the creation of all life and all things; but simply saying that seems like a cop-out in a place of higher learning. I don't think God is afraid of my learning how he did it. Nor do I believe he will damn me for seeking that knowledge. Now can we get back to the whys, hows and therefores and bypass the obvious. We can save that for Sunday, the Lord's day.”
I stand by that response, which was honest, though terse. In summation on your points in the last paragraph of your Comment, I know as many people, who are liberal, anti-Bush and sincerely religious while also backward, uneducated and ignorant as there are demagogues and their “backward, uneducated, and ignorant religious people” supporters. Education or the lack of it guarantees nothing.
You have missed the point of my lone serious paragraph. “..but simply saying that seems like a cop-out in a place of higher learning”.
Your opening paragraph agrees with my own philosophy, so I will not comment further.
“Strictly speaking, when considering the validity of the Evolution or Intelligent Design theories, the motives of their adherents should be irrelevant, shouldn't they? An idea, hypothesis or theory must stand on its own merits: does the empirical evidence support it? Both the idea of Evolution and the concept of Intelligent Design are based on inference--from the evidence available.”
This is the accepted philosophy – with which I disagree in some instances. This is not to imply that my sole reason for rejecting “Intelligent Design” teaching in class rests on that disagreement. Quite the contrary! The “Intelligent Design” hypothesis is not the problem. The problem rests with the motives of the advocates and the triviality of the subject matter. Even if there were no God or intelligent thought, we still need, in science class, to study science, not the “cop-out”. This would lead to many sarcastic, trivial and redundant responses to many serious questions; some of which I trivialized in my original Article.
The “motives of the adherents” are not irrelevant, nor should they be. I “preach” to my friends and my Readers the idea of considering not only what was said, but also who said it. The enemies of Black people attempted to undermine the influence of Martin Luther King in the Black community by alluding to alleged sexual indiscretions. These same “advocates” used the same ploy with Bill Clinton.
Most Blacks realized that the question of King’s or Clinton’s indiscretions was irrelevant. It is only by questioning the motives of the advocates that you can assess that situation. The people, who tried to undermine King and Clinton, had an agenda, completely adverse to the people who supported King and Clinton. Therefore, only a complete IDIOT would allow the “truth” in those cases to change one’s support. Again, the key concept is “IRRELEVANCE”, just as it applies to the teaching of “Intelligent Design” in public schools or college. There is no educational value in stating what, to you and me, is obvious. It is irrelevant!
In mathematics, there are problems, which give irrelevant information. The student must discard the irrelevant data and use only that, which is necessary to solve the problem.
Evolution may not be proven yet, but "Jonah being swallowed by a whale" or "Eve being made from Adam’s rib" are not only completely unprovable, they are ludicrous and laughable. I consider them an insult to the Almighty! I cannot speak for God as some claim to. I speak only for myself. In fact many Biblical stories are indistinguishable from Greek mythology. You accept one and reject the other. But the distinction is without a difference.
Finally, though it has nothing to do with my Article or your response, and I add it only as “irrelevant’ but true. Organized religions have been responsible for most wars, most genocides, most social inequities, most of the evils on earth in all times of recorded history.
I think of science as the motor on the Rolls Royce and religion as the brake. What sane owner of a Rolls Royce would drive with the brake on all the time! Religion was wrong about the solar system, wrong about slavery, wrong about segregation, is still wrong about the subservience of women, wrong in putting church profits over human considerations, wrong about Galileo, wrong about Saint Joan, wrong – wrong – wrong!
Personally, I believe that God is more satisfied with the scientists than he is with the preachers. Most preachers, particularly the better-known ones, have very little in common with Jesus Christ. I think that Jesus Christ would be extremely disturbed by the actions of George W. Bush and his QuasiCon friends, as well as Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Jimmy Sweigart, Jimmy Baker, L. Ron Hubbard, Sun Myung Moon, Reverend Ike etc. etc. etc.
After all those wrongs, is it reasonable (using a variation of Ockam’s Razor) to assume they are right now about evolution? I would trust scientists, who seek the truth, long before religious teachers, who seek riches and a larger congregation. Again, we arrive at motive. Motive is extremely important. No, an idea cannot stand on its own with no regard to relevancies and corroborating contingencies. I admire your efforts, but I strongly disagree with your conclusions. I think you have eliminated too many possibilities based solely on prejudices, accepted truths, ridiculous theorems and superstition.
I prefer to follow Sherlock Holmes’ philosophy. Throw out the untenable, once you prove it to be untenable; and what is left must be the truth, no matter how unreasonable it may seem. Using this philosophy, I think "evolution" fits in comfortably. But, that’s why it is called a “theory”, rather than a fact. Even “Intelligent Design” is only a theory, not a proven fact. And what’s more, it will never ever be a proven fact while anyone lives. But you must include all the possibilities; and you must not exclude any possibility based on spurious or prejudicial ideas.
Your remark,
“So we have two groups, each with its own bias. One, generally speaking, is predisposed to a religious worldview and believes in a Designer; the other, again generally speaking, is atheistic/agnostic and do not believe in an intelligent being as the first-cause.”
is simplistic and inaccurate. You cannot divide the whole world into two groups – ask the Irish Catholics and Irish Protestants, if you don’t believe me. Which group do these two antagonistic groups belong? I am not predisposed to religion, but I know there is intelligent thought behind the laws of Newton, Kepler, Avogadro, Einstein’s E=MC2, Teller, Bohr, etc. etc.
I am offended by your presumptuous implication!
“A little learning is a dangerous thing!”
Sophists often ask the wrong question, which leads to an irrelevant answer. Try asking the right question and seeking a relevant answer. In a seat of higher learning, “Intelligent Design”, which may be true, is nevertheless irrelevant as intellectual fodder. As I stated in my original Article,
“Now can we get back to the whys, hows and therefores and bypass the obvious. We can save that for Sunday, the Lord's day.”
INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS NOT AN ALTERNATIVE TO EVOLUTION; THE TWO ARE COMPATIBLE. THAT IS THE ERROR IN THINKING BY THOSE, WHO WOULD INSERT ITS TEACHING IN PLACES OF HIGHER LEARNING.
T.A.B.A.C.C.O. (Truth About Business And Congressional Crimes Organization)
comments (5)
1. Tabacco left...
Monday, 20 March 2006 5:32 pm :: http://tabacco.blog-city.com/
Claudius Ptolemy 85-165AD: The Church Backs The Wrong Guy And The Wrong
Idea Again!
2. William Rodgers left...
Tuesday, 21 March 2006 12:18 pm
I, Bill, am no longer a college student. Forgive me if you are expecting
your replies to be from current students, in which case, I will not bother
you with any other of my thoughts. I did graduate from a local university
several years ago. Presently, I work as a software engineer.
3. Tabacco left...
Tuesday, 21 March 2006 5:05 pm :: http://tabacco.blog-city.com/
William:
4. Tabacco left...
Tuesday, 21 March 2006 6:53 pm :: http://tabacco.blog-city.com/
Bill:
5. Tabacco left...
Wednesday, 22 March 2006 3:39 pm :: http://tabacco.blog-city.com/
Bill: