Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Mefustae on February 21, 2006, 07:15:53 am
-
...for the good of
humanity common sense; Scientists enlist clergy in evolution battle against ID et al. (http://edition.cnn.com/2006/EDUCATION/02/20/science.evolution.reut/index.html)
It would seem that Intelligent Design may have entered its death throes... :yes:
-
All I can say is, well duh, and about bloody time.
-
FSM! :D
-
Surely it'd be a holy alliance, though?
-
I thought this was gonna be a reference to kazan's campaign...
-
Le campaign de fau... oh, the other one. :D
-
I thought this was gonna be a reference to kazan's campaign...
It isn't?
-
It is[/b].
-
:jaw: Yay
-
id is clearly (and poorly) designed o market religion to people with brains.
isnt your empire big enough?
-
Some of the clergy at least has been against it this entire time. Don't you guys remember the Vatican criticizing it?
-
Yes, but the fact that the Clergy and Scientists are working together is somewhat unprecedented.
-
Religion and Science working together?!?!?! It's the end!! We're f***ed!! We're f***ed!!................. :p
Seriously though, it is both astounding and somewhat good to hear. Perhaps this is what the guys who made up ID intended: get religion and science to agree on an issue. The plot thickens...... :nervous: .
-
Religion and Science working together?!?!?! It's the end!! We're f***ed!! We're f***ed!!................. :p
Seriously though, it is both astounding and somewhat good to hear. Perhaps this is what the guys who made up ID intended: get religion and science to agree on an issue. The plot thickens...... :nervous: .
no, the guys who made up ID are a bunch of dumbasses who want to put god in places it doesnt belong for reasons unknown, probably some misinterpretation of the word 'faith'
way to dumb to do something deceptive while trying to acheive something else
they are americans at least (is american, is a college student, is america-bashing)
-
Religion and Science working together?!?!?! It's the end!! We're f***ed!! We're f***ed!!................. :p
Seriously though, it is both astounding and somewhat good to hear. Perhaps this is what the guys who made up ID intended: get religion and science to agree on an issue. The plot thickens...... :nervous: .
you're giving far too much credit. Like, exponentially too much credit. All the ID crowd wanted was the same as the flat-earthists; to regress society to a state where any form of religious dogma and hence control would not be questioned or investigated by rational minded people.
-
ID is and always was a scam. The idea was to try and make it sound like there is a scientific controversy around evolution. But if ID really is proof of a scientific controversy where are the papers about it? To this day not a single paper has been published in an accredited journal.
The proponents of ID would like to have you believe that this is because scientists won't publish anything that disagrees with the commonly held scientific view but this is utter rubbish. You only need to look at papers on epigenetics or the (later discredited) paper in Nature on the "memory of water" to show that even highly regarded journals will pubish papers that completely fly in the face of accepted scientific thinking if there is evidence to back them up.
Papers on ID have not been accepted because they get ripped to shreds when going through peer review. The evidence they present is so flawed as to be completely worthless.
The reason why the Vatican and now other clergy are behind evolution and not ID is that as well as being untrue ID makes them look bad if they associated with it. If the priests are lying/mistaken about ID it makes people wonder what else they are wrong about. One reason why the church has been losing followers is that they are looking increasingly out of touch with the rest of the world. Clinging to the creation myth that mankind didn't evolve really doesn't help that image.
-
Not to mention ID proponents are a grouping of people with varying levels of bible literalism, ranging from 'god directed evolution' to 'god created the earth in 7 days and fossils are fake'; if they were to ever try and specify Intelligent Design as a theory, not only would it undoubtedly fail testing, but it'd destroy their coalition to destroy rational science.
(NB: worth noting; the various churches including the Vatican, I'd think, still object to abiogenesis)
-
Well lets at least win the debate on evolution before we start up on abiogenesis :D
-
Well lets at least win the debate on evolution before we start up on abiogenesis :D
It's not really a debate if the other guy is sticking his fingers in his ears and going nanananananananananananana, is it?
