WARNING! Controversial poll ahead,...

[Maj.Nick Danger]

The dinosaur tissue in that article didn't happen to come from that purple character in your avatar, did it? lol

Well,...yes, in a way. Barney the Purple Carnivore had Ostrich legs for lunch that day. So maybe that explains it?

 

[Maj.Nick Danger]

An octopus' garden?

The animal that fascinates me the most though, is the Octopus, which has evovled intelligence that is as far removed as can be from us primates. Octopods live a life of near zero communication and no nurturing, so instead of reproduction in the mammalian sense, they live very short, rapid lives, that are dominated by sheer curiosity and trial and error. My pet Octopus arranged the legs of crayfish it killed in a monstrous garden outside of its cave. It may not be a sign of culture, but how many other animals waste so much time on a behavior that has apparently zero direct survival value?

The octopus and squids exhibit uncanny intelligence in that they can change both the color and texture of their skins in order to perfectly mimic their surroundings. An octopus was observed to move very slowly through shallow water, all the time mimicing the changing colors as well as the light and shadow patterns from a sky dotted with clouds. The neurological processes, sensory perception, and the muscle coordination involved in performing such a feat are astonishing!
Squid have been observed to display patterns with their arms as a possible form of communication.
Also they have been observed engaging in a sort of "hypnosis" for lack of a better term. They can approach a victim and change colors moment by moment in a mind boggling psychedelic display that appears to mesmerize their intended dinner.
Who knows what your octopus was trying to do? Could have been some message or maybe a system of decoys to lure more dinners to his garden?
Or was it art?
In any event, it is these kinds of behaviors in animals that is just another reason that I believe this world, and indeed this infinite and amazing uncharted universe was all no mere accident.

 

[jamespowers]

Ahhh... so now the dinosaurs were feasting on the Mesopotamians?

I wish we could set a couple hundred loose in there right now. Problem solved.

Regards,

J

 

[Shaul-Ike Cohen]

It's a statement my philosophy teacher tossed our way:

-------------------- "There is no God, and Mary is his mother."

He might have heard that one from his Jewish neighbour. At least I heard it in this version:

A Jew is trying to assimilate as much as possible. He's an atheist, but the best school in the neighbourhood happens to be Catholic, so that's where he sends his children. One day, when he asks his son what he learned in school today, he starts telling him about the concept of the trinity. He shouts at him: "Now listen, buster: First of all, there's only one god, not three! Put that in your pipe and smoke it. And apart from that, we don't believe in him."

 

[jake_fink]

He might have heard that one from his Jewish neighbour. At least I heard it in this version:

A Jew is trying to assimilate as much as possible. He's an atheist, but the best school in the neighbourhood happens to be Catholic, so that's where he sends his children. One day, when he asks his son what he learned in school today, he starts telling him about the concept of the trinity. He shouts at him: "Now listen, buster: First of all, there's only one god, not three! Put that in your pipe and smoke it. And apart from that, we don't believe in him."

That sounds like my grandfather - except for the trying to assimilate and sending his kids to the best school part.

 

[Etienne]

LizzieMaine, I always enjoy reading your posts. You are an articulate writer with an obviously keen intellect, and you seem like a person who has established a very systematic order to your life! Furthermore, your ability to engage in debate is refreshingly candid without being biting and contrary!

As before, I still do not know how to drag down a quote and box it here for reference, so I will do my best to paraphrase something you wrote so I can address it; if I get it wrong, PLEASE correct me! It concerns what you were saying about treating people as individuals, with respect, to be kind and not hurt others, etc. (essentially the "golden rule")--apart from an idealogical framework or system of beliefs. You mentioned that it's simply the best way for people to get along together. If I am understanding you correctly, you feel that the practical outcome is what matters, not the philosophy behind the behavior. My question for you sprang into my head as I was reading your line of thinking. What happens when someone you love (let's imagine you have a 15 year old daughter, for example) sees this completely differently than you do. Let's imagine she finds herself pregnant and wants to abort her child because she feels that the best thing for her is not to be a mother at her age, and you feel strongly that hurting that baby is very wrong. Where do you go from there? Her thinking is different from yours, but you don't feel idealogical underpinnings are what matter, but the practical outcome is what matters. I am curious--what thinking trumps the other, and why?

