Could someone enlighten me on the grading system in america since the Wikipedia page did not.
Is it just me or can the entire first page of the paper be compiled into two sentences: "A theory without evidence cannot be true" and "Evidence for evolution has been disproven". I suppose he got a high mark and he wouldn't have gotten if I was the teacher of the class since he shows little to no evidence for either argument, cites no sources and makes false claims, all wrapped into a package of bad style and repetitiveness.
On his theories: Maybe this guy should pay a little bit attention in his classes where evolution is actually taught. Especially the concept of mutation.
Yeah, I wasn't entirely sure about grading in America, but I'm guessing it's the same everywhere - there's a bunch of grades, and then you get marked on meeting the criteria for those grades.
I didn't know about the term "rubric", here in Australia it's generally "Criteria Sheet".
"Broaching the subject" is not the same as saying it. "Seem[ing] to suggest" is also not the same as saying it.
Ooh, didn't notice this one. Here are some excerpts from Richard Dawkins' River out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life:
Chapter 1 will have prepared the reader for the view that the true utility function of life, that which is being maximized in the natural world, is DNA survival. But DNA is not floating free; it is locked up in living bodies and it has to make the most of the levers of power at its disposal. DNA sequences that find themselves in cheetah bodies maximize their survival by causing those bodies to kill gazelles. Sequences that find themselves in gazelle bodies maximize their survival by promoting opposite ends. But it is DNA survival that is being maximized in both cases.
[several pages on the behavior of certain organisms]
So long as DNA is passed on, it does not matter who or what gets hurt in the process. It is better for the genes of Darwin's ichneumon wasp that the caterpillar should be alive, and therefore fresh, when it is eaten, no matter what the cost in suffering. Genes don't care about suffering, because they don't care about anything.
[Story about priests being sad that a schoolbus crashed and the kids died]
On the contrary, if the universe were just electrons and selfish genes, meaningless tragedies like the crashing of this bus are exactly what we should expect, along with equally meaningless good fortune. Such a universe would be neither evil nor good in intention. It would manifest no intentions of any kind. In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference. As that unhappy poet A. E. Housman put it:
For Nature, heartless, witless Nature Will neither know nor care. DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music.
I haven't forgotten about those deism citations. I'll be on it soon.
I didn't know about the term "rubric", here in Australia it's generally "Criteria Sheet".
At least you have criteria sheets. I have never been told, nor anyone I know in my classes, on what was required to get an 6/10 or anything. It was mostly I guess based upon the class, if one person made an epic paper they'd get a high mark and everyone would've had to do better than expected.
"Broaching the subject" is not the same as saying it. "Seem[ing] to suggest" is also not the same as saying it.
Ooh, didn't notice this one. Here are some excerpts from Richard Dawkins'River out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life:
He still doesn't say "man's purpose in life is to spread genes" or that "good character is a set of chemicals". He does say that the universe is indifferent to man, and I think that most people on this board would agree.
One must first realize the distinction between Intelligent Design and intelligent design. The one with the capitals exists only as an assertion that evolution is wrong, and that this implies that lifeforms were created (and yes, created is indeed the right word if we're talking about ID) by some kind of Designer. The one without capitals is simply a subcategory of the teleological arument, which dates back to Plato in the 4th century BC, while ID is a yet more specific application involving the rejection of Natural Selection.
As for Deism, it requires only that it is reason, not faith, that leads one to the conclusion that "there is a God".
In fact, the typical Deist belief is that even if God created the universe, God does not interfere with it; ID (with caps), on the other hand, inherently requires such intervention. As such, it is obvious there is a direct contradiction between the two. On the other hand, there is also an overlap between Deism and Intelligent Design - Deism requires an application of reason with the conclusion that there must be a God, and ID also attempts to use reason to come to such a conclusion.
Modern Intelligent Design also focuses specifically on rejection of the process of natural selection, instead holding that life is too complex to have occurred due to a random process. Since it focuses on natural selection, it's obvious that the modern "theory" of Intelligent Design cannot have come first. However, the core principle within it is a far older one.
