Hmmm... sounds like an ancient struggle


"Our myths of the future... are governed by large generalizing abstractions inherited from the science of the past two centuries. One comes from the biological sciences, and its name is Evolution."
Science as Mythology
by Daniel J. Boorstin
Science Digest, December 1984 p. 82

Looks like one man's science is another man's "creation myth".

I couldn't find the reference from this link.

confidence = faith

This brings up an interesting point.

The only way we can determine accuracy and success in a method is relative to the goal. Science only has one purpose and one meaning. The purpose is the do research. The meaning is to discover. Everything else is subjective as to whether it can be called science, technology, education, community, government, business, art or religion.

The methods science uses to do research and discover are subjective as well. Much of what is called science is really just attached to faith in scientists of the past. Much of what is called research is speculation and multi-disciplinary testing. A million different conclusions can be drawn from one test result.

The more I see this discussion progress, the more obvious that the difference between evolution, big bang, creation, design, and God, are all just differences in labels of the same thing. The only differences I see between Creation/ID and Evolution Studies, is the labels on the specimen containers.

Me neither

Not any more. Does the article linked below on new translation software qualify as assigning meaning?

Software learns to translate by reading up:
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7054

Translation software that develops an understanding of languages by scanning through thousands of previously translated documents has been released by US researchers.

Most existing translation software uses hand-coded rules for transposing words and phrases. But the new software, developed by Kevin Knight and Daniel Marcu at the Information Sciences Institute, part of the University of Southern California, US, takes a statistical approach, building probabilistic rules about words, phrases and syntactic structures.

The pair founded a company called Language Weaver in Los Angeles, US, to sell the software as an automated translation tool. They already offer technology that can translate to or from English with four languages - Arabic, Chinese, French and Spanish.

Also, go back to the post where I linked Cyc and read up.

What do you mean by meaning that it might not include what this translation software does?

Seems the scientists are solving your problems faster than you can identify them.

And here's robots that behave like young rats:
http://www.news.ucdavis.edu/search/news_detail.lasso?id=7276

"...when the robotic "rats" were put into a rectangular arena like that used for experiments with real rats, the robots showed a new behavior. They scuttled along the walls and repeatedly bumped into one corner, but favored one wall. Instead of stopping in a corner they kept going, circling the arena.

"When we re-analyzed the animal data, we found that the animals were also favoring one wall over another as they bumped around in corners," Joshi said. "The robots showed us what to look for in animal studies."

The wall-following or corner-sticking is emergent behavior, he said. That means it is not written into the computer code, but emerges as a result of the instructions the robot follows as it interacts with the environment at each instant."

My own thoughts are that the concept of "God", as spoon fed to us by organized religion, has interferred with our ability to think straight. It always seems to me that most people either believe in the kind of god that closely resembles us, as human beings. One with human type emotions (such as anger at us for sinning or happiness with us for going to church). On the other hand, we have those who accept the theory of evolution as absolute truth, which is a complete repudiation of organized religion. When I think deeply about atoms and molecules and DNA and when I look at how our world works (not humans, but nature) it is impossible for me, personally, to believe that it is all by chance. Just some freak mixture of chemicals or something. I cannot believe in the kind of god that organized religion teaches about, nor can I accept that it is all by chance. What does that leave me with? For me, it is "Intelligent Design". I do believe that some kind of intelligence started everything in motion. I don't believe that intelligence or god or whatever you want to call it "expects" anything of us. I also agree with Alexander38 that this "designer" is far too much for our puny human minds to comprehend. We try and we try, but we can never PROVE anything. We can only believe what our own hearts tell us. It serves no purpose to get angry with those who disagree with our own belief system. Each of us must choose what we can believe. No one can prove which belief is the correct one, or even if ANY of them are the correct one. That is why we need separation of church and state and that is why we need to allow all belief systems to be explored. Strictly my own opinion.

I agree. I've seen evidence of it here.



And let's not forget that human attribute called "intelligence." What exactly is that?



Not necessarily all organized religion. Just most of it.



