George,
If Kevin was referring to the "part of Reality that is transcendent" then I find there really shouldn't be a problem - as transcendence is that which transcends our own consciousness or understanding. By defintion Science is open-ended and is continually improving or building on existing knowledge, this state of flux suggests there is an unknown knowledge transcending current understanding. I'd suggest there's nothing 'magic' nor supernatural in this notion. I think somehow Kevin was referring more to the 'trickery' as found in magic -something not 'natural' (or believable). The 'divine' is something beyond understanding - not supernatural.

Dan

You previous post was rather curious. On the one hand you seem to be deriding scepticism and on the other you quote (albeit from a movie) an example (though expressed in a rather unsophisticated form) of empirical scepticism. I assume you believed that this example 'supported' creation science or ID in some way. If you did then you are sadly mistaken.

In order to illustrate the 'scientific' nature of creation you would need to provide an example of 'creation scepticism' and how creation scientists are applying critical thinking in the construction and testing of their own hypotheses. If one's scepticism is directed towards evolution and experiments are 'designed' to disprove evolution then one is working in the field of evolutionary biology and not in the field of 'creation science' at all. Show me experiments designed to refute the creation hypothesis because that is what 'creation scientists' would be doing if they took their science seriously. Show me how 'creation science' is inspiring new downstream studies and 'producing' useful results in biology, medicine etc. It isn't and that is why it is either bad science or not science at all. There are very good reasons why creation 'science' is so unproductive and it has to do with fact that the creation hypothesis is irrefutable and so the only 'work' creation 'scientists' do is try to refute evolution. That does not make creation a field of study in its own right and does not establish creation as a science. In their own small way the so-called 'creation scientists' have made some contribution to establishing evolution as the important field of study that it is today by their very scepticism on the subject and by their efforts in trying to refute it (proving, if nothing else, that evolution is a 'testable' hypothesis).

Dan,
Your last post is indeed rather “curious”. A Healthy skepticism certainly does not always alleviate one from an excess of belief. A total lack of skepticism, however, allows an entry of those alternative beliefs coming under the label of "fringe belief," not because they are held by only a few people (some of them may actually be held by a majority of the population), but because they lie on the fringes of elite or highly academic opinion – whether on the scientific or theological side.

Popular ‘science’ represents the widely held beliefs of people in superstitions, astrology, magic, witchcraft, psychokinesis, extrasensory perception, and the like where an embrace of this popular science has no difficulty believing there are extraphysical entities capable of violating the laws of science at will. Your ‘popular’ form of religion, Dan, does not really put you in the minority position, as you’ve suggested – your appeal is in the arena of popular ‘science’.

The type of personal God or creator who can and does intervene when and if the creator sees fit, and thus can be induced to intervene to change the course of everyday events by prayer and other supplications is current popular religion. The fundamentalist strains of most major religions fall into this category and, as George correctly points out, this particular strain of Christianity is thriving. A recent American survey show that 55% of American teenagers believe that "astrology works" and 38% of college students believe that human life originated in the Garden of Eden – there is little to distinguish between these two beliefs as they both belong to the same ‘genotype’.

Through examination of what Saint Augustine and Saint Thomas Aquinas had to say about the Bible and creation. Ayala concluded that "the point is that the two greatest thinkers of Christianity could find no reason based on the Bible that species could [not] find their origin in causes other than God." Your ‘Diner’ quote, “How can this possibly be?” is rooted in the idiom and superficiality of the popular.

Dan,

This is becoming painful to watch.

You're scrounging around looking for any old argument you can find, and when you can't find one, you recycle an old debunked one; put another slant on it; maybe re-word it a little hoping no one will notice.

What I really don't like though, is you're last resort tactic of putting words in someone's mouth...

<<...Sancho, don’t get sucked in by AJ’s nonsense about not being allowed to quote people...>>

Where did I say that?

<<...or that quoting implies dishonesty...>>

Or that?

Quoting does not imply dishonesty. I'd provided you with a link once before to hundreds of examples of Creationist quote-mining, but you obviously didn't look at it.

