Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Kosh on December 20, 2005, 04:42:35 pm
-
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10545387/
Looks like there is some hope for american children after all.
-
Why couldn't those peeps just say that both evolution and intelligent design are possibilities, or better yet, teach both of them to us and let US decide? :confused:
-
^^ *hands you a flame retardant suit*
Oh, and w00t for the ruling. :yes:
-
Why couldn't those peeps just say that both evolution and intelligent design are possibilities, or better yet, teach both of them to us and let US decide? :confused:
Because "Intelligent design" isn't science. If they want to teach it in church, fine. But it should be kept out of public education system.
-
Why couldn't those peeps just say that both evolution and intelligent design are possibilities, or better yet, teach both of them to us and let US decide? :confused:
When the main proponent of Intelligent Design has to admit in court that ID isn't a scientific theory unless you change the definition of what a scientific theory actually is you pretty much have your reason.
No one has ever said that ID can't be taught in religious education class (which is where it belongs) but it's not science and therefore has no place in a science class.
-
id is just the church trying to parket religion to brainy nerdy kids.
oh i cant wait till varg gets out of jail :D
-
H. Conclusion
The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board’s ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.
Both Defendants and many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general. Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs’ scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator.
To be sure, Darwin’s theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions.
The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy.
With that said, we do not question that many of the leading advocates of ID have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors. Nor do we controvert that ID should continue to be studied, debated, and discussed. As stated, our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom.
Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Board’s decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources.
To preserve the separation of church and state mandated by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Art. I, § 3 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, we will enter an order permanently enjoining Defendants from maintaining the ID Policy in any school within the Dover Area School District, from requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution, and from requiring teachers to refer to a religious, alternative theory known as ID. We will also issue a declaratory judgment that Plaintiffs’ rights under the Constitutions of the United States and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania have been violated by Defendants’ actions. Defendants’ actions in violation of Plaintiffs’ civil rights as guaranteed to them by the Constitution of the United States and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 subject Defendants to liability with respect to injunctive and declaratory relief, but also for nominal damages and the reasonable value of Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ services and costs incurred in vindicating Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.
Oh dear I hope he didn't offend anyone.
-
Why couldn't those peeps just say that both evolution and intelligent design are possibilities, or better yet, teach both of them to us and let US decide? :confused:
Think of it this way: would you want them to teach both alchemy and chemistry, and let you decide which one you want to believe in? :p
-
Well, I imagine most students would be very happy with the 'you choose what to believe in' approach, especially in math class. "But I believe 2+2=5!"
-
Yeah but we KNOW 2 and 2 isn't 5. Do we KNOW one is correct and one isn't? Was someone there that is still around today that we can ask?
*puts on flame retardent suit that was given to me by redsniper*
-
It's not about which one is correct. It's about which one is science and which one is not.
-
Yeah but we KNOW 2 and 2 isn't 5. Do we KNOW one is correct and one isn't? Was someone there that is still around today that we can ask?
Anyone looking to know the absolute truth doesn't belong in a science class, but a philosophy class. Science is about disproving things.
Darwinian evolution has survived well over a century of scientific scrutiny and is yet to be disproved, marking it as good science. ID has barely existed, what, two decades, is fundamentally un-testable (and therefore not disproveable, and thus not scientific), and supported by 'evidence' that is easily disproven. Thus it's not good science, or science at all.
Teach Evolution in Science class, ID in RE.
-
Yeah but we KNOW 2 and 2 isn't 5. Do we KNOW one is correct and one isn't? Was someone there that is still around today that we can ask?
*puts on flame retardent suit that was given to me by redsniper*
It is little wonder why American students keep getting badly pwn3d in science. :rolleyes:
-
Was someone there that is still around today that we can ask?
I do. His name is Jesus Christ. He just told me that he was just a regular old rabbi with some new ideas who got killed and embellished over the years, and that the universe is 13.2 billion years old. He also mentioned the hot Elerians he met beyond the rim too ;)
BTW, he said that his birthday is *not* on December 25 but was in the spring. However any excuse to party and bring people together is good in his book so he doesn't mind.
Now spread the Good News biatches.
-
Some interesting quotes I fetched from the Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District):
Closing arguments were made on 2005-11-04. Upon completion of the closing arguments, Mr Gillen asked Judge Jones, "By my reckoning, this is the 40th day since the trial began and tonight will be the 40th night, and I would like to know if you did that on purpose." To which the judge responded, "Mr. Gillen, that is an interesting coincidence, but it was not by design," eliciting laughter and applause from those present.
Quotes from the decision:
"A significant aspect of the IDM [intelligent design movement] is that despite Defendants’ protestations to the contrary, it describes ID as a religious argument. In that vein, the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity." (page 26)
"Throughout the trial and in various submissions to the Court, Defendants vigorously argue that the reading of the statement is not “teaching” ID but instead is merely “making students aware of it.” In fact, one consistency among the Dover School Board members’ testimony, which was marked by selective memories and outright lies under oath, as will be discussed in more detail below, is that they did not think they needed to be knowledgeable about ID because it was not being taught to the students. We disagree." (footnote 7 on page 46)
"After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science." (pg. 64)
Yay for sanity. :D :yes:
-
Strictly speaking, I'm not sure we KNOW 2+2 = 4, but rather simply define it as such. Mathematics is little more then a complicated tautology, in the end. A very useful tautology, but a tautology all the same.