-
Well lets at least win the debate on evolution before we start up on abiogenesis :D
It's not really a debate if the other guy is sticking his fingers in his ears and going nanananananananananananana, is it?
Well, if I ignore you then I demand and deserve a fair oh wait this doesn't work out th
-
It's not really a debate if the other guy is sticking his fingers in his ears and going nanananananananananananana, is it?
Exactly. Which gives Abiogenesis much more time to advance before anyone starts up on it :)
-
(NB: worth noting; the various churches including the Vatican, I'd think, still object to abiogenesis)
Perhaps because, unlike evolution, the concept of abiogenesis is a hell of a lot harder to prove, and the scientists are still debating it? By that I mean the specifics, producing experiments to prove the concepts (they've synthesized viruses, but no living cells), etc.
-
(NB: worth noting; the various churches including the Vatican, I'd think, still object to abiogenesis)
Perhaps because, unlike evolution, the concept of abiogenesis is a hell of a lot harder to prove, and the scientists are still debating it? By that I mean the specifics, producing experiments to prove the concepts (they've synthesized viruses, but no living cells), etc.
It's not that, it's because abiogenesis would further reduce the 'visible' role of God as creator; evolution you can say, 'ok, but god started it by creating life'. But abiogenesis would throw out even that most lax reading of Genesis (etc); God would be reduced to the even more intangible role of being the instigator of the Big Bang or something. Abiogenesis is a lot harder subject, of course, and I can't help but think of an allusion made by Dawkins to Stonehenge; namely that the only explanation of man building it involves some form of scaffolding, etc, that we cannot see or discover due to time - and that abiogenesis may have involved a now vanished precursor chemical or action (noting that this does not bar theorising such a thing, for the same reasons as we theorise Stonehenge was built using scaffolds, etc, to raise the stones and soforth).
-
There's nothing wrong with ID except that it's some are trying to shove it as science...
It makes sense, it's a good theory, but it's NOT science - you can't prove it or disprove it, so only idiots would back it up to the extreeme levels.
-
There's nothing wrong with ID except that it's some are trying to shove it as science...
It makes sense, it's a good theory, but it's NOT science - you can't prove it or disprove it, so only idiots would back it up to the extreeme levels.
It's not a theory, actually. Not in the context of theory as it is usually applied to it, anyways. Hypothesis, really - at best.
Anyways, it doesn't actually have anything in it to make sense - there's no definition. Just 'evolution is wrong and God/insert deity/alien here did it all', usually followed by citing some false and rather dodgy reasons. I mean, can you actually say what ID is without referencing evolution?
-
Here's what Trashman was trying to say:
Intelligent design can be viewed as a legitimate belief of a person or group of people, but trying to pass something that relies on faith as scientific fact is a horribly flawed concept.
-
Well, yeah.
As for what I said earlier, it was only speculation......... hope.......... maybe both.
-
There's nothing wrong with ID except that it's some are trying to shove it as science...
It makes sense, it's a good theory, but it's NOT science - you can't prove it or disprove it, so only idiots would back it up to the extreeme levels.
Wrong. And yet more proof that the people who try to promote ID don't actually know what it is. Your comment makes about as much sense as saying that there's nothing wrong with murder except that it involves the unlawful killing of someone.
ID's sole purpose is to try to appear as if it was a scientific theory. If it's not a scientific theory it's nothing. ID exists just for the purposes of trying to take science on on scientific grounds. To try and disprove evolution on it's own home turf. You might as well dump it and go back to creationism if you're going to say that ID isn't science because you've completely removed its raison d'etre.
Here's what Trashman was trying to say:
Intelligent design can be viewed as a legitimate belief of a person or group of people, but trying to pass something that relies on faith as scientific fact is a horribly flawed concept.
But even that is wrong. ID isn't a belief. So many people get this one wrong on both sides of the argument that it's not even funny. If you go and talk to the people who invented ID they'll beat you down with sticks if you try to claim that their theory is a belief or anything other than science.