 

[Section10]

Well, it's like I said before. My own philosophy for living is very simple: Hurting other people is bad. Not hurting other people is good. I'm not a moral relativist in that sense at all -- I think the very foundation of a workable society depends on people treating each other with kindness, decency, and respect, and I try to put that into practice in the only life over which I have any authority -- my own. It has nothing to do with any one system of belief or ideology being "better" than another -- and everything to do with simply seeing people as individual human beings worthy of respect and kindness in a way that transcends ideology or dogma. I don't think it has to be any more complicated than that unless one wants it to be.

One more brief comment. This is getting embarrasingly off topic and it doesn't really require a reply, but I wanted to bring up my thoughts regarding this use of "ideology". To me, ideology is more like a world view. A way of how you percieve what may or may not work in its application. Like capitalism or communism or pacifism. Some kind of an ism that is adopted and incorporated into a person's way of looking at things.
I know religion can approach that as well, but I like to make at least a semantic variance between the two. To me my relationship with the supernatural is more along the lines of a family. I assume you may have loved ones--parents, children, spouse etc. and I assume love is part of the mix in the relationships. This means give-take, sacrifice-reward, comfort-concern and so on. I question that the content of those relationships would fall under the ideology catagory. You feel a certain way and act a certain way because it is a natural product of who and what you are. If all of it is truly real then there is simply no other way that one can be. Doesn't mean that things don't get rocky at times, but the foundational relationship never changes. Perhaps that's just my personal view, but I do try to maintain the separation (at least in my own head).

 

[LizzieMaine]

My question for you sprang into my head as I was reading your line of thinking. What happens when someone you love (let's imagine you have a 15 year old daughter, for example) sees this completely differently than you do. Let's imagine she finds herself pregnant and wants to abort her child because she feels that the best thing for her is not to be a mother at her age, and you feel strongly that hurting that baby is very wrong. Where do you go from there? Her thinking is different from yours, but you don't feel idealogical underpinnings are what matter, but the practical outcome is what matters. I am curious--what thinking trumps the other, and why?

Well, that's a tough situation for anyone, admittedly -- and I'd hope that anyone who actually found themselves in such a situation would be willing and able to reason it out. All I know for sure is what *I personally* would do if I found myself pregnant under such circumstances -- but I would not feel comfortable handing down that decision as an edict to any daughter of mine. I believe very strongly in taking personal responsibility for one's actions, and I'd point out to her that dealing with the pregnancy is a consequence that she herself is going to have to carry.

I could give her advice, I could make suggestions, I would certainly discuss my feelings, but I wouldn't impose my will or my beliefs on her -- because in the end, I'm not living her life and I don't have to bear the direct consequences of whatever choice she makes. I'd try to help her to make a mature decision -- but I'd also point out that whichever decision she makes she'll live with the consequences of it for the rest of her life. And I would assure her that whatever choice she makes, she'd still be my daughter, and I would always love her very much.

That last part, I think, is the most important of all.

 

[Cacklewack]

Creation.

Matt

 

[scotrace]

Yet Again

Well expressed, LizzieMaine.

 

[Pilgrim]

The thing that bugs me about the debate is the tendency people have to want to impose their view on others through legislation or policy. Although there are certainly middle grounds (many of which have been mentioned here), all too often the attempts at opening the door to another Opinion are thinly veiled attempts to justify teaching a completely lopsided approach.

I said Opinion, because in the case of Intelligent Design, I don't consider it a theory. Why? By definition, theories can be disproved; if something can neither be proved or disproved, it's not a theory. Intelligent Design cannot be proved or disproved, therefore it's a philosophy, opinion, point of view, religious conviction or other synonyms.

Evolution is indeed a theory, because aspects of it can be proven, disproven or modified based on new facts which are discovered.

It seems to me that where this leaves us is with two approaches - one is an Opinion or Conviction that (as others have suggested) might be accepted as explaining "Why"; following that, we have a Theory that supposedly explains "How". If we could leave it at that, life would be much simpler.

(Please note the "I statements" in the following, as I claim ownership of the following comments only for myself....)

I personally feel the "Why" element of this duality has no place in science, and further, that it's simply immaterial, as it can neither be proven nor disproven. Personally, I am comfortable teaching from a basis of theory and science that can be tested, but I am not comfortable teaching from a base of Opinion, unless I carefully limit my assertions and note that they are only my opinions. Each of us is entited to a different opinion, but to me this is not science, and my opinion has as much weight as anyone else's.

If someone wants to share assertions based on their Opinions with me or my kids I'll respect those assertions (when stated rationally), but I refuse to conform to their Opinions, nor do I agree with their teaching those Opinions to my kids as facts, which they are not. I prefer my kids to be taught things which are based on fact and can be proven or disproven. Yes, they also are taught opinions and moral philosophies that my wife and I hold, but that is our job as partents - it is not the job of others.

 

[jake431]

The thing that bugs me about the debate is the tendency people have to want to impose their view on others through legislation or policy. Although there are certainly middle grounds (many of which have been mentioned here), all too often the attempts at opening the door to another Opinion are thinly veiled attempts to justify teaching a completely lopsided approach.

I said Opinion, because in the case of Intelligent Design, I don't consider it a theory. Why? By definition, theories can be disproved; if something can neither be proved or disproved, it's not a theory. Intelligent Design cannot be proved or disproved, therefore it's a philosophy, opinion, point of view, religious conviction or other synonyms.

Evolution is indeed a theory, because aspects of it can be proven, disproven or modified based on new facts which are discovered.

It seems to me that where this leaves us is with two approaches - one is an Opinion or Conviction that (as others have suggested) might be accepted as explaining "Why"; following that, we have a Theory that supposedly explains "How". If we could leave it at that, life would be much simpler.

(Please note the "I statements" in the following, as I claim ownership of the following comments only for myself....)

I personally feel the "Why" element of this duality has no place in science, and further, that it's simply immaterial, as it can neither be proven nor disproven. Personally, I am comfortable teaching from a basis of theory and science that can be tested, but I am not comfortable teaching from a base of Opinion, unless I carefully limit my assertions and note that they are only my opinions. Each of us is entited to a different opinion, but to me this is not science, and my opinion has as much weight as anyone else's.

If someone wants to share assertions based on their Opinions with me or my kids I'll respect those assertions (when stated rationally), but I refuse to conform to their Opinions, nor do I agree with their teaching those Opinions to my kids as facts, which they are not. I prefer my kids to be taught things which are based on fact and can be proven or disproven. Yes, they also are taught opinions and moral philosophies that my wife and I hold, but that is our job as partents - it is not the job of others.

Well said!
-Jake

 

[clevispin]

Just all of you wait 'till I'm in-charge. Moo-ha-ha.

m

 

[Marc Chevalier]

Moo-not-not!

.

 

[jake_fink]

The thing that bugs me about the debate is the tendency people have to want to impose their view on others through legislation or policy. Although there are certainly middle grounds (many of which have been mentioned here), all too often the attempts at opening the door to another Opinion are thinly veiled attempts to justify teaching a completely lopsided approach.

I said Opinion, because in the case of Intelligent Design, I don't consider it a theory. Why? By definition, theories can be disproved; if something can neither be proved or disproved, it's not a theory. Intelligent Design cannot be proved or disproved, therefore it's a philosophy, opinion, point of view, religious conviction or other synonyms.

Evolution is indeed a theory, because aspects of it can be proven, disproven or modified based on new facts which are discovered.

It seems to me that where this leaves us is with two approaches - one is an Opinion or Conviction that (as others have suggested) might be accepted as explaining "Why"; following that, we have a Theory that supposedly explains "How". If we could leave it at that, life would be much simpler.

(Please note the "I statements" in the following, as I claim ownership of the following comments only for myself....)

I personally feel the "Why" element of this duality has no place in science, and further, that it's simply immaterial, as it can neither be proven nor disproven. Personally, I am comfortable teaching from a basis of theory and science that can be tested, but I am not comfortable teaching from a base of Opinion, unless I carefully limit my assertions and note that they are only my opinions. Each of us is entited to a different opinion, but to me this is not science, and my opinion has as much weight as anyone else's.

If someone wants to share assertions based on their Opinions with me or my kids I'll respect those assertions (when stated rationally), but I refuse to conform to their Opinions, nor do I agree with their teaching those Opinions to my kids as facts, which they are not. I prefer my kids to be taught things which are based on fact and can be proven or disproven. Yes, they also are taught opinions and moral philosophies that my wife and I hold, but that is our job as partents - it is not the job of others.

Clear and reasonable.

Now pass the port!

 

[Maj.Nick Danger]

The thing that bugs me about the debate is the tendency people have to want to impose their view on others through legislation or policy. Although there are certainly middle grounds (many of which have been mentioned here), all too often the attempts at opening the door to another Opinion are thinly veiled attempts to justify teaching a completely lopsided approach.

I said Opinion, because in the case of Intelligent Design, I don't consider it a theory. Why? By definition, theories can be disproved; if something can neither be proved or disproved, it's not a theory. Intelligent Design cannot be proved or disproved, therefore it's a philosophy, opinion, point of view, religious conviction or other synonyms.

Evolution is indeed a theory, because aspects of it can be proven, disproven or modified based on new facts which are discovered.

It seems to me that where this leaves us is with two approaches - one is an Opinion or Conviction that (as others have suggested) might be accepted as explaining "Why"; following that, we have a Theory that supposedly explains "How". If we could leave it at that, life would be much simpler.

(Please note the "I statements" in the following, as I claim ownership of the following comments only for myself....)

I personally feel the "Why" element of this duality has no place in science, and further, that it's simply immaterial, as it can neither be proven nor disproven. Personally, I am comfortable teaching from a basis of theory and science that can be tested, but I am not comfortable teaching from a base of Opinion, unless I carefully limit my assertions and note that they are only my opinions. Each of us is entited to a different opinion, but to me this is not science, and my opinion has as much weight as anyone else's.

If someone wants to share assertions based on their Opinions with me or my kids I'll respect those assertions (when stated rationally), but I refuse to conform to their Opinions, nor do I agree with their teaching those Opinions to my kids as facts, which they are not. I prefer my kids to be taught things which are based on fact and can be proven or disproven. Yes, they also are taught opinions and moral philosophies that my wife and I hold, but that is our job as partents - it is not the job of others.

The opinion that all life merely happened as some kind of happy accident has been imposed upon us all for many years now. The alternative, that is the opinion or belief or theory or whatever you wish to call it, that there is a Creator, is treated with ridicule and scorn. The educational system in this country has literally imposed this view upon students for years through legislation and policy without any option. Is that any way to teach, or rather, inspire students to learn? Students in our schools should have options, as this is supposedly a democratic society in which we live. Why not look at other views and new evidence?

 

[jake431]

The opinion that all life merely happened as some kind of happy accident has been imposed upon us all for many years now. The alternative, that is the opinion or belief or theory or whatever you wish to call it, that there is a Creator, is treated with ridicule and scorn. The educational system in this country has literally imposed this view upon students for years through legislation and policy without any option. Is that any way to teach, or rather, inspire students to learn? Students in our schools should have options, as this is supposedly a democratic society in which we live. Why not look at other views and new evidence?

The thing is that Evolution is a theory, which can have evidence proving or disproving tested against it. Others must be able to replicate the results. In that way, the validity can be found for or against over time, and a new understanding can be reached. Creationism, Intelligent Design (whatever you call it, as you say), is not a scientific theory, cannot be tested, and cannot be shown to have evidence in the same way a theory does. It is a belief, you can find evidence for your belief, but as it is not scientific, you cannot compare it to a scientific theory. For lack of a simpler term, believing Creationism or Intelligent design is an opinion because it cannot be a theory; there is no repeatable, scientific method by which to measure an item of faith (regardless of my own point of view, I must include the caveat that just because it cannot be tested, that does not mean it may not be true).

I would also say, that Evolution is not a "happy accident", or a "sad accident" - it is simply a theory describing a process by which living things have come to exist over time. It has no end point, no value system, it is merely the way to best describe the observed mechanism at this time.


