上月廿八日在明珠台播出的《明珠檔案》新聞節目，探討了宗教右派問題。節目由天水圍一間教會中學在生物課堂教導「智慧設計論」說起，訪問了該校生物科老師、支持和反對「智慧設計論」的本地大學學者、教育局官員等，之後探討到宗教右派是否存在、是否危害公民社會發展等問題，受訪者包括浸大宗哲系陳士齊博士、「反右派」遊行發起人虞瑋倩、明光社總幹事蔡志森、港福堂林誠信牧師、「全城更新」創辦人馬王培琪、立法會議員梁美芬等等。節目可於電視台的官方網址重溫：http://mytv.tvb.com/news/pearlreport/30542。
（www.christiantimes.org.hk，時代論壇每日快拍，2009.7.6）
RE: 草牛
OK﹐ F=ma沒有用 reason 來解釋物體運動﹐ so what。它不是 science so what ?
你的論證是﹐ science 不是尋求自然解釋﹐因為 F=ma沒有尋求自然解釋對不對﹖
F=ma 是科學的全部嗎﹖
我越來越藐視基督徒的理性。你們不是順從理性﹑事實去讓你們了解世界﹐而是利用理性去服務你們的議程。
正如張國棟批評關啟文一樣﹐你們就是在小地方的邏輯論證得下分﹐覺得自己在這些地方得分就以為自己有什麼了不起。
如果 F=ma 就是科學的全部﹐你說話或者可以成立﹐但誰 claim 過 F=ma 係解釋﹖
我或者弄錯了 F=ma﹐這我承認我是不足﹐但你論證的 premise 係﹐F=ma 沒有offer reason / explanation﹐所以就推論說科學不是為了尋求自然解釋。
說科學是為尋求對自然現象的自然解釋﹐是說科學的目的﹐不是說所有科學最細微細眼都一定是自然解釋。
牛頓的物理定律﹐你要記住是科學發展初期﹐就算 scientific methods 都仍然是很雛形的。
一句 F=ma 不是 explanation 就想說科學不是尋求自然解釋﹐這是打茅波而不是真的想了解科學﹐而且是一種以偏概全的謬誤。
我也沒有說過Newton's Laws of motion (3 laws)
F=ma again
Newton's F=ma simply states that Force, acceleration and mass are related in describing motion. - Correct
Newton's equations explained motion's in terms of relation between mass, force and acceleration. - Incorrect. What you mean motion is acceralation. But, please compare with Newton's First Law of Motion.
Description is different from explaination. Explaination requires REASON.
Atheist spirituality
Spirituality is not something exclusive to theist. Buddhists are non-thestic, they have rich spirituality.
Atheist can recognize and feel the awe and wonder of life, nature and universe, yet we are not like Christians who are obsessive with finding all the answer and having exclusive held of "Truth".
Me as an atheist, feel no need to pretend to understand the mysteries - no need to create gods and religions to explain them. Contacting "higher powers" can simply be tuning into subconscious resources through meditation or other means. Are these "higher powers" nothing more than electrical patterns in our brains? We don't know, and we don't have to know to tap into them.
The spirituality I am practicing is the "Power of Now" -- to see and appreciate things as they are, no judgement, no assessmet, no evaluation, almost like Dharama practices.
為何每個人的手指模會不一樣?進化論如何解釋? 為何每個人的手指模會不一樣?進化論如何解釋? 為何每個人的手指模會不一樣?進化論如何解釋?
Evolution 進化論 is not the explanation as to why 每個人的手指模會不一樣. Rather it is observed in nature that we have variations -- what we called polymorphism.
Not only are our fingerprints not the same, everyone of us is different to each other (except for twins/triplets from the same fertilized egg). This is because DNA replication during reproduction of any organism is not a perfect copy. The imperfect copy is called mutation, which can be neutral if it happened on the inactive portion of our DNA, or beneficial/harmful if it happened at the active parts.
Because of imprefect copy of DNA, therefore we are all different.
The variations provides the fuel where natural selection hence evolution to occur
However how fingerprints are formed during our stage as the feutus is not fully understood yet, but even if evolution cannot explain why, it does not necessaril means "God did it"
RE : 進化論如何解釋人的靈性, 心性, 道德觀念等如何進化而來, 而為何只有人類才有?
There is altruism, compassion displayed in animals too.
As we conduct more and more studies on animals, moral is not a unique thing to human being, in a sense humans are able to articulate better or have a more sophisticated set of systems and rules. Yet animals has a degree of morals.
http://www.amazon.ca/Wild-Justice-Moral-Lives-Animals/dp/0226041611
A ground breaking study shows that moral behaviour is necessary for species' survival.