ID is not a legitimate belief any more than phlogiston (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlogiston) or luminiferous aether (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theory) are legitimate beliefs. All three are failed attempts at a scientific theory and nothing more.
If intelligent design is a belief what do the people who believe in it have that differenciates them from creationists? The fact is that proponents of ID break down into two groups.
1) Psuedo-scientists who think that ID is science
2) People who don't understand ID and think that it's another name for creationism.
-
Can you conclusively prove that a higher power didn't influence evolution? No. That's because it's an article of faith for the people who believe it. Just because you don't agree doesn't mean you can trash their beliefs.
At the same time, its not even remotely science. Its an article of faith, and faith has no place in science.
-
Can you conclusively prove that a higher power didn't influence evolution? No. That's because it's an article of faith for the people who believe it. Just because you don't agree doesn't mean you can trash their beliefs.
Err, why not? Why should what we consider unreasonable beliefs be left unchallenged? Without the rejection and debate of ideas, there would be little advancement in science or society. It's the caveat that by having unmoderated beliefs in a free speech society, you also open them up to the criticism of others.
-
Can you conclusively prove that a higher power didn't influence evolution? No. That's because it's an article of faith for the people who believe it. Just because you don't agree doesn't mean you can trash their beliefs.
Of course I can. It has nothing to do with proof or not, like you said, science and faith don't intertwine. When I laugh at people who hold some beliefs, I laugh at them because their beliefs are ****ing retarded, and I also laugh at them for not relying on science and material explanations, but rather, on their imagination, to define the things around them.
It's the concept really that I ridicule, not the end product. Though when the end product is especially stupid, then I feel the need to chime in.
Non related: Scientology isn't about beliefs or non-beliefs though. Anyone who argues that, doesn't have the complete picture. It's about that technology that they use behind it - that is troubling. You're supposed to laugh at the concept, because it's designed as distraction from the contraptions behind it.
Also, I'm not visiting this thread again. Too much stupid innit. (subject and discourse taken, not people's posts)
-
Can you conclusively prove that a higher power didn't influence evolution? No. That's because it's an article of faith for the people who believe it. Just because you don't agree doesn't mean you can trash their beliefs.
At the same time, its not even remotely science. Its an article of faith, and faith has no place in science.
You're falling into exactly the trap I've described of talking about ID without actually understanding what it is. For years creationist have been falling into its counterpart and coming up with spurious nonsense about the 2nd law of thermodynamics or how the lack of weird chimeras which are part mammal and part fish prove that evolution must be wrong.
I'm not rubbishing anyone's belief. I'm pointing out that the vast majority of people who claim to believe in ID actually believe in creationism because quite simply they do not understand what ID actually is.
If you want to talk about ID you must first understand what it is. ID attempts to be a scientific argument. It states that its three main concepts Irreducible complexity, Specified complexity and Fine-tuned universe prove that evolution must be wrong. It then further posits that there must be some sort of intelligent designer who dealt with these flaws by some mechanism.
And that is where ID stops. It doesn't say who the designer is. It doesn't say how the flaws were repaired it doesn't say anything beyond that. The designer could be aliens. The designer could be spagetti monster. It could be me travelling back in time and playing the ultimate practical joke on myself. ID stops at saying that there is a designer. ID goes out of its way to not say who or what the designer is.
The psuedo-scientific theory is then coupled to the faith based belief that God is the intelligent designer. Then and only then does faith enter into it. ID itself states nothing supernatural. It is only the gestalt entity that involves faith. ID itself is not an article of faith.
People who claim to believe in ID therefore are basically saying "I believe that there is scientific evidence that evolution is wrong. Therefore I believe in God". Can you not see how saying that ID is not scientific therefore automatically negates the entire first part of that argument. All you are left with is "I believe evolution is wrong. Therefore I believe in God".
