Intelligent Design under intelligent attack...

[ChairOne]

phew - thank god somebody in appalachia has 1/2 a brain...

"The ACLU and Americans United for Separation of Church and State said the lawsuit is the first to challenge whether public schools should teach "intelligent design," a theory first advanced in the late 1980s, which holds that the universe is so complex that it must have been created by some higher power. The two organizations are representing the parents in the federal lawsuit. "

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002119831_evolution15.html

[MaryH]

1. That fight is going on in Kansas again.

Its like we are going backward in time instead of forward.

Maybe we have been swept into a giant time warp and we don't even know it.

[sam sarrha]

2. that is just Stupid logic..

[Must_B_Free]

158. I agree - TIme + Change = complexity

[immoderate]

3. It might be good to get a court ruling.

Declaring the Intelligent Design theories as bullshit.

--IMM

[DrWeird]

6. Supreme court ruled that back in...

1986, I think. Might be off by a couple years.

[Finding Rawls]

8. I hope you're kidding

Where does the Supreme Court get the power to declare ideas false or invalid?

[DrWeird]

9. You realize they're "judges", right?

It's sort of their job to "judge" whether ideas are false or invalid.

[Finding Rawls]

10. sorry

Where does the Supreme Court get the power to decide which ideas are "true" enough to be taught in schools?

[DrWeird]

14. You don't have to be a supreme court justice to see that...

"Intelligent Design" is certifiable bullshit. If you want to read up on the actual proceedings, go here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard.html

[Finding Rawls]

20. That's not what the case is about at all

Louisiana's "Creationism Act" forbids the teaching of the theory of evolution in public elementary and secondary schools unless accompanied by instruction in the theory of "creation science." The Act does not require the teaching of either theory unless the other is taught.

It's a bull piece of legislation. That doesn't mean that the Supreme Court ruled Intelligent Design false.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

126. fortunately, most of the justices in our system

understand that ID cannot be proven false at this time...and probably cannot be proven false as it relies on an unmeasurable quantity. They understand that determining the truth or falsehood of questions of science is not their realm...but they CAN say religion cannot be taught...ID is a little sneakier...

theProdigal

[loyalsister]

171. Didn't read the ruling....

But I have to guess that it was based on the fact that ID is philosophy rather than science. It belongs in a different classrom.
It is completely unacceptable to further corrupt the Biological sciences education of our young people. As it is, we have too few who excel in biological sciences.

[seaofcrisis]

69. no they dont

judges judge the law, not scientific ideas (or in this case unscientific ideas). It is our responsibilities as citizens to make sure that our schools teach the truth. I don't want a judge doing it. That's too much power to one individual.

[Finding Rawls]

4. That's fine by me

Intelligent design is not a dim witted argument. Many of the people who now make the argument are dim witted, but the argument has its merits. I have no problem with public schools teaching Intelligent Design, as long as they don't use the Bible as a text. Evolution, which I believe to be true, is a theory. Can't be proven. Smart people, however, will, in general, agree with it. Let's not join the censorship squad.

[The Doctor.]

12. Indeed - the notion of 'Intelligent design' does have merit.

The mere fact that the universe exists is proof enough to me of intelligence... just not what these fundamental morons think it is.

The universe as an inverse spheriod suggests that something 'conscious' may have been involved - even if it's no kind of consciousness we could possibly wrap our heads around.

If you have time - check this out:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=2796124&mesg_id=2796282

[wurzel]

13. If there is "intelligent design" there has to be a "designer".

It is back door creationism pure and simple. Nothing can be "proven" in the sense you mean. And you are using the word "theory" as it is used by the general public rather than as it is used by scientists. When scientists use this word the mean it as a "coherent explanation" of facts. They do not mean it is "hypothetical", as we would normally do. Evolution is based on facts. Darwin's "theory of evolution" is a explanation of those facts. "Intelligent design" doesn't explain anything.

[The Doctor.]

18. Wrong - you assume that the 'designer' has to be God...

Why can't it be us?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=2796124&mesg_id=2796282

[wurzel]

22. "Masters of everything"?? Have you any idea of the size of the universe?

Nor do I. It is beyond human conception. We can't control ourselves or even the cosmic speck we call Earth. Let alone "everything".

[The Doctor.]

30. LOL! Go read it again...

Of Course WE can't achieve such an end!

How foolish!

Do you think we will stay this way forever?

Not if we are going to survive.

We HAVE BEEN EVOLVING for millions of years - Either we will perish or continue to evolve.
(Or do you believe in Creationism which says we don't evolve?)

- Go read it again.

[wurzel]

142. "Evolve" culturally or biologically?

You seem to believe the word "evolve" implies "improve". There is no evidence for that.

[The Doctor.]

143. Yes.

Hmmm... you seem not to have grasped the idea...

We can only advance or perish.

That's it - those are the options the Human race has.

Should we continue to advance scientifically and NOT perish in the process, we will advance as a race. Advances in science will buy us the time to advance socially... but even that is irrelevant.

We will take hold of our own evolution and accelerate it, making ourselves more than human and of higher intelligence... thus positioning ourselves for further advancements.

It is unlikely that we will plateau for more than a thousand years at a time... can you imagine our entire race not bothering to make advancements for even a decade?

Even if we are set back by something horrible and keyholed (it's happened before), we can expect that humans would start over and eventually reacquire all their achievements.

It doesn't matter if it takes 10 years, 1000 years, or even 100,000,000 years - should humans survive, they WILL eventually acquire mastery of space, consciousness, and time itself.

At that point time becomes irrelevant - non-linear.

Get it?

The human race will either advance or perish... should we advance to the Omega point (when we master these things), we can create the very universe that bore us.

Don't let that twist your head up too much.

[wurzel]

144. "The universe that bore us" does not care if we live or die.

We have no "manifest destiny". We are still solving our problems as we did 50,000 years ago. With a club! And we are going backwards. The collider in Waxahachie is filling up with water. Creationism is being taught a science. Stem cell research is being challenged. We are still arguing over abortion and school prayer. WE HAVE LOST OUR NERVE. We are all there is as far as we know and we cannot accept it. Until we do we cannot move on.


Who said time is linear? Time can never become irrelevant because time is the only thing we know for certain actually exists.

[The Doctor.]

165. So then we will perish... and there you have it.

[Terran]

179. What about all the other intelligent species out there?

Are they too all destined to achieve mastery over space and time? What happenes when you have several million more or less omnipotent species of sentient beings all remaking the same universe to their liking?

You've been reading way too much sci-fi, man.

[Quill Pen]

31. It isn't even a theory...

"Intelligent design" is just a guess, an unquantifiable assumption based on faith.

Do we also have to teach that little frost-fairies bring the morning hoarfrost, because condensation is just a theory, and we should have a competing explanation for our schools to remain politically balanced and neutral?

This Christian says nertz to Intelligent Design in publicly-funded science classrooms. It's a principle of faith, not science.

[immoderate]

39. Intelligent Design requires employing a logical fallacy.

That is why it is bad science.

There are observed instances of evolution where no designer is present. Why should there be an assumption that there is a designer when we're not looking?

By saying you're not calling the "intelligent designer" god, you don't avoid the issue.

--IMM

[Rush1184]

184. what logical fallacy does it employ. I too find problem with the logic...

I just cannot pin-point it.

[Solly Mack]

148. Thank you. I grow so tired of people who have either forgotten

what "theory" means in science, slept through science class, or are just plain stupid.

Whatever their malfunction, there's just no excuse for it.

[DrWeird]

25. What merits are these?

From a scientific standpoint, ID has no merits whatsoever, and has indeed been proven false. Evolution, on the other hand, has been proven true. Hate to be the one to break it to you.

[Finding Rawls]

28. Proven false? Proven true?

I don't agree.

[DrWeird]

29. Clearly.

Nevertheless, you're wrong.

[The Doctor.]

32. It cannot be proven false... or true.

Simply because something has not been proven true does not make it false.

I proposed a linear antigravitation aspect of the cosmological constant in a model once.
A physisist friend didn't take me seriously until it was proven matematically five years later.

We don't have the tools to measure ID right now - that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Try explaining X-rays to someone from the 1400's.

Until we have the tools - I'm comfortable relegating ID to philosophy.

[Zynx]

125. Uh, no. ID has not been "proven false."

It is incredibly difficult to prove something "false" in science. Let me use the existance of vampires as an example.

Scientifically, it is impossible to prove that vampires do not exist. There is no experiement that can prove non-existance of something, therefore these sort of things are said to be "non-falsifiable." Scientific theories and hypothesis *must* be falsifiable. Therefore, one can NEVER disprove the hypothesis "vampires exist." We know it is illogical for vampires to exist, but still, we cannot disprove the idea that they exist.