Ultimately, if we're dependent only on things which are completely and totally undeniably, and not merely which the preponderance of evidence supports, we might as well close down the schools now - nothing is beyond arguement.
-
1+1=10
:)
-
Ultimately, if we're dependent only on things which are completely and totally undeniably, and not merely which the preponderance of evidence supports, we might as well close down the schools now - nothing is beyond arguement.
You might want to read about Gödel's theorem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godel's_theorem). Math isn't quite as black and white as you'd like to think. :p
-
A common-sense ruling from a judge?!? in America?!? the World is ending! :shaking:
-
A common-sense ruling from a judge?!? in America?!? the World is ending! :shaking:
I get dibs on the Plasma rifles!!
*heads to the lockers and tries to open them
-
Yeah but we KNOW 2 and 2 isn't 5. Do we KNOW one is correct and one isn't? Was someone there that is still around today that we can ask?
ID can't be taught in schools because no bugger knows what it actually is. If you were here for the last discussion on ID you'll have seen me spend 7 pages of discussion trying to get the proponents of ID to explain what ID actually was. After 7 pages of discussion the only explaination I ever got from them was.
"There are things you can't explain by evolution therefore God must have done it"
Me : "What things?"
"ummmmm."
Furthermore no one could give me answers to very basic questions using ID. I asked for instance how many thousands or millions of years does ID say that mankind has been around? I received no answer despite repeatedly asking this question because although proponents of ID claim that it's the answer to these things it isn't.
You can't teach ID in science class because it isn't science. Let me sum up ID for you in one paragraph (which funnily enough despite repeated calls for more info on it was the best the proponents of ID were able to do!)
There are things that Evolution can't explain. It doesn't matter that evolution says it can explain them cause it can't. And since evolution can't explain them God must have done them. For futher information see the bible*
*No one other than Christians are interested in ID but if you belong to another denomination look at your holy book. We can put this bit in cause we know that no bugger apart from us non-catholic christians is the slightest bit interested in ID.
Same as last time I challenge anyone to prove that there is more to ID than what I just said.
-
1+1=10
:)
1+1 is obviously 11. :rolleyes: How can a '1' ever become a '0'?
-
What is wrong with you people? 1+1 clearly = a window.
-
Darwinian evolution has survived well over a century of scientific scrutiny and is yet to be disproved, marking it as good science. ID has barely existed, what, two decades, is fundamentally un-testable (and therefore not disproveable, and thus not scientific), and supported by 'evidence' that is easily disproven. Thus it's not good science, or science at all.[/bw]
I mostly agree, but ID has existed ever since the first religion with a 'creation god' was started.
-
Darwinian evolution has survived well over a century of scientific scrutiny and is yet to be disproved, marking it as good science. ID has barely existed, what, two decades, is fundamentally un-testable (and therefore not disproveable, and thus not scientific), and supported by 'evidence' that is easily disproven. Thus it's not good science, or science at all.[/bw]
I mostly agree, but ID has existed ever since the first religion with a 'creation god' was started.
Depends on who you talk to. To sensible people like you and me, you're right. To the proponents of ID, it's a new theory, totally separate from that kind of religious creationism.
-
I get dibs on the Plasma rifles!!
*heads to the lockers and tries to open them
I get dibs on the Big Sharp Knife™.
/me sneaks up behind Singh, stabs him through the heart and takes the plasma rifles
-
Why couldn't those peeps just say that both evolution and intelligent design are possibilities, or better yet, teach both of them to us and let US decide? :confused:
Because evolution is science and intelligent design - creationism - is a religious belief (whose posing as science consists of trying to - often wrongly - poke holes within evolutionary theory without specifying any detailed alternative theory). As kara pointed out, a scientific theory has to be testable and evidenced. It also has to be open to disproof. And formed from a hypothesis supported by evidence.
ID meets none of these conditions; partially because it's being pushed by a composite group of fundamentalist Christian groups (because even the Catholic church, for example, accepts evolution as a valid theory - their theological beef would be with abiogenesis) with different beliefs of bible literalism, such that a literal definition would be causing arguements between the flat earthists, young earthists, directed evolution, etc groups. Also it's in their interests never to define ID in scientific terms as it could be disproven; antithesis to what is essentially an attempt to crowbar Christian theology into the classroom.
I remember the last, long thread on this. Someone - I believe it was Stealth, not sure (apols if I'm mistaken) - made several arguements based on quotes from famous scientists. One of these was completely made up, the other was true but...er... made up via cutting out large chunks from a paragraph to give the opposite meaning. And then refusing to acknowledge the many transitional fossils that are known, like (for example) the equine ancestor fossils from (IIRC) South America. and soforth.
That's the level of 'science' we're talking here. Well, really I mean level of ignorance; it's born of intentional misunderstanding, ignoring or dismissing factual evidence. That's fine - for faith. Not for anything even masquerading as serious science.
Evolution can be taught in biology, creationism in R.E. I'd say that's fair and represents the merits of both as a theory of complex life. This verdict is a victory for common sense and rationality.