Thinking deep isn't going to get you anywhere if you're misinformed.



I would suggest that you feel left with Intelligent Design because you're ignorant of what neo-Darwinian evolution is and of what ID is.



Define intelligence. What do you think intelligence is when it's not refering to human intelligence?



J. B. S. Haldane once said, "The universe is not only queerer than we imagine, but queerer than we can imagine."



That's not true. Certain facts can be proved, but there is always room for various interpretations. Every honest scientific experiment is a proven fact, but facts alone mean nothing.

We can also prove we know what we are talking about as much as any human can prove anything by doing the things we claim we can do.

"The priests used to say that faith can move mountains, and nobody believed them. Today the scientists say that they can level mountains, and nobody doubts them." -- Joseph Campbell



Not really, not for me. Reason beats emotion as far as I'm concerned.



I have a little bit more than just an opinion.

I too am of the opinion that I have a little more than an opinion.

confidence = confidence

confidence comes from the cumulative testing of probability statements. Level
of confidence can be specified at the .o5, .01, .001 or even the,ooo1 level of
confidence. Faith is blind.

I know those numbers... it's some sort of Bayesian Belief Network.

http://www.compinfo.co.uk/ai/bayesian_belief_networks.htm

http://www.cs.ualberta.ca/~jcheng/bnsoft.htm
http://www.pitt.edu/~druzdzel/abstracts/aisb.html
http://bayes.stat.washington.edu/almond/belief.html
http://powerlips.ece.utexas.edu/~joonoo/Bayes_Net/bayes.html

The more I think about this norm, the more I wonder if nearly all of our behavior/emotions aren't the result of evolution. On a philosophical level I don't like to think of it that way, but when I look at the underlying mechanisms they all seem to have the hallmarks of evolution.

I was thinking in this last post you quoted that perhaps the plasticity of the neuronal interconnections represented something that wasn't as hard wired from an evolutionary perspective. But, on second thought, it appears to me that plasticity can just as easily be argued to be the result of underlying genetic mechanisms which have evolved over time to promote the success of organisms with neurons capable of "activity-induced modifications of
neural circuits." http://www.ans.org.au/ans2002/pdf/120_AN.pdf



Yes, I see what you're saying.

My little neurons do need a break, perhaps.

Your post reminds me of the Myth of Sisyphus - no retreat, no surrender's avatar. This is from Wilkipedia.



I don't see it like that, at least not all the time.

I've learned a great deal on these threads. I see it as a process of educating our 'collective unconscious.' The knowledge is cumulative. Each individual contributes something, each walks away with something. We take what we've learned from this discussion and apply it to other areas of our lives, sometimes with new approaches to old problems. We all grow as a society. We leave here and tell others what we've learned.

This forum itself, could be reduced to the Myth of Sisyphus. Indeed, almost any activity can.

So why do I push the stone up the hill repeatedly? Because I enjoy it, I guess.

Gabrielle,
I agree with you. These are the same reasons why I really have no problem with all theories being discussed in school. I believe that by listening to others opinions and ideas new ideas can be formed in our own minds. We are all searching for answers (well, except for those who already have them all) and for me it is like some kind of spiritual journey. I have some pretty set ideas on what I believe, but my mind is not completely closed to new possibilities.

There is nothing wrong with searching for answers to the big "why"!

The problems start when someone believes THEY have found the ONLY answer!

Seeing a part of "THE TRUTH", and insisting that it is the WHOLE TRUTH, can make a lie out of "the truth".

They do not, however, learn the nature of intelligent design. That was my only point. This is one riddle you're never gonna solve.

Have fun, Sis! I'll just watch from the sidelines, knowing full well I could hardly budge that rock myself...

What do you mean by "intelligent design?"

That phrase gets tossed around a lot and generally we're talking about a so-called "theory" proposed in various ways by men like Michael J. Behe in "Darwin's Black Box" or any of the others associated with that group.

You seem to have assumed it means something different.



Right now the riddle is figuring out what the hell you think you're talking about. And unless you can figure it out and enlighten us then we may as well give up.

