Reflectorites
On Sun, 25 Jun 2000 21:56:42 -0500 (CDT), Susan B wrote:
[...]
>SJ>As I said before, "the Lemon test" is about legislative *statutes*.
>>ID is not about to enact any statutes!
SJ>but ID is a transparent ploy to get creationism taught in public schools or
>at least to get evolution suppressed.
Not really. As I have said many times before: 1) ID is not "creationism"
nor has it any plans "to get creationism taught in public schools"; and
2) ID does not want "to get evolution suppressed". ID in fact wants *more*
about evolution taught in schools (i.e. its philosophical assumptions and
its problems). Here are some public statements by Johnson to that effect:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.cbn.org/newsstand/stories/991007.asp
CBN News
Evolution Under The Microscope
October 7, 1999
[...]
Phillip Johnson takes a different approach. "I always say we ought to teach the
young people much more about evolution than the science educators want them to
know -- because the science educators don't want them to know about the problems,
they want them to think that all you need to have is variation and everything is
perfect."
[...]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NCSE SPECIAL:
Interview with Phillip E. Johnson
http://natcenscied.org/johnson.htm
[...]
PJ: There's been a lot of bad teaching for a lot of reasons and I'm in favor
good teaching, if we want to teach these kids more about evolution I'm in
favor of that, but what I think is really going on is
indoctrination...indoctrination in a naturalistic, philosophical outlook.
[...]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
at http://www.BaptistPress.org/
CURRENT BAPTIST PRESS NEWS
Date: August 23, 1999
Phillip Johnson gains new forums for challenging Darwinian
evolution
By Lee Weeks
[...]
Noting, however, he did not favor the specific approach the
Kansas school board took, Johnson said, "I want to teach more
about evolution, not less.
"I think we should teach the students a lot more about evolution
than the science educators want them to know."
[...]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>SB>That's
>>>why it is vital for the ID movement to sanitize their product of any
>>>whisper about who the designer might be.
>SJ>Not really. The ID movement *inherently* makes no claims "about who
>>the designer might be".
SB>as I said. I cannot. Must not.
I am afraid this is too obscure for me. Maybe Susan would care
to explain it?
>SJ>This is just a dogmatic naturalistic statement which is simply false.
>>Archaeologists detect *real* design, as opposed to only "apparent"
>>design, as the key element of their science.
>>SETI researchers have even programmed it into their computers to detect
>>the difference between *real* design, as opposed to only "apparent"
>>design.
SB>they have human intelligence and artifacts to compare with and the natural
>world to contrast with. You've already said we are to detect divine design
>against a backdrop of divine design.
Not with SETI they don't.
>>SB>"It looks designed to
>>>me" is irrefutable. Yep, sure does! (look designed to you) in much the
>>>same way that a cloud can look like a horsie or a duckie. There's no way to
>>>tell if the cloud was molded into the shape of a horse/duck by a guiding
>>>intelligence or if it formed that way by natural forces.
>SJ>That might be true for a "cloud". But it's not true for more complex
>>phenomena, like archaeological artifacts or SETI messages. In fact it is not
>>even true of clouds. If Susan saw a cloud spelling out: "Drink Coca Cola"
>>she would unhesitatingly assume that it was put there by a sign-writing
>>plane, even if she never saw it.
SB>yes I would. I would assume a *human* agent because I know and can verify
>that there is human design--detectible against the backdrop of the natural
>world.
See above re SETI. It makes no difference who the designer was. We can
easily recognise the difference between something produced by an intelligent
cause and something produced by unintelligent natural causes.
[...]
>>SB>The most important human endeavor is the striving for morality in our
>>>actions. Our inner balance and even our very existence depend on it. Only
>>>morality in our actions can give beauty and dignity to life.
>>>--Albert Einstein
[...]
>SJ>This sounds nice but *on atheistic principles*, why should it be true
>>(Einstein was a theist in the Spinoza mould)?
SB>Einstein was definitely a theist. But morality doesn't have anything to do
>with religion. (Religion likes to get involved with morality, but it doesn't
>go the other way.) His pacifism made a lot of religionists really mad, for
>example.
Susan does not answer the question: "*on atheistic principles*, why should it
["the striving for morality in our actions"] be true"?
>SJ>Why shouldn't an atheist, *on atheistic principles*, simply look after
>>Number 1, as far as possible without provoking a counter reaction?
SB>Atheists don't need someone up in the sky to make them be good. They do it
>because it's logical and useful--and because it brings beauty and dignity to
>life.. To answer your question: because I evolved as a social organism. As
>humans, morality and compassion are our chief surival mechanisms.
Why should an atheist care about what a `blind watchmaker' cobbled
together? Why should he/she not encourage *everyone else* to exercise
"morality and compassion" while he/she looks after No. 1?
>SJ>For example, if a Christian lied, stole or committed adultery, an
>>atheist like Susan would rightly criticise him/her as a hypocrite. But if
>>a fellow atheist did the same things, on what grounds would Susan
>>cricise him/her?
SB>I would criticize both on the same grounds. That Jim Bakker was a hypocrit
>meant very little to me, because I had already detected his moralizing as
>phony. He was a calculating criminal. He violated the basic human principle
>of altruism. Humans have very broad behavioral flexibility--it's another of
>our evolutionary advantages--we can *choose* to commit suicide. By his
>criminal actions Bakker committed social suicide which for the animal called
>(modestly) homo sapiens is almost as bad as the real thing.
Susan again tries to sidestep the question. We all agree that Bakker was
a hypocrite, judged against the standard of the Bible's teachings.
But as I said: "if a fellow atheist did the same things, on what grounds
would Susan cricise him/her?"
>SJ>Remember when the professed Christian Bill Clinton seduced his young
>>office staffer Monica Lewinsky, to almost universal criticism by both
>>Christians and the general public, the leading atheist Dawkins expressed
>>support!
SB>Europeans generally couldn't figure out what the big deal was. Morality
>really has little to do with sexuality and they know that.
Again Susan sidesteps the question. The point is that while most would
disagree with Dawkins, no one could say it was against his atheist
principles to commit adultery. In fact Dawkins' point was that it
was *in agreement* with his atheist (i.e. Darwinian) principles for
Clinton to maximise his selfish genes by seducing as many women as
he could!
>SJ>And how does this ideal of "striving for morality in our actions" work out
>>in the *real* world for atheists when they are confronted with those they
>>profoundly disagree with, like creationists?
SB>we keep arguing!!! Nothing wrong or immoral about debate .
Susan does more than just "arguing"!
SB>Seriously,
>morality in this context is not trying to suppress religion--in fact
>allowing a free range of expression. It is about preventing a dominant
>religion from oppressing everyone else--which would be immoral.
Susan is still fighting a battle that ended in 1517! There is no
possibility that Christianity would again "become a dominant
religion from oppressing everyone else". The nearest thing to a"dominant
religion...oppressing everyone else" these days is secular humanism-
Susan's `religion'!
SB>Please do
>pray as often as you would like and whereever you personally care to.
>However, don't force me or my children to pray with you. That would be as
>immoral as you or your children being forced so say Moslem prayers by some
>arm of the government.
Why on Earth would I be bothered trying to force Susan to pray with
me. I have enough trouble forcing myself to pray with me! :-)
SB>Creationism, and it's new permutation ID, are
>components of a single religion. In fact, they are an imbarrassment to many
>adherents of that religion. The attempt to impose that bit of dogma on a
>public school or on science in general is immoral.
Susan needs a reality check in this area. There is no attempt by ID "to
impose ... dogma" on anyone. ID is trying to *empower* people by giving them
more of the facts so the can make up their own minds. If anyone is imposing
"dogma" it is Susan's own crowd!
Less than *10%* of the *general public* believe what Susan believes (i.e.
fully naturalistic evolution) and yet *100%* of the public's children must be
taught it compulsorily. And when a democratically elected Kansas School
Board tried to resist the full imposition of that "dogma", that 10% minority
which is in power did everything it could to keep it imposed, even
threatening to discriminate against innocent Kansas children who had not
been taught that "dogma".
The situation is like something out of George Orwell's "1984", where the
oppressive Big Brother tries to make out it is really the liberator and if
anyone tries to *really* liberate the people by empowering them to think for
themselves, they are accused of being oppressors. Truth really is stranger
than fiction!
Susan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"It may be quite true that some negroes are better than some white men;
but no rational man, cognisant of the facts, believes that the average negro
is the equal, still less the superior, of the average white man. And, if this be
true, it is simply incredible that, when all his disabilities are removed, and
our prognathous relative has a fair field and no favour, as well as no
oppressor, he will be able to compete successfully with his bigger-brained
and smallerjawed rival, in a contest which is to be carried on by thoughts
and not by bites. The highest places in the hierarchy of civilisation will
assuredly not be within the reach of our dusky cousins, though it is by no
means necessary that they should be restricted to the lowest." (Huxley
T.H., "Emancipation-Black and White", "Lectures and Lay Sermons",
[1871], Everyman's Library, J.M. Dent & Co: London, 1926, reprint, p.115)
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jun 27 2000 - 17:45:29 EDT