Having clarified this, I think we can now return to the primary discussion;
Really the important thing that intelligent design brought to the table was its Enlightenment-era insistence on explanations which can be understood without specialized expertise, understood by any thinking individual. Intelligent design was originally a reaction against church orthodoxy, which explained life and the world through divine revelations parsed by a trained priesthood; when perfectly reasonable questions were raised, people were told that these were not questions at all, but simply the product of a lack of theological education. Only those with an education in Theology could have any sort of *real* discourse on how the world worked, and such an education could only be obtained through adopting a certain limiting framework of founding beliefs. Those without such an education, even if rational and thinking people, were forced to take it on authority. This created a very insulated worldview masquerading as ultimate truth.
Unfortunately, this sort of attitude seems to be becoming more prevalent in the sciences. This has left the door open for scientific metaphysicians to create and reinforce their own set of creation myths just as the priesthood once had.
Sadly, to some extent, if we as a society truly wish to attain understanding of as much of the universe as it is possible to understand, we can't also expect absolutely everyone to understand everything science has to offer. However, there is one crucial distinction which you have not made, and should have. The very nature of the scientific method recognizes that while the ultimate goal is to determine the "truth", science can only ever disprove something, not prove it, as in "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.", a quote of Einstein's.
As a result of this, it is evident that falsifiabilty is a crucial element of science.
To have people stand up and ask, "Explain to me why you believe the earth was created billions of years ago by clumping dust that burst into flame? Why do you say that man's purpose in life is to spread genes? Why do you say that good character is a set of chemicals?" is a valuable thing. The fact that this is done more often than not by creationists who question with the ulterior motive of proving the literal truth of the book of Genesis is a terrible shame, in my mind. But the fact that it happens at all can be nothing but good, and intelligent design happens to be the current medium for this questioning.
Questioning is good, but scientists do it on a day-to-day basis without any need for Intelligent Design. Also, the term "belief" is highly inappropriate. A scientist does not need to believe in anything to achieve what they do. Your form of questioning is also highly inappropriate to science, and basically irrelevant. The answer to all such questions about valid scientific theories is that "because the evidence supports it".
As for the specific questions,
Explain to me why you believe the earth was created billions of years ago by clumping dust that burst into flame?
Why do you say that man's purpose in life is to spread genes?
Yeah, this is basically what Dawkins says, and it's a good answer. It's important to distinguish between purpose in the sense of "Why does man exist?" to purpose in the sense of "What should I do with my life, and why?". The former is answered by genetics, the latter is left up to each individual to decide for themselves, though such decisions should be based on reason. Living just for the sake of spreading genes isn't a bad plan though
Why do you say that good character is a set of chemicals?
It is an accepted scientific theory that emotions are a function of the limbic system of the brain. However, to make the leap from this to the idea that "good character is a set of chemicals" is your mistake. Good character does not depend solely on emotions. Surely the fact that we are capable of suppressing our emotions is an adequate demonstration of this?
The rubric is about how the argument is made, not the quality of each point or fact checking. As a pure argument, disregarding the subject and lack of any citation, the paper earned the grade it got by the looks of it.
The rubric is about how the argument is made, not the quality of each point or fact checking. As a pure argument, disregarding the subject and lack of any citation, the paper earned the grade it got by the looks of it.
My beef is that grading an English paper without taking into account grammar and basic style is like grading the intent of a piece of software without checking to see if it compiles. Specific point grading by way of a simple rubric allows the kids to get very focused on very specific things and yet at the same time be very lazy about everything else.
Any paper, no matter the intent, should be held to the same grammatical and stylistic standard.
One must first realise the distinction between Intelligent Design and intelligent design. The one with the capitals exists only as an assertion that evolution is wrong, and that this implies that lifeforms were created (and yes, created is indeed the right word if we're talking about ID) by some kind of Designer. The one without capitals is simply a subcategory of the teleological arument, which dates back to Plato in the 4th century BC, while ID is a yet more specific application involving the rejection of Natural Selection.