-
A bit OT, but:
If anyone is atleast a bit interested in the applications (sort of) of evolution and such you might better see some of these (online) lectures (http://streamiss.spaceflight.esa.int/?pg=production&PID=alcn) about astrobiology. They lay nice groundwork for speculations of evolution, life, the origin of life and other such minor issues
-
For those of you hazy on the subject, ie. thesizzler, if you've got a spare hour or 4, take a glance at the last thread on the subject that Kara and Aldo have been alluding to - http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,35524.0.html - to which ID, Evolution, Seperation of Church & State, and soforth were discussed ad nausium, without (amazingly) deteriorating into a flamewar.
-
For those of you hazy on the subject, ie. thesizzler, if you've got a spare hour or 4, take a glance at the last thread on the subject that Kara and Aldo have been alluding to - http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,35524.0.html - to which ID, Evolution, Seperation of Church & State, and soforth were discussed ad nausium, without (amazingly) deteriorating into a flamewar.
I bought The Blind Watchmaker (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0140144811/qid=1135167145/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl/203-2039434-1043155) as a more or less direct result of that thread. I recommend it thoroughly; it's brilliantly informative.
-
The Theory of Evolution and the Big Bang Theory may explain how the universe came into being but not why or what the 'first cause' is and therefore, on their own, destroy the existence of a creator-god, but other factors may. This is what most Christians beleive, it's just fundamntalist 'creationists' that hang on the old biblical story of Genesis as 'fact'.
-
For those of you hazy on the subject, ie. thesizzler, if you've got a spare hour or 4, take a glance at the last thread on the subject that Kara and Aldo have been alluding to - http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,35524.0.html - to which ID, Evolution, Seperation of Church & State, and soforth were discussed ad nausium, without (amazingly) deteriorating into a flamewar.
I hate reading old treadfs like that. So much stupidity, so many misconceptions, so many factual errors - and it's far too late to call people on them. Oh well. Next time.
-
Going along with this OT trend... 29 Evidences for Macroevolution (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/) is a good resource to learn about the actual evidence behind evolution. It's also a good resource because it lists how evolution could be disproved (can you disprove Intelligent Design?).
-
I asked a cosomology undergraduate some time ago (through email, by curiousity) about the whole Intelligent Design theory. he said:
"I'd welcome it, if it were true. That would answer all of our questions in one shot. All of them except, 'how'd they do it?'"
The whole purpose of pushing intelligent design into the classrooms was theological. I'm serious, not just being Mr. Kill-Jesus-Now Liberal. Take something pretty concrete, like evolution, and poke holes in it. What better to fill a whole in a belief than faith?
Sure, I'd love to see a class where the creation theories of different religions could be discussed, but that isn't a science class.
Christian woman at coffeeshop: "The Bible says God created the world. Do you really think you can argue against God?"
Me: "The Bible says a lot of things, the least of which being that you are subservient to me, woman. You will be silent, now."
-
I asked a cosomology undergraduate some time ago (through email, by curiousity) about the whole Intelligent Design theory. he said:
"I'd welcome it, if it were true. That would answer all of our questions in one shot. All of them except, 'how'd they do it?'"
The whole purpose of pushing intelligent design into the classrooms was theological. I'm serious, not just being Mr. Kill-Jesus-Now Liberal. Take something pretty concrete, like evolution, and poke holes in it. What better to fill a whole in a belief than faith?
Sure, I'd love to see a class where the creation theories of different religions could be discussed, but that isn't a science class.
Christian woman at coffeeshop: "The Bible says God created the world. Do you really think you can argue against God?"
Me: "The Bible says a lot of things, the least of which being that you are subservient to me, woman. You will be silent, now."
To paraphrase Dawkins; we can say life was created by God. But then we have the question of how did God come into being? The creationist answer is 'God has always existed'. So why not say, 'life has always existed' and be done with it?
-
To paraphrase Dawkins; we can say life was created by God. But then we have the question of how did God come into being? The creationist answer is 'God has always existed'. So why not say, 'life has always existed' and be done with it?
Well, in order to that, I suppose you have to answer according either to human nature (Curiosity about the unknown to facilitate discovery of things that might be usable for one's self-benefit) or a reason for human advancement. ie meaning of life.
-
To paraphrase Dawkins; we can say life was created by God. But then we have the question of how did God come into being? The creationist answer is 'God has always existed'. So why not say, 'life has always existed' and be done with it?
Well, in order to that, I suppose you have to answer according either to human nature (Curiosity about the unknown to facilitate discovery of things that might be usable for one's self-benefit) or a reason for human advancement. ie meaning of life.
That's not what he means. What he means is, creationism is 'answering' the question of life, evolution, etc by simply adding an unknown. That by simply assuming God as creationism does, it's no different to just going the whole hog and assuming life has always existed, forever. Likewise for the creation/origins universe, matter, etc.
-
Well, yeah, I was more responding to the last question than anything.
-
Christian woman at coffeeshop: "The Bible says God created the world. Do you really think you can argue against God?"
Me: "The Bible says a lot of things, the least of which being that you are subservient to me, woman. You will be silent, now."
You, sir, are a winner. I will use this next time some chick gives me **** about creationism and whatnot.
