Slashdot Mirror
The Pseudoscience of Intelligent Design
Mime Narrator writes "An article over at Kuro5hin discusses the controvery over the Intelligent Design movement. The Dover, Pennsylvania school board recently adopted a policy requiring that high school science teachers teaching evolution tell their students that evolutionary theory, a theory that has been shown to explain the origins of life time and time again, is flawed, and that intelligent design is a valid alternative. The ACLU, along with the AUSCS (Americans United for the Separation of Church and State), and 11 parents, are suing the school board, accusing the board of violating the separation of church and state. "
Honestly, just what is the deal with these fundamentalists? I have two issues with these people.
One, if a literal interpretation of the Bible is correct, what about all these fossils? Scientists have clear evidence of the evolutionary process throughout history via these fossils...where exactly did they come from if the planet is in fact only 6000-odd years old? I've asked creationists this question, and they've actually replied that they were placed here by God to test our faith. Now, I don't know about you, but I have a serious problem with this hypothesis. I for one refuse to believe that God would give us brains capable of rational, abstract thought, and then plant fake clues to punish those of us who had the gall to use those brains to attempt to understand the world we live in. Of course, this is the same god who told Abraham to sacrifice his only son to Him, and waited until the knife was actually descending to say "Psych!".
Two, regarding the wider scope of Intellegent Design, why does that necessarily have to conflict with the established theory of evolution? This is like saying that a particular statue could not have possibly been carved by ancient man, because it is clear that it was in fact carved with a stone tool. Can't the ID folks consider the possibility that evolution is the tool God used to create us? Evolution does not disprove the existence of God.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
Evolution has been shown to be very accurate throught the past century. Granted there might be small little holes in the theory, but Intelligent Design is swiss cheese comparatively.
By this, I mean that the process of evolution is a thinking intelligent process. Or to state it another way: Evolution is intelligent.
This means that all signs of evolution also will be signs of intelligent design, simply because evolution is a form of intelligence.
So, instead of the intelligence reciding in the metaphysical head of a super
natural being called God, it resides in DNA and their interactions with the
world through life and death.
All this according to the Kolmogorov Complexity definition of intelligence.
Intelligence is the process of rationally building and testing theories about
the world, and then using those theories for useful stuff. DNA is mutated,
recombined, merged through sex, and otherwise changed. These changes are
hypotheses about the world, in the form of new life forms trying to survive
there. Thus life forms which do not reproduce are falsified hypotheses. The
useful stuff is survival.
As for those people preaching intelligent design:
They are all religious, and do not know what theories or evolution are. They
just pretend and believe they know. Remembering this, they are easily exposed,
as long as you yourself really know what theories and evoution are.
Kim0
So, are we supposed to have a good academic discussion about where we stand on the issue or are we supposed to flame anyone who is a proponent of Intelligent Design?
Because the summary seems predisposed towards the latter.
"Intelligent Design" is nothing more than an effort by christian mythologists to keep their invisible man relevant. I'd like to ask these ID kooks just what god it is that developed all that they propose? Certainly they aren't speaking of Hindu gods or Egyption gods, they're pushing their own brand of myth on hungry minds. Any teacher that propagates that rubbish should have their teaching credentials revoked as they aren't putting the best interests of the students first.
The "christian taliban" will stop at nothing to keep the money flowing to the coffers, perpetuating the ignorance for another generation is the only way to guarantee it.
Hee, my "Friends/Foes" mail should be entertaining tonight.
Trolling is a art,
What next? "Serious Doubts About Pyramid Schemes"? "Scientist Uses Paper to Wipe Ass"?
Intelligent design essentially reduces to this:
Fact 1. The universe is extremely intricate and complicated
Fact 2. We design things such as automobiles or aircraft that are intricate and complicated.
Which leads to the conclusion:
Conclusion 1: Everything that is intricate and complicated must have a designer.
Conclusion 2: Conclusion 1 indicates that the universe requires a designer.
