Why is God intelligently designing Avian Influenza viruses to jump to humans?

twhy77;

I skimmed through the piece posted and don't have any problem with it. I think it makes perfect sense to consider whether uncorrelated randomness is in fact actually unplanned or unguided randomness. The issue is though whether planning can actually be empiracally proven. The problem with assuming that it actually is completely planned and we just can't detect it is that that's not a scientific issue because that would come down to essentially saying that God exist, we just can't empiracally prove it. That's a theological issue.

As I've said repeatedly I don't rule out the possibility that ID is true only whether it can be proven. The danger that I see out of the ID debate isn't that evolution is shown to be flawed but that science is watered down and confused with faith. Where instead of focussing on the rational, empiracal and quantifiable its opened up to considering all sorts of things beyond those.

That's why I agree with Sam that there is a danger in regard to ID's arbitrariness since once you open up science to speculation beyond what can be proven in a rational, empiracal, quantifiable and systemitized method there is a temptation to what I would call intellectual laziness and magical thinking where rather than continue to search for rational / natural explanations you just chalk it up to undectable supernatural intervention.

 

And I agree with you...except that I think philosophy should be taught in public schools....and I think this is a valid subject to be pursued. I'm not in favor of it being taught as imperial knowledge; but the idea that an article like this can't be read-- well maybe not one this overtly Catholic with the prayer at the end and all, but something treating the issue with a shred of dignity shouldn't bring any harm...

 

Kansas Education Board First to Back 'Intelligent Design'

The most interesting thing in the article is:

The objective in this particular case is clearly to change science in schools to agree with religious beliefs.

 

But Sam, he's just one scholar...didn't you see my article where ID folks are disagreeing with each other over how to present ID in the first place....which is one of the primary reasons it shouldn't really be discussed ...yet....until more research and thought goes into it.....

 

The one I presented only said the soul was unexplainable by natural evolution....

 

I've got no problem with teaching philosophy in schools and agree that it would even be valuable for a well rounded education. My concern is not watering down science and as I said in another thread maintaining a bright line separation between science and things like metaphysics.

 

Is this the Bigtexxx prayer?

 

Granted. However, I don't think discussion of the soul is outside of the realm of schooling, it was Aristotle who first posited the existence of one.

 

And Buddha who proved him wrong.

 

Buddhists don't believe in the soul?

 

"Nothing, no entity, has its own being."

 

No comment.






Which I fully realize is a comment in and of itself.

 

The ignorant can't.

 

Well at least I have a soul .

 

And at least I'm not attached to the idea of an eternal self.

 

You're bragging about that?

On a more serious note; is the idea then in Buddhism more of a collective soul like Emerson describes in the oversoul; the beingness of the cosmos?

 

From my understanding of Buddhism I think Max is substantially correct. From an individual standpoint yes we have what can be termed a "soul" but that is an artificial distinction that separates us from reality where everything is one and the same.

Think about it this way. String theory posits that all of existence is based upon differing vibrations of the fabric of space and time. Space and time are all one and the same but it is only the varying vibrations that creates what we percieve as a differentiated universe. Buddhism posits something similar by stating that it is only the illusion of perception that causes us to believe that we are differentiated individuals. So continuing the metaphor. You / your soul is a vibrating string that you perceive as an individual entity even through different reincarnations but that's perception and not reality.

Just for clarification I'm only using String theory a metaphor and not saying that String theory validates or is based on Buddhist thought.

I'm sure Meowgi can add a lot more.