What is your biggest problem with Intelligent Design?

[tjwash]

The news article, about the recent foes of evolution in Missouri, have me thinking. There are several things in the ID debate that disturb me, but I feel the need to share the very thing at its center that is my biggest personal problem with it.

Forget the laundry list of problems with this sham, and forget the fact that it is nothing more than a blatant, and arrogant attempt by the Religious Right, to blow away the separation of church and state, and to turn our public schools into little more than religious indoctrination centers. There is a core problem with ID that has been bothering me since the beginning of this “debate”.

First and foremost on my list, is the wording that the proponents of ID are using. People such as Representative Cynthia Davis, from St. Louis County. Last year, she filed a bill that would have required biology textbooks to include “critical analysis of origins.” There it is, in a nutshell. The core problem I have with ID. At the very center of their debate, is the call for critical analysis, even though the very essence of ID, is the antithesis of critical analysis.

Let us remember who we are dealing with here. These are not just your run of the mill religious people like you and I. These are people that are extremely myopic in their views, even if those views have come from a book that is thousands of years old, and gone through several translational errors on the way to its modern format. These are people of ultimate faith, even though it is pretty obvious that in these extreme cases, that faith does not enhance reason, it replaces it. When I read the new testament, and I have several times, I see all of my liberal beliefs. I see love, peace, compassion, mercy, tolerance and sharing the load. What it appears that people who that try to shove ID down our collective throats see, is revenge, sex, hell, damnation, bigotry, intolerance, vengeance, and, what it gets ME.

But, back to “critical analysis.” The very essence of critical analysis is the scientific method (which, by the way, was the basis for the renaissance, and the age of reason). The scientific method is when Scientists use observation and reasoning to come up with a hypothesis, with the mindset from the very beginning, that this very hypothesis is false. Contrast that with the “God said it, I believe it, that settles it” mentality of your average ID proponent. After the hypothesis is created, it is repeatedly verified through experimentation, trying every conceivable method to make it fail. Contrast this once again, with the nodding acceptance of Adam and Eve stories in the modern King James Bible along with it’s over 20,000 translational errors, as the absolute truth. After the hypothesis is repeatedly tested, picked apart, experimented with, otherwise given every best attempt possible to make it fail (and sometimes it takes DECADES to accomplish this), then, and only then, is it considered to be a “theory”. Ahh. The heart of the ID debate right here. Evolution is only a “theory”. Given to us by people that have no clue what a hypothesis takes to become a theory in the first place. People that are seemingly ignorant of the fact, that evolution, as it is called, has undergone HUNDREDS of changes since it was originally proposed by Charles Darwin. That because science actually does employ critical analysis, evolution will undergo more changes in the future. Never mind that there is no possible way to test creationism to find out if it is true or false in the first place. Also drop the fact that there are as many “theories” of religious creationism, as there are religions; literally THOUSANDS. They don’t let a little thing like facts get in the way of their arguments. They want equal treatment given to both theories Well, guess what. The theory that the world is flat is not equal to the theory that it is round. The theory that apples fall up is not equal to the theory that apples fall down. The theory that the Sun revolves around the Earth, which is the center of the universe, is not equal to the Earth revolves around the Sun, and is part of a galaxy. Now don’t get me wrong, you can discuss the validity of the flat earth or apples falling up all you like, but not to our children in our schools.

The Christian Right, historically has tried over and over again, to take over school boards. Once there, the first thing they try to do is ban books. Afterwards, and usually in this order they will attempt to eliminate sex education, drop self esteem programs, and throw away tolerance training. Then of course you can wave goodbye to multiculturalism, and don’t even THINK about gay counseling. At the same time they try, and sometimes succeed, to make laws requiring public schools to force prayer on students and teach creationism as science. In State legislatures they present caning, whipping, and walloping bills and are the strongest voice in America advocating executions. This is the agenda at hand about ID that bothers me the most.

