relda,
well, it is for K£vin to decide what he understood by supernatural. If it is indeed “'trickery' as found in magic“, if supernatural is what occultists, witches, ghostbusters seance mediums and the like try to contact, and not serious Western or Eastern mystics, then I misunderstood him and you, and my comments were irrelevant. In that case, however, I do not understand what is the relevance of the problem of God’s interfering with the physical world and theodicy that you mentioned, to this meaning of the term supernatural.

Also, the open-endedness of science has nothing to do with Kant‘s Transcendent Reality (the unknowable, Ding an sich), one aspect of (rather than part of) which is physical reality perceived through our senses and instruments (and physical theories built on mathematics). Kant‘s Transcendent Reality is not the same thing as when you say that yet unknown scientific knowledge will “transcend” the already known one, although it is obviously related. The divine, is that part, or rather aspect, of Transcendent (or Ultimate) Reality that is not accessible through sense, instruments and mathematics, i.e. not knowable by science IN PRINCIPLE, irrespective of what future developments in our knowledge of the physical world might bring,

This definition of the divine would agree with the classical theist (God is outside the Universe/Multiverse) as well as the panentheist (God is greater than the Universe/Multiverse but includes and interpenetrates it) model of God, and, I think, would satisfy also the Buddhist outlook.

George,
You speak of a ‘reality’ which I would term as a spiritual one – i.e. it is a truth of the spirit, not a truth of the intellect, not a mathematical theorem or a logical formula.

I would suggest that anything that “is not accessible through sense, instruments and mathematics” is not IN FACT knowable by science. A deviation from this creates a problem when dealing with the ‘creationist’ argument - if, in acquiescing to this, one is then faced with a ‘Buddha-science’, ‘Mithra-science’, ‘Muslim-science’, Shinto-science’ or perhaps a ‘Zoroastrianism-science.’

As Luwig Wittgenstein might suggest, “the limits of my language mean the limits of my world” and reference to the ‘supernatural’ might in fact suggest something beyond our world but it is a terminology refering all too often to something as literally real, i.e. demons, angels, ghosts, devils and other such phantasms, and I prefer not to use it. The ‘supernatural’ rests equally with Greek mythology as it did in Hebraic writing an thought – it was the Hellenistic spirit which broke its bind.

Dan,
You miss my point, “your appeal is in the arena of popular ‘science’” and the popular ‘science of which I speak covers both astrology and ‘creation -science’. Yes, they are both separate beliefs, and as you suggest, one is biblically based (literally), but, in terms of real science, both are equally muddled in their thinking. You may certainly hold faith in either belief but both forms of belief are equally and entirely unscientific.

You perhaps need to discover, evolution is a word which merely states the phenomenon without explaining it – ‘creation-science’, however, falsely seeks to do this.

Ok! here is another model. Dan! have you ever watched how a lioness and its cubs have that maternal bond with each other, and almost every other living thing has this natural instinct. We humans have also evolved this instinct.

Christianity calls this the love of Christ. This love is in all humans and fauna alike thanks to evolution and that's the facts jack.

The moment that man-kind broke away from nature, we have not stopped interpreting the world around us in the evolutionary separation. Early humans had no idea of what they were viewing and proceeded to name gods one after another. The whole human history is full of them.

I would of loved to of seen the faces of early man when instinct left and the conscious mind began, it must of been terrifying.

EVO

Dan,

For someone who claims that chemistry disproves abiogenesis, you seem very evasive of my questions.

No matter. We'll just pretend that it didn't happen, like every other one of my 100 or so questions you've never answered.

<<You brought up the notion of 'separation of church and state'.>>

Because you “forgot” to mention it when it was a crucial aspect of the point you were making about ID.

<<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.>>

…And the First Amendment of the US constitution.

You failed to mention that one though, because ID was ruled to be religious in a US court and therefore, a breach of it.

<<...so we look up Section 116 of the Constitution.>>

“The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.”

<<This is often referred to as the clause which establishes freedom of religion.>>

If you only read the nine words after the second comma.

<<It doesn't contain the words 'separation' 'church' or 'state'.>>

It doesn't have to.

The First Amendment doesn’t either. Yet at the Dover trial, the First Amendment, along with the debunking of the Creationist's “evidence”, lead to a crushing defeat. So much so, that they didn't even bother appealing.

<<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.>>

“Taught”, not “said”. There's a difference.

But if you have a problem with the ruling against ID, then argue it with the Judges in the US.

My only point was that you had failed to mention that Creationists come under the guise of 'ID advocates' in order to sneak Creationism into classrooms by using the underhanded tactic of not specifically mentioning religion.

Continued...

...Continued

What point are you trying to get at here, Dan? That Creationism should be taught in schools? That a Separation of Church and State doesn't exist?

You don’t even know anymore, do you?

You just thought you’d spotted a glass jaw and went for it, as if to think that if you can cast doubt on one of my claims, then everything else I've said comes into question.

Your desperate scratching around for arguments is starting to make your thought patterns resemble that of a ball of string after a cat’s been playing with it.

You're beating a dead horse, Dan. Move on.

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

What a copout.

You can't deny that you refuse to read the links I provide, so you invent reasons to try and save face by shifting the blame on to my arguments in a public display of self-denial as to the real reason you can't look at them – it would simply be too confronting.

I shouldn’t have to motivate you, Dan. The fact that you’d learn a thing or two and prevent yourself from appearing foolish by repeating debunked arguments should be motivation enough.

<<Also, what's so wrong with quoting from a movie?>>

“Wrong” is a strong word in this instance.

But movies are often fictional, so when you've resorted to quoting lines from them to refute a scientific theory with mountains of evidence, it's time to walk away.

<<Does it conflict with OLO guidelines or perhaps do you class it another sub-human creationist tactic?>>

I like how you threw in the “sub-human” bit, as if to try to discredit one of my previous arguments about misquoting the dead.

But comparing the 'quoting of movies' to 'misquoting dead people' is contemptible to say the least. Absolutely disgraceful!

Dan, I used to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you were just a naïve Christian who was the victim of the deceitfulness of Creationists. But now you're acting more like a politician trying to cover-up his colleague's scandals.

AJ,
You can use lots of derogatory words like dishonest, deceitful, slippery and sub-human. But when you call me politician, you’re getting below the belt and it’s time we had a little talk.

Let’s try and get a grip of who we are here. This is not a scientific forum. If it was, you and I wouldn’t be allowed on, as neither of us has the relevant qualifications. It is not even a place for formal debate. So none of us here is going to finally resolve the creation/evolution debate or any other issue. We’re just a bunch of people sharing some opinions.

It’s pretty easy to answer most of your questions. And it’s very easy for me to ignore them too. You’re not my school master, and if I can’t be bothered answering you, or you give me low grades for a response, it’s not going to affect my future employment prospects. Maybe I might be challenged by something you say. But why should I be bothered responding when a half descent response is going to be met with slander?

No one’s paying me to be here. We just come here for amusement and the hope and belief that interacting with those out there in cyber-space possibly might do us some good.

As for your many questions, I’ll pick an easy one and see where we can go from here.

Should creationism be taught in schools? I think in principle, parents should have a big say in what and how their kids are taught. In the public system this is more problematic as more things are regulated by the state, but parent committees have a say. Teachers are largely caring, intelligent and educated. Legislating a teacher to teach against their conscience is ineffectual and self defeating.

I’m for supporting a classroom atmosphere of curiosity and open discussion. It is hard to comprehend why people in America would want to run to the courts to have classroom discussion stifled (though I know Americans are born litigants). If a theory is sound, why would it need protection from open discussion?