If that's the case than so be it. You're entitled to that belief but why are you even mentioning ID at all? That phrase basically describes someone who is a creationist. Why bring ID into the matter at all?
If you are a proponent of ID you MUST believe its scientific. If you don't believe it's scientific you're just a creationist who hasn't caught on to the fact that ID is no longer relevant to you.
-
Can you conclusively prove that a higher power didn't influence evolution? No. That's because it's an article of faith for the people who believe it. Just because you don't agree doesn't mean you can trash their beliefs.
Well, um, you can when they're perpetuated under the name of 'science'. anyways, going back a bit.....
Here's what Trashman was trying to say:
Intelligent design can be viewed as a legitimate belief of a person or group of people, but trying to pass something that relies on faith as scientific fact is a horribly flawed concept.
The whole point is, I'd bet he can't say what Intelligent Design is, because there is no defined meaning of it that isn't essentially 'evolution is wrong'. That's the problem in it as a theory/hypothesis - it's undefined. There is no definition of the designer, no definition of the methods of design, no explanation of why this is better (more scientifically supported) than evolution, etc. No why (that would expose the religious basis they try to hide). No when (that'd cause a conflict between young-earth and old-earth members of the ID camp). No how (conflict between Genesis literalists and non-literalists). Nor how long (again, 7 days versus actual age).
You can say 'I believe in the bible creation story' or 'I believe God directs evolution', but 'I believe in ID' has no meaning or value; ID was only really created to be an obtuse trojan horse for biblican creationism for (science classes in) the US school system, which is precisely why it has never been detailed in the way any sort of true theory is. And this also means, of course, it's moved itself from the point of being a belief in the supernatural (which is a more defensible position as the only basis required is faith, blind or otherwise) to some pseudo-science without form beyond petty and incorrect criticisms of the best supported theory - and you can tear apart it as soon as it becomes that psuedo-science.
-
We really need to get someone in here that both supports ID, and can support it without resorting to the classic style of ID support [quotes out of context, degrading evolution], as nobody already here can really go up against Kara and Aldo for more than a couple of posts before losing all credibility! :p
-
We really need to get someone in here that both supports ID, and can support it without resorting to the classic style of ID support [quotes out of context, degrading evolution], as nobody already here can really go up against Kara and Aldo for more than a couple of posts before losing all credibility! :p
I'm not sure such a person exists.
-
I'm not sure such a person exists.
What, support ID in a succinct manner, or hold their own against you in an arguement? :)
-
Can you conclusively prove that a higher power didn't influence evolution? No.
I had wanted to come back to this sentence earlier but it was only when I read Aldo's point that I remembered why.
I'm not saying that people can't believe in God. I'm not saying that they can't believe that he influenced evolution. The simple fact is that you can believe in those things without needing to claim you believe in ID.
Suppose you knew someone who went to Catholic church every Sunday cause he believed in what he heard from the pulpit. If said he was a protestant would you be rubbishing his beliefs to say "Actually I think you'll find that you're a catholic"?
A lot of people have gotten it into their heads that believing in ID means believing that God controlled evolution. It means nothing of the sort. You can believe that God controlled evolution without ever mentioning ID at all. That would be an article of faith and you'd have no scientific proof of that but you're allowed to have that belief.
But if you say you believe in ID and that it's not a scientific theory then you're just deluding yourself.
-
I'm not sure such a person exists.
What, support ID in a succinct manner, or hold their own against you in an arguement? :)
Former. I'm not that arrogant. Usually :D
-
The problem is that anyone who truely understands the science involved in ID soon sees fundemental flaws in the logic. If there was someone who could argue ID succinctly and scientifically they'd be publishing papers in Nature about it instead of discussing it here.
-
OK, let's try this again. Summary of the pertinent facts:
1. People, many of them who are more likely to be Creationist, are against evolution.
2. To fight against evolution, they revive the Watchmaker analogy, renaming it to Intelligent Design.
3. They attempt to pass Intelligent Design off as scientific theory.
4. The problem with the Watchmaker analogy is it is not supported in nature (see: the human eye)
What I was trying to mention is that some people may have the belief that even though no higher power is required, it may have intervened anyway in the process orf evolution.