Proving negatives is generally a scientific impossibility because it requires infinite knowledge of future circumstances and events.

However, a hypothesis that "vampires do not exist" can be proven to be false with a simple experiment. You just need to catch a vampire.

~~~

Intelligent Design does not rise to the level of scientific theory for a whole host of reasons, one of the biggies being that no one has ever put forward an experiment that could falsify it (or verify it, for that matter). But being "proven false" is not among ID's faults.

[ChairOne]

33. Yes it is completely 100% dim-witted...

Scientists say so. That's good enough for me.

What I don't understand is why so many non-scientists think it's appropriate for them to judge on scientific matters. Let scientists make these judgments. That what there, um, FOR.

[Finding Rawls]

34. Just like the scientists

that determined black people were of a different species? Or the ones that determined black people were genetically inferior? Which scientists? There have been so many

[ChairOne]

43. yup...

lol - ah... the few-bad-apples-spoils-the-bunch theory...

genius argument.

I don't let superemarket checkers tell me how much something costs, because they've been wrong about that in the past.

I don't drive cars, because some of them haven't been safe in the past.

I don't wear clothes, because some of them have chafed me in the past.

Sheesh. This is the problem with America. This is what results in the majority voting for bush. The utter inability to think on anything other than the most inane level.

In the small chance that this actually helps.... nah - there's no chance for you - you'd need to read a lotta stuff before anything I could say would be helpful... Start with Kuhn - SSR.

[Finding Rawls]

46. Hey, I didn't use "it's true because scientists say so"

I'm not a proponent of ID, I just don't see the harm in allowing it to be discussed in schools if parents and teachers feel it's the right thing to do.

[ChairOne]

52. If you don't see the harm, then open your eyes...

And now matter how little respect you have for education, please don't deliberately misquote me. I didn't say what you put in quotes and attributed to me, and you know I didn't say it.

Just answer a simple question: what's wrong with the scientific community deciding what science is? Why do you have the impression that science is some kind of direct democracy?

[Finding Rawls]

57. Here

I apologize for misquoting you

"Scientists say so. That's good enough for me.

What I don't understand is why so many non-scientists think it's appropriate for them to judge on scientific matters. Let scientists make these judgments. That what there, um, FOR."

I believe I was close enough.

The scientific community can decide what "science" is. It doesn't bother me at all. They are more qualified than me to make such determinations. I just feel that suppressing ideas, no matter how awful or untrue, is unwise when a large number of people believe them and want them to be given some weight. The scientific community isn't public school X in Illinois, Nebraska or Louisiana. They should be allowed to choose. They're adults.

[charlie]

65. No. Ideas. Are. Being. Repressed

ID can be taught, just not as science. That's the point of contention, whether you want to accept it or not. Kids can be taught that we're raisins embedded in a cosmic cookie, but if you insist it's science, you'll hear about it. And rightly so.

[ChairOne]

67. LOL - you're close to giving up your entire argument....

Answer this:

Who gets to decide what goes into science textbooks and science classrooms? Scientists, or others?

[The Doctor.]

60. There is no harm in discussing it...

but there is in teaching it as fact.

The only people who could be 'harmed' if ID turned out to be true are pure atheists.

Agnostics may see this as a condemnation of religion if science DOES find out that not only does God exist - but 'he' follows the laws of physics and had nothing to do with writing a stupid book.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=2796124&mesg_id=2796282

[SemperEadem]

187. I don't mind it either...

as long as the views of other religions are discussed in the science class, too.

[gtar100]

61. Evolution is a proven science, application through historical

records of various species is what is incomplete. Don't get hung up on the word "theory". The "theory of evolution" is a body of knowledge with its fundamental principles reproducible in laboratory and with evidence in abundance in nature. It has been proven that organisms do adapt to changes in environment in order to increase the likelihood of their success. Adaptation and modification are fundamental aspects of evolution and there is no doubt that this occurs. Just ask a nearby bacteria.

Intelligent Design is speculation that their is a "creator" behind the creation. Until s/he comes out from behind the curtain, what difference does it make to science? We are asking how and why with the limited evidence we have around us. The argument for a creator is more in the realm of philosphy and religion, not science. If or when the ultimate creator is found, we can discuss with him how we found it so fascinating how these things work. Maybe s/he'll point us to the next horizon to reach.

[Warpy]

5. Darwin believed in intelligent design based on his study

of the eye. He doubted sheer chance could account for something that could turn reflected light into a picture of the world.

Should intelligent design be taught? This atheist thinks it's OK to teach it as something that some people believe, while other people think differently. Teaching it as fact is silly. It's opinion.

My objection is that once you bring an omnipotent god in, there is no longer any reason to keep questioning. Omnipotent gods answer all the questions by their mere presence and stifle further inquiry as blasphemous.

That's just not what science is all about.

[DrWeird]

7. Horseshit.

He just couldn't figure out how it had evolved. Mostly because he didn't know that much about the biology of eyes. It's well understood now.

[bryant69]

11. As a believe that's my take on it too

If they are teaching intelligent design instead of evolution that's wrong. IF they aer teaching intelligent design as fact or as science that's wrong. But teaching that evolution proves the non-existance of God is also wrong.

Maybe I don't understand Intelligent design--it seems like a blanket term that could refer to any belief in a creation that involves a God (whether that God did it in seven days or did it over millions of years through natural processes). In that light, being offended at intelligent design seems very similar to being offended that some people believe in God (or Gods).

Bryant
check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[The Doctor.]

16. I'm with that -

Intelligent design is a theory whose means of measurement simply don't exist yet.
To teach it as a theory in science class is fine so long as the teacher doesn't use it to push religion.

String theory is coming along nicely right now.

And I do believe in a Grand Unified Theory... I think it'll wind up looking more Grand and intricate before we solve it.

[Royal Observer]

193. That's exactly what we need

a Theory of Everything. I recently found that scientists are looking for a giant string some where in the universe that might have been coughed up at the Big Bang. Don't laugh. Ed Witten says it might be.

[immoderate]

17. Intelligent Design is bad science.

Teaching evolution requires no mention of god either way. To do so would be a non sequiter.

--IMM

[KittyWampus]

19. Intelligent Design Doesn't Require Any Mention Of God, Either

just because the Religious Fundies use the word and concept of a individual, seperate entity... doesn't mean that's accurate.

[The Doctor.]

21. Actually - it's not science at all...

It's a theory some believe to have scientific basis.

Nothing is science until we have the tools to measure it.
The math for this 'theory' just doesn't exixt yet- it's too big.

If by 'intelligent design' we are simply citing and inherent order of the universe, we are not necessarily saying that some omnipotent guy on a throne waved his hand and 'poof' there's a universe.

The fact that the Universe Orders ITSELF is intelligent. The Universe itself IS intelligent... not like us. My take on this is more Zen you could say.

Perhaps this should be relegated to a philosophy class until we have the tools.

[immoderate]

23. Right. Wishful thinking is not science.

No science, bad science, unscience...see the difference?:shrug:

I don't either.

--IMM

[The Doctor.]

27. Yes - there is a difference...

Bad science is creationism - because it makes up new laws to explain bad theories.

"not" science means we havent the tools to measure it.

Remember all those studies of Radioactivity in the 1600's?

Of course not - we couldn't measure it.

The notion of atomic particles was devised a hundred years before it could be measured - but even then they could test some of their hypotheses through experimentation.

'Intelligent Design' simply has no means of being measured just yet... but one day we will.

Why reject the Zen angle?
anything that can order itself has will and destination - even if it is simply inherent in the components.

[immoderate]

48. Check out auto-catalysis.

The tendency of molecules to organize themselves does not imply intelligence or will. Personifying nature is poetry, not science.

How do you explain snow flakes? They have order, symmetry, and each is unique. Is it evidence of the "will" of each snow flake to uniqueness?

Saying that something exists because we "can't measure it yet" doesn't sound scientific to me.

--IMM

[The Doctor.]

64. But how is the design of the snowflake "not" evidence either?

That is the point - this cannot be proven or disproven.

We do not have the tools to do so.

Therefore this argument is mostly futile.

You are simply wrong to say ID is bunk... right up until we can prove or disprove it. That's what being empirical is about.

Evolution outweighs Creationism by a significant degree based on the evidence.
Evolution is not contrary to intelligent design, there exist no data, therefore, to disprove ID.

You cannot say it's bunk, you cannot say it's fact.

I say the IDEA has merit - it should be pondered by thoughtful people at will.

If you have time - here's what I propose;

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=2796124&mesg_id=2796282

[DrWeird]

127. Hmm, basically you're saying God creates each little snowflake.