[LiberalVoice]

1. I just dont like it because....

Its one of those funny lil "theories" that can never be proven or disproven.

[Peter Frank]

4. Self delete...

[Loonman]

2. It's not science

It's ante-thetical to science in that it eliminates looking for explanations because you can just say {God} did it.

[librechik]

exactly--teach it in religion or social studies, why not?

keep it away from the science class.

[ScooterKen]

22. Example

(Science)
A implies B
B implies C
therefore: A implies C

(ID)
A=Omnicience/Omnipotence
C=mindbogglingly complex thing
therefore: A implies C

BZZT.

I think this picture is appropriate:



:D

[Lindacooks]

3. I don't understand why evolution is so threatening to these whack jobs.

And why they insist on making this such a huge issue, while they totally ignore immediate, serious, life threatening huge problems like poverty, homelessness, illness: all the things that Jesus said to focus on.

This and the stupid 'war on Christmas' show that their priorities are totally screwed up.

[Imagine My Surprise]

14. because they can only harp on intangibles

[heidler1]

35. IMO this stems from parents who are worried about their kids competing

in todays World. I'm of the opinion that people who have poor competing characteristics are drawn to religions, of course the same religions are also well populated by a bunch who are sucker seekers. I agree this is not a very sweet viewpoint, but that is the way it looks to me. Naturally a strong incentive of a group like these Church members would be to insert some magic/mystery/nonsense into the game to play down the other people's raw competitive advantage.

[ms liberty]

5. You hit it precisely on the head here! Excellent Rant... n/t

[Catherine Vincent]

6. What is it?

[Ediacara]

7. The loosey-goosey terminology

Evolution is just a flawed theory, and intelligent design is a viable alternative despite the fact that it invokes the supernatural and is by definition not scientific.

A theory in science is as strong as you can get. Period. Despite thousands of attempts at falsification, evolution has not been falsified. The invokation of the supernatural automatically makes their proposal untestible, and therefore, unscientific.

[madmom]

8. I ask the question "where did god or the intelligent designer come from?"

[Redstone]

9. Uh, maybe that it's stupid?

That does it for me.

Redstone

[Imagine My Surprise]

10. That it suggests an anthropomorphic creator

[Peter Frank]

11. I've heard that ID can be a smoke-screen for RACISM...

Some red folks don't seem to like the fact that empirical science proves that man's origins trace back to Africa.

[Imagine My Surprise]

12. It implies an anthropomorphic creator

[longship]

13. ID does not have a secular purpose.

ID is just another case of the theocratic right trying to shove their religion down everybody's throats. Just this fact alone damns ID regardless of any other argument.

Scientists have crossed this line before. Fred Hoyle's religiously inspired Steady-state universe in the 1950's is a good example. Although Hoyle is a recognized scientist and did follow the scientific method to put his theory forward, it was doomed by the fact that his theory was not based on anything other than a philosophical opposition to a universe that undergoes change. I would not question the origins of any real scientist's work but when the main cause is the validation of a personal ideology nature--and history--has it's own corrective action, secular purpose.

[n2doc]

15. The biggest problem is that it shuts off thinking

Basically ID can be summed up as, "anything we can't explain RIGHT NOW is unexplainable, and must be the sign of an intelligent designer" So, what happens if we discover proof explaining something that has been attributed to ID? Something like, the earth revolves around the sun and not vice versa? Or that matter consists of atoms, which in turn consist of smaller particles?

What happens if one day we do succeed in coming up with a grand unifying theory that explains all physical forces? If aspects of it have been previously attributed to an ID then there will be many who want to supress it, just like there are those now who want to supress any evidence that the Earth is older than 10,000 years.

ID is the ultimate expression of American egotism. We just can't imagine that anyone can be smarter than we are right now and can't imagine that some things can be proven in the futurre that we cannot prove right now.

[LisaLynne]

19. Excellent point.

If we look back through History, people have always generally tended to think that what they know at the time is pretty much all there is to know, only to be proven wrong time and time again.

