Aug. 4, 2005--

Intelligent Design of Nature Or Natural Design Of Intelligence-- "IDONONDOI" solution lies in Palindromic Arts-and-Sciences Concept and the da Vinci Code of Scientific Evidence.

            Before the Beginning there was no "was" that has since become "was," so what "was" Before cannot be explored by Science that is from what was.  Thus "Science" as "Science" can't try to go beyond "was" into "Why?"-- Though Science learns how what was and is now, as "Science," it cannot know "Why?"   

            Conversely, what claims that it does know "why" for the "is" and the "was" comprises not "Science" but, rather, reliance on faith to say more than what "was."  And likewise what claims to deny that faith could be right to say "why" cannot claim reliance on methods of Science, which cannot purport to know "why."  Though methods of Science can't find a proof that Intelligence signed a plan of Design they likewise can't find a proof to negate such Design.  

            So therefore, for lessons on Science to also describe the reliance on theories that find, by inference, Design distinguishes theory from Science.  What's known of Da Vinci provides a way to explain this divide:  What Science now knows it then couldn't know-- that humans, with power, could fly.  However, that theories advanced predicting a possible chance for flight to be shown could not make it "known" 'til proof by the Wrights was advanced.  But likewise, before the Wrights flew, by Science one couldn't disprove the theory Da Vinci developed by thinking beyond such constrictions of proof.  

            That some think in Science they find a theory inferring Design can serve to explain where theories remain when proof Science yet cannot find.  So Science has nothing to fear from lessons for students to hear un-testable theories in learning how theories by Science to test without fear.  Intelligent source of Design from patterns of nature we find by some is inferred, while others infer from nature intelligence climbed.  Since neither such inference employed can be by the other destroyed, what's needed, of course, is civil discourse respecting IDONONDOI·º¹.

            In reading this text you will find it's written in rhythm and rhyme, however to trick your mind, it is "writ" in paragraph form 'stead of lines.  But if you prefer the design of text having rhythm and rhyme be written in lines, below you will find the text in such formatted lines.

            To the extent to which the theory of "Intelligent Design" argues that the complexity of nature is evidence of a "design" and hence of a "Designer" beyond the comprehension of science, such theory does not contradict (nor does it purport to contradict) science.  For such theory to be explained in science classes focusing on the scientific method provides an opportunity to reinforce, rather than to deconstruct, the scientific method.  It's an un-provable theory.  However, provability of a theory is not a sine qua non of scientific inquiry, which entertains hypotheses (un-proven theories) and then embraces those which appear to have empirical support until further empirical analysis or evidence were to require their revision or rejection.  If, on the other hand, such theory were to be presented as "scientific" proof of the correctness of the Old Testament or the Koran or any other set of theological beliefs, then such theory would merely constitute theology and clearly doesn't belong in a science classroom.  

            Some advocates of "Intelligent Design" argue that the Law of Thermodynamics negates the possibility of organization without a designing force.  (I think this theory is demonstrably flawed because the very foundation on which the conclusion is premised negates the very conclusion purported to logically flow from the premise, but I don't think explaining that theory in a science classroom undermines the scientific method-- indeed, I think it probably reinforces the scientific method by making it easier to distinguish between theology and science.)

            From history, one can perceive Leonardo da Vinci as a useful symbol of the differences between theories that are unproven (or un-provable) on the one hand and proven on the other.  It's well known that da Vinci created a design for a machine that could have flown as does a helicopter [http://rotored.arc.nasa.gov/timeline/veryLong_ago.html] if there were to have been internal combustion engines in his time.  The Wright Brothers scientifically proved the essence of da Vinci's theories to be correct.  Until then, science was incapable of proving powered flight to be possible, yet it had also been incapable of proving it to be impossible.  That a theory is not yet provable (or even that it may be correctly thought to be un-provable) does not make it "unscientific" to entertain it without embracing it.  Indeed, the act of entertaining such theory tends to lead to an understanding of its unproven (or un-provable) nature and hence to a better understanding of what distinguishes science from virtually all other forms of higher learning:  the scientific method.

Intelligent Design Of Nature Or Natural Design Of Intelligence.

Before the Beginning there was
no "was" that has since become "was,"
so what "was" Before
cannot be explored
by Science that is from what was.

Thus "Science" as "Science" can't try
to go beyond "was" into "Why?"--
Though Science learns how
what was and is now,
as "Science," it cannot know "Why?"

Conversely, what claims that it does
know "why" for the "is" and the "was"
comprises not "Science"
but, rather, reliance
on faith to say more than what "was."

And likewise what claims to deny
that faith could be right to say "why"
cannot claim reliance
on methods of Science,
which cannot purport to know "why."

Though methods of Science can't find
a proof that Intelligence signed
a plan of Design
they likewise can't find
a proof to negate such Design.

So therefore, for lessons on Science
to also describe the reliance
on theories that find,
by inference, Design
distinguishes theory from Science.

What's known of Da Vinci provides
a way to explain this divide:
What Science now knows
it then couldn't know--
that humans, with power, could fly.

However, that theories advanced
predicting a possible chance
for flight to be shown
could not make it "known"
'til proof by the Wrights was advanced.

But likewise, before the Wrights flew,
by Science one couldn't disprove
the theory Da Vinci
developed by thinking
beyond such constrictions of proof.

That some think in Science they find
a theory inferring Design
can serve to explain
where theories remain
when proof Science yet cannot find.

So Science has nothing to fear
from lessons for students to hear
un-testable theories
in learning how theories
by Science to test without fear.

Intelligent source of Design
from patterns of nature we find
by some is inferred,
while others infer
from nature intelligence climbed.

Since neither such inference employed
can be by the other destroyed,
what's needed, of course,
is civil discourse
respecting IDONONDOI·º¹.

.

º¹.Pronounce "eye-don-un-doye" as the acronym for the scientifically unsolvable debate over Intelligent Design Of Nature Or Natural Design Of Intelligence, to symbolize a rational understanding that neither theory is inherently incompatible.  In other words, recognizing scientific knowledge of the fact of evolution does not negate a theory construing complex patterns of nature as evidence of a "design" and hence a "Designer," who (or which), after all, could have designed nature in such a way as to enable (or cause) nature to design intelligence.  This palindromic acronym is a metaphor for the dual, but inseparable, nature of mankind's intellectual quest and emotional desire to learn not only "how" but also "why."

--Jim Wrenn, Editor at PoliSat.Com.

To email links to this Daily Update installment to a friend, copy and paste the Links Box below into your email.  To email the links to a different installment, go here to find the Links Box for that installment.  

P.S. from Editor:  

By the way, use the logo and link for "Take Back the Memorial" (right) for information about how you can support the effort to "Take Back" the 9-11 Memorial from the politically-correct crowd now planning to overshadow the Memorial with a "museum" chronicling the sins of America as though they were relevant to the current war against the medieval, totalitarian, perverted version of Islam being peddled by al Qaeda et al.

·  About  Archives (Old Archives)  Contact  Search PoliticalxRay/PoliSat.Com  News  Troops

  More 

Sites that Feature PoliSat.Com:

			News  .... ...Opinion

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wilson/Plame "Exposed Doubles"   "play" above. Larger versions-- click here

Da Gorgle Code MiniVideo  "play" above. Larger versions-- click here

(Hillary's) Basic (Political) Instinct  "play" above. Larger versions-- click here

PoliSat.Com   powered by:  GlobalWeb.Net

play above for MiniVideo version  of latest PoliSat.Com video. For Larger version click here.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

end

Other sites that feature PoliSat.Com's Political Satire/Commentary-- Click here to view our Affiliates page.