Re: Question about God=G_uv

From: stew dean (stewart_at_webslave.dircon.co.uk)
Date: 09/30/04 

Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 06:45:43 +0000 (UTC)

"George Hammond" <nowhere@nomailspam.com> wrote in message news:<m62dneOZ4M0A-cbcRVn-ug@comcast.com>...
> "Earle Jones" <earle.jones@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:earle.jones-D91AAE.21062628092004@netnews.comcast.net...

> > George: If you keep sucking up to Dembski, you might even be
> > rewarded with a review of your 'theory'.

I do hope so.
 
> [Hammond]
> Fact is if HE wrote a review of it he could get it published in
> Nature magazine... or at least a leading high impact journal.
> I haven't overlooked that fact.

You've used the word fact twice there for something that doesnt make
sense. If he agrees with your work you may be in business, this is, as
others have pointed out, very unlikely. I know you don't think so but
then you havnt got the experience of some people around here,
especially when it comes to the working of those associated with
intelligent design and the seperate feild of creationist science (so
far there hasnt been any).

> > However you should know
> > that his goal is not to prove anything scientifically (the
> > creationist community has long since given up on competing on a
> > scientific basis) but to take the case to the court of public
> > opinion -- the masses of the great unwashed -- the voting public.
>
> [Hammond]
> Well what do you expect me to do... since the "scientific community"
> is deliberately ignoring me... the only option I have is to sue their
> ass in the same court of public opinion.... and as a matter of fact since
> my theory "confirms Biblical Creation"....

Actualy it doesnt. Even if your hypothesis is true and you prove 'god'
your next job would be to prove which god. You try and fudge that by
having lots of gods (really doesnt help) which means you would have
multiple creation myths. Result is, well, a mess.

Also if you prove god exists it would not prove the bible is correct,
unless we asked him/her/it.

> I find it mighty convenient
> that a large standing army of Creationists is already on the scene
> already trying to kick their ass.

And so far universaly failing. Some argue they win in 'debates', they
even have had some minor wins in politics. But on scientific terms
we're still waiting for a theory. And no you don't have one, you have
kind of a patchy hypothesis that doesnt relate to observation very
well. Sorry but that's the scientific process for you.

> > The ultimate goal is to have evolution either removed from public
> > school courses, or to dilute it with some equal time for creationism
> > -- and then "let the twelve-year-olds make up their own minds."
>
> [Hammond]
> I am TOTALLY in favor of of teaching the "scietific explanation of
> Creationism" in the same public school science courses that teach
> Evolution.

Great - problem is there isnt a scientific explanation of creationism.
Remember, in case you have forgotten, that intelligent design IS NOT
about Christian creationism. Once you find evidence for intelligent
design that is not a disguised god of the gaps argument (as in 'we
can't explain X - so it must be intelligence!') then the next task it
to work out what that intelligence is. Next job would be to somehow
prove god, what it is, how it works, and how to disprove it.

> Frankly, I think its high time we wiped the smirk off of
> Darwin's face by demonstrating that "Evolution does not contradict
> the theory God or the Bible".

What's 'the theory God'. Darwin is dead by the way. Darwin knew a
great deal about religion and was a supporter of religous freedom in
his local community (getting more than one religion accepted by his
local school). He lost his faith during his life but was always
careful not to offend his religous backers too much.

Evolution and religion are not incompatable by the way, no one says
they arnt. What is incompatable are biblical literalists and reality.
The bible doesnt have to be 'wrong' if there was not seven day
creation or even if there never was a global flood (which,
scientifically, there never was).

You should get up to speed with creationism, evolution and elements of
religion as you're off target at the moment. I still don't think you
have a basic understanding of evolution, as no doubt you will prove
again by ignoring this subject and instead using random insults.

> > As I told you once before, take your case to a real expert, Dr.
> > Kenneth Miller of Brown University (PhD in Biology from Harvard) and
> > a devout Christian. He says this:
> >
> > "The American creationist movement has entirely bypassed the
> > scientific forum and has concentrated instead on political lobbying
> > and on taking its case to a fair-minded electorate...The reason for
> > this strategy is overwhelmingly apparent: no scientific case can be
> > made for the theories they advance."
>
> [Hammond]
> NO... I cannot and do not support Millers "anti-Creationism" posture.

It happens to be true.

> He is wrong that "no scientific case can be made for Creationism".

No, currently he is correct. There are no theories associated with
creationism at the moment, meaning so far nothing has gotten past
hypothesis stage (something you're still struggling with).

> Fact is, according to the SPoG, Biblical Creation is just as scientifically
> REAL as Evolution

Actuly according to your own theory it's not. You attempt to prove
god, not which god. Proving god DOES NOT prove the Bible as you would
then need to varify the reliability of the bible with that god. You
make a lot of rather unscientific assumptions.

......... and our children have a right to the
> TRUTH about both of them,

Great - it's Truth (TM) again.

> and the difference between them, and
> the scientific explanation of BOTH of them.

Evolution is a fact and theory. Evolution has predictive qualities and
also has practical applications. Evolution can be modeled on a
computer and be seen working and also forming bahavours we see in
nature. such as paracites and fits and starts of evolution.

So far you have not even touched on the subject of evolution, and if
you think you're getting beat up now - by all means try.

> Frankly, I think Bill Dembski is totally aligned with that opinion
> from what I've read of his work.
> Miller's criticism of the radicals (hypocrites) in the Creationist
> Movement is well taken.... however... the tide must be turned in
> the ocultation of Religion by Modern Science and it is now
> Religion's turn to be "raised up" by the results of modern science.

But if you do that, you destroy, not raise up religion. Basic
philosphical stuff. Without faith religion falls. If it's scientific,
it's not religion anymore, it's secular not religous. If you prove god
you then have to keep on going, explain what god physically is, how he
physically came to be etc etc. With science there is no handy get out
clause of 'well he's god, can't question him/she/it'. Nothing is
sacred, everything is open to doubt and nothing is ever Fact (TM) but
beyond resonable doubt. If something is true then it should be tested,
if only to increase understanding of the importance of objectivity.

This is the opposite of religion for good reason.

> And from the looks of it, the SPoG is just in the nick of time...
> what with the Oil Wars going on, the spread of Nuclear Weapons,
> and the scourge of Third World poverty and disease, the population
> explosion... the world NEEDS a religious miracle... and I think
> it altogether fitting and proper that Science has delivered it.

Delivered what? We've already proved that you have not done science,
you have made proclomations that are undeniable unscientific.

Also - BIG point....

Prove god scientifially and you increase the likelhood of war as the
religions fight over ownership and fight against the new findings of
science. It would be a fight for the survival of many religions, if
not all religions, so expect some very bloody wars.

The world does not need a religous miracle, it requires stability,
decentralised control that is effective, secular democracy that
promotes religous tollerance and multicultural societies. It needs
education and health care for all and the leveling of opportunity for
everyone based upon ability not on location/colour/social background
of birth. Add to this reduced environmental inmpact for the average
person, stable population growth (preferably gently falling for a
while) and a healthy balance between commonly accepted political view
points.

So it appears you want something without really relising the obvious
implications of what you want.

Stew Dean

Relevant Pages