I mostly agree. However, very few people make such a distinction when talking about them. The lack of capitalization in my original post notes that I've been talking about the latter idea, not the former, which is really just a euphemism for Creationism.
As for Deism, it requires only that it is reason, not faith, that leads one to the conclusion that "there is a God".
This is true for small-caps intelligent design as well.
In fact, the typical Deist belief is that even if God created the universe, God does not interfere with it; ID (with caps), on the other hand, inherently requires such intervention. As such, it is obvious there is a direct contradiction between the two.
Oh? How so?
On the other hand, there is also an overlap between Deism and Intelligent Design - Deism requires an application of reason with the conclusion that there must be a God, and ID also attempts to use reason to come to such a conclusion.
As said originally, I think that the attempt to apply individual reason to human problems rather than relying dogmatically on the authority of a religious or scientific establishment can only be a good thing.
Modern Intelligent Design also focuses specifically on rejection of the process of natural selection, instead holding that life is too complex to have occurred due to a random process. Since it focuses on natural selection, it's obvious that the modern "theory" of Intelligent Design cannot have come first. However, the core principle within it is a far older one.
These two ideas tend to intermingle. If life is too complex to have occurred due to a random process, any random process which is brought forth as a counterpoint must be addressed.
Really the important thing that intelligent design brought to the table was its Enlightenment-era insistence on explanations which can be understood without specialized expertise, understood by any thinking individual. Intelligent design was originally a reaction against church orthodoxy, which explained life and the world through divine revelations parsed by a trained priesthood; when perfectly reasonable questions were raised, people were told that these were not questions at all, but simply the product of a lack of theological education. Only those with an education in Theology could have any sort of *real* discourse on how the world worked, and such an education could only be obtained through adopting a certain limiting framework of founding beliefs. Those without such an education, even if rational and thinking people, were forced to take it on authority. This created a very insulated worldview masquerading as ultimate truth.
Unfortunately, this sort of attitude seems to be becoming more prevalent in the sciences. This has left the door open for scientific metaphysicians to create and reinforce their own set of creation myths just as the priesthood once had.
Sadly, to some extent, if we as a society truly wish to attain understanding of as much of the universe as it is possible to understand, we can't also expect absolutely everyone to understand everything science has to offer. However, there is one crucial distinction which you have not made, and should have. The very nature of the scientific method recognizes that while the ultimate goal is to determine the "truth", science can only ever disprove something, not prove it, as in "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.", a quote of Einstein's.
As a result of this, it is evident that falsifiabilty is a crucial element of science.
Questioning is good, but scientists do it on a day-to-day basis without any need for Intelligent Design. Also, the term "belief" is highly inappropriate. A scientist does not need to believe in anything to achieve what they do. Your form of questioning is also highly inappropriate to science, and basically irrelevant. The answer to all such questions about valid scientific theories is that "because the evidence supports it".
This is confusing ideals with realities. There are many things that people or institutions should do in their daily activities, that somehow remain undone, or are done poorly. Many have blind spots to their own behavior that they don't have when evaluating the behavior of others, or that of those outside their own community. Internal oversight by the meatpacking industry has on occasion lead to disgusting conditions. Internal oversight by the Catholic church lead to the indulgences and graft that birthed Protestantism. A duly elected politician is supposed to follow the voice of their electorate, and not be swayed by special interest groups and wealthy campaign contributors. If people get into the habit of considering the asking of questions and challenging of information something to be left to the experts of the fields in question, rather than as a duty of all thinking people, such problems can linger far longer than is healthy, to the general detriment of humankind.
As for the specific questions,
Explain to me why you believe the earth was created billions of years ago by clumping dust that burst into flame?
The Big Bang is about the formation of the universe, no? Additionally, it doesn't really say how the universe was specifically formed anyhow, it simply notes an expansion. To say "the evidence supports it" without careful inquiry is to say "surely the evidence must support it" without adding a question mark to the end. Adding that question mark is the duty of all thinking people. Unfortunately, skepticism as taught is often one-sided. Many people add the question mark when looking at magic, or religion, or politics, but turn a blind eye to the counterpoints their questioning produce, and ignore entirely fields connected to the sciences.