Man, or other mammals have agressive nature and competitive, but if this behaviour is directed the own kind it will be result in self-destruction of the species.
The study have seen animals like elephants tried to save antelops being captured in African wild, and chimpanzees helping their old: the experiment required the chimps to insert marbles to a machine in order to obtain food, like a vending machine. An old female chimp is very clumsy and could not get the food, however, a young chimp helped by inserting the marbles to the machine for her, and when the food came out the young chimp let the female chimp get all the food.
Consider the following scenarios. A teenage female elephant nursing an injured leg is knocked over by a rambunctious hormone-laden teenage male. An older female sees this happen, chases the male away, and goes back to the younger female and touches her sore leg with her trunk. Eleven elephants rescue a group of captive antelope in KwaZula-Natal; the matriarch elephant undoes all of the latches on the gates of the enclosure with her trunk and lets the gate swing open so the antelope can escape. A rat in a cage refuses to push a lever for food when it sees that another rat receives an electric shock as a result. A male Diana monkey who learned to insert a token into a slot to obtain food helps a female who can't get the hang of the trick, inserting the token for her and allowing her to eat the food reward. A female fruit-eating bat helps an unrelated female give birth by showing her how to hang in the proper way. A cat named Libby leads her elderly deaf and blind dog friend, Cashew, away from obstacles and to food. In a group of chimpanzees at the Arnhem Zoo in The Netherlands individuals punish other chimpanzees who are late for dinner because no one eats until they're all present. A large male dog wants to play with a younger and more submissive male. The big male invites his younger partner to play and when they play, the big dog restrains himself and bites his younger companion gently and allows him to bite gently in return.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/animal-emotions/200906/wild-justice-and-moral-intelligence-in-animals
We only assume that ONLY human being display moral behaviour a priori because these are the assertions made by the Church and the authority, not backed by science or factual data -- we only begin to understand more about animals and that findings are revealing -- that we are NOT that different from animals and being like animals are not as bad as previously being labelled!
RE: 馬峻
並非無神論者不願意視無神論也是一種信仰﹐而事實上無神論缺乏大量信仰的元素﹐例如我們沒有所謂放諸四海而皆準、歷萬古而常新的真理﹐我們只是有一套 world view和一些原則 (principles)﹐會因應我們對世界認識的增加而改變﹐因此不會好似信仰那樣歷萬古而常新。
你也不應該假設無神論只是站在“反題”這個立場上﹐我們有提出道德﹑靈性的體系的﹐只是基督教圈子和傳媒過多報導無神論與基督宗教的對立。
靈性的方面﹐有一本書可以看﹕The Little book of Atheist Spirituality (Andre Comte-Sponville).
而無神論的道德倫理觀﹐多數是採取 utilitarianism﹐也有採取 humanism 的方向﹕
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/nontheism/atheism/morality-and-atheism.html
我們用「理性主義」不是去擊倒信仰﹐或者把「理性主義能否作為絕對真理」﹐這是我們採取去評估﹑研判世界的態度。「理性主義」的要點在它要求人可以證明和否證一個命題。你如果不可以證明和否證一個命題﹐就等於 anything goes as long as I "believe". 「理性主義」係和做人應該有的禮貌﹐或者討論議題需要抱的態度一樣那麼簡單﹐沒有必要提昇成為命題﹐正如你不會說數學需要用符號 (這是功能性需求) 提昇為命題一樣。
此外﹐我們沒有任何信條﹑宗教儀式去進行或者維護﹐可以說﹐我們有的只是guiding posts﹑principles 和對人的個人信仰/理性的信任﹐認為人只要對世上事物採取如是觀之﹑按照客觀的發現﹑按照對人福祉的關懷﹐我們同樣可以對公義、道德、倫理等有一套體系。
RE: Make cake
演化是事實﹐因為我們有化石﹑比較解剖學﹑放射性年日測定 (Carbon-14, Argon-Argon dating etc)﹑遺傳學 (比較人類和其他靈長生物﹑其他生物)等印證﹐但演化論仍然和事實不同 (但不等於演化不是事實)。演化論 (和其他科學一樣)﹐都是利用現在所知道的得出自然解釋﹐所以有新知﹑就會修正。
牛頓的物理“定律”並非一些“掌管宇宙”的“律”﹐而是一些規範人如何去描述/理解宇宙的“律”(limitation or requirements to human as to how to describe the universe)。同樣證據科學/科學理論﹐也是指引人如何解釋自然現象的一套知識。
Scientific fact 科學事實是反覆被驗證是正在發生/發生了的事情﹐就如我們不會否定萬有引力﹑原子論﹑演化 (生物各樣物種是演化產生)﹑相對論。
但單獨看這些事實並非科學的全部。
Facts alone is not science. Facts only form part of science.