'Quoting' becomes 'quote-mining' when the quote is either out-of-date, or is carefully selected to make it look like the the person who said it meant something entirely different.

What really sickens me though, is when Creationists stoop to the sub-human level of misquoting a dead person who can't defend themselves. Einstein, Darwin and Stephen Jay Gould are three examples that immediately come to mind.

Trying to create the false illusion that quote-mining is just something that I've made up is futile considering a simple Google search for creationist+quote+mining reveals your deception...

http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=Creationist+quote+mining&btnG=Search&meta=

Wow... Look at that! 235,000 results!

<<When you talk about the law of separation of church and state are you talking about an American law, an Australian law, an international law...>>

I don't know if there is any set “law” as such. But here in Australia, 'Section 116' of the constitution is relevant to the Separation of Church and State, and in the United States, it's the First Amendment.

All your doing here is trying to find a legal technicality to salvage the trashed reputation of the Intelligent Design advocates. Well, it won't work. Just as their slippery tactics didn't work in the courts.

You sound no better than them.

Ultimately, this is all beside the point anyway. Just imagine the precedent we'd be setting if we allowed religion into science classes.

Continued...

...Continued

<<...or just something else you’ve made up in your head?>>

Something else?

You mean there was “something else”, and you passed the opportunity to point it out?

Ahhh... I know. This is just another sneaky tactic to create an illusion that I sometimes make things up. I don't think you're fooling anyone.

It's a bit rich though, to imply that “something else” I've said was made-up “in my head” considering I've been able to provide examples and proof of my claims.

<<...faced with such mystical ideas as animals morphing into one another in times distant past.>>

“Mystical” is the wrong word. It implies that evolution transcends human understanding. Well, maybe it transcends the understanding of some.

“Morph” isn't the best word either. It over-simplifies what it means to evolve as there is no apparent system to morphing.

But you already knew all this, didn't you? That's why you used those words.

As for your quote though. Gee... I'm not sure where to begin. It sound's like you're going down the “Just Sprung into Existence” road again.

Your quote is an argument from incredulity (AKA God-of-the-gaps argument): “I can't imagine it, so it mustn't have happened.”

Honestly Dan, that's terrible logic!

No one claims that life as complex as an amoeba just popped into existence like your quote implies.

But since you seem to know that abiogenesis never happened, maybe you could answer a few questions for me?

1. Is it impossible for nucleotides to have formed in montmorillonite clay?
2. Is it impossible for nucleotides to join together to form polynucleotides?
3. Is it impossible for polynucleotides to become RNA?
4. Is it impossible for RNA to become DNA?
5. Is it impossible for DNA to attract lipids that form a protective membrane?

So which of these is impossible, Dan?

Anyway, to summarise...

You have quoted from a movie, with an argument from incredulity, that completely misrepresents and over-simplifies the science of evolution and abiogenesis.

That's three strikes, Dan...

You're out!

Relda,
Thanks for your response. Just quickly, I suggest to you that 38% is commonly defined as a minority, not majority.

I also put it to you that the 38% of respondants who said one thing and the 55% of respondants who said something else were not of the same genotype. More likely these categories of people are mutually exclusive as these two belief sets you mention do not overlap. If you like, I could find some statistics that demonstrate that people with Bible based faith generally do not believe in astrology.

AJ,
You brought up the notion of 'separation of church and state'. When I asked you for more detail, you then say you don't know if there is any law as such, but directed me to Section 116 of the Constitution.

Okay, so we look up Section 116 of the Constitution. This is often referred to as the clause which establishes freedom of religion. It doesn't contain the words 'separation' 'church' or 'state'. Only with some extravagant imagination or spicy pizza before bed could we suggest that what is written here is defining or legislating what can and can't be said in a classroom.

You're not really motivating me to look up your wild goose references.

Also, what's so wrong with quoting from a movie? Does it conflict with OLO guidelines or perhaps do you class it another sub-human creationist tactic? I kind of like Barry Levinson movies.