Why do you say that man's purpose in life is to spread genes?
Yeah, this is basically what Dawkins says, and it's a good answer. It's important to distinguish between purpose in the sense of "Why does man exist?" to purpose in the sense of "What should I do with my life, and why?". The former is answered by genetics, the latter is left up to each individual to decide for themselves, though such decisions should be based on reason. Living just for the sake of spreading genes isn't a bad plan though [italics added]
Please elaborate.
Why do you say that good character is a set of chemicals?
It is an accepted scientific theory that emotions are a function of the limbic system of the brain. However, to make the leap from this to the idea that "good character is a set of chemicals" is your mistake. Good character does not depend solely on emotions. Surely the fact that we are capable of suppressing our emotions is an adequate demonstration of this?
I want to hear more about how the intelligent outside force is responsible for maintaining our bodies against rot. I'm fascinated by that proposition.
There are many books that consider the existence or non existence of a soul or of an animating principle within the body, from various points and counterpoints. People like thinking about it. I suggest a trip to the local library.
But then I'd swell up like a balloon and explode. It'd go everywhere.
No, I'm serious. Don't come on here and say some bullshit and then get all haughty and say "I suggest a trip to the library" when you get called on it.
I can do that too: Vishnu and Yahweh had a fight. Vishnu beat the crap out of Yahweh and now all Christians are going to Vishnu's hell where they'll be cut into bits with a Veg-O-Matic. Want proof? I suggest a trip to the library.
But then I'd swell up like a balloon and explode. It'd go everywhere.
No, I'm serious. Don't come on here and say some bullshit and then get all haughty and say "I suggest a trip to the library" when you get called on it.
I can do that too: Vishnu and Yahweh had a fight. Vishnu beat the crap out of Yahweh and now all Christians are going to Vishnu's hell where they'll be cut into bits with a Veg-O-Matic. Want proof? I suggest a trip to the library.
I hadn't realized you'd taken it that way. I meant the suggestion earnestly and without any intent to insult. The library is a valuable tool. I spend a lot of time there myself. Please accept my apology.
I hadn't realized you'd taken it that way. I meant the suggestion earnestly and without any intent to insult. The library is a valuable tool. I spend a lot of time there myself. Please accept my apology.
Eh, the problem here is that Edward the Bastard, at least I assume, goes by 'you claim, you explain'. Then saying "go to the library" seems to suggest something along the lines of 'yeah I don't know for sure, go check for me in the library for stuff that supports my claims'.
Eh, the problem here is that Edward the Bastard, at least I assume, goes by 'you claim, you explain'. Then saying "go to the library" seems to suggest something along the lines of 'yeah I don't know for sure, go check for me in the library for stuff that supports my claims'.
I suppose I misunderstood him. His last post on the subject said he found the proposition fascinating, and wanted to hear more. I figured it was a haha-only-serious request and not pure sarcasm. Since it isn't a belief that I personally hold and there really is an enormous amount of literature on the subject, and I can only say so much without resorting to the library myself, I figured forwarding the suggestion wouldn't do any harm.
There are many books that consider the existence or non existence of a soul or of an animating principle within the body, from various points and counterpoints. People like thinking about it. I suggest a trip to the local library.
Dualism is a joke. I respect dualists about just as much as I respect creationists.
In fact, the typical Deist belief is that even if God created the universe, God does not interfere with it; ID (with caps), on the other hand, inherently requires such intervention. As such, it is obvious there is a direct contradiction between the two.
Oh? How so?
If one holds with the capitalized ID in saying that Natural Selection cannot have occurred and, in fact, the individual species must have been designed, then one must also hold that, to match up with the fossil record and such, the Intelligent Designer inserted various species at intermediate steps along the way. This is direct interference, while typical Deism rejects the presence of such.
On the other hand, there is also an overlap between Deism and Intelligent Design - Deism requires an application of reason with the conclusion that there must be a God, and ID also attempts to use reason to come to such a conclusion.
As said originally, I think that the attempt to apply individual reason to human problems rather than relying dogmatically on the authority of a religious or scientific establishment can only be a good thing.