Not only is it poor science, seems pretty poor theology as well.

[The Doctor.]

145. You have also missed the point...

At no point have I said anything of the sort.

Go back and read my post, then understand it before you deign to 'guess' what I said.

But I'll make it simple for you;

This theory can neither be proven or disproven.

Period.

Get it?

[DrWeird]

156. Oh, I get your point. It's just a lousy point.

If a tree falls in a forest and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound? It sure does. Can it be proven either way? No, some jackass can always argue a tape record is a "person around to hear it." But that just gets trivial and childish, and like I said, both bad science and bad theology.

[The Doctor.]

163. Wrong again...

The physics and the math exists to PROVE a tree makes a sound when it falls.
One does not suspend the laws of physics in the absence of an observer. (Don't go quantum just yet...)

The ID theory is a thoughful notion which cannot be proven or disproven.

As I've said before; How do you know WE didn't create the universe?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=2796124&mesg_id=2796282

To equate what I'm saying to a childish dismissal is, in itself, childish.

[notundecided]

181. Maybe

stuff just happens. Who or what is behind the physical laws of
molecular behavior?

[Quill Pen]

So, hypothetically...

...if I believed all the bodies in the universe were crapped by flying monkeys, would that be a valid theory that must also receive equal time in the classroom? The Monkey Crap Theory? Could we also say that one's valid until we have the tools to measure it?

Intelligent design is a guess. "The universe is complex enough that it must have been structured by a superior being." And how complex is that? Where's the cutoff for being "complex" enough that it would have required the hand of such a being? Remember, we are the ones who assign "intelligence" to the order of the universe, so of course, it makes clockwork sense to us. Things that behave in a quantifiable and predictable manner are not necessarily the result of intelligence.

I'd certainly agree that it's more suitable material for Philosophy class than Science class.

[The Doctor.]

51. How do you know we weren't crapped out by flying monkeys?

LOL!

I love it!

Agreed - Intelligent design is philosophy until we can test for it.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=2796124&mesg_id=2796282

[dpibel]

108. And exactly who does this?

Could you point me to a person, any person, arguing or teaching that "evolution proves the non-existance of God"? As far as I can tell, the only people who believe that are people who believe in God, and find an alternative explanation of how we got here threatening to their belief system.

Evolution isn't about the existence of God. It's about the process and result of natural selection.

Religious people have made it an existence of God issue. Not scientists. For scientists, evolution is about, well, evolution.

[rman]

137. no-one is teaching that evolution proves the non-existance of God

science simply does not concern itself with god.

[rawtribe]

15. God botched the eye

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html

Through natural selection, different types of eyes have emerged in evolutionary history -- and the human eye isn't even the best one, from some standpoints. Because blood vessels run across the surface of the retina instead of beneath it, it's easy for the vessels to proliferate or leak and impair vision. So, the evolution theorists say, the anti-evolution argument that life was created by an "intelligent designer" doesn't hold water: If God or some other omnipotent force was responsible for the human eye, it was something of a botched design.

<snip>

Here's how some scientists think some eyes may have evolved: The simple light-sensitive spot on the skin of some ancestral creature gave it some tiny survival advantage, perhaps allowing it to evade a predator. Random changes then created a depression in the light-sensitive patch, a deepening pit that made "vision" a little sharper. At the same time, the pit's opening gradually narrowed, so light entered through a small aperture, like a pinhole camera.

Every change had to confer a survival advantage, no matter how slight. Eventually, the light-sensitive spot evolved into a retina, the layer of cells and pigment at the back of the human eye. Over time a lens formed at the front of the eye. It could have arisen as a double-layered transparent tissue containing increasing amounts of liquid that gave it the convex curvature of the human eye.

In fact, eyes corresponding to every stage in this sequence have been found in existing living species. The existence of this range of less complex light-sensitive structures supports scientists' hypotheses about how complex eyes like ours could evolve. The first animals with anything resembling an eye lived about 550 million years ago. And, according to one scientist's calculations, only 364,000 years would have been needed for a camera-like eye to evolve from a light-sensitive patch.

[wurzel]

26. Great stuff! People always forget the "wall" of survival.

We "improve" because only the "improvements" to survival survive. Any other change dies. It is a one-way ticket. It is the "wall of death" that makes evolution possible.

[Trajan]

106. This is an EXCELLENT example ....

of the reality of imperfect existence, and the unreality of presumedly perfect deities ....

There is NO DOUBT that the human system of systems is amazing ....

JUST as amazing as a giraffe's SoS ...

JUST as amazing as a Rose's SoS ...

But: are they the product of perfect design ? ...

NOW we have an aesthetic argument on our hands: What is perfect ? ... to exist as the absolute apex of a class ? ... A grand exemplar of an object or subject class ? ...

To be without peer or possible betterment ? ...

The abrahamic deities; Yahweh, Allah, and even Jesus, are defined as 'perfect' and 'omnipotent' ...

IF they are perfect, and they act to create something: what would be the result of their actions ???

What is the resultant product of perfect and omnipotent production ? ...

Are WE, earthly animals ..... that 'product of perfect production' ? ...

Does the weakness and fault of humankind in nearly EVERY aspect of their existence qualify it's creator as an omnipotent and perfect creator ????

Can a perfect god EVER create an imperfect world full of imperfect beings ??? .... Can a perfection create a 'perfect' imperfection ? ...

Doesn't this notion violate the law of non-contradiction ? ... Like being god and not god .. simultaneously ?

Hmmmmmm ..... I am sure there are some aspects of human 'design' that could be improved ..... eh ? ....

[Solon]

111. The fact that our plumbing and reproductive systems...

happen to be the same, and, especially for guys, fuck each other up, would negate that a perfect being designed us. JMHO though.

[seaofcrisis]

76. good point

I too am an atheist who isn't afraid of teaching kids different ideas from different cultures.

Clearly though, evolution should be taught in a science class, ID if it's taught at all, should be taught in a cultural context, ie: "some people believe that this, this, and this, are evidence that the universe was designed." That's like one whole class out of 180 days of school in a year. I don't think it's going to destroy their fragile little minds.

I also think it would be useful to kids to learn what the greeks thought, and the babylonians, etc.

I also think it would be fine to teach kids that some people believe the apollo landings were fake. That doesn't worry me at all. The smart ones will figure out for themselves that those conspiracy theories are bunk.

The bottom line as I see it is, we should really stop arguing about this and actually teach kids. That'd be great if we could do that.

[Bill McBlueState]

157. teaching intelligent design

What does it even mean to teach intelligent design? What does a test question on intelligent design look like? How do the lectures go that week in biology class? What lab activities do the students do?

"Intelligent design" is nothing more than saying "Some people believe their god created the universe." So the teacher says that, and then what? There's no body of knowledge to communicate here. High school kids still need to learn the workings of natural selection. The philosophy of it all might make for a nice BS session on the bus ride home, but it doesn't really lend itself to science instruction.

[LibertyorDeath]

24. The brightest of the magical thinkers had to come up with

something more credible sounding than Cretinism
They decided on "Intelligent Design" That's the ticket we'll put the word Intelligent in the name that'll show those Evolutionists.

All Religion is based on Belief & belief is based on magical thinking
You become worm food when you die while the idea of going to this Heaven place sounds good it is a crock of shit and everyone knows it that's why it's existence can't be proved and why you must have a "belief" in its existence.


"Intelligent Design" is the latest shit theory from the "but there must be a god crowed"

It will be relegated to the shit pile of History along with all the other you just have to believe crap.

If the world survives the death throws of organized "belief" religion
then future generations will look back & say what were they thinking.

They weren't they were "Believing"

True believers are a force to be reckoned with they are illogical & dangerous they do things based on belief not fact or reason.

[Solon]

35. I cannot believe we have to fight this battle over and over again....

ID is NOT a scientific theory, it is not even a valid hypothesis for science to answer. It cannot make predictions, cannot be repeated, nor is it disprovable, as it is framed today, it will never be considered a valid scientific theory, EVER! It should not be introduced in a science class of any sort, even with the church/state issue, its just a bad way to educate kids.

The biggest problem is that most people have no idea what science is to begin with. Science has NOTHING to do with the question of WHY, like why are we here, etc. This "Theory" attempts to explain it, and as such, is NOT SCIENCE! Science is specifically about HOW things work NOT WHY they work the way they do. The process of scientific inquiry makes no attempt at answering questions best left to religion or philosophy schools of thought. THIS IS NOT SCIENCE, this is a philosophy/religion masquerading as science, and does not belong alongside evolution or any other scientific theory.