-
I get dibs on the Plasma rifles!!
*heads to the lockers and tries to open them
I get dibs on the Big Sharp Knife™.
/me sneaks up behind Singh, stabs him through the heart and takes the plasma rifles
Darnit...and here I was thinking I had stayed on your "Do not kill horribly and painfully" list :(
In either case, this is a good development. Some people finally making sense. Even though I dont completely have confidence in Evolution, it is, at the very least, logical and a far, far better alternative than ID.
But still, the scientific and academic community in general these days is starting to scare me, just as much as the church sometimes does.
-
unfortunately in war you oftine must become your enemy in order to beat him.
-
But still, the scientific and academic community in general these days is starting to scare me, just as much as the church sometimes does.
How so?
unfortunately in war you oftine must become your enemy in order to beat him.
First, please learn how to sp311. :p
Second, if you become your enemy, then your enemy wins by default.
-
Bob has spelling rights due to his contribution to the community in the past. ;)
-
I had stayed on your "Do not kill horribly and painfully" list
EVERYONE is on an0n's list.. :rolleyes:
-
I had stayed on your "Do not kill horribly and painfully" list
EVERYONE is on an0n's list.. :rolleyes:
Yeah. But I managed to get off it a long time ago for helping out with a PC problem. :p
Or perhaps that was a different list O_o...
bob: ill explain how a bit later, bit pressed for time atm. Sorry :/
-
judges rule against homosexual marriages too.
what's your point...
-
judges rule against homosexual marriages too.
what's your point...
That this is yet more reinforcement that ID is not a science but is religion masquerading as a hypothesis (it's propenents admitted it didn't fit the criteria of a scientific theory, and suggested a redefinition of a theory that was almost identical to the definition of a hypothesis).
EDIT; actually, what is your point? AFAIK courts in a number of states have ruled that bans on same-sex marriage are unconstitutional, and the primary opposition is political (as about 80% of Republicans are against it). Whereas this issue a hell of a lot more clear cut, as what is and what is not science is very clear.
-
judges rule against homosexual marriages too.
what's your point...
Umm. That Intelligent Design really isn't science? That teaching Intelligent Design is unconstitutional? I believe those're pretty clear points, I'm sorry if you can't wrap your head around them.
-
judges rule against homosexual marriages too.
what's your point...
Are you suggesting that awareness of homosexuality should be taught in science classes, too?
That's not a bad idea. I've heard a fair bit of misinformed opinions, such as homosexuality being unnatural, that would be within the scope of a biology class to clear up.
-
judges rule against homosexual marriages too.
what's your point...
I don't know what you're complaining about. You don't even appear to know what ID is. I spent 7 pages trying to get you to explain it using more than one paragraph and got exactly nowhere.
So why you'd care whether it gets defeated or not is completely beyond me.
-
I don't know what you're complaining about. You don't even appear to know what ID is. I spent 7 pages trying to get you to explain it using more than one paragraph and got exactly nowhere.
using more than one paragraph? LOL. because of course, if an explanation isn't PAGES long, it has to be incorrect, right? *shakes head*
and to the last four people that quoted my post:
my point is: a judge ruled against homosexual marriages... but did that mean that homosexual marriages were wrong?
perhaps now you see what i'm getting at?
-
my point is: a judge ruled against homosexual marriages... but did that mean that homosexual marriages were wrong?
perhaps now you see what i'm getting at?
ID isn't science. It is obviously not science. How much more clearly do you want us to put it?
my point is: a judge ruled against homosexual marriages... but did that mean that homosexual marriages were wrong?
perhaps now you see what i'm getting at?
And your point is very blunt, and is, in the end, utterly pointless.
-
and to the last four people that quoted my post:
my point is: a judge ruled against homosexual marriages... but did that mean that homosexual marriages were wrong?
No, it means homosexual marriages were illegal. That is a big difference.
Notice that nobody said Intelligent Design is wrong (it can't be disproven, just like how you can't disprove that your life is guided by magic fairy dust). Only that it's wrong to teach it in schools because it's unconstitutional.
-
I don't know what you're complaining about. You don't even appear to know what ID is. I spent 7 pages trying to get you to explain it using more than one paragraph and got exactly nowhere.
using more than one paragraph? LOL. because of course, if an explanation isn't PAGES long, it has to be incorrect, right? *shakes head*
Your entire response was "There are some things that evolution can't explain. So God must have done them". I asked "What things?" and never got a satisfactory response from you. It's not the length. It's the total lack of any content that made your response so useless.
Your explaination failed to answer basic questions about ID. For instance ID claims to explain why humans exist but if you ask how long have they existed then ID fails to answer that. As I said before if you can't even begin to answer a basic question like that using ID then there isn't much to the theory at all. And that's the problem with ID. It isn't a theory at all. ID is simply something that has been tacked onto the bible in an attempt to make it sound like science. That's why it falls apart so quickly when you ask someone to explain what it is.
And you can laugh about the length of the explaination all you like but if you can't take more than a paragraph to explain ID then I don't see what you even want to teach kids in school. The explaination you gave would take 2-3 minutes to give. If the kids then spent the rest of the time getting an explaination of evolution they'd actually walk away with feeling of how pathetically unscientific ID actually is. You're shooting yourself in the foot if one paragraph is all you can say on the subject.