證據科學﹐或者說是科學理論﹐是包含大量科學事實﹑證據﹐然後有一個/多個前設﹑和一個解釋某自然現象的說法﹐叫“理論”。證據科學比事實更加廣泛﹐因為它解釋自然現象﹐用的是可以驗證和證偽的解釋。科學理論是建基在證據上﹐而如果有新發現﹑證據顯示目前的科學有不足﹑甚至錯誤﹐科學是會修正他們的理論的﹐但不會全盤否定。例如萬有引力論是牛頓提出﹐但他未可以解釋引力是什麼﹐愛恩斯坦的廣義相對論就補充了﹐對萬有引力提出修正。
要明白科學是什麼﹐可以去我們的網站。
回張兄有關「無神論是否信仰」的一點看法
［張文］一。無神論算不算是信仰，很大程度視乎說話者怎樣定義信仰，也因如此，這類談論意義不大，因常會跌入 verbal dispute 。有無神論者是愛被稱為有信仰的，當然有些不愛。回虞瑋倩
多謝解釋, 不過總是覺得你的解釋有點不對路, 至於是什麼問題我又說不出.
不知有沒有其他人幫幫忙為我解開疑團呢?
另外, 不知進化論如何解釋人的靈性, 心性, 道德觀念等如何進化而來, 而為何只有人類才有? 還有, 為何每個人的手指模會不一樣?進化論如何解釋?
看來真的要補補課了......
RE: Make cake
所有現在的科學理論﹐例如萬有引力﹑相對論﹑最新的 Super String Theory﹐都不能視作為絕對的科學事實, 它只是一種証據科學而已。
進化論 (theory of evolution) 是証據科學﹐但進化是事實﹐你分得清兩者嗎﹖
智慧設計論可否一樣(或將來是否可能) 成為証據科學?
可能性好低好低。因為智慧設計涉及一個“智慧設計者”﹐而事實上這個“智慧設計者”是超自然的神﹐超自然是無法在科學裡面得到驗證和證偽﹐也等於說智慧設計近乎沒有機會成為証據科學。
Fred Hoyle 的說法有一個假設﹕所有東西要同時組合才算成功。但生命形成不是這樣的﹐它是累積了數以億年的微小轉變﹐每一個微小轉變增加存活率﹑得到保留﹐再另外的小轉變﹐等於一陣旋風掃過一個汽車零件場﹐先出現波音七四七的一部份﹐然後又一陣旋風又一陣旋風﹐發生億萬次。
疑問
我不是唸science, 但看過一本書, 指"進化論並不能仕作為絕對的科學事實, 它只是一種証據科學而已。" 就如某人要證明他父親是其生父。若此, 智慧設計論可否一樣(或將來是否可能) 成為証據科學?
另外, 該書提到"大爆炸"本身就是一個數學上的推測, 然而一位原先提倡"大爆炸"的科學家"Fred Hoyle"(他並非基督徒)卻說"高等生物從此(大爆炸)而出現之可能性,猶如一陣旋風掃過一個汽車零件場而從中飛出一架波音七四七來。
那麼, 即使會有可能被推翻也好, 可否透過証據科學驗證智慧設計論?
有沒有這方面的專家可解答本人疑問?
Exponential number of choices in Religious Knowledge class (Bible class) in schools to 探討
Religious Knowledge.
(1) When teaching Christian Bible, absolutely don't let them know about that the Bible was not the same as today at the beginning of Christendom, it was being censored and edited. There are numerous forbiden books.
(2) Teach neither the Christian Bible nor other theistic religion
(3) Teach about existence of Chrsitian Bible and its earlier development, highlight the limitations and errors in the Christian Bible
(4) Same as (3) but also highlight the limitatons in the other books not included in the Canon
(5) Same as (4), but teach both
(6) Teach only the excluded books from the Christian Bible
(7) Teach both Christian Bible and the excluded books and that the excluded books are compatible with Christianity
Expound that in Religious Knowledge class to topics like Liberal Theology, Gay Theology, Mormonism, Scientology, Seventh Day Adentist, Arianism, Liberation Theology, atheism, nihilism...
If 探討 can say the same for Religious Knowledge class in all schools, then his 7 choice are valid.
Why do you Christians single out Evolution in Biology for special treatment -- this is clearly selecting it to be target for attack and doubt.
Why should science class exclude science (evolution) and why should science class include psuedoscience (intelligent design)?探討 - your science knowledge is pathetic.
Choice 1: this is nonsense. Evolution is the single encompassing theory and framework that is the basis of biology. If biology class do not teach evolution, it will like you don't teach atomic theory in Chemistry. This is silly solution.