[Finding Rawls]

37. I'm not a scientist and am not as familiar with the language as you

but I see no reason why an alternative, even a non scientific alternative, can't be provided alongside evolution.

[Solon]

40. Jesus H. Christ...

If you want to teach ignorance in the scientific process, go ahead, and let the rest of the world pass us by.

[Bill McBlueState]

159. non-scientific alternative

Should we provide a non-scientific alternative to everything presented in science class? Why single out evolution for special treatment?

Maybe while we're at it we should provide a non-mathematical alternative to everything presented in math class.

[SemperEadem]

188. non-science doesn't belong in a science class

just like non-math doesn't belong in a math class... teaching something that is ignorant of the facts is as bad as lying.

Religious ideas are not scientific facts and don't belong being taught in a science class. And if religious ideas are being taught in a pubic school setting, then all religious ideas, including Islam, should be taught or none should be taught.

To teach non-science knocks this country's children out of competition for science-based, better paying jobs in their future. Children of other countries aren't being taught ID--they are being taught science, not some half-baked argument dressed up as fact.

Were I an employer of scientists 15-20 yrs from now working in a technical/scientific/biological/geological industry, I would pass American children up in my consideration for jobs in favor of those educated in other countries because at least I'd know that they aren't bringing their ignorance in basic scientific fact to my company.

Teach ID in a sociological/philosophical setting, but not as a science, and teach all religion's philosophy on the creation of the universe, not just xtianity.

[ChairOne]

189. Imagine my chagrin....

... to find so many DUers who either can't grasp the ideas you wrote, or else think they're not valuable...

I thought I was just gonna get a choir of "booyah!"s.... lol - Never overestimate the American public... gotta keep repeating that to myself...

[Finding Rawls]

36. I always thought that a democratic value

was that the best and most legitimate ideas will hold up under scrutiny. By allowing Intelligent Design to be taught in schools we are not relegating our children to be idiots. Evolution will be taught also and as many of you, and I, believe, evolution is the more compelling theory.

Why suppress an idea that we don't believe holds up?

[Solon]

38. It not about supression of an idea...

its about putting it in the right context, for crying out loud, why not have astrology taught alongside astronomy as well. ID belongs in a theology or philosophy course, NOT A SCIENCE CLASSROOM!

[Finding Rawls]

41. Well, I think it really comes down to allowing people choice

If a local community wants a teacher to provide alternatives to evolution, then so be it. It's not for you or I to decide the curriculum of every public school around the country. Intelligent design does not violate the principle of seperation of Church and State and should be allowed.

[Solon]

45. WHY THE FUCK WOULD YOU WANT THAT!?!?!?

As I said before, and I'll say again, IT IS ONLY VALID IN A PHILOSOPHY OR RELIGION CLASS, if kids are taught this, even in addition to evolution, take an entrance exam to go to college, and answered with the ID theory based answers, and fail the test, can they sue the school and teacher for being stupid?

[ChairOne]

47. How about alternatives to gravity?

How about alternatives to the definite integral?

Will you ever simply allow scientists to decide what science is? Or will the "local community" get to play with this stuff too?

"I think non-euclidean geometry ought to be banned from school curricula..."

sheesh

[Finding Rawls]

49. Once again

I believe the strongest ideas will prevail, in this case evolution. I don't believe suppressing ideas that people want to be included in the discussion will help matters any. I have never heard of an argument to ban non-euclidean geometry. It would be a poor idea, but it should be allowed. Then when people realize their kids aren't prepared, they would demand it be put back in the school.

I find it odd that people are so adamant about banning an idea, not a scientific idea, an idea form the public discourse.

[Solon]

54. Still stuck on the idea that it is being banned?

Science is not ruled by committee and neither are its theories put to the public to declare validity. They are put to the test by actualy observation of our enviroment, BY FACTS NOT OPINION. Using your idea, we would be so flooded with opinions that facts are thrown to the wayside and we become the backwater of the world. I don't see what that would accomplish besides pleasing those who prefer us to be ignorant of the world.

[Selatius]

59. You're essentially allowing people to put ID in the WRONG CONTEXT

It should not be taught in a science class. It should be taught in a theology or philosophy class, not in the chem lab. You're mixing oil and water. If a community wants Intelligent Design taught in a school, then let them have a crack at it, but they should keep it separate from science.

[Bandit]

73. Why not teach ideas in church or home and teach science in school?

I don't want my kids taught other people's ideas. I want them taught fact. 2+2=4 is not an idea. I want my children taught what can be proved as being true and not just someone's idea of how they think it should be. If my kids want to learn ideas then they can take a philosophy class.

[Solon]

50. Actually why not change the value of PI while we're at it...

I mean, it supposed to be 3, according to the Bible and all that, how far do we take it? It fucking ridiculous!

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Solon]

58. I could only imagine the repercussions if that had passed....

I wonder how many of their high school grads would have failed their geometry quizzes in college after that happened.

[immoderate]

66. Sorry. I think the PI debate was a hoax.

It was a good one though.

--IMM

[ChairOne]

70. Your wording was ambiguous...

hoax in the sense of it-never-happened - not true - it really did happen.

hoax in the sense of the guy who sponsored the law was pulling one over on the rest of the idiotic Indiana House - true -

but that's the point of all of this - you have to insist that the truth be taught, and not give in to the majority of America that seems to want to deliberately learn about falsehood...

[immoderate]

84. I believe it never happened.

There was no actual proposal for such a law. It came up in a thread here very recently. I'll see if I can find it.

On edit: here 'tis. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=263x823

--IMM

[ChairOne]

96. I think we're talking about different things....

The one I'm talking about actually happened, and it was in 1897... I think I put a link in somewhere above...

[immoderate]

110. Seems like a different instance. Sorry

Doesn't make it any less ridiculous. Imagine a copyright on the value of PI. I think that Euclid or maybe it was Archimedes, had it worked out to about a hundred decimal places.

There is an infinite series that will allow calculation of any degree of precision desired. Not enough room here for an infinite series.

--IMM

[immoderate]

68. It should be taught in a logic class as an example of lack thereof.

--IMM

[Bill McBlueState]

160. alternatives to the definite integral

alternatives to the definite integral... *lol*

[Royal Observer]

192. Strange that you brought that up

The man that formulated the law of Gravitational Force believed in God.
"God does not throw dice."-Albert Einstein remarked when someone asked him what he thought of Quantum Mechanics.
But WS said it best, see "Hamlet", Act 1 scene 5

[Finding Rawls]

62. Wow

This has gotten out of hand. I never thought that on this board I'd be subjected to personal attacks because I wanted to allow open discussion of ideas. Do you think every kid taught about the idea of ID is going to immediately submit to its absolute truth. I went to Catholic School and I don't believe that the Eucharist is the actual body of Christ. I don't care what definition you give ID. It isn't science. I agree. It can't be tested right now. It's an idea. At the very least it leads people to consider another possibility. And all of the responses that suggest that every opinion and idea should then be taught in schools, well, all I can say is that our schools don't operate like that in general. If a couple of parents want one of their "theories" taught in their kids school, it's probably not going to happen. I'm sad though that you all feel so strongly about keeping ID out of the schools, not because it's ID, but because it implies that truth can be shown, and those who do not know submit to the truth will be made to.

[immoderate]

74. Nothing personal. Science follows the rules of logic. ID does not.

Therefore, it should be dismissed from the science curriculum. Don't be insulted.

I used to do an exercise in my math classes. I'd let the students vote on the right answer to math problems. The jackpot came when the majority voted that the wrong answer was right.

The kids with the right answer would get very upset. "We know that they're wrong," they'd say. I'd sit back and say, "Get them to change their vote."

Good example of the tyranny of the majority.

--IMM

[ChairOne]

103. Better is the SImpson's:

Principal Skinner, if I recall:

Prayer has no place in school, just like facts have no place within organized religion

rofl

[Solon]

97. I think that is part of the problem...

As Indiana Jones said in the Last Crusade "Archeology(a Science) is based on Facts, not Truth, if Truth is what you are looking for, the Philosophy class is right down the hall." I may have bastardized the quote a little bit, and I defiantly need to use spell check more often.

[dpibel]

122. So what's it take?

Simple majority? 2/3 vote?

On the one hand, you say, "And all of the responses that suggest that every opinion and idea should then be taught in schools, well, all I can say is that our schools don't operate like that in general." But then you say ID for sure should be. So what's your criterion?

I mean, how can you be such a strong proponent of the free marketplace of ideas, and exclude some?

A question you've skirted: You say that ID is not science. Do you, then, believe it should be taught alongside evolution in science classes? If not, where do you suggest adding this democratically compelled idea into the curriculum?