[XemaSab]

39. That's it exactly

There have been dozens if not hundreds or thousands of times in the history of science where there was something that wasn't explained, and was treated by people of the day as just a black hole. Like the causes of disease, for example. Instead of doing research and learning that bacteria, viruses, and sometimes other micro-critters cause disease, the ID folks would just say "God did it" and shut off further thought.

It's totally anti-intellectual and anti-science.

We'd still be in the Dark Ages if these people had had their way.

[Ravy]

16. I don't have any problem with it at all.

As a religious concept. It is not a science and shouldn't have any place in the science curriculum.

[dusmcj]

17. that I haven't been able to find any evidence of intelligent design in it

you know there are assholes at work when people start capitalizing words and phrases. Other examples:

Natural Law
Under Control
Connected
Trust
Confidence
Leadership
Firm
Resolve
Commitment
Pay The Price
Responsibility
Honor

The only thing missing is a (tm) symbol or other over evidence of Brand Management (sm). It's the province of morons who need prechewed cathartics and affect-laden codephrases in order to operate, presumably because they aren't capable of higher brain function. Similar to an exclusive diet of hearty soup and beer. The prime or maybe favorite emotions are adulation, fear, group affiliation, and self-satisfaction.

(A short straightman answer to the question: their God is too small. Physics underlies and rules all. Physics says that atoms interact in random but defined patterns based on their valency. This gives rise to _all_ chemical compounds, including the ones which are the building blocks of life. The chaos of the universe, the engine that just chugs for billions of earth's trips around the sun, is what is really magnificent and has grandeur, not the mawkish imaginings of small minds. These people should be force-fed the Sagan clip about how 7000 years of recorded human history is a fly's fart compared to the age of the universe, and that yes, atomic decay _is_ uniform, so that yes, we _do_ know how old it is, until they collapse into unconsciousness, to awaken refreshed and somewhat enlightened.

The other version: these folks are just a different flavor of the PNAC notion (obviously part of a larger social current) that the content of your ideas matters far less than how effectively and determinedly you present them. Just like at any business meeting, this attitude results in the biggest blowhards, not the brightest minds, setting tone and direction, with concomitant mediocre results being the order of the day. It is now the year 2005, anno dei. We stopped arguing about angels on pinheads 800 years ago, and decided that the earth wasn't the center of the universe with a hollow shell around it you could pop your head through 500 years ago (about). There is a notion that objective fact can be identified, established and reverified which these ignorami are putting into question, in fact they are casting doubt on reason itself, which is very convenient because they would like to destabilize it in favor of faith (maybe following Luther's claim that reason is a whore, one of the Reformator's less valuable insights...). If we decide that it is arguable whether the sky is blue, given that we agree on a common definition of blue and sky, then we may as well pack up and go home. These blithering idiots are still arguing about whether that bumpassed bishop who "decided" that the Creation happened sometime in October 4004 BC IIRC was right or not. This is irksome to me because as far as I'm concerned it's one of those established objective facts mentioned above that radioactive decay rates prove that the earth is just a few years older, not many, but a few.

In short, I am revolted that these fucking idiots are wasting our time here in the richest country in the world in the year 2005 with their dickassed obstructionism. Yes, wasting our time. There are critical issues the citizens of Kansas might be devoting their attention to for example, but they are not, they have come under the sway of these mental masturbators instead.

Yes, in conclusion I find no evidence of intelligent design in Intelligent Design, nor in its proponents. Only sand and gas, as lifeless as the outer planets.)

[Mutley]

18. That it's thinly veiled creationism pushed as real science.

[ismnotwasm]

20. This for starters

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/bombardier.html
Besides, If I believed in God, and from what I know from those I know who do, he/she/it can use evolution all fuck he/she/it wants. Who are these assholes to say what God will and won't do?