Hopefully, this will clear up any confusion as to what I was attempting to say.
-
slightly off key here, but on topic
if you beleive that a 'god' of some sort 'influenced' evolution, then you do not beleive in ID, as IIRC ID says that a 'creator' 'created' everything in the universe, exactly as it is (more or less) it says that there was no evolution, so there was nothing for 'god' to 'influence'.
-
OK, let's try this again. Summary of the pertinent facts:
1. People, many of them who are more likely to be Creationist, are against evolution.
2. To fight against evolution, they revive the Watchmaker analogy, renaming it to Intelligent Design.
3. They attempt to pass Intelligent Design off as scientific theory.
4. The problem with the Watchmaker analogy is it is not supported in nature (see: the human eye)
Yep. I agree with all that
What I was trying to mention is that some people may have the belief that even though no higher power is required, it may have intervened anyway in the process orf evolution.
That's fine too. However this sentence has nothing to do with Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design states quite clearly that a higher power is needed and that this fact has been scientifically proved.
That's why I had such a problem with you saying that ID is a legitimate belief. It quite simply isn't. What you've typed in the second quote isn't ID.
if you beleive that a 'god' of some sort 'influenced' evolution, then you do not beleive in ID, as IIRC ID says that a 'creator' 'created' everything in the universe, exactly as it is (more or less) it says that there was no evolution, so there was nothing for 'god' to 'influence'.
Nope. Yet again that's something that has gotten lumped in with ID that isn't actually ID itself. Some parts of ID go beyond evolution and say that the Universe is too finely tuned to be accidental but even those still don't give any data on whether the universe appeared, whether there was a big bang etc.
It's easy to get confused about what ID is because as I've proved several times even the people who argue in favour of it rarely know themselves.
-
It's important to remember that trying to get a definition of ID is like trying to pin jelly to the wall.
-
Webster begs to disagree, karajorma:
Definition: a theory that nature and complex biological structures were designed by intelligent beings and were not created by chance; abbr. ID
-
Well, that definition renders itself incorrect but the second word, ID is not a theory. Other than that, it's a relatively sound definition.
-
Depends on what definition you use for theory. Again from Webster's:
1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2 : abstract thought : SPECULATION
3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances -- often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>
5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <wave theory of light>
6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : CONJECTURE c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>
2 and 6b fit that use of theory pretty well.
-
Fools! All fools! Lamark was right!
*Wills a nuclear bomb appendage and nukes the thread*
MWUAHAHAHAHA!!!!!1111
-
Webster begs to disagree, karajorma:
Definition: a theory that nature and complex biological structures were designed by intelligent beings and were not created by chance; abbr. ID
Notice that it doesn't actually explain anything, though. Not the mechanism of design, nor the designer, nor how the designer came to be, or when, etc. Indeed, if you examined it in reality with, say, 10 different proponents of ID I'd wager you'd get several difference answers on the keys questions such as 'is the fossil record correct' or 'does natural selection occur in any form' or even 'how old is the earth'.
Now, as a belief then it's ok; but whenever it's presented it's been as a theory, and specifically a scientific theory that is an equal contender for evolution. This is because defining it as a belief would invalidate it as an option for science teaching in the US. People who believe in it, would generally assert as their belief that God (insert applicable diety) created life and guided it, or somesuch, in which it would then be biblical creationism. Those who would say it was aliens, would fall under another general definition; that of believers in perspermia.
(Additionally, the context for which ID has always been placed is as a scientific theory. Given the subject it concerns, it really only can be described as one of two things; belief and theory. If you use theory, that will corresponse to scientific theory or hypothesis, otherwise it clearly overlaps with belief).