I agree here; applying reason is undoubtedly a positive thing. It's just that all too many of these cases aren't actually very good applications of reason at all.
Modern Intelligent Design also focuses specifically on rejection of the process of natural selection, instead holding that life is too complex to have occurred due to a random process. Since it focuses on natural selection, it's obvious that the modern "theory" of Intelligent Design cannot have come first. However, the core principle within it is a far older one.
These two ideas tend to intermingle. If life is too complex to have occurred due to a random process, any random process which is brought forth as a counterpoint must be addressed.
Sure, Intelligent Design could be said to be a modern development of intelligent design, which in itself has been a significant argument for Deism. I'll certainly acknowledge that the standard form of Deism is far better than something like Christianity since it encourages reasoned thought. However, the greatest problem with these ideas is that modern science has shown that the existence of a deity is not a particularly good conclusion. At the least, the specific argument on the intelligent design of life has, for the most part, been invalidated.
As for the specific questions,
Explain to me why you believe the earth was created billions of years ago by clumping dust that burst into flame?
The Big Bang is about the formation of the universe, no? Additionally, it doesn't really say how the universe was specifically formed anyhow, it simply notes an expansion. To say "the evidence supports it" without careful inquiry is to say "surely the evidence must support it" without adding a question mark to the end. Adding that question mark is the duty of all thinking people. Unfortunately, skepticism as taught is often one-sided. Many people add the question mark when looking at magic, or religion, or politics, but turn a blind eye to the counterpoints their questioning produce, and ignore entirely fields connected to the sciences.
Well, I for one distinctly remember being taught the idea of the "scientific method", which told me that skepticism was not only a good thing, but essential to the function of science. Sure, I haven't taken much depth in answering you, but you're the one who should really be providing the careful inquiry into the evidence if you'll assert it's wrong.
I didn't really like the phrasing of your questions, especially from a scientific point of view, but I guess you were just trying to offer some points for discussion.
Why do you say that man's purpose in life is to spread genes?
Yeah, this is basically what Dawkins says, and it's a good answer. It's important to distinguish between purpose in the sense of "Why does man exist?" to purpose in the sense of "What should I do with my life, and why?". The former is answered by genetics, the latter is left up to each individual to decide for themselves, though such decisions should be based on reason.Living just for the sake of spreading genes isn't a bad plan though [italics added]
Please elaborate.
I would've hoped that people would see that the italicised statement in particular was a joke. Oh well.
Why do you say that good character is a set of chemicals?
It is an accepted scientific theory that emotions are a function of the limbic system of the brain. However, to make the leap from this to the idea that "good character is a set of chemicals" is your mistake. Good character does not depend solely on emotions. Surely the fact that we are capable of suppressing our emotions is an adequate demonstration of this?
What else does good character depend on?
The brain consists of far more than just the limbic system. As a simple example, having memory allows people to be taught good character, and this need not happen due to emotions.
Eh, the problem here is that Edward the Bastard, at least I assume, goes by 'you claim, you explain'. Then saying "go to the library" seems to suggest something along the lines of 'yeah I don't know for sure, go check for me in the library for stuff that supports my claims'.
True. It also has at least a hint of, "I'm more learned than you and shan't be bothered trying to explain such a sef-evident proposition to an unschooled churl."
No apology needed jcc, but if you say some outrageous bullshit, then either prove it or admit you are shit-talking.
The problem I have with deism, or the idea of a god that doesn't interfere in any way, is that it is really just a non-confrontational front for atheism. If there is an undetectable being that does not influence the world in any way, it effectively does not exist.
Pretend for a minute that you can think. Your mind is wholly intact. Heck, you can even see and hear and move. But you don't have a body. You can't speak. Nobody can see or hear you, or know that you exist. You can't do anything. All you can do is think, move, and look around. You effectively do not exist. As far as the universe is concerned, there is no difference between the state I have just described and death.