Where do you get the idea that faith is blind?

The word "blind" is not mentioned any where in the dictionary definition of faith. Even the most fanatical believers have experiences to draw on before they have faith. Have you ever been a member of any church?

Here are the definitions from your site. You have 3 guesses to which one we refer to as "blind."

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.

Hmmm help in the strangest places.....???

Intelligent Denial


When it's your job to serve as the president's in-house expert on science and technology, being constantly in the media spotlight isn't necessarily a mark of distinction. But for President Bush's stoically inclined science adviser John Marburger, immense controversy followed his blanket dismissal last year of allegations (now endorsed by 48 Nobel laureates) that the administration has systematically abused science. So it was more than a little refreshing last Wednesday to hear Marburger take a strong stance against science politicization and abuse on one issue where it really matters: evolution. Speaking at the annual conference of the National Association of Science Writers, Marburger fielded an audience question about "Intelligent Design" (ID), the latest supposedly scientific alternative to Charles Darwin's theory of descent with modification. The White House's chief scientist stated point blank, "Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory." And that's not all -- as if to ram the point home, Marburger soon continued, "I don't regard Intelligent Design as a scientific topic."
Marburger's words mark a departure for this administration. While campaigning for the presidency in 1999, then-Governor Bush stroked his religiously conservative followers by defending the teaching of creationism alongside evolution and stating, "I believe children ought to be exposed to different theories about how the world started." And in response to a question from Science magazine during the 2004 race, Bush's campaign ducked the ID issue by stating, "The federal government has no control over local curricula, and it is not the federal government's role to tell states and local boards of education what they should teach in the classroom."
In comparison with these statements, Marburger minced no words about the scientific status of ID. In fact, GOP Intelligent Design boosters like Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania (where a court case over ID is now pending) may be extremely miffed by Marburger's stance.
Alas, Marburger's forthrightness about ID wasn't matched by his discussion (or lack thereof) of charges that the Bush administration has systematically abused and distorted scientific information.
At the National Association of Science Writers session, Marburger shared the stage with Representative Henry Waxman, a Democrat who has relentlessly pursued and publicized allegations that the administration has interfered with the process by which scientific advice makes its way to policy-makers. Speaking prior to Marburger, Waxman slammed the Bush administration for abuses ranging from the stacking of scientific advisory panels to monkeying with research on mercury pollution. The congressman also charged that Marburger's previously published rebuttal to charges of science abuse -- delivered in response to a statement and report on the subject last year by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) -- amounted to "asserted denials with little supporting evidence."
When Marburger took the stage he ignored Waxman's stark criticisms entirely, as if they somehow didn't merit addressing. Instead, the president's science adviser delivered a delightful speech about "four challenges" for science journalism. The disconnect was stunning, and generally continued throughout the question and answer session, during which Marburger dodged Waxman repeatedly.
In truth, Marburger's elusiveness may reflect considerable wisdom. Considering that new tales of Bush administration science abuse seem to pop up regularly, this probably isn't a debate he can win.
Just last week, in fact, some of the most stunning evidence yet emerged concerning the Bush administration's treatment of science and government scientists, courtesy of the UCS and the Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). At the center of the controversy was the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), a branch of the Interior Department charged with enforcement of the Endangered Species Act.
Determining how and whether to protect species necessarily depends on using scientific analyses to find out if they're in peril and what's causing the problem. And as now seems clear, the Bush FWS has repeatedly sought to doctor the data in order to prevent tougher endangered-species protections that rankle various industry constituencies -- development, ranching, mining, logging, and so on.
The UCS and PEER sent surveys about science politicization to more than a thousand FWS scientists, and received some 400 back. Almost half of the respondents reported that they had been "directed, for non-scientific reasons, to refrain from making [findings] that are protective of species." One out of five added that they had been "directed to inappropriately exclude or alter technical information from a USFWS scientific document." Half said they were aware of cases in which "commercial interests have inappropriately induced the reversal or withdrawal of scientific conclusions or decisions through political intervention." And so on.
This is damning stuff, and reflects a clear sense among many government scientists that politics has corrupted the science-based endangered-species-protection process. Granted, it's possible that every single one of these Fish and Wildlife Service survey respondents has an ax to grind. But it isn't very likely.
Marburger wasn't asked about these survey results last week. But given his consistency in defending the White House in the past, one suspects he would echo arguments already offered by the Interior Department -- the agencies weren't acting inappropriately, it's OK for superiors to review the scientific conclusions of scientists working under them, this happens all the time, etc. Yawn.
Thank goodness that on evolution, at least, Marburger strays from the pack.
http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?sectio...&articleId=9216