[Finding Rawls]

140. I feel that I've worded my view poorly

I did not intend to say, nor do I think I did, that "ID for sure should be" taught in schools. This all started with someone saying that the Supreme Court should, and possesed the right,to ban the teaching of ID in public schools. I strongly disagree with both of these suggestions. The Supreme Court should not, and I don't believe has the power to, ban the teaching of ID in public schools.

I said that not every opinion will make its way into schools curriculums . I believe that is true. Not every crackpot idea that some person has will make its way, or should make its way, into the school curriculum. This is not a statement that is incompatible with the marketplace of ideas. The marketplace of ideas is the totality of all discussion. Adults take the most active role in this marketplace. Ideas that make their way to the forefront of the marketplace of ideas are, in my mind, in possession of some degree of respect by others. If their are enough adults in a local community to force the idea of ID into their schools curriculum, then its justified. This allows those ideas that are currently victorious in teh marketplace of ideas to be taught.

And I don't have any opinion on where it should be taught. I'm not a teacher and don't have enough background in the area. I think we're becoming a little strict, however, with regards to the content of a grade school or high school curriculum. Who's to say that an idea, not scientific in nature, can't be introduced in a science class to broaden the scope of its students thought.

[ChairOne]

147. great.....

so it's not bad enough, for you, that america is bringing up the rear in math and science, now you want to exacerbate things by pumping our science classes full of crap that manifestly is "not scientific in nature"?

Americans are stupid, gettin stupider, and you wanna make it worse. In a nutshell, that's what's wrong with America - no interest in or respect for education - real education.

[Finding Rawls]

149. So I guess

you and other lucky brilliant Americans were able to resist the draw of Intelligent Design. Because obviously you've heard the argument and were able to resist its power. How in the world were you able to do it?

[ChairOne]

150. lucky, certainly - brilliant, certainly not...

The way you run away from answering direct questions is admirable. Not really; actually, it's kinda contemptible...

It's just too bad more Americans are on your side, not caring about reality and truth, rather than on my side. Idiotic Americans are the cause of essentially every problem facing this nation. It seems we can only expect things to get worse.

Chinese high schoolers routinely do better on the GRE than American college graduates. But thank The Almighty that ID won't be left out of the American curriculum. Those stupid stupid Chinese...

Sheesh.

[Finding Rawls]

153. I sense some facist ideology in your remarks

"It's just too bad more Americans are on your side, not caring about reality and truth, rather than on my side. Idiotic Americans are the cause of essentially every problem facing this nation."

You sound like a Christian Fundamentalist. Talking of knowing the "reality and truth" while others are too ignorant to know what's good for them. This is ridiculous. As I've said now a number of times, evolution will not be pushed to the background in schools because it is the strongest explanation for how we developed. Your insistance on absolute disregard for others ideas, not scientific ideas and not scientific theories, just their ideas, is so unbelievably against what I thought the Democratic Party stood for. Belief in ID is a minority opinion in America and not one that is likely to gain much ground. Why are you so insistent on bashing other people? Just let it go. Why file lawsuits. You're using the force of the government to suppress an idea.

[dpibel]

151. Shouldn't you know?

Didn't you start out on this thread representing yourself as a firm proponent of evolution, but one who could see the value of a cool idea, presented at the request of a majority, or plurality, or significant number of interested (albeit not necessarily informed) people?

OOPS!!! Post #4 of this very topic here. Sez Finding Rawls:

Evolution, which I believe to be true, is a theory.

Wail sheeit, there, Finding Rawls. Looks ta me like you mus' be one o' them lucky brilliant Americans who were able to resist the draw of intelligent design. How in the world were you able to do it?

Or could it be that you have indulged in a wee little colorless material misrepresentation, just for the good of the cause.

As you said in an earlier post: you're not really presenting your idea very well.

[Finding Rawls]

155. Well, someone's ramping up the personal attacks

and leaving the content and context of what I'm saying on the side of the road. I believe in evolution. I'm not a proponent of ID being taught in schools. But using the Supreme Court of the United States to remove subject matter from a school's curriculum is wrong. It's as simple as that. The Supreme Court should not, AND DOES NOT, possess the power to decide what subject matter is appropriate in schools, as long as it does not violate principles of the Constitution.

[SemperEadem]

190. as it relates to constitutionality, it most certainly does

that's why creationism was thrown out by them. Proponents of ID are sneaking creationism back in under the disguise of ID. That's why the ACLU and ASCS have taken up this case. It's a matter of semantics, but what it is hasn't changed. It's creationism under a different name.

[rman]

132. there IS an alternative to evolution

it's called religion and it's tought in church

how about a fair deal:
we'll teach religion in science class
if you'll teach science in church

[The Doctor.]

44. Correct, ID should not be taught as science...

Because there is not yet scientific basis.

I'm simply worried that a well meaning physics teacher might be burned at the stake if he or she so much as BRINGS IT UP in class.
The difference between teaching it as fact and using it as a mental exercise is the difference between science and philosophy.

I'm fine with the ID philosophy, and a philosophy is how it should be presented - maybe we'll be able to test it one day... say 1000 years from now...

[gtar100]

42. The proponents of ID are claiming it's based in science

I don't know the intimate details about ID so I couldn't argue in court against it. Hopefully these lawsuits will put somebody to the task of scientifically analyzing their claims. Since they claim ID is "science", then they surely won't mind the scientific process used to assess their claims. And if they are "true" scientists, then they certainly will accept the data that disproves their theory.

Naaa. Even real scientists struggle with that, never mind pseudo-scientists.

[immoderate]

53. ID is the antithesis of science. It's religion.

It's like saying the Second Coming is science.

--IMM

[The Doctor.]

55. "Grand unified Theory" is being chased by scientists too....

But there has not yet been a method, mathematic or otherwise, developed to definitively test for it.

One day we will be able to test for this - until then, any argument about whether it's right or wrong is pointless... neither side is right.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=2796124&mesg_id=2796282

[immoderate]

63. GUT is a dream. But the method to test it is same as the method

of testing any other hypothesis. It explains and predicts all observeed phenomena. How would the intelligent designer hypothesis fit into this scheme? He (she/it) would have to make an appearance.

--IMM

[The Doctor.]

71. That is correct...

Again, we're back to the inability to prove or disprove.

There's no way to predict and measure for ID, but that still doesn't mean it's wrong.

[immoderate]

75. Again. The logic is fallacious.

It involves affirming the consequent. It's an example of what scientists, and philosophers cannot do.

It's allowed in poetry, though.

--IMM

[The Doctor.]

79. You mean the argument that;

"Because there is an intricate order, there must be intelliegence involved."

Of course it's fallacious as logic - because it's Not logic at all.

It's a reasoned assumption - you know; the sort of thing anyone who pursues science has to do once in a while.

It Still doesn't mean ID is right or wrong, true or false.

[immoderate]

81. Sure you have to make assumptions.

But you surely don't have to make that assumption. Evolution works very well without it. And then you need to test the assumption. You can't use your inability to test the assumption as proof of its validity.

--IMM

[Solon]

85. Me, personally...

I think our universe was a fuckup by a bunch of extrademensional aliens, who just are scratching thier heads, thinking, WTF? Think of the sci-fi book Cosm for that theory. Hint: its about our scientists accidently creating a whole other new universe in a university lab, and not even knowing how the hell they did it. ;)

[The Doctor.]

88. Well of course that begs the question...

Why does evolution work?

It's like asking; 'Why does math work?'

Why is a question that by design pervades both science and philoshophy.

ID is more about 'Why' (as I believe you also alluded to) than about 'How', but that still does not preclude it from becoming science any more than someone asking 'Why does it rain?' could shoot down meteorolgy.

Now we have to learn to ask 'How'.

[immoderate]

101. When I was young...

my mother told me that the sound of thunder is God expressing his anger. The Bible sort of backed her up on this.

Later on I learned that thunder has other causes. It's an atmospheric disturbance caused by discharge of static electricity called lightening. Which in turn is caused by friction with air currents caused by heating from solar energy, etc.

Now some thunder could still be the anger of God. Is it logical to think so? How do I know the difference? Would you teach that in a science class?

--IMM

[Solon]

104. Hell I was taught...

That thunder was God bowling, then again my parents always thought he at least had a sense of humor.

[immoderate]

112. Of course God has a sense of humor.

How else can you explain farts?

--IMM

[Solon]

117. Hey, that reminds me...

[immoderate]

120. LOL. Can I trust you?

--IMM

[Solon]

123. You probably shouldn't...

[immoderate]

128. Ouch! That smarts.

--IMM

[Solon]

129. Your telling me?

I just shredded my best pair of pants.

[PurityOfEssence]

72. Intelligent Design: the world's so confusing; therefore I have the answer