Conclusion 3: God is that designer.
(Western) Conclusion 4: This designer is the God as described in the Holy Bible.
The real failure of the argument is in Conclusion 1. It amounts to saying "I have absolutely no idea why the universe is complicated, therefore God did it." When a person studies physics, Conclusion 1 becomes even more untenable. There are many very simple systems that give rise to very complex behaviour. Consider the Newton-raphson method for finding roots of a polynomial. The method goes "pick somewhere close to the root and then start iterating and the iteration will take you to a root". If you're brighter than I was at school, you might have asked: "Okay, but how can I guess where the root is mathematically so I can start the process." The answer is far more http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/newton / ">complex than you think.
And besides, if Conclusion 1 is true then surely God is intricate and complicated and thus needed a designer. To which the theist replies: "God doesn't need a designer, It's God". To which I respond: "If God doesn't need a designer, why does the universe? Why not just cut out God and proclaim that the universe is undesigned? And there in is the true failing of intelligent design.
Another argument comes from the fact that the universe seems fine tuned to life. This a bit premature. First of all, we can't even show life is possible in our universe from first principles; that is, taking the complete set of the laws of physics and using it to simulate life at the atomic level on a super-computer. How can we be so sure life couldn't exist in some form with different laws of physics? My second objection is that we should expect life to depend heavily on physics. As an example, the proteins that deal with the replication of DNA are quantum optimised, the speed at which they move down the DNA is the minimum allowed by quantum mechanics. There is also evidence that the machinary uses quantum mechanical tunnelling to halve the error rate during copying. I'd argue that the fact that life depends so heavily the laws of physics being exactly right is a product of selection - there is a distinct advantage in exploiting the physics of the universe. In the begining of life, the instruments of life were probably a lot cruder.
As an atheist, I am alarmed when people try to mark religious belief as science. I don't mind you having religious belief, but if the US wants to remain a technological super-power you've got to make sure your children are taught cold, hard science. By letting the cherrished beliefs of a few cloud the judgement of the youth on an entire nation, everbody loses out. As a scientist, I enjoy having the key theories questioned but it becomes annoying when such a throughly discredited theory as Intelligent Design is peddled again and again without the proponents bringing any new ideas to the table.
Simon
Huh? Where's it flawed, except for the part where we haven't seen anything macroscopic in front of our eyes? (which we haven't expected to see in the ~150 years since this theory was first postulated). Why can't it happen, and why the hell do these stupid creationists keep eschewing very grounded scientific theories just because they think the Bible is literal truth, even though it doesn't claim itself to be?!
It just means there will be fewer well educated people from the state of PA. if the community feels they need to go back to the dark ages, they have every right to do so. when their children can't compete for jobs and are a laughing stock of the nation, they'll know who to blame.
No intelligent designer or engineer would put a waste pipe across a recreation area.
The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
I teach physics. Every theory in physics is most likely flawed. In fact, every theory in natural science is flawed. Should I have to point it out again and again?
The owls are not what they seem
We'll say that in our classrooms when your ministers say "God is a theory, not a fact" on their pulpits.
And fundies, just to pre-emptively shoot down your argument that taxes pays for these schoolbooks and so you shouldn't be forced to read that stuff, consider it a fair exchange for all of the tax exemptions that the church gets. Dollar for dollar, you guys are getting off EASY.
why the fuck?
a shdot.html
here's a revelation:
DON'T GIVE THEM ATTENTION
http://www.cs.washington.edu/homes/klee/misc/sl
Seriously, that's what the problem is. With most schools teaching science only as 'a body of facts', why should we be surprised how faith-based things like ID gain ground?
We need to be teaching kids about the scientific method, the scientific process. Popper etc. The importance of skepticism and falsifiability.
If they still have the impression that the fact that Evolution is a theory represent a weakness, not a decisive strength, then how can we win?