Moreso, it appears to characterise evolution (being the alternative) as 'chance'; which is obviously wrong - mutation is a random event, natural and sexual selection of mutations to retain is not random.
NB: Merriam Webster online (www.m-w.com) doesn't have a definition for ID, nor does http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/ , where are you getting that from?
-
Dictionary.com for ID, www.m-w.com for theory.
-
Dictionary.com for ID, www.m-w.com for theory.
Ah. Presumably you've noted then that a lot of dictionaries don't have a definition for Intelligent Design, then. Cambridge dictionary doesn't, can't search the Oxford one because they're stingy penny-pinching bastards and only allow subscribers to search. Why not use the dictionary.com definition (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=theory) of theory, though?
-
Fools! All fools! Lamark was right!
Actually he was. Kinda. cf. Epigenetics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics) :)
Webster begs to disagree, karajorma:
Definition: a theory that nature and complex biological structures were designed by intelligent beings and were not created by chance; abbr. ID
How does that differ from my point? Notice the use of the word theory and not belief.
Anyway why are you going to Webster and Dictionary.com? Why not go straight to the source. Here's what the Discovery Institute (The creators of ID have to say (http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php)).
Questions about Intelligent Design
1. What is the theory of intelligent design?
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.
2. Is intelligent design theory incompatible with evolution?
It depends on what one means by the word "evolution." If one simply means "change over time," or even that living things are related by common ancestry, then there is no inherent conflict between evolutionary theory and intelligent design theory. However, the dominant theory of evolution today is neo-Darwinism, which contends that evolution is driven by natural selection acting on random mutations, an unpredictable and purposeless process that "has no discernable direction or goal, including survival of a species." (NABT Statement on Teaching Evolution). It is this specific claim made by neo-Darwinism that intelligent design theory directly challenges.
3. Is intelligent design based on the Bible?
No. The intellectual roots of intelligent design theory are varied. Plato and Aristotle both articulated early versions of design theory, as did virtually all of the founders of modern science. Indeed, most scientists until the latter part of the nineteenth century accepted some form of intelligent design. The scientific community largely rejected design in the early twentieth century after neo-Darwinism claimed to be able to explain the emergence of biological complexity through the unintelligent process of natural selection acting on random mutations. During the past decade, however, new research and discoveries in such fields as physics, cosmology, biochemistry, genetics, and paleontology have caused a growing number of scientists and science theorists to question neo-Darwinism and propose design as the best explanation for the existence of specified complexity in the natural world.
4. Is intelligent design theory the same as creationism?
No. Intelligent design theory is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations. Creationism is focused on defending a literal reading of the Genesis account, usually including the creation of the earth by the Biblical God a few thousand years ago. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design is agnostic regarding the source of design and has no commitment to defending Genesis, the Bible or any other sacred text. Honest critics of intelligent design acknowledge the difference between intelligent design and creationism. University of Wisconsin historian of science Ronald Numbers is critical of intelligent design, yet according to the Associated Press, he "agrees the creationist label is inaccurate when it comes to the ID [intelligent design] movement." Why, then, do some Darwinists keep trying to conflate intelligent design with creationism? According to Dr. Numbers, it is because they think such claims are "the easiest way to discredit intelligent design." In other words, the charge that intelligent design is "creationism" is a rhetorical strategy on the part of Darwinists who wish to delegitimize design theory without actually addressing the merits of its case.
Where in any of that does it mention ID being anything other than a theory? Even the creators of ID claim it's a scientific theory. They go out of their way to distance themselves from creationism even though many so called ID proponents are creationists too.