Choise 2: Choice it possible, but instead of 禁止讓學生知道其有的一些限制和假設，以及禁止讓學生知道有「智慧設計論」, tell students that 智慧設計論 is a psuedoscience and a religious belief. BTW, Evolution has limitations, but the 假設 are all verified.
Choice 3: 生物學課堂/教科書只許教導「智慧設計論」，及禁止讓學生知道有「進化論」
This is an EVIL choice. This choice destroyed science.
Choice 4: 生物課堂/教科書既教導「進化論」及其有的一些限制和假設，亦可讓老師/課本給學生知道也有「智慧設計論」，但要指兩者是有必然的矛盾
This is preferred. Teachers should contrast how 智慧設計 is a science stopper, is a psuedoscience similar to alchemy
(5) and (6) OK
(7) the premise is wrong -- it is a non-choice. Evolution and Intelligent Design are inherently incompatible.
One more difference about agnostics and atheists
Agnostics do not take a position in the belief or non-belief of a deity, but atheists do.七個選擇方案的探討
我們或可有下面有七個選擇方案：
1. 生物學課堂/教科書既禁止教導「進化論」，亦禁止教導「智慧設計論」；
2. 生物學課堂/教科書只許教導「進化論」，及禁止讓學生知道其有的一些限制和假設，以及禁止讓學生知道有「智慧設計論」；
3. 生物學課堂/教科書只許教導「智慧設計論」，及禁止讓學生知道有「進化論」；
4. 生物課堂/教科書既教導「進化論」及其有的一些限制和假設，亦可讓老師/課本給學生知道也有「智慧設計論」，但要指兩者是有必然的矛盾 (即必定是either/or，而絕不可以是both/and，下同)；
5. 生物學課堂/教科書既要教導「進化論」及其有的一些限制和假設，亦要老師/課本可讓學生知道也有「智慧設計論」，但要指兩者是有必然的矛盾；
6. 生物學課堂/教科書既教導「進化論」及其有的一些限制和假設，亦可讓老師/課本給學生知道也有「智慧設計論」，及指出兩者並非是有必然的矛盾以及其原因；
7. 生物學課堂/教科書既教導「進化論」及其有的一些限制和假設，亦要老師/課本可讓學生知道也有「智慧設計論」，及指出兩者並非是有必然的矛盾以及其原因；
這七個方案，筆者認為最後那個方案應會較為合宜，大家會怎看呢？
RE: 草牛 進化論的一個問題
It is a semantic problem.「為了」 can mean both "do it because one wants to" (with the intention to) or "because of".
The latter is more neutral and do not necessarily implies an act out of conscious intention.
However your teacher may be wrong.
Please visit our site http://sites.google.com/site/hkscienceeducation/
Genes mutation is the raw material for natural selection. Mutations can be neutral, beneficial or harmful.
The benefical mutation is also relative, the environmental factors has to be considered.
You may watch this video in YouTube which explains natural selection:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_RXX7pntr8
All organisms have variations
In a large population of one species, there are many variations
Environment changes, and those "variations" which best suited to the environment have greater chance of surviving and thus reproducing, pass those particular variations down to the next generations. (Note: to best fit an environment there are multiple means, e.g. greater ability to find food, greater abililty to escape from predators, greater ability to withstand the weather, etc. etc etc.). Over many many generations, those don't fit will dwindle in numbers, those fit will increase, and those population with particular variations, say a longer neck who can reach leaves on trees, the longest of the long necks will be the "best" suited and finally the cycle repeats itself and the species change.
Athheism is not equal to agnosticism
Atheism is a lack of believe in a deity. It is still different from a "belief that there is NO god".
The strong form some refer to is the assertion that there is NO god.
The weak form which many profess is there they don't believe there is a god or that the existence is very very unlikely, almost impossible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#Strong_vs._weak
Agnosticism tends to assign a higher possibility in the existence of deity.
回進化論的一個問題
為免有人誤會，讓我先聲明，本帖無意要惡意批評誰。只是，中學老師可以講錯的吧，那麼緊張那老師講了甚麼，實在叫人費解？進化論沒必要假設這世界物質或生物演變是有一個意識在背後的。這只是很簡單的進化論入門。進化論的一個問題
讀中學的時候，教生物科的老師(她不是信徒)講進化論，她說生物「為了」生存和繁衍而作基因改變。當時，我覺得有點奇怪，「為了」是一種意識，但那些單細胞和花草樹木怎會有這樣的意識，如果說這是宇宙的意識和目的，那麼又變成哲學的問題。定義
無神論主張神不存在。
不可知論者認為神存在與否的問題，超越了人的認知能力範圍，所以永不可知，沒有問題的答案。
