<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><HTML><FONT SIZE=2 PTSIZE=10 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"><BR>
Michael et. al.<BR>
<BR>
Michael wrote on 10/14/05<BR>
<BR>
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" BACK="#ffffff" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=3 PTSIZE=12 FAMILY="SERIF" FACE="Times New Roman" LANG="0">With amazing regularity across cultures and time, man is a deeply religious being, a worshiping being, having the experience of the ‘numinous.’ Even in the earliest Hindu texts we find a Creator God varuna, faithful to His Covenant, giving grace to his worshipers. All of this is in fact the Classical Christian view, and it seems somewhat immune to this particular argument of yours.<BR>
--------------------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
This discussion was inspired on Vision2020, I think it is fair to state, by the current ongoing cultural/political/religous/scientific/epistemplogical (how about that for holism?) debate regarding what theories about Intelligent Design and/or Creationism are appropriate, if any, to be taught as "science" in a science classroom, is it not? Eugenie Scott's talk at the U of I was arranged no doubt in part because of this current debate in courtrooms and in the media, etc. <BR>
<BR>
My position is that all "coherent" theories that illuminate this discussion, whether minority theories or not, or from other cultures or religious traditions or not, should be considered. A statement like this leads to endless complexity, it appears. I should not be surprised.<BR>
<BR>
Perhaps it would be wise to stick to a focused debate about whether Intelligent Design and/or Creationism are "scientific theories" and if so, what theories among all the possible on this subject should then be included in a science classroom? Once philosophers wade into the deep, deep stormy waters of speculative theology, the Mariana Trench looks like the safe sparkling cheery kiddie wading pool in summertime backyards, and the discussion becomes like the atmosphere of Jupiter, heavier and heavier as you go deeper and deeper, with an elusive, hard to pinpoint solid surface: and avoid the Red Spot, a hurricane of sorts that can swallow two Earths that has been viewed staring out angrily from Jupiter for hundreds of years.<BR>
<BR>
Now, to answer Metzler, and make a few other points:<BR>
<BR>
It seems in your comment on top above you are asserting I was making an argument I was not making in my response to your referencing of Plantinga. If it can be shown that the "Classical Christian view" on Intelligent Design/Creationism is a "scientific" view, it deserves consideration in a science classroom, along with any other views on this subject that have the appropriate merit as "scientific" theories. Thus if it can be shown that a cyclical view of Creation, perhaps the never ending explosion/expansion/collapse/explosion cycle advocated by some cosmologists, deserves scientific merit in a science classroom, a view that eliminates the view that the universe must have been "created," then it should also be included.<BR>
<BR>
Science does have evidence illuminating the origin and fate of our universe: Big Bang origin, the debate between gravity leading to an eventual collapse vs. endless expansion, and now Super String Theory, which some question as to its inclusion in "science" because of (guess what?) problems with empirical verification, the same problem many speculative religious theories about the creation of the universe and human beings also face. The problem for Intelligent Design/Creationism theory is to find a testable reproducible empirical method of data gathering and/or experimentation that can be presented in a science classroom as "science" based on a theory that also passes logical/mathematical analysis for coherence with itself and other established theories of science. I see no a priori reason that at some point in time such a project might not be possible. But is it possible now? Of course those who believe in the theory of Intelligent Design stating that "aliens from another planet came to Earth and genetically engineered human intelligence millions of years ago" could have their theory supported if we found a spacecraft buried on Earth. Now that would throw the world into a tizzy!<BR>
<BR>
My point, rephrased, is that if we are going to discuss with an open mind all the options that are tenable relating to "science" for Intelligent Design and/or Creationism in science classrooms, then all tenable religious/spiritual views or other sorts of views (aliens genetically engineering of human intelligence: the Raelians) on this subject should be presented and debated for their "scientific" merit.<BR>
<BR>
I think the claim that we should limit our options regarding what theories may have scientific merit, that renders them suitable for science classrooms, for Intelligent Design/Creationism, a "suspicious" suggestion, not appropriate for the investigation of the truth without preconceived biases antithetical to the scientific method.<BR>
<BR>
To say the alternatives are "atheism or evolution" might make a great sound bite, and fire up the faithful, but it is a false dilemma. The Catholic Church accepts evolution, along with a creator God who designed the universe. Indeed, though I do not know all the details of the exact "official" Catholic view, an all powerful God could have made the Earth five billion or so years ago in the creation of the Solar System, knowing the God created processes of scientifically understandable material evolution would generate human beings as we know them from simpler life forms, beings that God then has endowed and/or will endow with an eternal soul from a "spiritual realm," ruled by ethics and laws God established, both for the "material" Earth and the "spirit" realm.<BR>
<BR>
You altered the terms of some aspects of this discussion away from your original statement that I first responded to. Your original statement was:<BR>
<BR>
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000080" BACK="#ffffff" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=2 PTSIZE=10 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">As someone like Alvin Plantinga would point out however, another option would be to see belief in God as properly basic: something immediately produced ‘because’ of the ‘evidence’ presented to the senses of the complexity and beauty of the world, but not discursively ‘based upon’ propositional evidence derived from such experience<BR>
------------<BR>
<BR>
In your statement above, "propositional evidence" is not included as the basis for this "belief in God as properly basic." If someone is using "propositional evidence" to arrive at a specific belief in God, they are utilizing a process that you excluded in your presentation of Plantinga's views, which is what I responded to.</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" BACK="#ffffff" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=2 PTSIZE=10 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="arial" LANG="0"><BR>
<BR>
Then, when you responded to my objections to Plantinga's views (as you paraphrased his views, it seemed), you wrote:<BR>
<BR>
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" BACK="#ffffff" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=3 PTSIZE=12 FAMILY="SERIF" FACE="Times New Roman" LANG="0">You are correct; if there was a properly functioning belief producing mechanism (undamaged) in each and every human being that triggered the belief in an Almighty Creator upon the ‘evidence’ of the beauty and grandeur of ‘creation,’ then each and every human being would be a monotheist. But of course, we know this is not true. But the fact that there is therefore no such belief forming mechanism is not the only alternative. We could propose a highly damaged belief producing mechanism: one that sometimes hardly works at all, or at other times even when it does work, it is so weak and faulty that self-deceptive mechanisms take over and the belief in an Almighty Creator is suppressed (e.g. “but it would be best if the Almighty didn't exist so that I could sleep with Sally tonight”).<BR>
---------------------------<BR>
<BR>
What you wrote above is analyzing belief in God including "self deceptive mechanisms" and "belief producing mechanisms" that may involve "propositional evidence" it seems you were excluding from your original statement that I found objectionable. I responded to that original statement by pointing out the empirical fact that belief in a monotheistic creator God is not, as you phrased it, </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000080" BACK="#ffffff" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=2 PTSIZE=10 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">"properly basic: something immediately produced ‘because’ of the ‘evidence’ presented to the senses..." given the millions of people who believe quite differently. <BR>
<BR>
Of course it could be argued, as it appears you do, that perhaps belief in a monotheistic creator God is "basic" in all human beings, and those who believe otherwise have a "damaged belief producing mechanism." But now we enter the realm of abnormal/pathological psychology and/or neurology: Are you willing to make a scientific claim (rather than declaring it a possibly valid theory, without presenting empirical evidence based on an established theory of mental pathology that supports this theory, for the self fulfilling purposes of supporting a speculative religious theory, however dressed up the theory may be in formal philosophical terms, arguments and references that give the appearance of logical and/or factual legitimacy) that everyone who believes in a cyclical universe with no creator, with the spirit realm ruled by a Goddess, has a "damaged belief producing mechanism?"<BR>
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" BACK="#ffffff" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=3 PTSIZE=12 FAMILY="SERIF" FACE="Times New Roman" LANG="0">--------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Regarding any argument I might have made referencing the "statistics of belief," I am not quite sure what you mean. The facts I presented are facts regarding what human beings believe: some believe in a monotheistic creator God, others believe in a cyclical universe without a God creator of this universe, others in a wide variety of other views. I do not hinge the exploration of truth on the number of people who believe a given theory, or what theory is more appealing or popular, as you appeared to do in this comment: "Scott mentioned the existence of other religious proposals, but there is nothing wrong with a broad cultural debate limiting the ‘alternatives’ to those which are far more appealing or probable to the majority of people."</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" BACK="#ffffff" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=3 PTSIZE=12 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"><BR>
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" BACK="#ffffff" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=3 PTSIZE=12 FAMILY="SERIF" FACE="Times New Roman" LANG="0"><BR>
Consider that many of the developments in modern science are so complex and esoteric almost no one understands them or "believes" in them, indeed, they do not know what the theories actually state to decide if they believe in them or not! How many people could explain what binary code is, for example, to write the number 100 in binary code? I suspect most people who use computers (millions of people) could not at this moment do this, and many of them would not know what "binary code" is, yet because studying and understanding binary code is rare or boring or unappealing, does not render the mathematics of binary code as it is applied to computers a scientific consideration that should be excluded from investigations on relevant issues.<BR>
<BR>
I made no comment on the ultimate truth value of the various beliefs on Intelligent Design/Creationism, nor whether God implants these beliefs or not, nor whether they originate from a damaged belief producing mechanism or not, nor from imperfect senses or not, nor from the intervention of "spirits" or "aliens" from some other realm or planet or not, nor from aggressive cult-like brainwashing from the moment speech originates in an impressionable human child whose brain is still developing, or not. I did suggest that these beliefs are learned from the social environment as an explanation for their origin, rather than from any "innate" faculty that is similar in all human beings, that will favor one theory over others, but this is a complex issue I will not explore now.<BR>
<BR>
To comment again on the "damaged belief producing mechanisms" argument, the internal psychological/brain states of those who assert a theory on Intelligent Design/Creationism are not essentially critical to my point. A theory about the world that later turns out to be valid can originate in a confused state of despair, when the mind/brain of the theorizer possesses a belief producing mechanism that may be damaged. This confused state of despair does not automatically render the theory false. <BR>
<BR>
It is examination of the theory by numerous other people on the basis of logic/mathematics and empirical testing/testing reproducibility, and an ongoing process of continuing this examination of the theory, that decides the matter, at least as far as "science" is concerned. I'm certain I could find a large number of fervent believers in a monotheistic God creator who could be tested by the empirical methods of psychology to reveal they exhibit some form of a "damaged belief producing mechanism," but this does not prove their belief in the monotheistic creator God to be false.<BR>
<BR>
All scientific theories, however well established, may face "falsification," to quote Karl Popper. Science thus never reveals Absolute Truth, despite the numerous verifications in fact that may support a given theory, or the logical/mathematical elegance and coherence of any theory. A new set of facts may disprove a theory, and there is no absolute proof available that it is impossible the "laws" of the universe will not change under our feet.<BR>
<BR>
And finally, Metzler wrote:<BR>
<BR>
I think you would need to give some further reasons for supposing that man’s traditional religious beliefs are political/ideological rather than a sincere embrace of what is considered as ‘true.'<BR>
----------------------<BR>
<BR>
You are reading into what I wrote content I did not write. I do not doubt that those who believe in an all powerful monotheistic creator God of the universe express a "sincere embrace" of this view. Nor do I doubt that those who believe in a cyclical universe with a "Goddess" reining over the spiritual realm also express a similarly "sincere embrace."<BR>
<BR>
This is what I wrote that you objected to:<BR>
<BR>
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" BACK="#ffffff" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=3 PTSIZE=12 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">That such an obvious and simple alternative is not considered, along with numerous other religious and spiritual beliefs of human beings regarding how they view "Creation," reveals how biased this discussion is toward a specific religious ideology seeking to find a rational and/or empirical basis for its existence: in other words, this is a political/ideological power struggle, not a search for the truth considering with an open mind all the possible alternatives.<BR>
------------------<BR>
<BR>
What I mean is that there are elements of the social/political forces at play in the USA attempting to promote Intelligent Design/Creationism being taught in science classrooms in the context of specific interpretations of the Christian Religion that block having the discussion broadened to include all theories that impact this subject. <BR>
<BR>
What would we expect? The USA is mostly a nation of Christians, not Hindu's or Buddhists or Wiccan's, who may have very different views than Christian's on Intelligent Design/Creationism. But I trust you are not going to say that the science classroom should be a place where we teach one religion's views over another's, when evidence and reason suggests that a variety of religious views on Intelligent Design/Creationism are possibly true?<BR>
<BR>
Once a group wishes to use the public educational system to promote their religious views, no doubt sincerely held, over other religious views, this effort to my mind enters the realm of "political/ideological" power struggle.<BR>
<BR>
We could debate in what terms to define this struggle, but to suggest the effort by many sincere Christians to include their religious beliefs in the public schools in science classrooms is in no sense a "political/ideological power struggle" with those who sometimes are defined rather poorly as "secular humanists," is a stretch, though I am sure there is a way to argue against my point.<BR>
<BR>
Some of those promoting Intelligent Design/Creationism in USA science classrooms explicitly state that they are opposing the "agenda" of "secular humanism," which they view as a "stealth" form of "religion," undermining their firmly held religious beliefs, when science classes promote the idea of natural evolution of the human species over time from much more simple life forms, with no intervention by a God.<BR>
<BR>
Ted Moffett<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</FONT></HTML>