>>First of all, anybody from the Pope to the Hot Tamale Man can comment on
>>and react to scientific findings :-) Second of all, nobody said "religion
>>and science are completely separate" (well, *I* didn't, in fact, I said
>>they inhabit the same reality). Science simply can't address religious
>>issues (like design or purpose).
Me:
>It is commonly stated (and taught) that science and religion
>deal with separate realms of reality. Let's call this position
>X. But judging from Scott's speech (and the opinions that both
>you and Chris have shared in this thread), the truth of position X
>depends on the religion you are talking about. In other words,
>position X better describes some religions than others. Thus,
>those who teach position X are promoting certain religions
>over others. Thus, it is false that the schools
>are neutral with regards to religion as favoritism is inherent
>in position X. Thus it is deceptive to portray government
>schools as being neutral about religions.
Susan:
>ok. Gotcha. There is a common phrase in Lakota that translates as "We are
>all one family." Since the building blocks of DNA are ATCG whether the
>organism is yeast or our glorious selves, and this factoid supports the
>theory of common descent, evolution obviously posits the same thing as the
>Lakotas. Schools, then, according to your logic, are obviously giving
>preference to one of the many native American religions also.
Indeed, it may be. But this would depend on what is meant
by "we are all in one family" and how other religions view this.
>I think the reason I didn't get your point is because your point
>was a tad thin.
There is nothing thin about my point. I demonstrate that
it is false that the schools are neutral with regards to religion.
You agree below. Thus it is deceptive to portray government
schools as being neutral about religions. It would seem that
the next logical step is to determine which religions government
schools promote and which they denigrate.
Me:
>You are sidestepping my point instead of dealing with it. But as
>for science documenting anything, may I remind you that scientists
>believe that cellular life forms existed that were once much simpler
>and much more messy than that which has been documented to
>exist? Should I also point out that science has never documented
>the existence of such simple, messy cells. So why isn't it also
>probably a myth?
Susan:
>evidence.
What evidence?
>There's no evidence at all which supports any important feature of
>the first two books of Genesis.
Who was talking about the first two books of Genesis?
Me? No. Sorry, Susan, but anti-creationist arguments
have no effect on someone who is not a creationist.
Me:
>Could it be solely because science *needs* to
>propose such mythical entities? And they *sound* more real than
>talking snakes?
Susan:
>since some cells are simpler than others
Totally irrelevant.
>and there is no evidence at all for
>talking snakes. Yep, they sound a tad more real than talking snakes.
Nope, cells much simpler than bacteria are just as real
as talking snakes. I don't believe in either mythical
creature. You apparently reject one, but embrace another.
Me:
>Like I said, government schools are not neutral with regards to
>religion.
Susan:
>I agree, except that most American schools are saturated with Christianity.
>In Oklahoma it is perfectly acceptable to wear a crucifix on a high school
>campus, but recently an effort was made to ban the Star of David (might be a
>gang symbol). And of course, the pentagram is absolutely forbidden even
>though it is the central symbol of the perfectly legal Wiccan religion.
American schools are NOT "saturated with Christianity." As a
product of the public school system, I can certainly attest to this.
After all, I graduated from a large high school in Ohio, took
lots of Honors classes, but nevertheless, never understood what
Linus was talking about in Charlie Brown's Christmas until
after high school. :)
Susan:
>>And *anybody* with good ideas backed up by careful research and good data
>>is welcome at the table of science. If ID ever comes up with anything
>>besides "it looks designed to *me*" then IDers will be welcome at that
>>table also.
I wish you would make up your mind. Above you wrote:
"Science simply can't address religious issues (like design or purpose)."
If science cannot address design, it matters not whether ID people
can come up with "anything."
Me:
>I used to think like this when I was much younger. . . .
>Yet suddenly, we're supposed
>to take Susan's idealism seriously, as in science (so it goes), we
>find the one and only place where humans cease being humans.
>Sorry, Susan. I react to your claims about science (with these
>issues, mind you) as I react to those who blindly believe truth is
>what really matters in the legal system. Or look at it this way - you
>haven't a shred of evidence that indicates what you believe
>above is true (i.e., Origin Science in Pleasantville).
Susan:
>ah, but I have!!! :-)
So you believe.
>Any kind of solid scientific research which racks up
>good evidence will eventually find a following.
But science excludes explanations that violate methodological
naturalism. This trumps any "good evidence."
>It's happened many times in the past. Darwin had to back his theory
>with many years of careful research
>and he had to present that research to a body of his peers. The same was
>true of genetic research. The same was true with geology and the tectonic
>plate theory.
None of these violate MN, thus these examples are irrelevant. In fact,
genetic research, geology, and tectonic plate theory are even more
irrelevant because they do not directly involve issues of biotic
origins (which happen to involve the largest metaphysical
implications). As for Darwin, what peer-reviewed journals did
he publish in and what government grants did he obtain to conduct
his research?
Me:
>Translation: Your idealism is noted, but I'm talking about reality.
Susan:
>if Intelligent design (supernatural intervention) can come up with
>*anything* that can be backed up with solid evidence it will eventually be
>accepted. Even I would insist on it.
I see, so you would insist that religion and science should be mixed
if the ID people can come up with ANYTHING that was backed up
with "solid evidence." But you said, " Science simply can't address
religious issues (like design or purpose)." Please make up your mind
and choose a position. Oh, and that phrase 'solid evidence' sounds
slippery to me. Why not spell out what data you would concede
as 'solid evidence' of ID?
Susan:
>>perhaps you can explain why it matters to biblical literalists that life is
>>found on other planets.
Me:
>Since I am not a biblical literalist, why are you asking me?
>Well?
Susan:
>you possibly know about the issue than I do. You hang out with those guys,
>you read their stuff. I don't. I still haven't figured it out.
Oh, but I don't hang out with those guys and read their stuff.
You tell me lots about yourself in making these claims
about me (and it ain't good).
Mike