A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

OK, I guess I misread your question. Nonetheless, global or not, I'll
venture that most of us outside of the USA would prefer a president
more in tune with our own values.

Of course you would. But what makes you think that you represent most of
anything?

Like so many in the blue states, we
"don't get" the value systems of red state voters.

Stupidity is its own reward I guess.

We get New York. We
get LA. We understand SF, Boston, Seattle, and Portland.

You can have all of the above. Take them, please.

But we're left
scratching our heads at what goes on in Kansas.

Primates often scratch their heads when confronted with the manifestations
of intelligent thought.


You're of course right, whether or not a Kansas school board mandates
the teaching of creationism in science classes, is of no global
consequence to the rest of us. In a similar sense, whether women in
Afghanistan are required to wear a burka or not seems of little global
import. Or maybe not.

Indeed.


Perhaps you felt outrage at the sight of women in Afghanistan being
required to wear burkas. Now bottle that outrage and think about it.
That's the outrage many feel when they hear that intelligent science
teachers in Kansas are forced to teach religious doctrine in science
classes. This is SCIENCE fer crissake! This is about the scientific
method and a canon of knowledge derived through that method. The
dictates of the Kansas school board are as medieval as the dictates of
the Taliban. If you want religion, set up religion classes. But don't
ask science teachers teach what they know to be blatantly false.

Well, there's a difference between teaching that creationism is truth and
teaching that creationism exists as a theory. In case you missed it, the
requirements were not that creationism be taught as the only truth, but
merely that creationism be presented as an alternate theory to the theory of
evolution. Presenting both sides of a debate is called "academic inquiry,"
and it is through examination of the strengths and weaknesses of both sides
that truth and understanding is arrived at. Censoring one side of the
argument merely because secularist dogma dismisses the theory is just as
offensive as censoring discussion of evolution by theocratic dogmatists.

Besides, there is still a good deal of scientific debate about "intelligent
design" versus "random evolution." I've been reading a most interesting
science-fiction book called "Calculating God" by Robert Sawyer, that brings
up a number of questions about whether the Universe is the result of
intelligent design or not. I highly recommend it as a thought-provoking
essay on the subject.

I guess I still haven't answered your question regarding things of
major "global" import (I'll get to that another time, perhaps). Right
now I'm giving you an example of the visceral reactions your president
and his FC followers evoke in people around the globe.

Once again you falsely presume that the only people who agree with President
Bush are fundamentalist Christians.

We don't want to
be dragged back into the Dark Ages. we're quite comfortable in our post
modern world.

You've presented no evidence that this is the intent of the Bush
administration.


--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

On 12-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

science-fiction book

You get your information from science fiction? No wonder you
don't understand anything in the real world.

BTW - creationism isn't an alternative theory; it's bull****.
"Intelligent design" is just a refusal to accept reality.

Mike

A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:

On 12-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

science-fiction book

You get your information from science fiction? No wonder you
don't understand anything in the real world.

Ever wonder why they call it "science" fiction? There's often a lot of
science woven into the fiction.



BTW - creationism isn't an alternative theory; it's bull****.
"Intelligent design" is just a refusal to accept reality.

Many scholars and other people on the upside of the bell curve from you
disagree.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

On 15-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Ever wonder why they call it "science" fiction? There's often a lot of
science woven into the fiction.

As a person trained in science, I'd say there's a lot more fiction than
science in science fiction.

BTW - creationism isn't an alternative theory; it's bull****.
"Intelligent design" is just a refusal to accept reality.

Many scholars and other people on the upside of the bell curve from you
disagree.

There aren't many people on the upside from me and few of them will
sink into the nonsense of creationism. "Intelligent Design" is just
a refusal to accept the fact that scientific principles don't prove
the existance of God. The latter is good enough for many religions,
including the Roman Catholic Church. Just because a few fringe
fundamentalists believe in that nonsense doesn't make it an acceptable
field of study.

Mike

A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:

On 15-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Ever wonder why they call it "science" fiction? There's often a lot of
science woven into the fiction.

As a person trained in science, I'd say there's a lot more fiction than
science in science fiction.

BTW - creationism isn't an alternative theory; it's bull****.
"Intelligent design" is just a refusal to accept reality.

Many scholars and other people on the upside of the bell curve from you
disagree.

There aren't many people on the upside from me

Wanna bet?

and few of them will
sink into the nonsense of creationism. "Intelligent Design" is just
a refusal to accept the fact that scientific principles don't prove
the existance of God.

Nor do scientific principles DENY the existence of God. There is a large
body of scholars who believe that the physical properties of the universe,
combined with statistical probability, provide substantial evidence of
intelligent design of the Universe.

The latter is good enough for many religions,
including the Roman Catholic Church. Just because a few fringe
fundamentalists believe in that nonsense doesn't make it an acceptable
field of study.

Hm. So, now any field of study that is "fringe" is not acceptable? What ever
happened to academic freedom of inqiry?

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

On 16-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Nor do scientific principles DENY the existence of God.

Which is where the discussion ends for many scientists and such
institutions as the Catholic Church. Scientific principles can
neither prove nor disprove the existance of God. Fundies can't
deal with this concept. The Vatican (aided by the Jesuits you
seem to respect) stated this in the mid-nineteenth century after
a review of the "Galileo Affair".

There is a large
body of scholars who believe that the physical properties of the universe,
combined with statistical probability, provide substantial evidence of
intelligent design of the Universe.

It does not provide evidence of intelligent design. It certainly does not
prove the existence of God.

A Bayesian would look at the probabilistic "evidence" and suggest that
since the highly improbable has happened, their estimates are likely
wrong. Just because a bunch of fundies pull some numbers out of their
asses and make claims, doesn't prove anything.