-
I don't know what you're complaining about. You don't even appear to know what ID is. I spent 7 pages trying to get you to explain it using more than one paragraph and got exactly nowhere.
using more than one paragraph? LOL. because of course, if an explanation isn't PAGES long, it has to be incorrect, right? *shakes head*
When you consider that there are hundreds of books' worth of information on Evolution, evidence of why Evolution exists, and data gathered from research on Evolution as well as experiments based on the theory of Evolution, I would say that your paragraph is going to have to be pretty damn profound and obvious in order to make a dent in the theory. Such as: "Billions of people across the earth, at the same time, witnessed a massive, gleaming figure informing them that they were part of God's chosen people and that He had created the Earth, with large amounts of evidence that it was not created by him, to mislead those unfit to take part in his Plan."
-
EDIT: ehhh not worth getting involved in this. I'm going to go with Ses's bit on the last thread... these things always come down to "Does God exist?"? Not worth getting into that.
-
there is no evidence why evolution exists. don't kid yourself. there are theories.
likewise, there are no "large amounts of evidence that it was not created by him". again. don't kid yourself. the Bible predicted things that would happen or be discovered BY SCIENCE thousands of years before.
And I still don't see you explaining ID. Instead you try to steer the conversation into a defence of evolution with claims that there is no evidence. This is a favourite tactic of proponents of ID. Because their theory is nothing more than a sham (One of the proponents of ID was forced to admit that ID isn't a scientific theory during the trial) they simply try to steer the topic away from ID at every opportunity. I'm not answering the other claims as they are completely off topic. If you believe in ID explain it. And do so without having to resort to specious arguments about biblical predictions that have absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand.
And don't bother trying to get people to defend evolution either. There's evidence that has stood the scientific tests of the last 100 years. Just because you choose to ignore that evidence doesn't make it non-existant.
However ID is supposedly a new theory so you do need to explain it. Especially if you're claiming it's better than the current theory. And yet again you've failed to do so. If you seriously believe ID is anything more than a smokescreen then explain it and defend it when we point out the inevitable flaws in your argument. Otherwise you've basically proved my points that ID isn't a scientific theory (scientific theories can be defined) and that ID isn't understood by the people who claim that it's better than evolution.
You've yet to provide even the smallest shread of evidence that you even understand what ID actually is. How can you possibly tell me I'm wrong when you don't understand either of the two points being discussed?
-
actually i agree that ID isn't a scientific theory.
do we only teach our kids scientific theories in school? cause i remember being taught a lot more than that in school
-
You're more than welcome to teach unscientific theories in unscientific classes. But science class can only have science taught in it.
Every single opponent of ID in science class on this thead has said at one time or another that we have no objection to ID being taught in RE classes.
The main objection everyone has to ID is that it tries to pass itself off as science when it is nothing of the sort.
-
actually, 99% of Intelligent Design advocates are Christians in some way shape or form, right? In that, they believe in a creator, and thus in intelligent design too.
that said, it would be hard to argue one way or the other, without first establishing whether God exists or not, in a "Does God Exist" type thread
-
EDIT: ehhh not worth getting involved in this. I'm going to go with Ses's bit on the last thread... these things always come down to "Does God exist?"? Not worth getting into that.
No it doesn't. It doesn't at all. Debates about creationism vs evolution may come down to whether God exists because that is an argument between faith and science. ID claims to be science however and supposedly goes out of its way to avoid mentioning God. That means that we're dealing with a science vs science debate and the sole criterion that becomes important there is the quality of the science involved. And the quality of science involved in ID is very poor indeed.
I could prove that ID is a load of crap even if God was sitting next to me with a T-shirt saying "I exist" on it because the existance of God is completely irrelevent to the subject at hand.
-
well not realy, God is a requierment of ID, it is one of the requierments of it, like natural selection or random mutation is to evolution, if you could prove that random mutations do not occur or that natural selection doesn't happen then evolution would be invalidated, in a similar vein God (or some equivelent) is needed for ID, they must prove the exsistence of God in a scientificaly verifyable and reproduceable way in order for there 'theory' to work, if they cannot do this then ID is incapable of competeing with evolution.
-
actually, 99% of Intelligent Design advocates are Christians in some way shape or form, right? In that, they believe in a creator, and thus in intelligent design too.
I find it funny that you're failing to see the distinction between ID and the concept that God created the universe and man. They are actually two very different concepts. The fact that you have confused them pretty much proves what I was saying that you don't actually understand what ID is.
Creationism is the faith based belief that God created the universe and mankind.
ID was an attempt to create a scientific theory that explained the appearance of mankind. ID attempted to make sure that there were gaps in the theory that could only be explained by an intelligent creator. The idea behind ID was to enable the proponents of the theory to challenge evolution on a scientific basis rather than the faith vs science basis that creationism vs evolution debates have to use.
If you're admitting that ID isn't scientific then you're wasting your time trying to argue in its favour. The whole raison d'etre for ID was to exist as a scientific theory. If you don't believe it is a scientific theory you should dump it and go back to arguing creationism.