Original Link
http://www.natcenscied.org/ National Center for Science Education

Washington Post

God and Darwin

Monday, January 24, 2005


WITH THEIR SLICK Web sites, pseudo-academic conferences and savvy public relations, the proponents of "intelligent design" -- a "theory" that challenges the validity of Darwinian evolution -- are far more sophisticated than the creationists of yore. Rather than attempt to prove that the world was created in six days, they operate simply by casting doubt on evolution, largely using the time-honored argument that intelligent life could not have come about by a random natural process and must have been the work of a single creator. They do no experiments and do not publish in recognized scientific journals. Nevertheless, this new generation of anti-evolutionists, arguing that children have a "right to question" scientific truths, has had widespread success in undermining evolutionary theory.

Perhaps partly as a result, a startling 55 percent of Americans -- and 67 percent of those who voted for President Bush -- do not, according to a recent CBS poll, believe in evolution at all. According to a recent Gallup poll, about a third of Americans believe that the Bible is literally true. Some of these believers have persuaded politicians, school boards and parents across the country to question their children's textbooks. In states as diverse as Wisconsin, South Carolina, Kansas, Montana, Arkansas and Mississippi, school boards are arguing over whether to include "intelligent design" in their curriculums. Last week, in Pennsylvania's Dover School District, an administrator read a statement to ninth-grade biology students saying that evolution is not fact. Over the objections of ninth-grade science teachers and of parents who have filed suit, he offered "intelligent design" as an alternative. Also last week, a Georgia county school board voted to appeal a judge's decision to remove stickers describing evolution as a "theory, not a fact" from school textbooks. In both cases, the anti-evolutionists have been very careful in their choice of language, eschewing mentions of God or the Bible. Nevertheless, their intent was clear. As the lawsuit filed by Dover parents states, "intelligent design is neither scientific nor a theory in the scientific sense; it is an inherently religious argument or assertion that falls outside the realm of science." Discussion of religion in a history or philosophy class is legitimate and appropriate. To teach intelligent design as science in public schools is a clear violation of the principle of separation of church and state.

It also violates principles of common sense. In fact, the breadth and extent of the anti-evolutionary movement that has spread almost unnoticed across the country should force American politicians to think twice about how their public expressions of religious belief are beginning to affect education and science. The deeply religious nature of the United States should not be allowed to stand in the way of the thirst for knowledge or the pursuit of science. Once it does, it won't be long before the American scientific community -- which already has trouble finding enough young Americans to fill its graduate schools -- ceases to lead the world.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2005Jan23.html


This is a real danger to our educational institutions and to the separation of church and state....it is one thing to entertain reasonable knowledge, but to not question the validity of what is being proposed is both foolish and sentimental.

It seems to me that most of you who dismiss the Intelligent Design theory are doing so out of a fear that recognizing it might be somehow giving in the the "Creationists". Maybe I'm wrong. I'm just saying it seems that way to me. I don't agree that it is giving in to them. Creationists believe god created the world in 6 days and then created Adam and Eve and the earth is only some six thousand years old. As I stated before, when I look around me at the complexity of life and nature and physics and the universe I find it impossible to believe that it all came about by some freak combination of gasses or chemicals or whatever. That still leaves the question of where those original gasses or chemicals came from. There are many things that take place everyday that cannot be explained by science. Centuries ago people believed we were the center of the universe and that the earth was flat and all that. Today we know that was all wrong. If those same people had been told that we would be able to communicate with one another all over the world by internet they would have called us insane. Do you really believe we have discovered everything there is to be discovered and that some new discovery might not one day change our own perception of reality? I'm not trying to anger anyone here, nor am I saying I'm right and you are wrong. I'm just pondering the nature of existence.