Deists are trying to say that something which has no observable influence on the universe exists. This is obviously a ludicrous proposition. If you accept it, then you must accept that just about everything ever imagined exists, and is just not observable. Deism used to be much more popular centuries ago, but is pretty much obsoleted by atheism for these reasons. The only people who I see claiming deism nowadays are rational people who want to avoid the confrontation and the negative societal connotations of the worth atheist.
I agree that believing in something pointless is pointless.
In any case, the main point of Deism is to advocate reason in everything you do, which is good. It uses reason to postulate the existence of a deity, and then invokes this deity as an excuse for reason, in some strange cyclic loop. http://moderndeism.com/html/deism_defined.html seems like a decent site on what exactly modern deism is.
However, why not just go one step better and have reason without invoking an unneccessary God?
If one holds with the capitalized ID in saying that Natural Selection cannot have occurred and, in fact, the individual species must have been designed, then one must also hold that, to match up with the fossil record and such, the Intelligent Designer inserted various species at intermediate steps along the way. This is direct interference, while typical Deism rejects the presence of such.
Fair enough. Theists would have no problem with this, though. One of the fun things about intelligent design is how it is included in so many of the possible takes on the subject.
On the other hand, there is also an overlap between Deism and Intelligent Design - Deism requires an application of reason with the conclusion that there must be a God, and ID also attempts to use reason to come to such a conclusion.
As said originally, I think that the attempt to apply individual reason to human problems rather than relying dogmatically on the authority of a religious or scientific establishment can only be a good thing.
I agree here; applying reason is undoubtedly a positive thing. It's just that all too many of these cases aren't actually very good applications of reason at all.
I find it usually not a good idea to base one's opinions on a subject on those of its advocates at the bottom of the curve. They may be the loudest, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are the most representative. Usually these types simply get on the television and radio more frequently because the programmers for those stations realized that people enjoy being outraged, and show their enjoyment by buying advertised products. :P This is much harder to achieve if you have some guy on saying something fairly boring and reasonable, and then some other guy making an equally boring and reasonable counterpoint. Optimally, one would get one's opinions on the "shoulds" and ideals of a subject from the top part of the curve, and information on what actual effect those following a subject or set of beliefs will have on the rest of the world would be culled by observing the opinions and actions of the median.
Sure, Intelligent Design could be said to be a modern development of intelligent design, which in itself has been a significant argument for Deism. I'll certainly acknowledge that the standard form of Deism is far better than something like Christianity since it encourages reasoned thought. However, the greatest problem with these ideas is that modern science has shown that the existence of a deity is not a particularly good conclusion. At the least, the specific argument on the intelligent design of life has, for the most part, been invalidated.
Perhaps this is so. That does not mean that the assessment should not be questioned, however. Retreading old ground is often a useful exercise, and occasionally one discovers a thing that was overlooked. Besides, for a question to be settled among the current generation of scientists while the rest of the world continues on is not the same as a matter being settled by all of humankind. The same debate that was hopefully used among scientists to arrive to their conclusions should also be applied in their interactions in settling things with the public. I suppose my issue is with "Trust me, I'm a Scientist" type situations.
Well, I for one distinctly remember being taught the idea of the "scientific method", which told me that skepticism was not only a good thing, but essential to the function of science. Sure, I haven't taken much depth in answering you, but you're the one who should really be providing the careful inquiry into the evidence if you'll assert it's wrong.
I didn't really like the phrasing of your questions, especially from a scientific point of view, but I guess you were just trying to offer some points for discussion.
Well, again there are ideals and practice. The scientific method does stress the importance of impartial skepticism, but this ideal sometimes has difficulty in being held. Outside challenge can only be of benefit.
Brought up as points of discussion most definitely. Honestly, I don't have especially strong opinions on any of these subjects. Independent rationality can be valuable, but people may live their lives as they please. Sometimes I get annoyed by choir preaching, I guess. I know that it really isn't at all that important, but when I see posts pop up again and again on subjects like intelligent design, or alternative medicine, or preppie fashion, or what have you, where noone actually says anything that expands the general understanding of the subject, it irks me a little. I get the same sort of annoyance when I see anti-war protests held in the middle of hippie towns. I understand the need to socialize, but why disguise it?