-
actually, 99% of Intelligent Design advocates are Christians in some way shape or form, right? In that, they believe in a creator, and thus in intelligent design too.
that said, it would be hard to argue one way or the other, without first establishing whether God exists or not, in a "Does God Exist" type thread
Only if the existence of God directly proves ID, and is the only way to prove ID.
However, I'm not seeing the ability to prove or disprove anything that hasn't been defined...
-
well not realy, God is a requierment of ID, it is one of the requierments of it, like natural selection or random mutation is to evolution, if you could prove that random mutations do not occur or that natural selection doesn't happen then evolution would be invalidated, in a similar vein God (or some equivelent) is needed for ID, they must prove the exsistence of God in a scientificaly verifyable and reproduceable way in order for there 'theory' to work, if they cannot do this then ID is incapable of competeing with evolution.
I think you're missing my point Bob. Yes complete disproof of God (or any other kind of supernatural creator) would be one way to take down ID but you don't need to do that.
ID states that there are some things evolution can't explain therefore God must have done them. Why concentrate on the last half of the sentence? You can prove ID is rubbish by disproving the first half of that sentence too. If you can prove that there is no scientific evidence for things evolution can't explain then the rest of the sentence becomes irrelevent.
ID tries to pass itself off as a completely scientific theory (one which lets faith in by the back door admittedly). That means you can prove ID completely wrong on scientific grounds.
That's probably why the Catholic church won't touch ID with a 10' bargepole. They've taken the much more sensible approach of saying that evolution is correct but that faith says that God exists and was in some nebulous way responsible for creating mankind. That instantly means that any argument between atheists and catholics becomes about why mankind exists (something which is a matter of philosophy) rather than how it exists (something provable by scientific theory).
-
That's probably why the Catholic church won't touch ID with a 10' bargepole. They've taken the much more sensible approach of saying that evolution is correct but that faith says that God exists and was in some nebulous way responsible for creating mankind. That instantly means that any argument between atheists and catholics becomes about why mankind exists (something which is a matter of philosophy) rather than how it exists (something provable by scientific theory).
Of course, even within the scope of Evolution it's possible to argue a Creator God. If you felt up to it, you could probably argue that it's possible that God steered those events which Science deems 'possible but not certain to happen' - ie even though there's proof that they happened a certain way, it's by no means certain that they would always happen that way in a nearly-identical situation. One of those butterfly-flapping-its-wings things. (That sounds catchy)
-
Exactly. God could easily steer evolution without having to any of the things ID says he had to. I've always found it amusing that ID's proponents feel that God needs to interfere on such a large level in order to do what he wants. Haven't they got faith in their own deity do do incredibly complicated things with absolutely undetectable changes?
Why would an omniscient diety need to do things like that. He can see every single thing that will happen from start of the universe until free will comes along (which he can see, not see or not choose to see depending on who you talk to). Why not say God just created universes until he came across one He liked and which would eventually evolve a species He could do whatever His ineffable plan is.
-
I find it funny that you're failing to see the distinction between ID and the concept that God created the universe and man. They are actually two very different concepts. The fact that you have confused them pretty much proves what I was saying that you don't actually understand what ID is.
Creationism is the faith based belief that God created the universe and mankind.
ID was an attempt to create a scientific theory that explained the appearance of mankind. ID attempted to make sure that there were gaps in the theory that could only be explained by an intelligent creator. The idea behind ID was to enable the proponents of the theory to challenge evolution on a scientific basis rather than the faith vs science basis that creationism vs evolution debates have to use.
If you're admitting that ID isn't scientific then you're wasting your time trying to argue in its favour. The whole raison d'etre for ID was to exist as a scientific theory. If you don't believe it is a scientific theory you should dump it and go back to arguing creationism.
i find it funny that you've got this idea in your head that you have to be extremely intelligent to understand the concept of ID. don't kid yourself, you're not that smart. read what you said:
ID attempted to make sure that there were gaps in the theory that could only be explained by an intelligent creator.
.
God creating everything == Intelligent Creator (AS YOU SAID ABOVE) == falls under "Intelligent Design"...
would you not agree? i kind of thought that was a given... didn't think anyone (even you) would try arguing that.
-
ID isn't science. It is obviously not science. How much more clearly do you want us to put it?
And your point is very blunt, and is, in the end, utterly pointless.
here kid, let me explain it to you in more detail... maybe i can get you to see the similarities.
1) Judge rules homosexual marriages cannot take place - in that homosexual couples can not get married.
2) Judge rules ID cannot be taught in schools - in that ID can not be taught in schools
they're both rulings, now don't try to be smart and say "one's a science and one's not"... that's stupid. the point here, is you agreed with one verdict, but you were completely opposed to another. so why is it such a big deal when a judge rules something? they ruled against homosexual marriage, yet it meant absolutely nothing to you, right? i don't know if i can put it any clearer, so if you don't get it now, then i'm sorry :-/
-
1) Judge rules homosexual marriages cannot take place - in that homosexual couples can not get married.
2) Judge rules ID cannot be taught in schools - in that ID can not be taught in schools
Homosexual marriage is not the subject at hand here. I'm sure there's other threads on THAT whole thing.