[DinahMoeHum]

21. ID is theocratic philosophy, not science. . .

and proponents should not try to palm it off as science unless they've subjected it to scientific protocols of research and analysis.

IMO most scientists have no problem with discussing ID as a philosophy or a tenet of religion.

However, when theocrats start claiming scientific validity for their views, these same scientists will be on the theocrats like shit on stink...and very rightly so.

:think:

[KurtNYC]

23. The "public stonings" -- according to the Mother Jones article

the hypo-christian closet-fascists want to make public submission to their version of organized religion a requirement of citizenship. They plan on using public stonings to punish whatever they consider blasphemy. Legitimizing anti-science is merely the third or fourth step in this scheme.

[bluedawg12]

24. It's anti-reason and pro-superstition. A political tool.

For religious people:

The role of God in science is in the heart and mind of the scientist.

God is not in the computer program, or math data, or the petri dish, or fossilized bones. God is not subject to experimentation. Science is.

There is no reason that ID cannot co-exist with science.


For Catholics science and and evolution and God are compatible.

It is for most main stream religions.

We are being sucked in by a sect, fundy's, who are also at war with non fundy Christians.

Here is a hypothetical thought process from a scientist who believes in God:

All it takes is a step away from the literal interpretation of Genesis as a 7-day creation fact.

As a scientist one can say that there was an intelligent and purposeful designer behind it all.
Call that entity a He, as in the Judeo-Christian-Muslim traditions. Call that He: God or Allah.

Then:

As a scientist, one can on and say that the mysteries of the universe are so complex and beautiful that they deserve the use of our God-given intellect to unravel those mysteries.

The more we unravel the mysteries the more we pay honor and glory to God the originator of such elegant beauty.

The above statements are based on a given: namely, personal faith.
They cannot be proven and need not be proven. God does not ask me to prove His existence, but simply to believe in it.

In science, there need be no further questioning of the facts beyond simple observation of empiric facts. The formulation of a hypothesis of how those facts are tied together.

A theory is then developed which lends itself to research of data.

The theory is researched, using trial and error method, to seek further empiric, observable, data, to re-evaluate the hypothesis and the theory.

God does not require our scientific analysis, God asks for our faith. God is not the thing being studied scientifically.

They are separate disciplines. A Godly scientist may study the natural universe with out mentioning God at that moment just as a Chef may make a great meal, give praise to God in his heart, yet never put God in the man made recipe.

[LeftHander]

25. It is neither intelligent or design....

talk among yourselves....

[mmonk]

26. The lack of intelligence

[Bridget Burke]

27. Because they want it taught in schools.

Let people have any weird ideas they like. But teach science in science class.

[underpants]

28. The "we are too stupid to understand" and "Give up it's too hard" parts

People are actually openly saying that they are just too dumb to fathom anything but "God did it". They don't understand the uncomplicated scientific model and don't want to take 5 minutes to try to so they are teaching the kids to basically "Give up it's too hard to figure out so don't try just give up" now what kind of thing is THAT to teach kids? Don't try? You are stupid? That is really what you want to tell them?.... ..... :hide: or is that what they were told? (see multigenerational abusive relationships).

[ScooterKen]

29. Flying Spaghetti Monsterism (aka Pastafarians !)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster

:D

Go Pastafarians !


ARRRR!

[Historic NY]

30. If its so intelligent. How come men don't have one less rib?

The bible says God took one of Adams ribs and made Eve, a female companion. Wouldn't it go to show that if this were entirely correct that one would expect man to develop w/o one rib. I just use this as an example when people bring up the subject.

Intelligent design is not backed up by the actual real world results. Its based entirely on stories, legends, and writings crafted and recrafted through the ages. Its sole basis is a book, the bible written by mere feeble humans. We were created as intelligent beings and gifted with a sense of wonder & discovery. Wonder & discovery relate to science & learning.

