US Judge Bans ' Intelligent design'

Abraham

Common sense prevails!


http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1671680,00.html

zenmonk_genryu

It is worrying though that apparantly (according to polls at least) the majority of Americans believe that ID should be taught in schools.

TexZen

The difference between intelligence and ignorance is that inelligence knows its limits.

gassho
-fd-

comicallyinsane

Too many views to say one is right. I agree with the judge.

Jerbear

What is even sadder is that most people don't recognize that ID isn't science. They don't know enough to read their theories and find out that it is trying to promote Biblical Creation. I realized a few years back that I didn't know enough about this to form an opinion so I checked out both sides of the argument. Darwin's theory is almost elegant in thought and he also pointed out there were some problems. IDer's take this and try to use it to discredit evolution. If they want to teach ID in a humanities class, fine by me. But don't call it science.

ajani_mgo

I always expected evolution to be taught at all levels unconditionally but sadly it isn't true at all - even in Singapore. Evolution should be taught as a very basic topic but sadly it's restricted only to those taking up higher studies.

And, well , if ID was to be taught - I think we'd have to rewrite a holy bunch of textbooks.

"Life starts when God breathes life." from "Life starts when the sperm says "yo" to the egg."

federica

ajani_mgo wrote:

. Evolution should be taught as a very basic topic but sadly it's restricted only to those taking up higher studies.

That's because they're more evolved.....

YogaMama

I was happy to hear that the judge ruled against it and said that it was not science. I hope all states do the same!

Simonthepilgrim

A light, shining in the surrounding darkness!

Simonthepilgrim

I notice that the judge is described as being a Republican apppointee. That makes it very strange to me, as a Brit. Our judiciary is organised completely differently and I have never seen any British judge described by his political affiliation. And this despite the fact that the Bench is governed (if not controlled!) by the Home Office and the Lord Chancellor's Department. I wonder whether the real difference resides, as so often, in our system of a permanent Civil Service.

zenmonk_genryu

I think Fede's joke was pretty good as it happens. Okay maybe not.

JohnSala

The argument of the ID people is that since everything in the universe is so complex, there must be a creator. But, to a follower of a theistic religion, what is more complex than God? So, you could ask, what intelligent designer designed their intelligent designer, and so on for infinity? Who or what created God? And what created whatever created God? I mean, God is so complex, he (she?) could not have just happened by chance, right? Of course, I respect gods, but, unfortunately, some gods (i.e. Yahweh, Brahma) are deluded into thinking that they are the "creator". And their followers, of course, would like us to share that view.

ajani_mgo

Well I guess in my country it's the same. The judicary is seperate in theory but I shan't elaborate further.

Personally in my experience, to all the Muslims and Taoists, and if I wish to generalize, all non-Buddhists I have spoken to so far, they seem to think Science and Religion as 100% "ying" and "yang" - opposites and seperate disciplines. Religion is not science and science is not religion.

JohnSala

I agree, religion and science are not the same thing. That is one reason that I am Buddhist, I don't have to believe in ideas that contradict science. Buddhism doesn't tell people that they have to accept a mythological story about creation or anything else. I can be a devout Buddhist, and at the same time, accept scientific theory as true. Because they are completely seperate subjects.

Simonthepilgrim

ajani_mgo wrote:

Well I guess in my country it's the same. The judicary is seperate in theory but I shan't elaborate further.

Personally in my experience, to all the Muslims and Taoists, and if I wish to generalize, all non-Buddhists I have spoken to so far, they seem to think Science and Religion as 100% "ying" and "yang" - opposites and seperate disciplines. Religion is not science and science is not religion.

Blaise Pascal, in his Pensées, begins by making a distinction between "intuitive" and "mathematical" mind which is still as useful today. Using "intuitive" principles to consider "mathematical" matters is to court mistakes:

[SIZE=+1]The difference between the mathematical and the intuitive mind.-- In the one, the principles are palpable, but removed from ordinary use; so that for want of habit it is difficult to turn one's mind in that direction: but if one turns it thither ever so little, one sees the principles fully, and one must have a quite inaccurate mind who reasons wrongly from principles so plain that it is almost impossible they should escape notice.
But in the intuitive mind the principles are found in common use and are before the eyes of everybody. One has only to look, and no effort is necessary; it is only a question of good eyesight, but it must be good, for the principles are so subtle and so numerous that it is almost impossible but that some escape notice. Now the omission of one principle leads to error; thus one must have very clear sight to see all the principles and, in the next place, an accurate mind not to draw false deductions from known principles.
All mathematicians would then be intuitive if they had clear sight, for they do not reason incorrectly from principles known to them; and intuitive minds would be mathematical if they could turn their eyes to the principles of mathematics to which they are unused.
The reason, therefore, that some intuitive minds are not mathematical is that they cannot at all turn their attention to the principles of mathematics. But the reason that mathematicians are not intuitive is that they do not see what is before them, and that, accustomed to the exact and plain principles of mathematics, and not reasoning till they have well inspected and arranged their principles, they are lost in matters of intuition where the principles do not allow of such arrangement. They are scarcely seen; they are felt rather than seen; there is the greatest difficulty in making them felt by those who do not of themselves perceive them. These principles are so fine and so numerous that a very delicate and very clear sense is needed to perceive them, and to judge rightly and justly when they are perceived, without for the most part being able to demonstrate them in order as in mathematics, because the principles are not known to us in the same way, and because it would be an endless matter to undertake it. We must see the matter at once, at one glance, and not by a process of reasoning, at least to a certain degree. And thus it is rare that mathematicians are intuitive and that men of intuition are mathematicians, because mathematicians wish to treat matters of intuition mathematically and make themselves ridiculous, wishing to begin with definitions and then with axioms, which is not the way to proceed in this kind of reasoning. Not that the mind does not do so, but it does it tacitly, naturally, and without technical rules; for the expression of it is beyond all men, and only a few can feel it.
Intuitive minds, on the contrary, being thus accustomed to judge at a single glance, are so astonished when they are presented with propositions of which they understand nothing, and the way to which is through definitions and axioms so sterile, and which they are not accustomed to see thus in detail, that they are repelled and disheartened.
But dull minds are never either intuitive or mathematical.
Mathematicians who are only mathematicians have exact minds, provided all things are explained to them by means of definitions and axioms; otherwise they are inaccurate and insufferable, for they are only right when the principles are quite clear.
And men of intuition who are only intuitive cannot have the patience to reach to first principles of things speculative and conceptual, which they have never seen in the world and which are altogether out of the common.