No, it's giving in to bad science -- it's giving into loony metaphysical philosophy disquised as science.

I am familiar with the work of only three writers from the ID camp: Michael J. Behe, William A. Dembski and Phillip Johnson.

Many critics have pointed out that their ideas of "specified complexity" and "irreducible complexity" are not sound, but simply a mistake/illusion of misguided human intuition. The concepts have no mathematical rigor. And they don't stand up to being defined in a way that could be tested.



Dembski and Behe are not young Earth creationists, I know. Behe even believes in evolution -- but only after the first cell was made by an intelligence of some sort. It's not impossible, (may some aliens did an experiment on our planet?) but it's also a groundless assumption that cannot be tested.

The only evidence is a natural lack of evidence -- single celled organisms from 3 billion years ago don't leave a lot of fossils.



That's because you have no idea how the evolutionary algorithm works.

Look up "genetic algorithms", "evolutionary computing", and even "evolutionary algorithm" on google... then do a lot of reading.

Then maybe read some good books on evolution -- I liked Richard Dawkins "The Blind Watchmaker."



The Darwinian theory of evolution does not deal with where matter came from.

We talked about that in another thread getting into physics, string theory and M-theory.



Name one.



Nope. A lot of mysteries out there. Darwinian evolution does not present itself as the answer to everything.



Nothing wrong with pondering the nature of existence, but it's kind of silly to do it when you're so misinformed. If you really want to ponder -- go learn some more science.

You know something, norm? Trying to have a discussion with you is just as impossible as trying to have one with a born again christian. It's not enough for you to just disagree civilly with someone else, you have to try and insult their intelligence and always get in the last word. You really think you know the "truth" and all the rest of us are misguided. Well, you go on ahead and get the last word here if you need to. Nothing you have said has changed my belief system in any way, shape or form. I'm out of here.

Yes. And quite a bit more than you when it comes to evolution.



I'm not insulting your intelligence -- I'm just saying your ignorant of evolution. Quite a few very smart people are ignorant of many things including evolution.



I know that I know what I'm talking about when it comes to evolution. I've worked with genetic algorithms in artificial intelligence.

Why would you know about this stuff? You probably don't need to.



You certainly are.



Now I do think you're stupid.

Use your ignore user feature for Norm! It makes the forum much nicer.

If you look at it one way you can say that both evolution and intelligent design are right -- you simply say "evolution is intelligent and it designs." And there's a touch of truth in that because evolutionary algorithms are used in artificial intelligence.

And that's the problem with ID, because it doesn't define it's core terms it isn't even good enough to be wrong. It doesn't tell us what it means by intelligence and make it different from something evolution does as a natural process. It's simply meaningless without any clear definition of terms. All they can say is "evolution works in gradual steps and gradual steps can't do this [whatever example]." Oh, really? How do you know that?

ID can't define intelligence because they mean "God" and everybody knows it. If they told us that -- then everybody sees the game they're playing.

http://www.aaai.org/AITopics/html/genalg.html
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6019

You know Tom,

If you simply ignore someone it may may you feel better, but you may also lose an opportunity to learn something. Sometimes we fight against another's thoughts merely to hold on to a cherished belief. We have about 50 combined pages in two threads where we went through various arguments on everything from physics to cognitive intelligence.....without the benefit of some of those insights and missteps it may be too easy for someone to dismiss some of the conclusions we are now talking about.

Norm questions your assumptions and makes you think...and this has been the case for each of us who were involved.....sometimes we could substantiate what we thought and at times we needed to consider other information.....don't let his gruffness lead you away from questioning other possibilities...even he is open to them if you can provide some truth

Jeepers Creepers where'd ya get those peepers Norm? Lot of late nights up in the lab?