This is the heart of the silliness of extreme faith: it's based on shocking egotism to ward off the perplexing and unknown.

The watchmaker theory is the heart of this folly, and its proponents like the idiotic Dennis Prager express it thus: if you stumble across a watch on a beach (or as he puts it, a keyboard on the moon) it pretty much guarantees that someone made it. The problem is that this was something made by someone with no greater powers than you, and you know that plenty of them exist. The world wasn't necessarily "made" so much as it "happened", and if you think this is a tidy and perfect system, you're bent. To see the world and not understand it doesn't prove that there's something more powerful than you; it just shows that you couldn't do it. It also doesn't mean that it was "done" by someone. All it shows is that it's beyond your understanding, and to rage in the wind and proclaim understanding is beyond mere folly.

To use ignorance as a proof of genius is ridiculous: if you encounter something you don't understand, you've only encountered something you don't understand. To claim that you must have the answer because you're bereft of any other explanation is to tacitly claim that you're the most superior organism that exists, and in your godly understanding, there simply couldn't be anything else.

Shockingly, those with the least knowledge, information and understanding always tend to be the ones with the fatuous pronouncements of universal understanding.

To claim that one knows how the universe works is an extremely egotistic pronouncement that reveals one's fear of the unknown and an unwillingness to exist with uncertainty. Using ignorance as a proof of knowledge is just plain silly. "I can't see any other explanation, therefore I have the answer"; can there be a greater demonstration of self-aggrandizing denial? Yeah, sure, there are competing examples of human idiocy, but it stretches the imagination to come up with one.

Inability to imagine other explanations isn't proof, it's merely confirmation of one's limitations. Once one accepts one's limitations, how can one presume to define that which is beyond us all?

[immoderate]

78. That's it! Dennis Prager designed the universe!

I love to hear Dennis describe God. You just know that he's talking about himself.

--IMM

[Solon]

77. How to create a scientific theory, by me, abridged version....

OK this is going to be an EXTREMELY simple explanation of how scientific inquiry actually works. Please jump in at any of my inaccuracies at any time:

Step 1: This guy is out in the freezing weather on a bright December day, capturing snowflakes falling to the ground with a glass slide, out of curiousity, he looks at each one he captures under a microscope. He had a question burning in the back of his mind, is it really true that no 2 snowflakes are alike?

Step 2: So this guy did this for a couple of weeks, weather permitting, he even simulated snow in his freezer to see the results from there. As the weeks turn into a couple of months, and his recordings and observations lead him to one conclusion, it is true that no two snowflakes are alike.

Step 3: So he now formed a hypothesis as to how this could be true, that the structure of the H2O Molecule allows for enough randomness as to never repeat its structure while frozen. Why Jack Frost prefers it this way never enters his mind.

Step 4: So he tests his hypothesis by trying to simulate it in a computer, too slow in real life to begin with. So he freezes water in the computer, billions of times a second, and not once is the pattern repeated. At this point he feels he has enough data to publish his work, so he does in a peer reviewed journal.

Step 5: So a shitload of scientists around the world see this data and decide to challenge this guy's theory with their own varied methods. Some us liquid nitrogen to quick freeze the water, others use better equipment to observe the data, but they all eventually accept his hypothesis as valid at this point.

Step 6: Now this guy's hypothesis is now a valid scientific theory, until someone else can think of a better one as to how this works, it will stand up to the test of time.

Ok that's is an extremely short version, please, any comments are welcome and I'll be here all week, I promise. :)

[immoderate]

80. If I may...

Allow me to suggest that your analogy is not complete.

Since each snowflake is different, but yet evidence certain properties such as symmetry, and hexagonalness(?) therefore there must be an intelligent designer behind the formation of each snowflake that understands the principles of point symmetry, and can count to six (definite sign of intelligence.)

We still don't know why Jack Frost (or Jack Schitt) prefers this, but we know he must be there.

How'd I do?

--IMM

[Solon]

82. Ha, good one...

I did forget to mention the negative and positive charges for the atoms in an H2O molecule, as well as their arrangement in the molecule, and how that effects each molecules interactions with each other, even when frozen. Hense the reason for the symmetry and why they are all 6 pointed, 3*2 after all(EXTREMELY SIMPLE, and I'm NOT a scientist nor chemist, bear with me). Jack Frost apparently just lets nature takes its course, eh?

[The Doctor.]

83. That's reaching pretty far... which, I assume, is your point...

I propose that any mathematical formula subjected to so many magnitudes of repetition will eventually replicate.

(You know - give an infinite number of Chimps an infinite number of typerwriters for an infinite number of years and eventually one of those Chimps will learn to pronounce "Nuclear".)

[Solon]

89. I thought the analogy is was they could compose Shakespear...

but actually you are right, but the permutations are so large, that at this point, the theory of total randomness would hold true, untill we have the computing power to actually calculate that high. Another example would be PI itself, it spreads out into totally random numbers on to infinity, but that is only a theory, they may repeat in a pattern, way down the line, but we haven't found it yet, so the assumption of today would hold correctly, and any theory otherwise is actually meaningless until the day we have the computing power to see the pattern.

[immoderate]

90. You bring up a good point.

Does the existence of the works of Shakespeare (the usual argument) imply that there was once an infinite number of chimps, typing for an infinite number of years?

--IMM

[The Doctor.]

92. Let's ask the White House... n/t

[Bandit]

91. Ever heard of pi?

:shrug:

[The Doctor.]

94. Oh yes - even saw the movie...

Great stuff.

(I really like blueberry)

I've seen PI extrapolated out to one thousand places... it really does feel like language after a while.

[ChairOne]

87. old stuff.....

You're talking eessentially about what is usually called the hypothetical-deductive method, championed most strongly, perhaps, by a dude named Carl Hempel. This was back in the 30s or some such time.

That's known to be an almost completely inaccurate view of how science and scientists work.

Again, I can't recommend it strongly enough: Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. It's old too - 70s - but all roads leading to wisdom in thinking about the scientific enterprise go through this book.

[Solon]

93. Thanks for the book suggestion...

I said it was simple, and may not be accurate, but I thought it was OK for a beginner anyways, I'm not a scientist or anything, and the theory I made up is just that, made up, so that was unscientific in the first place, give me an A for effort OK? :)

[ChairOne]

100. In the immortal words of Bill Walton/John Gooden....

never confuse effort with achievement...

LOL - been waitin for the longest time to use that one....

All good tho :)

[Solon]

105. Hey, I did accomplish something...

you using that quote, all right!!! I will admit I missed quite a few things in it, hope it doesn't confuse the issue too much.

[ChairOne]

107. LOL - eom

[GreatCaesarsGhost]

86. fundamentalists don't believe in evolution, but

they all want their children to "marry well."

[The Doctor.]

98. GOOD ONE!

I love it - social Darwinism!

Look up Malthusian principles too for a little fun.

(Darwin is believed to have been overtly influenced by Malthus)

[Occulus]

95. Everyone on this thread, take a look at this:

http://kuoi.asui.uidaho.edu/~kamikaze/doc/many-worlds-faq.html

Explanation of the "many worlds theory" in quantum physics. Hawking agrees with this interpretation. Among other consequences, Schrodinger's Cat is both alive and dead, but each in seperate universes, one to accommodate both possibilities.

Wonder what a fundie would think of a theory of existence that allows for every possibility to occur? Would they be able to handle such a concept?

[Solon]

99. I have heard of this before...

As the Multiple Histories theorium. Heard of it through Alternate History books and message boards.

[The Doctor.]

102. That the observer is responsible for the collapse of

probability into states goes a long way toward this theory.

I've seen this before - fun stuff.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=2796124&mesg_id=2796282

[Solon]

115. This would be hell (pun intended) for ID advocates...

Imagine trying to explain that one universe has an ID, now it could be a infinite number of them.

[0rganism]

139. Hehe, this is funny. I'll take a stab at it, tho I'm not an ID advocate

Of course, the explanation will be of the same order as the original premise of ID -- "some things are too complex to occur naturally, hence they must be the result of design." Now a lot of ID proponents will say that evolution is part of the design: life forms would be designed to be self-correcting over generations, just like some computer programs modify their own instruction memory space during run-time. Only certain building blocks, i.e. eyeballs or chicken feet or whatever you happen to think is irreducibly complicated at the time, require explicit design.

Offhand, I can think of 2 non-exclusive ways an ID proponent would have to account for the "many universes" interpretation (aka Everett's, IIRC)

1.
Suppose a designer of an Everett-style quantum multiverse, such that the design spawns tiny variations of itself as each quantum event occurs. One designer, many outcomes. This designer could, in turn, tweak the parameters of any of the very numerous quantum variants, which would hold for that universe and all its "quantum children", so to speak, at will.

2.