There is a large body of scientists and enthusiasts that support the
concept of a hydrogen economy, but a larger body that can show it
is mostly smoke and mirrors.

Hm. So, now any field of study that is "fringe" is not acceptable? What ever
happened to academic freedom of inqiry?

There is also a significant proportion of the US population that thinks
Elvis is still alive.

Mike

Michael Daly wrote:
On 16-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Nor do scientific principles DENY the existence of God.

Which is where the discussion ends for many scientists and such
institutions as the Catholic Church. Scientific principles can
neither prove nor disprove the existance of God. Fundies can't
deal with this concept. The Vatican (aided by the Jesuits you
seem to respect) stated this in the mid-nineteenth century after
a review of the "Galileo Affair".

There is a large
body of scholars who believe that the physical properties of the
universe,
combined with statistical probability, provide substantial evidence
of
intelligent design of the Universe.

It does not provide evidence of intelligent design. It certainly
does not
prove the existence of God.

A Bayesian would look at the probabilistic "evidence" and suggest
that
since the highly improbable has happened, their estimates are likely
wrong. Just because a bunch of fundies pull some numbers out of
their
asses and make claims, doesn't prove anything.

There is a large body of scientists and enthusiasts that support the
concept of a hydrogen economy, but a larger body that can show it
is mostly smoke and mirrors.

Hm. So, now any field of study that is "fringe" is not acceptable?
What ever
happened to academic freedom of inqiry?

There is also a significant proportion of the US population that
thinks
Elvis is still alive.

Mike

Mike, I knew that when I opened the can of worms at the start of this
particular discussion in this thread, that the discussion would get a
little intense. I have been watching your particular discussion with
Scott, and I certainly don't want to jump into the middle of your fun
and distract either of you. However if I could get a little of your
attention on the side, I would like to ask you a few questions. Though
I do not necessarily agree, I appreciate your perpective and your
intensity of thought, and thought process.

You apparently believe strongly in the scientific approach, and do not
believe that religion, and in particular Christianity has much to offer
the 21st century man. Is there any conceivable reason that you would
change your mind about God, Christianity, etc. In other words is your
mind closed, or open to the possibility that there is a God, and what
is your basis for coming to this conclusion. In particular, I would
like to know your personal scientific experience in coming to your
conclusions.

It is easy to throw around the Cat. Ch. and the Jesuits, and things
that happened hundreds of years ago. I wasn't there, nor you, so it is
hard to know what was really going on, or interview those scientist
that were there at the time. And similarily, today I can only interview
you. You are the scientist of today in my experience, so I hope you can
entertain my little fantascy, and share your insight and personal
observations that you base your personal philosophy. Respectfully TnT

A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:

On 16-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Nor do scientific principles DENY the existence of God.

Which is where the discussion ends for many scientists and such
institutions as the Catholic Church. Scientific principles can
neither prove nor disprove the existance of God. Fundies can't
deal with this concept. The Vatican (aided by the Jesuits you
seem to respect) stated this in the mid-nineteenth century after
a review of the "Galileo Affair".

That's not necessarily true. Science probably can either prove or disprove
the existence of God, if and when our scientific understanding advances to
the point that we can identify the concept. Of course, one of the root
difficulties is defining "God" and what that means. Does it mean a white guy
in a robe with a long beard, or does it mean some intelligence so superior
to our own that it appears to be omnipotent and/or omnicient? Or does it
mean something else.


There is a large
body of scholars who believe that the physical properties of the universe,
combined with statistical probability, provide substantial evidence of
intelligent design of the Universe.

It does not provide evidence of intelligent design.

Are you sure?

It certainly does not
prove the existence of God.

Nor does it disprove it. Evidence, however, is a rather more abstract
concept than proof.


A Bayesian would look at the probabilistic "evidence" and suggest that
since the highly improbable has happened, their estimates are likely
wrong.

That would be tautology. Only if one pre-accepts the premise that the
occurrence of a highly improbable event is a matter of random chance would
this logic apply. On the other hand, if one posits the hypothesis that
because an event that has occurred is highly improbable, it is reasonable to
suspect some factor other than random chance is involved. Recognizing that
improbability is a significant issue when examining events is sound
scientific thinking. Bowing to the diety of "Random Chance" combined with
the companion hypothesis of "Infinite Variation" is no more scientific than
a simple belief in God.

Just because a bunch of fundies pull some numbers out of their
asses and make claims, doesn't prove anything.

True, but not really relevant, since it was the scientific asses the numbers
were pulled from. The "fundies" are merely suggesting, Occam's Razor-wise,
that when an event is highly statistically improbable, it's perhaps more
reasonable to conclude that there is some meddling with random chance going
on that skews the system towards the occurrence of the statistically highly
improbable event. You might call it a risk of "observer bias."
Schroedinger's cat might be more than a cloud of probabilities if God's
unseen thumb is on the scale.


There is a large body of scientists and enthusiasts that support the
concept of a hydrogen economy, but a larger body that can show it
is mostly smoke and mirrors.

Not really. The only real impediments to a hydrogen economy are
infrastructure and investment...and consumer acceptance of the
inconveniences associated with using a less energy dense fuel than oil. But
the concept is hardy smoke and mirrors, and indeed technology is moving on
apace to make it a realistic, economic reality...which is a good thing.


Hm. So, now any field of study that is "fringe" is not acceptable? What ever
happened to academic freedom of inqiry?

There is also a significant proportion of the US population that thinks
Elvis is still alive.

Really? Do you have any evidence of this, or are you making assumptions
again?

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser