Great Stuff Eric,

This Rah "firing line" is a good diversion from all the broken things
on my honey-do list. She's starting to get jealous though.... since
I'm having such a good time with the computer. Oh well, when the sun
goes Red Giant, who's going to care anyway? :-]

pacplyer



Eric patiently explained

Well, saying that teachers in Kansas "couldn't discuss criticisms of
evolution" is a bit disingenuous. The Kansas State Board of Education voted
to eliminate teaching the theory of evolution entirely... it wasn't exactly
the time to get into the fine points

The theory of evolution is established and accepted. Does that means it's a
complete and finished work? No, nothing in science ever is. Does that mean
it's above and beyond critique? Of course not. But it is the "state of the
art" and I'd *expect* teachers to teach what's current, not about
phlogiston, the four (or five) elements of nature, the four humers of the
body nor the world being supported by pillars which are resting on the back
of a tortoise. And if they *don't* teach what's current, they deserve to
pilloried, mocked, and fired for being incompetent of performing their jobs
in a responsible fashion.

I'm sure 6-day creation was "state of the art" at one time, but that time
has past. Fundamentalist countries are known for burying their heads in the
sand, ignoring the present and attempting to force the clock to simpler
times. But guess what? Tempus Fugit (woot! a flying reference!), and you
can't legislate sand to make it flow up an hourglass.


Occam's razor certainly does *not* mandate the existence of a creator. I
refer you again to the Anthropomorphic Principle.
Start with an infinite number of universe, each with their own sets of rules
and eliminate the ones that are inconducive to the existence of RAH (which
is, after all, the highest form of life as we know it).
Ice gets denser as it freezes and doesn't float (making bodies of water
freeze from the bottom up)? Gone!
Cosmological constant too large and big bang collapses too soon? Later!
Carbon doesn't have the correct angle and number of covalent bonds? Vamos!
Hey, there are a million complex and interdependent values. I can't design a
plane much less a universe (another obligatory flying reference ), but
does that mean there's an intelligent force behind it all? Not at all.
The exact set of rules necessary for intelligent life might also necessitate
the inarguably complex, beautiful, and functional universe.
If everything is just right, we exist to banter about it; if not, we don't;
it's that simple.
But the beauty of the AP is that it comes in two flavors, one of which says
you're free to believe in intelligent design, the other says I'm free not
to.

I believe that the physical world is all that exists. If there's more, and
it can be demonstrated, "Boom!" it's part of the physical world. If not,
it's mumbo-jumbo and can safely be ignored.
Can you devise a scientific test for love? Of course.
Would any sane person put themselves into jeopardy, whether short and
immediate - like running into a burning building, or long and protracted -
like the fiscal hardship that children cause, otherwise?
You say "love", I say "survival trait", to-MAY-to, to-MAH-to

Regardless, I don't recommend faith in science, it's spiritually devoid (for
those seeking spirituality) and subject to change. Faith is best left to
dogma.

The fact that science raises more questions than it answers is a *good*
thing! That's a strength, not a weakness! And it does *not* mean that
science increases uncertainty because the questions raised are about more
and more minute things. Haven't you heard the expression "the more you know,
the more you realize you don't know"? That's not an argument against
learning in the first place!

Meanwhile, religion has brought us such logical wonders as: discussing about
how many angels can dance on the head of a pin and testing for witchcraft by
water immersion (if she sinks and drowns, she's innocent; if she floats and
lives, the water is rejecting her because she's a witch, kill her!). Though
the Muslim's did do some good things with religion... witness how it drove
them towards better math and astronomy.

The other thing which confuses non-scientists (the first being the usage of
the word "theory") is that there is no single, central, scientific authority
that decides what is and isn't correct/accepted. If one theory is more
useful, can explain/predict more things, more accurately, and has fewer
deficiencies then it "survives" (sorry, couldn't resist) while others fade
into obscurity. This doesn't have to be all or nothing either. The Bohr
model of the atom is simple and still useful, even though Quantum Mechanics
is more comprehensive (at the expense of complexity).

Without attacking Christianity one iota.... it doesn't make sense to hinge
your belief in creation on Jesus, seeing as how he didn't show up until
somewhere between 4,000 and 15 billion years after the universe was made
(depending on who's counting). And certainly no Jesus is *not* the end of
religion... it's not even the end of religions based on variations of the
Old Testament.
And frankly, if resurrection isn't a repeatable experiment, then it can't be
used to make further predictions, rendering it useless.
On the other hand, nothing about cosmology says other universes cannot be
created, so it *may* be repeatable. Stay tuned!

BTW you *do* know that the two differing stories of Genesis were stolen from
the Egyptians and Babylonians (who didn't believe in one god), and that the
story of Eve is based on an ancient Sumerian pun, right?
OTOH I saw a great show which used some passages of Genesis to pinpoint the
probable location of the Garden of Eden

If you read again, you'll see I didn't call you either superstitious or
unscientific (and still am not)...
I never make ad hominem attacks, as they a sure signal you've already lost
the argument

And I'll finish (somewhat insensitively) with...
Winning an argument on the Internet is like winning the Special Olympics...
in the end, we're all still retarded.

Eric