Suppose a designer within, or subject to, such a multiversal quantum effect. As the multiverse spawns variations, so too does the designer. As with our first designer, this designer is capable of tweaking parameters, but only within the constraints of its universe, let's call it a designerverse. Design in this case, as with everything else, occurs in parallel.

1. & 2.
One way to combine the two ideas is to consider the designer in the first instance to be something of a "designer designer", insofar as it designs an intelligent designer to "optimize" the universe and duplicate along with it's quantum processes. This designer makes things of irreducible complexity for its own designerverse. The designer designer may or may not be able to tweak parameters in any given designerverse, either way could fit someone's preference.

How'd I do? Kind of off topic, and totally by chance, I think the combined idea is pretty close to what I've gleaned about the Mormon idea of the afterlife wherein faithful followers get their own planets to rule, in cooperation with the uber-God...

[immoderate]

141. Well that sure cleared things up. LOL.

And Oh, those Mormons.

Seriously, (seriously?) got your idea (had to read it more than once) and I'm sure that it solves the issue about as much as you'd intended.

--IMM

[0rganism]

146. And I challenge anyone to prove me wrong! ANYONE!

Hahaha! Not so brave now, are you, science guys? Think you can compete with my army of Mighty Mormon Quantum Replicators? Haha! Hahaha!



Come to think of it, almost every episode of MMPR and its numerous derivatives contains at least one instance of Intelligent Design. Maybe we can show the kids episodes of the Dino Thunder series in addition to the regular lesson plans about evolution to satisfy any ID teaching requirements that worm their way into the science curriculum.

"See, kids? Our Intelligent Designers were just like Mesogog, but we're not completely sure about the cartoony evil attitude. Now turn back to chapter 10 in your textbooks, where we'll learn more about allele frequencies."

[fob]

109. Who created god?

It'd be funny if it wasn't so serious that something called "intelligent design" is designed to make you dumber, by rejecting evidence over faith.

[Solon]

113. Even better, which god?

These ID folks seem so Christ centric, don't you think.

[fob]

114. I'd accept an intelligent answer to EITHER question.

:evilgrin:

[immoderate]

116. God's parents.

--IMM

[fob]

118. Touche, and a few follow ups. Who created god's parents?

Is/was god an only child? Are god's parents also omniscient beings? How far back does their family tree go?

[immoderate]

119. Ah, I should have expected that.

Reminds me of the tale of the medicine man who was explaining that the earth rests on the back of a great turtle.

What does the turtle stand on?

Another turtle.

And what does that turtle stand on?

It's turtles all the way down!

--IMM

[fob]

121. TURTLES! Now THAT makes sense!

Cheers!

[Baconfoot]

124. Intelligent design has no merit since there is no evidence for it.

If there were any evidence for it, it might be in the running for the title "scientific theory" but there isn't, so it's not.

(On Edit: This is a pretty controversial position. It rules out plenty of theories one might one to let in as scientific theories. But such is life.)

[immoderate]

130. Congratulations ChairOne, on kicking off a great thread!

This thread has everything!

--IMM

[Solon]

131. Congrats ChairOne, very stimulating thread...

Hey IMM, not everything...



Now it has everthing.

[immoderate]

133. Solon, Do you have a picture ready for everything?

--IMM

[Solon]

135. I'm a quick researcher of anything, really.

I think of something, look up the facts(or pictures) and then put them up. Though I will say I'm in a smartass mood today, could be that this subject brought the devil out of me. :evilgrin:

[ChairOne]

138. lol - thx guys! /eom

[DebJ]

134. I live in the county where this stupidity is going on, though not in

that school district. I just moved here last year and found that York County has 17 school districts....ridiculous...this way the taxpayers pay 17 Superintendents $150,000 a year, to supervise one high school each, or maybe two, plus the middle and elementary schools. GEE....if you knocked this down to ONE district (like in Maryland), and even paid something crazy like $300,000 a year, we'd still have almost ONE MILLION MORE DOLLARS PER YEAR FOR ....HEY, HOW ABOUT TEXT BOOKS?? Sorry, these people up here are just nuts. Local control can be a dangerous thing, as this controversy clearly displays. They need some sane people in Dover. If Dover doesn't have them, then they need the help of RATIONAL people in the rest of the county!
Intelligent Design is just one example of the stupidity of microscopic politics.
Personally, I believe in intelligent design enacted through evolution. But that is a spiritual/religious personal choice, NOT one to be taught in schools. Why don't they teach Karmic Rules of the Universe while they are at it?
Sign me: embarrassed to have to admit I live in Pennsylvania.
(Lots of wild news stories from here hit CNN this past year..)

[Solon]

136. Imagine how I feel...

Everytime someone here says "Moran" it immortalizes my hometown.

[really annoyed]

152. Oh Geez

Just throw "intelligent design" and creationism in the classroom along with evolution.

At this point, I don't really care. Present all the evidence, and let the kids make up their own damn minds.

There, problem solved.

[Finding Rawls]

154. I think you're being sarcastic

but that's my view with regards to ID. The kids aren't going to buy it. Americans are not stupid. Evolution will be believed by nearly all Americans.

[Bridget Burke]

161. ID is a philosophical theory.

Teach it in philosophy class. Although, I'm not sure how many schools have room for such in their curriculum.

[dpibel]

166. I think *you're* being sarcastic

But it could just be disingenuous.

Evolution is already not believed by the majority of Americans. Please explain how injecting a disguised theistic argument into the curriculum will suddenly change their minds.

[JonTheGeek]

162. Intelligent Design IS TOTAL CRAP.

The problem with inteliigent design is that there is no empirical evidence for it other than that the universe exists. It is not an alternative to evolution by any means. Evolution is backed up by HEAPS of observational data.

The basic theory behind intelligent design is that the universe exists, and is really complicated, therefore something must have created it. There is absolutely NO reason to assume that the universe was created by some 'being' unless you first assume that this being exists.

Watch:

The universe was created by an intelligent designer. If that is the case, what created the designer? The designer must have been as complex as the universe, which would mean that he would also have to have been designed by something... Perhaps an intelligent designer designer? But who designed the designer's designer?

As you can see, the intelligent design theory is needlessly complicated. If we are going to assume that the designer in all of his complexity existed without a designer, then why should we assume that the universe requires a designer? If we say that the Designer (God) had a designer, the question of who designed the designer's designer's... expands infinitely.

Wow, I just disproved intelligent designed and it only took me maybe 5 minutes. Now why should this be taught in schools?

[The Doctor.]

164. Ha Ha.... you have been fooled by the illusion of

Time as being linear...

You've just asked the question we loved to stump our religion teachers with;

"Can God make a rock so big that he cannot lift it?"

We loved that one.

Stop thinking that time is linear... that's just the fault of our consciousness.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=2796124&mesg_id=2796282

[JonTheGeek]

167. Because Time is Linear.

What evidence do you have that time is not linear? From what I have observed time is linear. My daily life tells me this. Basic observational data.

Skepticism about observation taken to that type of extreme is a slippery slope. If time is not linear, then what reason do i have to believe that i am typing on my computer at this moment? If what is in my mind is untrue, then can anything be true? No.

If you want to argue that time is not linear then I can argue that the earth is flat and grass grows on the ceiling. What, you don't believe me? Its obvious that you have no concept of color or flatness.

Saying that I have been decieved by my observation is rediculous. The only thing that has any meaning to me is what I observe, therefore I must take it as truth, or I will be caught in a paradox of scepticism about my own existance. But I'm sure this is way over your head.


And by the way, you made my point.

RELIGION. not SCIENCE. Religion == not in my school.

Thanks for helping me out. Twit.

Keep your religious beliefs out of my school.

[The Doctor.]

168. You amuse me....

Go study a little basic relativity before you start to argue with me.

I'm curious to know how you have decided an argument on whether or not you can prove or disprove ID theory has anything to do with 'religious beliefs'... if in fact I even have any.

That's laughable.

I solved the linear antigravitational aspect of the cosmological constant years before any one else.

Don't presume to think you know what's over my head.

I'm sure the universe is only and everything you think it is... good for you.

I'm done wasting my time on anyone who has to resort to insults.

[JonTheGeek]

170. I suppose I should be intimidated by your credentials. *rolls eyes*

Yes, Space and time are curved, but they are also linear.

They only go forward.

Do you know what that means?

And of course you can't prove or disprove ID theory, thats the point. It is logically untenable. You proved my point by saying it was the same argument that stumped your religion teacher.

"I solved the linear antigravitational aspect of the cosmological constant years before any one else." (Links to GIS)

Thanks for sharing. GIS says there's no such thing. I even gave you the benefit of the doubt and didn't use quotes the first time (when I used quotes nothing came up at all. Closest thing I came up with was a geocities site (which wasn't about said topic). Hardly reputable academia. Hell, I even searched my university's physics periodicals... guess what I turned up? NOTHING.

*shrug*

But of course I can't prove that, I mean, somehow, somewhere, there might be a something about it. I'd be very pleased if you would provide a link to it. I'm interested in all of this physics stuff (although I don't have any sort of degrees or anything)...