Intelligent Design cannot be taught in SCIENCE CLASSES because there's nothing scientific about it. Now, if someone wants to pursue trying to find the 'creator' through scientific investigation, be my guest.
Now, if they are saying that ID cannot be taught in a public school at all, that makes sense as well. Much as I would like to see a class where the different creation theories of different religions could be discussed in an academic forum, it's simply impractical and, more to the point, I am wise enough to mistrust the motives of Christians working in groups (despite being one myself). Whether you 'believe' or not, you cannot deny what a powerful driving force theology was behind the development of our various world cultures now. Sometimes to our great shame.
-
now i'm sorry, i don't have time for this right now
i'm going sailing. be back in 7 or 8 hours.
-
i find it funny that you've got this idea in your head that you have to be extremely intelligent to understand the concept of ID. don't kid yourself, you're not that smart. read what you said:
Any more of that and I'm reporting your post. There is no need to get insulting. I haven't said anything about your intelligence nor belittled you in any way. Nor have I said anything about the intelligence level required to understand ID. I have simply said that you don't actually understand what ID is. The fact that I have to explain to you the difference between ID and creationism should prove that I was not insulting you by saying that. You don't understand what ID is plain and simple.
God creating everything == Intelligent Creator (AS YOU SAID ABOVE) == falls under "Intelligent Design"...
would you not agree? i kind of thought that was a given... didn't think anyone (even you) would try arguing that.
Nope. You are wrong. The theory of Intelligent Design that was rejected in the court case above is not what you claim it was. What you're talking about is creationism. You're talking about intelligent design with small letters not The Theory of Intelligent Design with capitals. If there is a God intelligent design is true but Intelligent Design isn't. It's a fundemental difference and not one that most of the proponents of ID actually understand. They believe that ID is simply the new name for creationism.
Creationism is the theory that God created the universe and mankind. The theory of Intelligent Design doesn't actually mention God at all. What it strives to do is explain how there are holes in evolutionary theory that could only be explained by some intelligence directing the course of evolution (I.e an intelligent designer). ID doesn't actually try to claim who or what the designer is. The purpose of the theory is simply to claim that there must be one. That designer could be God, Budda, aliens or flying spagetti monster.
The point of this is to have an argument with the scientific establishment on scientific grounds without bringing faith into the mix and ending up with the kind of "prove God exists" argument you said was so pointless earlier. Proponents of ID have gone out of their way on many occasions to claim that ID is science not faith.
The problem with ID is that the science involved is
a) fundementally flawed
b) well above school childrens level anyway
The attempt by the religious right to push ID onto school kids is what led to the court case because there is no reason why it should be taught to children at that age except so that they could use is to gain acceptance for their particular form of creationism by saying that it fit the supposed holes in evolution left by ID. ID lost because it was obviously being used for this purpose.
So I hope you see what ID is now. It isn't simply the belief in an intelligent designer. It's the belief in a specific set of flaws in evolutionary theory. The fact that you couldn't name one of those supposed flaws even though I repeatedly pressed you to explain what they were is what led me to the conclusion that you don't understand what ID is. Nothing more, nothing less and certainly not any insinuations about your intellect.
That's why I told you to go back to arguing creationism instead. It's obvious that you at least understand that one. Arguing for a theory you don't understand is counter-productive and pointless.
-
Could someone please explain to me exactly what Intelligent Design is? I couldn't make it out in all the chaos.
-
Hopefully the post I just made cleared it up for you.
-
So, basically it's sort of a kind of a mix of Creationism and Evolution, to a point?
-
actually i agree that ID isn't a scientific theory.
do we only teach our kids scientific theories in school? cause i remember being taught a lot more than that in school
This was not about schools only teaching scientific theories, this was about not teaching religion in science class. ID - creationism - is part of religious education. Evolution is part of science and biology. Until Id can be qualified as a scientific theory, it has no place being described, let alone taught, as one.
ID isn't science. It is obviously not science. How much more clearly do you want us to put it?
And your point is very blunt, and is, in the end, utterly pointless.
here kid, let me explain it to you in more detail... maybe i can get you to see the similarities.
1) Judge rules homosexual marriages cannot take place - in that homosexual couples can not get married.
2) Judge rules ID cannot be taught in schools - in that ID can not be taught in schools
they're both rulings, now don't try to be smart and say "one's a science and one's not"... that's stupid. the point here, is you agreed with one verdict, but you were completely opposed to another. so why is it such a big deal when a judge rules something? they ruled against homosexual marriage, yet it meant absolutely nothing to you, right? i don't know if i can put it any clearer, so if you don't get it now, then i'm sorry :-/
So this means you agree it's wrong to teach Id as a science, then?
Now, you're making a hash of a comparison here.
Firstly, the issue of ID was whether or not it is science or religion. It's a very clear, linear definition of what science is; the key issue in this trial would more be IMO whether or not ID was religious (because it takes the pretence of not being that to try and get round the constitutional ban upon teaching religion in the way the fundamentalists want).
Now, the issue of homosexual marriage is on whether the constitution forbids it, whether marriage is defined as a purely male-female relationship. In that case it becomes a lot less definable in fact; it's an attempt to reintrepet a centuries old document to modern society. In any case, a number of courts have ruled banning same-sex marriage is unconstitutional; I believe in Massachussets and California (per the state constitution).
