>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."
Johnson, like a lot of creationists, believes his own rhetoric about
evolution being a religion. Therefore if any part of it is wrong or
incomplete, then it can be dismissed as false. Science is sometimes wrong
(that's why there's peer review) and always incomplete. In other words
this statement is an utter straw man.
>>>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?
since biblical-based "scientific" creationism got thown out because it was
religion, then one must strain for ID to not be a religion in order for it
not to run into me same problems. It's so transparent that this is the
case, that the courts are not going to be fooled or anybody else who has a
smattering of science education and no religious ax to grind.
>>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.
if alien artifacts (or signals) not resemble human design then they will
look "natural" and we won't be able to recognize them as having an
intelligent origin.
>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.
exactly. Because we have unintelligent natural causes to compare/contrast with.
>>>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"?
The answer is in front of you. You simply can't see it. I've had this
conversation with other religionists and they couldn't see it either. It's
like once you get the notion that morality flows into a human being from
some external source, you can't wrap your mind around the idea that
morality can flow *from* the human--and that there are very sound logical
reasons for it to do so.
>>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?
because it would cause psychological pain. Even a flatworm avoids painful
situations.
>>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.
I didn't sidestep, you just couldn't recognize the answer. I don't *care*
about him being a hypocrite. I didn't think his morality came from his
religion in the first place. I don't think your or the Pope's morality
comes from your religion either.
>But as I said: "if a fellow atheist did the same things, on what grounds
>would Susan cricise him/her?"
for violating his own, and society's moral standards.
>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!
hmm. . . I think I see the problem (at least partly). There's no such thing
as "atheist principles." *you* are an atheist where Zeus is concerned. And
you don't have "anti-Zeusian" principles. YOu have your own moral
principles that have nothing to do with all the many things you don't
believe in.
>>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"!
I also like to belly dance. But what on earth are you talking about?
>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'!
"no religion is religion" has a wonderful Zen-like feel to it, but it just
doesn't fly.
>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! :-)
ROFL!!!
>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.
science isn't decided by popular vote. (and your statistics are extremely
off) We have a duty to teach children what we know--in school. They can
learn religion in sunday school.
>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".
a LOT more than 10% of Kansans were up in arms over that. Those
democratically elected school board members are out the door next election.
I know few Kansans who like to be lied to and even fewer that want religion
shoved down their throat.
> . . . 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)
Huxley lived in the 19th century and was a man of his times. Somebody call
the newspapers!!!
Susan
----------
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
http://www.telepath.com/susanb/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jun 29 2000 - 17:48:48 EDT