In any event, Evolution is not an opinion, whether you chose to believe the theory of Evolution or not is.

-Jake

 

[Briscoeteque]

The opinion that all life merely happened as some kind of happy accident has been imposed upon us all for many years now. The alternative, that is the opinion or belief or theory or whatever you wish to call it, that there is a Creator, is treated with ridicule and scorn. The educational system in this country has literally imposed this view upon students for years through legislation and policy without any option. Is that any way to teach, or rather, inspire students to learn? Students in our schools should have options, as this is supposedly a democratic society in which we live. Why not look at other views and new evidence?

Well, Holocaust deniers should also be allowed room to speak in public schools. It's an 'alternative', correct?

ID is not another scientific option. It has no place in science class. If an educator wants to put it in theology, or metaphysics, power to them. But it is not science and can never be.

It's not a 'happy accident', there is nothing accidental about it, nor anything inheriently happy. It's not being imposed upon anyone more than the theory of gravity. If you want to say God is the reason things fall when dropped, be my guest, just don't teach it in a physics class because it's a supernatural reason for a natural phenomonon and CANNOT be tested with natural observations.

 

[Samsa]

Well, Holocaust deniers should also be allowed room to speak in public schools. It's an 'alternative', correct?

ID is not another scientific option. It has no place in science class. If an educator wants to put it in theology, or metaphysics, power to them. But it is not science and can never be.

It's not a 'happy accident', there is nothing accidental about it, nor anything inheriently happy. It's not being imposed upon anyone more than the theory of gravity. If you want to say God is the reason things fall when dropped, be my guest, just don't teach it in a physics class because it's a supernatural reason for a natural phenomonon and CANNOT be tested with natural observations.

I believe in God, and the creation, yet have to agree with Briscoteque on this one. Science (and here I mean biological or physical science) has absolutely nothing to do with contemplating/proving/disproving the existence of God. That debate belongs to the philosphers and theologians. Now, I remember hearing about Intelligent Design in science class as a high school student - but it was simply a sidebar (i.e., "whether or not to teach ID in public schools is currently an issue in the U.S.") If ID does make an appearance in science classes, I think it should simply be noted as a historical phenomenon. Ultimately, parents should be responsible for the faith of their children, not the public school system.

To be honest, as a Theist, I would be more concerned about what is happening in intro Philosophy classes at the college level.

 

[Maj.Nick Danger]

The thing is that Evolution is a theory, which can have evidence proving or disproving tested against it. Others must be able to replicate the results. In that way, the validity can be found for or against over time, and a new understanding can be reached. Creationism, Intelligent Design (whatever you call it, as you say), is not a scientific theory, cannot be tested, and cannot be shown to have evidence in the same way a theory does. It is a belief, you can find evidence for your belief, but as it is not scientific, you cannot compare it to a scientific theory. For lack of a simpler term, believing Creationism or Intelligent design is an opinion because it cannot be a theory; there is no repeatable, scientific method by which to measure an item of faith (regardless of my own point of view, I must include the caveat that just because it cannot be tested, that does not mean it may not be true).

I would also say, that Evolution is not a "happy accident", or a "sad accident" - it is simply a theory describing a process by which living things have come to exist over time. It has no end point, no value system, it is merely the way to best describe the observed mechanism at this time.


In any event, Evolution is not an opinion, whether you chose to believe the theory of Evolution or not is.

-Jake

According to Webster's:
Theory n. Supposition put forward to explain something; speculation; exposition of general principles as distinct from practice and execution; (Coloquial) general idea; notion

Opinion n. judgement or belief; estimation; formal statement by an expert

The point I was trying to make was that the theory, (speculation) of evolution was taught to us in school with absolutely no mention of any possible creative force or intelligence behind it. It was taught more as an opinion, (belief) to our young minds as a kind of dogma! We simply had no choice whatsoever but to believe it, or fail "science" class. And I actually did believe it for a time. Until I started to question and theorize on my own. I looked at other opinions, the world around me, and to my own personal experiences to form my own conclusions.
In light of all that, I feel that believing the commonly accepted dogma of life arising by mere coincidence or accident without intelligent design, is an astronomical leap of faith by comparison.