I've got a question for you. What does the concept "GOD" mean to you? Reason I ask, is ; God can mean just about anything, depending on who you ask. If that's true, "GOD" could mean the "Intelligence of Nature" that you seem to believe in. (however you define intelligence)

Wiley,

If you understand how science works and how the curricula of science courses are structured it might be easier to understand that any theory that suggests the concept of a designer.....which is what intelligent design theory is in essence, simply cannot be taught in a science course. It could, however be taught in a history class as the above article suggests because you could then introduce historical evidence or historical texts etc........it could also be taught in a philosophy course where one can theorize about the concept of the divine or of a creator. It is not a matter of suppressing thought.....it is in what course it should be taught.....maybe this is where we are having a misunderstanding.

That is not the definition of blind. You don't have material proof consciousness exists outside of your mind. Are you blind for believing it?

You don't have material proof that the next driver will yield the right of way when you enter an intersection. The previous drivers may have yielded the right of way. But you don't know the next driver. Is that blind faith?

I asked Norm the same question: Answer

I don't mind the discussion. I do mind the insults!
Norm's "gruffness" is a turnoff for me.
This is a great thread, and I will keep reading it.
Thanks for your reply.

And the answer is still irrelevant to the question of whether a theory, which has no basis in science, should be included in a science course.....that's what we should be discussing...

It doesn't matter whether you believe in God....believe in many Gods or whether you don't believe in God we are judging the merits of a theory.

Glad to hear that Tom!

In fact you don't know how many times I was so frustrated that I didn't even want to post......I was in essence fighting myself!....once you break through the barrier though... you are sometimes glad you stayed.

Not all design theory is about who. Design theory can be about how. It could be behavior science, or it could be process analysis, no different than computer science.

There seems to be a lot of judging the motive of the theory whenever the subject is brought up.

design by it's very nature implies a "designer"

I agree as to the how.....design as pattern etc.....the problem is Intelligent Design is a very vague theory that postulates scientific thought, but it is not substantiated by means of scientific inquiry....explanation or discovery......

Thanks for the link. Actually that definition of "God" (Blood thirsty tyrant) is a parochial view, held by the sort of people who have always been "enemies of knowledge". I reject that concept of God, and reject those who would try to impose that philosophy of "God" on the rest of us.

It is a craven excuse for a "faith" IMO. On the otherhand, it seems there is no room for a loving "God" in Norms world view.

True.....and one can look at the proponents of ID and realize why.....they have a political agenda.....in fact if you look at what they've actually accomplished it is more in the manner of publicity and lobbying political officials......I have to ask...where's the beef???? where's your supporting evidence.......????? Look this is important!! This can affect the integrity of our science courses......this can cause us to go backward not forward in leading the world in science and technology......

Design theories need a little revising, just like any other scientific theory.

If it wasn't for the obvious political agenda of fundamentalist demagogs, I would encourage science more, to investigate many mysteries, INCLUDING those that point towards some kind of intelligence behind nature.

But, the very clever wording used by these political operatives, warns me that they MUST be opposed in their attempt to pollute science with their agenda.

I really don't know how to define this any better so that people can comprehend the fact, than to say, that first there is no science in ID........but there is a metaphysical question. (was there a creator)?.....and that metaphysical question is best answered or explored in a different course......this is not knowledge suppresion this is applying knowledge to a more appropriate category...

How would science measure God? and by what instruments?

The lobbying political officials must be political scientists.

Anything living could be considered supporting evidence.

If scientists would work with the theories rather than just dismissing all possibilities, it could cause us to go forward as well. It could open up new fields of study that lead to other important discoveries.

Not all creation ID theories have to assume God.

It does seem that Norm is quite the angry blogger. Could it be that his avatar is acutally a self-portrait? That could explain some things...

I'm not sure i understand what you are implying



well, I suppose Bill......so where's their science???




not if we have faulty assumptions or misinformation

We already spoke of narrative as a means to explain or educate the public...that's a good idea

Then why do you need this theory if we already have scientific discovery that is broad and runs the full spectrum.......from archeology, anthropology, geology, zoology, microbiology, computer science, AI, botany, need I go on?