And in any case, these are different judges, different decisions. You honestly think that one good decision means we stop disagreeing with bad ones? That's just a cynical, cheap attempt to attack people by trying to set them up as hypocrites. Guess what - we don't hold our opininion because of what some judge does or not does say. We hold them because we look at the facts, and the evidence, and so on. The reason we're hailing this verdict is because it represents a rare victory for common sense and rationality within a United States where it seems that the theocratic* elements are in control at the highest levels of governments, where science is attacked for offering a a different view which cannot be controlled by the fundamentalist christian groups who have come up with concepts like ID to trojan-horse their agenda.
*and it is theocracy to punt ideas like ID as science.
-
So, basically it's sort of a kind of a mix of Creationism and Evolution, to a point?
Basically it was a theory invented by creationists just for the purpose of trying to prove evolution wrong. As such it tries to point out perceived flaws in evolution.
Most explainations I've seen are very careful to avoid ever saying that evolution is right about anything. They simply try to point out where it is wrong. That is yet another reason why isn't a real scientific theory. It doesn't replace evolution with anything. It simply tries to tear it down.
It must also be pointed out that while all the arguments ID proposes are pretty badly flawed scientifically they are at least better than that crap about the 2nd law of thermodynamics that gets trotted out all the time :)
-
Basically it was a theory invented by creationists just for the purpose of trying to prove evolution wrong. As such it tries to point out perceived flaws in evolution.
Most explainations I've seen are very careful to avoid ever saying that evolution is right about anything. They simply try to point out where it is wrong. That is yet another reason why isn't a real scientific theory. It doesn't replace evolution with anything. It simply tries to tear it down.
It must also be pointed out that while all the arguments ID proposes are pretty badly flawed scientifically they are at least better than that crap about the 2nd law of thermodynamics that gets trotted out all the time :)
The funny thing is that all the tearing and shouting of IDers hasn't even resulted in reviewing older theories - if it had any scientific base then something like this propably would have happened already. Instead most of their talking points, like blood clotting, got much more attention and were proven to be results of evolution (well duhhh, but anyways). If ID had even somekind of truth inside thousands of layers of pure, crystallized bull****, they propably had found it already (prolly by accident). So far they hadn't.
Some IDers also search for "transitional morphs". Like bat with half of the wings and so on (and also implied significant negative fitness factor). This is creationism in classical sense and finding out that such morphs would actually disprove evolution as we know it, but THAT AINT GONNA KEEP ME DOWN
-
So, basically it's sort of a kind of a mix of Creationism and Evolution, to a point?
ID is essentially a "theory" that states that there are aspects of life that are either too complex, or impossible, to have evolved simply by chance and therefore that some outside, intelligent, force must have played a part in it. As Kara said, this may be _any_ intellgent force, although the Christian God is definitely used as the prime suspect when it's being discussed because it is a theory put forth mostly by hardline Christians.
----------(This part is a bit more biased)
The problem with ID as a theory is that it is not a conclusion drawn from research. Rather than using the "bottom-up" approach of most scientific theories, ID attempts to come up with evidence for a hypothesis rather than come up with a hypothesis from evidence. It is also essentially impossible to prove or disprove, because of the possibility that this intelligent designer has the ability to be omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipowerful.
If this reasoning were used universally in science, you would have to come up with alternate theories for the theory of gravity, uncertainty principle of quantum physics, and so on, to explain anything unexplainable with the current theory by adding a coexisting "theory" that maybe the observed phoenomena are caused by an outside intelligence that chooses not to reveal itself. Although it's certainly a possibility, the lack of proof disqualifies this idea from taking part in the theory, as science deals with things that can be observed and tested.
(Personally, I think it'd be funny if aliens showed up with irrefutable evidence that they had caused humanity's existence...proving ID right but totally wrecking the meaning behind it in the first place. But that's just me.)
-
So, basically it's sort of a kind of a mix of Creationism and Evolution, to a point?
Here's a definition from Of Pandas and People (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Of_Pandas_and_People) (the Wikipedia article is worth reading, btw), which is an ID textbook:
Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact: Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks and wings, et cetera.
-
Of note; earlier versions of 'Of Pandas and People' used the terms 'creator' and 'creationism' where 'intelligent designer' and 'intelligent design' are used. This was IIRc one of the key points in the Dover trial when referring to that textbook.
As we can see by that quote, even if this was a scientific hypothesis, it's conclusively disproven by fossil evidence of transitional forms (amongst other things).
-
here kid, let me explain it to you in more detail... maybe i can get you to see the similarities.
1) Judge rules homosexual marriages cannot take place - in that homosexual couples can not get married.
2) Judge rules ID cannot be taught in schools - in that ID can not be taught in schools
The first ruling was law based, the second was philisophocal. Call me a kid again and I will report your post. Your arrogance is appaling, and I will not tolerate being belittled.
they're both rulings, now don't try to be smart and say "one's a science and one's not"... that's stupid.
You're saying that the truth is stupid?
-
Stealth: Simple question - Where is the science in the Homosexual marriage ruling?
If you can't find it then surely it's absolutely irrelevant (rather than the "almost absolutely irrelevant" that it falls under ATM.