"I'm bored. Wanna make fun of creationists?"
"Nah, we did that yesterday. Let's do Republicans this time."
"Okay!"
It also smacks a bit of the "I am so smart" skit from the Simpsons, you know?
So occasionally I kick the beehive for fun. I consider it to be the proper form of trolling, rather than the sort that got BBC banhammered. It's a lot more educational this way. For me, at least, and hopefully for others. For instance, before this thread I'd known vaguely of the origins of Deism in 17th century England and France and it's connection to Protestantism and so forth, but I'd never actually read any primary sources. (Thanks Google Books! )
It's all in fun, anyhow.
Please elaborate.
I would've hoped that people would see that the italicised statement in particular was a joke. Oh well.
It was the smiley that fooled me. In my experience, a semi-colon smiley is the ha-ha-only-serious smiley.
What else does good character depend on?
The brain consists of far more than just the limbic system. As a simple example, having memory allows people to be taught good character, and this need not happen due to emotions.
Would you say then that one who goes through the motions has good character? If a person is charitable because it is a learned behavior reinforced with social pressure, would you consider it the same marker of good character as one who is charitable out of compassion for others?
Would you say then that one who goes through the motions has good character? If a person is charitable because it is a learned behavior reinforced with social pressure, would you consider it the same marker of good character as one who is charitable out of compassion for others?
People have compassion for others because it is a learned behavior reinforced with social pressure. I don't think any argument on this line will go anywhere.
Would it be fair to just say religion is complex because it has both real and imaginary components?
Religion is complex whether or not it has the imaginary or real components, since even if it is either purely real or purely imaginary, it must still be complex.
jcc, I think we can be happy on our previous points if I make the concession that a poor criticism is better than no criticism at all.
We have a nice new issue now, this question of "good character"; the question is one of how we interpret morality and the ways in which people can follow it. So far, we have two behavioural elements, emotion and learned behaviour. I guess the third is also necessary here, that of rational decision-making.
So what is needed now is some kind of assessment of morality, and the validity of the possible reasons for following it?
I would say that given some kind of standard for judging moral behaviour, the only important thing to judge is the behaviour itself, not the reasons for following it.
One argument I use against ID is: "If the design of animals was perfect from the beginning, why have a lot of species died out?" No one has been able to give me a good answer.
Comments
Based on the rubric even a 3+ is fairly harsh, but then I'd say that the rubric isn't very good.
Is it just me or can the entire first page of the paper be compiled into two sentences: "A theory without evidence cannot be true" and "Evidence for evolution has been disproven". I suppose he got a high mark and he wouldn't have gotten if I was the teacher of the class since he shows little to no evidence for either argument, cites no sources and makes false claims, all wrapped into a package of bad style and repetitiveness.
On his theories: Maybe this guy should pay a little bit attention in his classes where evolution is actually taught. Especially the concept of mutation.
I didn't know about the term "rubric", here in Australia it's generally "Criteria Sheet".
As for Deism, it requires only that it is reason, not faith, that leads one to the conclusion that "there is a God".
In fact, the typical Deist belief is that even if God created the universe, God does not interfere with it; ID (with caps), on the other hand, inherently requires such intervention. As such, it is obvious there is a direct contradiction between the two.
On the other hand, there is also an overlap between Deism and Intelligent Design - Deism requires an application of reason with the conclusion that there must be a God, and ID also attempts to use reason to come to such a conclusion.
Modern Intelligent Design also focuses specifically on rejection of the process of natural selection, instead holding that life is too complex to have occurred due to a random process. Since it focuses on natural selection, it's obvious that the modern "theory" of Intelligent Design cannot have come first. However, the core principle within it is a far older one.
Having clarified this, I think we can now return to the primary discussion;
Sadly, to some extent, if we as a society truly wish to attain understanding of as much of the universe as it is possible to understand, we can't also expect absolutely everyone to understand everything science has to offer. However, there is one crucial distinction which you have not made, and should have. The very nature of the scientific method recognizes that while the ultimate goal is to determine the "truth", science can only ever disprove something, not prove it, as in "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.", a quote of Einstein's.
As a result of this, it is evident that falsifiabilty is a crucial element of science. Questioning is good, but scientists do it on a day-to-day basis without any need for Intelligent Design. Also, the term "belief" is highly inappropriate. A scientist does not need to believe in anything to achieve what they do. Your form of questioning is also highly inappropriate to science, and basically irrelevant. The answer to all such questions about valid scientific theories is that "because the evidence supports it".
As for the specific questions, Surely the vast majority of people would, even if they don't know it offhand, be able to find this information quickly and easily?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Observational_evidence Yeah, this is basically what Dawkins says, and it's a good answer. It's important to distinguish between purpose in the sense of "Why does man exist?" to purpose in the sense of "What should I do with my life, and why?". The former is answered by genetics, the latter is left up to each individual to decide for themselves, though such decisions should be based on reason. Living just for the sake of spreading genes isn't a bad plan though
Any paper, no matter the intent, should be held to the same grammatical and stylistic standard.
I can do that too: Vishnu and Yahweh had a fight. Vishnu beat the crap out of Yahweh and now all Christians are going to Vishnu's hell where they'll be cut into bits with a Veg-O-Matic. Want proof? I suggest a trip to the library.
However, the greatest problem with these ideas is that modern science has shown that the existence of a deity is not a particularly good conclusion. At the least, the specific argument on the intelligent design of life has, for the most part, been invalidated. Well, I for one distinctly remember being taught the idea of the "scientific method", which told me that skepticism was not only a good thing, but essential to the function of science.
Sure, I haven't taken much depth in answering you, but you're the one who should really be providing the careful inquiry into the evidence if you'll assert it's wrong.
I didn't really like the phrasing of your questions, especially from a scientific point of view, but I guess you were just trying to offer some points for discussion. I would've hoped that people would see that the italicised statement in particular was a joke. Oh well. The brain consists of far more than just the limbic system. As a simple example, having memory allows people to be taught good character, and this need not happen due to emotions.
No apology needed jcc, but if you say some outrageous bullshit, then either prove it or admit you are shit-talking.
Pretend for a minute that you can think. Your mind is wholly intact. Heck, you can even see and hear and move. But you don't have a body. You can't speak. Nobody can see or hear you, or know that you exist. You can't do anything. All you can do is think, move, and look around. You effectively do not exist. As far as the universe is concerned, there is no difference between the state I have just described and death.
Deists are trying to say that something which has no observable influence on the universe exists. This is obviously a ludicrous proposition. If you accept it, then you must accept that just about everything ever imagined exists, and is just not observable. Deism used to be much more popular centuries ago, but is pretty much obsoleted by atheism for these reasons. The only people who I see claiming deism nowadays are rational people who want to avoid the confrontation and the negative societal connotations of the worth atheist.
In any case, the main point of Deism is to advocate reason in everything you do, which is good. It uses reason to postulate the existence of a deity, and then invokes this deity as an excuse for reason, in some strange cyclic loop.
http://moderndeism.com/html/deism_defined.html seems like a decent site on what exactly modern deism is.
However, why not just go one step better and have reason without invoking an unneccessary God?
Brought up as points of discussion most definitely.
"I'm bored. Wanna make fun of creationists?"
"Nah, we did that yesterday. Let's do Republicans this time."
"Okay!"
It also smacks a bit of the "I am so smart" skit from the Simpsons, you know?
So occasionally I kick the beehive for fun.
It's all in fun, anyhow.
jcc, I think we can be happy on our previous points if I make the concession that a poor criticism is better than no criticism at all.
We have a nice new issue now, this question of "good character"; the question is one of how we interpret morality and the ways in which people can follow it. So far, we have two behavioural elements, emotion and learned behaviour. I guess the third is also necessary here, that of rational decision-making.
So what is needed now is some kind of assessment of morality, and the validity of the possible reasons for following it?
I would say that given some kind of standard for judging moral behaviour, the only important thing to judge is the behaviour itself, not the reasons for following it.