-
I'm amazed how utter rubbish the 2nd point in particular is; it deliberately misconstrues natural selection as being undirected (and thus to imply it is effectively random) when in reality it is directed in terms of the sequence consequences in evolution, but not the action (i.e. natural selection will - within certain boundaries such as sexual selection - result in the most effective mutations for survival being perpetuated, but it is not directed in the sense of some governing hand selecting mutations to preserve). It's a classic tactic from ID, though; probably the biggest misportrayal of evolution that can be made is to portray it as an entirely random process (whereas Id effectively proposes every animal has been shaped by some designer to work perfectly), when in reality it is constrained by survival issues that create an implicit move to improve animals (ID would seek to portray the 'improvement' in animals such as eyesight as a singular directed action, rather than the consequence of mutations improving eyesight resulting in increased survival and thus greater reproduction and offspring).
The use of 'purposeless' also belies the attempt to place some divine will into the process of life; there is no need for natural selection to have a 'purpose', it's simply the combined effects of an environment upon it's inhabitants. Every lifeform has a basic purpose of surviving and reproducing; the 'purpose' of natural selection is to represent as a logical concept how the animals' physiological adaptations help or hinder it's survival and thus reproduction and spreading of genes.
Unpredictable is, of course, completely wrong. Mutations are, IIRC, essentially unpredictable. Natural selection is very predictable - the better adapted an organism is, the more likely it is to survive and reproduce. If a bat can echolocate 100m further than another bat, then the first bat has a greater chance of finding food and thus living longer. Very simple concept.
Plus it mentions ancient beliefs of the designed world, but neglects to mention that they came from theistic cultures (thus feeding into biblical creation myth) and before the discovery of the bulk of the fossil record (any fossils of dinosaurs, etc, would be regarded as ancient mythical monsters); moreso, whilst the concept of some designer of the world has existed since prehistoric times(before scientific exploration), there can be no doubt the movement to override established science (evolution) is funded by biblical fundamentalists (who provide most of the Discovery institutes funding... although, interestingly, a major funder is apparently Bill Gates - EDIT; apparently restricted to some other programme seperate from Id, though - something to do with regional transportation).
The use of 'Darwinists' is interesting, too; I presume the intention is to give the impression of scientists as being members of some 'cult' around Darwin, rather than acknowledge the decades of work upon evolutionary theory; to regress and ignore the work done since 1859 by focusing upon the Darwins original idea and not the myriad of supporting evidence and additional work.
But don't get me started on ID.......the blatant lies and agendas behind it infuriate me, it serves no purpose than to hold back human and cultural development in order to prepare it for someones personal theology, regardless of how devoid of merit that theology is.
NB: I note even their own definition does not define what 'features of the universe' were created, how they were created, who the creator was, how the creator came to be, etc.
-
NB: I note even their own definition does not define what 'features of the universe' were created, how they were created, who the creator was, how the creator came to be, etc.
Which is one reason I'd love to see what an ID lesson plan would look like. You can't go on about irreducable complexity or specified complexity at a school kids level for more than a few minutes. Going on about the molecular machinary in flagellum is way above the level at which kids that age should be taught so I am left wondering what the teacher would be talking about after the first 10 minutes.
-
NB: I note even their own definition does not define what 'features of the universe' were created, how they were created, who the creator was, how the creator came to be, etc.
Which is one reason I'd love to see what an ID lesson plan would look like. You can't go on about irreducable complexity or specified complexity at a school kids level for more than a few minutes. Going on about the molecular machinary in flagellum is way above the level at which kids that age should be taught so I am left wondering what the teacher would be talking about after the first 10 minutes.
Like this, i presume;
1/ we don't really understand evolution, so it must be flawed. Here are some quotes and 'problems' we've made up.
2/ we do understand evolution, and it doesn't need god
3/ God is love, evolution is evil
-
Dictionary.com for ID, www.m-w.com for theory.
Ah. Presumably you've noted then that a lot of dictionaries don't have a definition for Intelligent Design, then. Cambridge dictionary doesn't, can't search the Oxford one because they're stingy penny-pinching bastards and only allow subscribers to search. Why not use the dictionary.com definition (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=theory) of theory, though?
Didn't even look at it, honestly. I only resorted to using dictionary.com due to the lack of a definition for ID at M-W. I'm honestly not sure why I'm debating this, actually.