[/SIZE]

Palzang

zenmonk_genryu wrote:

It is worrying though that apparantly (according to polls at least) the majority of Americans believe that ID should be taught in schools.

But you have to remember that the majority of Americans also believe in UFOs!

Palzang

ajani_mgo

To me so far every aspect of Buddhism is science - except for rebirth and some others that I'm trying hard to reason and believe, with my own unconventional pseudo-science and living-logic theories.

Well to me so far the UFO issue is OK... We all learn that without Earth we will die - but nothing to suggest that "Aliens dammit! They don't exist!" specifically other than some water-oxygen logic. But who says aliens can't breathe in fire?

MoonLgt

Osiyo everyone,
I was just catching up on some reading here when I saw this thread. It reminded me of what one of our elders once said.

" If you plant a seed, give it water and make sure you have plenty of sunlight and nourishment. Are you a God, Sister/Brother or Mother/ Father?"

The answer is to the sentient being of the plant, you are all of the above.

Magwang

MoonLgt wrote:

If you plant a seed, give it water and make sure you have plenty of sunlight and nourishment. Are you a God, Sister/Brother or Mother/ Father?

I like that!

ajani_mgo

I saw this online: http://www.geocities.com/scimah/evolution.htm but due to my lack of proper understanding - can someone help me with the interpretation of it?

Jerbear

Very simple. If you believe that humans and apes are descended from a primary species, then it would make humans and apes equivalent. That really torques the theologians since they believe that a god created everything and only gave humans a soul. If apes have some rudimentary form of a soul, that means they are in some ways on the same level as us. If they are, then we aren't so unique and why would a god particularly place his seal of approval on us. So the theologians think that the animals have no soul to cover this up neatly. God still makes us number one priority on this planet. Man may take dominion over the whole earth and are supposed to. They should care for the animals but since they have no soul, they have no consequences to their actions and cease to be at death.

Materialist think we're all pretty much made of the same stuff. Apes and man are equal in the end. It says nothing of how we treat animals as their is really no consequence to our actions. It may suck, but no consequences to our actions. Both cease to be at death.

The Buddhist philosphy is that man and apes (and all other animals) are sentient beings. All animals have a form of consciousness, but man's is more developed. Why we have a better chance of attaining nirvana. But it doesn't mean that the animals cease at death. They will also have a chance to come back as a human and attain enlightenment. So both come back.

Does this clear things up?

Jerbear

Also, who cares if you don't believe everything in Buddhist philosophy? I am an agnostic at heart who follows Buddhist principles. I don't know what happens after we die. I get satisfaction out of living my life according to what the Buddah taught. He didn't say "Come and believe" he said "Come and try it out for yourself". I've been meditating, going to temple, and doing to the best of my ability what I'm taught. I don't have to believe all of it. By the way, I'm going to start a thread in the Lotus Lounge about UFO's since you brought it up. I'm a total skeptic at heart. That could be totally fun.

YogaMama

Jerbear wrote:

The Buddhist philosphy is that man and apes (and all other animals) are sentient beings. All animals have a form of consciousness, but man's is more developed. Why we have a better chance of attaining nirvana. But it doesn't mean that the animals cease at death. They will also have a chance to come back as a human and attain enlightenment. So both come back.

And that is why I love being Buddhist. Compassion and kindness to everyone and everything!

Palzang

I would say that's a pretty good article, Ajani. Of course, you must realize that the theory of evolution has changed radically since Darwin first proposed it. Now we're into molecular biology and all kinds of stuff that Darwin never dreamed of (a fact that the Christian extremists, er, intelligent designists simply ignore).

ajani_mgo

But to me I think that one of the issues of bringing up here is about evolution and Buddhism (damm this is such an old theory already, I'm a past-tense guy) - if we did evolve into humans (I'm an evolutionist I state beforehan) how did our consciousness change? As in us gaining relatively more favourable rebirths and such - if evolution never happened, does the Dharma still apply? Or is it that our First Life's karma (cause and effect) in a sense drove evolution? Or are our karma (cause and effect) just playing along the lines of nature?

Simonthepilgrim

Ajani, dear searcher,

I think you may find a really facinating theory in response to your question in the work of the late Julian Jayes. His book, THE ORIGIN OF CONSCIOUSNESS IN THE BREAKDOWN OF THE BICAMERAL MIND (Houghton Mifflin Company, 1976) is very readable. Here is a link to a summary of the thinking:

http://www.bizcharts.com/stoa_del_sol/conscious/conscious3.html

and there is a lot more about Jaynes on the Net. Be careful, though, not to "go overboard" - we all know what an enthusiast you can be!

kinlee

Very well presented about Evolution and Intelligent Design. A very convincing public dialog.



http://www.buddhistfellowship.org/bf_new/pages/mechandise/merchandise.html

HAve fun.