[The Doctor.]

169. Fun factoid...

You are correct by the way - the earth is a flat plane.

But it is in curved space.

Do you know what that means?

[ChairOne]

174. I <think> you're blindly groping towards the idea that...

The earth is a two-dimensional differentiable manifold....

It's not quite true, of course, but it's a fair enough approximation...

Do <you> know what any of that means?

And the earth isn't flat. In mathematical terms, it's *locally* "flat", but that's a very different thing. Pick up a book on differential geometry to learn the details.

[The Doctor.]

176. No - actually

I was responding more to the insult than to the argument.

Once someone starts hurling epithets at me without bothering to understand my position I tend to get that way... Either way I don't waste my time with such people.

I do understand that you can't truly describe the Earth as a plane - It is only the effect of gravity in a local sense that yeilds that perception... but...

[quaker bill]

191. Thank you, I have posted this before, but not as well.

My novice (botanist's) understanding of the concept is that space and time came into existence with the big bang. Or at least, became relevant constructs at that point.

An attempt to create by logical reverse extrapolation a series of precedent events to the creation of the universe cannot be supported by our current understanding of space and time.

Time is finite in that direction down the line.

[loyalsister]

172. Lots of good comments here

The biggest tragedy from this trend is the complete corruption of the education of HS students about the scientific process.
If ID is introduced alongside science, it is impossible to understand the distinction between process, methods, and reasoning that bring us to conclusions based on emperical data and speculation based on belief.
Imagine the differences we might see if more voters understood this when evaluating information related to global warming, stem cell research, or anything else that requires evidentiary analysis.
Our education system has been seriously corrupted by a lack of offering of critical thinking skills. Stifling the teaching of science is an active suppression. The RW likes it that way.
This isn't just about religion.

[The Doctor.]

175. Such a theory should not be taught AS science at all...

Everyone seems convinced that I think it should be taught as science.

Once AGAIN;

My only real concern is that if a teacher even BRINGS THIS UP in class, regardless of their 'religious beliefs', they will be subject to a witch hunt over it.

I have no problem with a teacher talking about this subject so long as they don't tell kids this is 'the way it is'.

Teach kids what we KNOW about human origins as science, that's what all these stupid debates are about - teaching facts.

I could care less if the teacher tells the kids the theory that earth was formed when a giant turtle fell from the sky and cracked it's shell, or that 'The bible says;', 'The Koran says;', 'the Torah says;', 'Intelligent Design says'. What the hell is the big deal?

Not enough space in the ciriculum?
Fine.

I think Intelligent Design is a neat Idea - not science.
Any teacher that teaches it as a kind of truth is as guilty of teaching anything baseless to be true.

What I can't stand is listening to everyone say it's crap without KNOWING it's crap - if anything... THAT'S unscientific.

I can't believe all these 'educated' people around here can be such hypocrites.
One CANNOT say something is untrue without KNOWING it's untrue - THAT'S bad science.

We have plenty of evidence to disprove that the Earth was created over a 6 day span 6000 years ago... We KNOW that's garbage.

But we don't KNOW whether ID is garbage or not.

Does any ACTUALLY understand this logic?

If nothing else - Rolston, Wright, and Begley gave us a real poser for people to have this argument about... I think that's at least amusing.

I don't know how anyone here could get the idea that I believe in Intelligent Design - I simply DON'T KNOW.
Any one who says they 'know' that this is true or false is as guilty as the Creationists are... and at least as arrogant.

Let's all try it together:

"I... DON'T... KNOW."

Get it?

[loyalsister]

177. Glad you brought up "logic"

When I point it out, then you might see that the point is that this entire problem is that when you set these things up side by side you imply that BOTH are supported by evidence.
That is, unless you are teaching a class about the differences between evidence based conclusions and philosophy. If you don't think that is too advanced for grade schoolers, go have conversations with a 30+ sample size.
As a person noted above, these things people have just thought up based on their belief systems have no place being presented as an "alternative theory" to biological scienciences classroom anymore than we have trying to present kids with some weird "non-arithmatic based" alternative to mathematics.

[The Doctor.]

178. At what grade level is physics taught nowadays?

Grade school you say?

Wow.

I learned about the 'Big Bang' theory independently. It wasn't until years later that I encountered it in high school.

The rational (whether good or bad) for ID is physics based - so it should only ever be brought up in physics or philosophy classes. I have no problem with a high-school teacher introducing this 'theory' so long as they're honest and factual about it.

Is someone SERIOUSLY considering teaching this to elementary students?

[loyalsister]

180. The basic concept is pretty basic

Actually probably more like middle school.
I learned about the Big Bang and Evolution in 8th grade. Unfortunately, I had a teacher who laughed at the whole thing and set it up beside religion as if they were both mythology. Fundie freak. Most people walked out of there confused, I didn't understand the whole thing until I took it in college. Should have been able to. It's not like the tree lichens and changes in moth populations are tough stories to comprehend.
Even if brought up in physics, unless you're dealing with very advanced students who are reading philosophy of science and stuff, there is great potential for them to treat the fantasy handed them as the real animal. It's irresponsible to make it part of the curriculum.
Context is everything. Whatever you present something next to or within will lead a person to identify it. This fairy tale should come nowhere near a science classroom in public school systems. These are kids who are tested on standardized exams.

[The Doctor.]

182. Thank you for an argument with

some actual deliberations...

I was getting sick of all the "It's just garbage!" arguments - no merit indeed.

I believe late middle to high school students are indeed capable of understanding this is pure speculation with no real science to back it up.

It would seem that the disagreement lies in the ability of an educator to present it as such... in the right 'context'. I've know some educators who have no business in a classroom at all... let alone teaching complex subject matter.

I've already found myself doing damage control on what some teachers are teaching - I feel it comes with the job of parenting.
If something grievous should arise - I'll take it up with the teacher.

As I've said - if the teacher is competent, it would be a shame to see a which hunt come of this.

[loyalsister]

183. Thanks

As an educator, I can see that you have been led to believe this is about ideas, but you must remember a few things about primary and secondary education when thinking about such an idea. I live in Missouri where there are two ugly pre-filed education bills. One is along these lines. It basically requires all textbooks to say the theory of evolution is "controversial," etc.... It is ultimately an invitation for submissions for the most RW introduction to the new Biology textbooks.
There is also a bill that would eliminate all mention of contraception from education about STDs.
It's no coincidence that these bills were filed by the same legislator.

The idea of influencing children at that age level extends far beyond academia and schools are used when they can be for this moral agenda.
An inventory of who becomes teachers and why is a good reason to take a second look. I don't have specific data, but I have read that students graduating from college with degrees to to teach primary or secondary education are basically some of our worst thinkers.
They are testing at low levels on standardized tests like the GRE and LSAT.
I have to wonder how many teachers themselves are going to understand that this thing isn't science. My Philospophy of Science class was a 400 level college course. Middle\upper HS? Are you sure?

[The Doctor.]

185. Boils down to the teacher's competence...

Waaaaaaayyy back when I was in high school, most of the teachers I dealt with had the wherewithall to present ideas like these without giving the wrong impression. But I'm from a state (MA) whose educational system was fantastic.

I believe children should be given more information, not less. The effort to 'protect' children from too much information usually causes more harm than good.

Adults (and especially congressmen) tend to underestimate a child's ability to take a clinical perspective.

The vast majority of children are not 'embarrassed' or 'grossed out' by sex ed. They tend to look at it matter-of-factly. "Oh, so that's how that works - I get it." (then they make up dirty jokes about it amongst themselves later... they're kids- it's what they do.)

I have not heard the best reviews of MO education system - I imagine it has alot to do with what you mentioned.

When adults treat children like adults, and teach them how to be adults - they turn into adults.
When childish adults promote fantasies about creation and withhold adult information - the children turn into grown-up children who, in turn, raise the next generation of grown-up children.

[loyalsister]

186. Competence isn't legislated

This argument is about policy. You are coming down on the side of the RW when it comes to policy if you truly advocate allowing this material to be taught in public school.
The policy is a matter of whether it should be made a part of the curricullum. If such a policy is enacted, the stuff will flood the schools with or without competent handlers. Mostly without, I fear. Unfortunately, it will be with the blessing of people who say they want to be "open minded."

[6000eliot]

173. It's not science

Fuck it!