[icymist]

31. What?! ID has absolutely no scientific merit what-so-ever!

And now a message from the American Astronomical Society:

AAS Statement on the Teaching of Evolution
Adopted 20 September 2005

The American Astronomical Society supports teaching evolution in our nation’s K-12 science classes. Evolution is a valid scientific theory for the origin of species that has been repeatedly tested and verified through observation, formulation of testable statements to explain those observations, and controlled experiments or additional observations to find out whether these ideas are right or wrong. A scientific theory is not speculation or a guess -- scientific theories are unifying concepts that explain the physical universe.

Astronomical observations show that the Universe is many billions of years old (see the AAS publication, An Ancient Universe), that nuclear reactions in stars have produced the chemical elements over time, and recent observations show that gravity has led to the formation of many planets in our Galaxy. The early history of the solar system is being explored by astronomical observation and by direct visits to solar system objects. Fossils, radiological measurements, and changes in DNA trace the growth of the tree of life on Earth. The theory of evolution, like the theories of gravity, plate tectonics, and Big Bang cosmology, explains, unifies, and predicts natural phenomena. Scientific theories provide a proven framework for improving our understanding of the world.

In recent years, advocates of “Intelligent Design,” have proposed teaching “Intelligent Design” as a valid alternative theory for the history of life. Although scientists have vigorous discussions on interpretations for some aspects of evolution, there is widespread agreement on the power of natural selection to shape the emergence of new species. Even if there were no such agreement, “Intelligent Design” fails to meet the basic definition of a scientific idea: its proponents do not present testable hypotheses and do not provide evidence for their views that can be verified or duplicated by subsequent researchers.

(more)
http://www.aas.org/governance/council/resolutions.html#teach

So.... to answer you question is that ID (Intelligent Design) biggist problem is that it can not be proven by scientific standards that the rest of us expect from the scientific community for such things as atom bombs (proven), nuclear power (proven), and even gravity (proven outside of quantum)! Either put ID through the same testing or realize that's it is only an unproven myth.

[donkeyotay]

32. When I look around, I don't see anything that looks intelligent

or designed. I want a theory of stupid chaos taught. Burn all the books and give me a grant.

Here, I better add a smiley
:eyes:

[Greyhound]

33. I think you nailed it. We are (to borrow from the source) reaping what

we've sowed (sown?). The purposeful destruction of our public education system has now wrought several generations of barely functional illiterates that possess no understanding of science, or really anything at all. They have been trained to regurgitate what they've been told and to accept as truth anything the rulers decide they should believe, period. You cannot rule a population of thinkers without their consent, therefore they must pass off counterfeit thought as genuine.

[Greyhound]

34. I wonder if George Orwell would take any satisfaction from

the fact that he totally nailed it decades before it came to pass.

[jzodda]

36. ID is not science for simple logical reasons

Unless you can put "God" into a test tube and run analysis then you can not be intellectually honest while claiming ID is science. Evolution, on the other hand, can be tested and has been tested over and over again over the years under strict lab conditions.

ID adds an element of "faith" into science by claiming complex life by definition could only be created by an intelligent creator. The problem with this claim is that it can not be tested in the lab. You have to accept on faith that there was a designer. At best this could be called a "para science" in the same way people like ghost hunters view themselves.

[Eugene]

37. ID tries to forcibly inject magic into science education.

Intelligent Design is an attack on science based
on observation and proof. It does not explain
nature as much as it attacks scientific methods
in favor of the supernatural.

ID is "creation science" with the serial numbers filed off.
It is a reworked attempt to force the schools to teach
religious belief in a divine "designer" as science.
Most dangerously, it teaches that, when the facts don't
fit, blind faith should fill the gaps.

[kevinbgoode]

38. I hate it because they refuse to include

both the Flying Spaghetti Monster and aliens from another galaxy or dimension as viable alternatives to critique with their creationism.

[justgamma]

40. My problem is that they don't believe

that God could have "breathed life into dust" and took millions of years to mold humans into what we are now.

Somehow I don't believe that God's calender looks like ours.