How can anyone who's looked at the evidence believe this stuff? It doesn't require giving up faith in the deity of your choice, either. (After all, atheism is unprovable.) What next, equal time in schools for the geocentric hypothesis, since that's alluded to in the "Bible," too? Really, people. Use some sense...
Paleotechnologist and connoisseur of pretty shiny things.
ID has nothing to do with science, and /. is obsessed with science.
The extent of any intelligent conversation with ID must be limited to the above. Anything else is not only superfluous, but also in danger of ennobling those quacks.
Just so long as I'm equally entitled to conjecture that the Bible was placed here by Satan to test our faith in him (the true Lord).Don't think they should have a problem with that, do you?
I have a coworker, a man I deeply respect, who has told me he has lived his life by listening to an inner voice that guides him.
That, in itself isn't bothering. He's a story about how he was living semi-nomadic, moving from job to job, and when it came time to move south he went to take a position doing radio towers (he'd done it every year). This year, however, his 'voice' told him to skip it.
The crew that ran the towers was killed when a freak gust of wind knocked them off. The owners brother, who was filling in because they were short handed, was killed as well.
Which makes you not wonder why a repeated event like that would lead someone to believe there is a higher power granting directions to you.
He also went on to tell me he believed in the great flood and that the bible talks about life on other planets, and how those aliens came to earth and impregnated our women to form the scourage that was wiped clean with said flood.... but like I said, I respect the man deeply.
I just don't agree with him.
Bravo, Hemos.
I spend my high school time (12-18) at a catholic school in Europe.
In biology we spent a lot of time learning about evolution. When those classes where over, the teacher said he was obligated (well, don't know by who actually. School or govn.) to mention intelligent design. It took him no more than two minutes, and the entire class had a good laugh.
At the time I was surprised that he had to mention it, though.
Everyone knows that the world was created ~4000 years ago in 6 days, complete with dinosaur fossils thrown in to mix up the heathens advocating the theory of evolution. Anyone claiming otherwise is jeopardising his/her immortal soul and will be chained to a computer running Windows(TM) with no friendly Microsoft tech support to explain the shortcomings of the hardware that causes the BSOD's...
Do not look into the laser with remaining eye.
He knew the gullible bint was going to eat the apple. He never had any intention of letting mankind stay in the Garden of Eden. He just wanted to be able to say "Gotcha!".
D.
It doesn't necessarily propose a God figure, but SOME intelligence behind our design.
:-/
Having alternate theories is all very nice - but the the problem with ID as an alternate theory is it is recursive and infinitely so. If there is some 'intelligent design' behind our existence, there is a designer. So how does the designer come to be?
The only way I can see out of this is to have an arbitrary stopping point, viz., a God figure.
After that, the flames start
Look at this:
jnvÇ=ïÆT&ð;¥¾KÃü?xG/U4ÌJñ5î90o9B2ÁEiØÆØ
Definitely complex.
It was generated randomly.
Random stuff is complex. Therefore, randomnes could have made complex stuff.
Kim0
I'll start by saying I am a christian so you know where I stand.
Intellegent design does not mean it was God who did it. Does not say who did it just that some intellegance did it. This is a viable theory. Don't attack it based on how religious organizations use the theory but on it's merits
In the same way evolution, based on the science, has many holes and flaws. I'm not saying it isn't true but as it is stated and follwed, there are many flaws. But, for all I know they could be flaws in our logic as people
In the end, my point is, Integgegant Design != God. It could be God, it could be alians, it could be somethign we havn't thought of.
Evolution or ID?
http://www.cornellevolutionproject.org/
I have a copy of the dissertation itself...I might scan it and post it in the name of free exchange ideas, although it would be somewhat dishonnest.
------ Take away the right to say fuck and you take away the right to say fuck the government.
I've discussed with many a creationalist and intelligent design nut jobs.
Funny thing is, every person i've ever met who believed in intelligent design, where the LEAST intelligent people I have ever met....
Religions are for the weak minded simpleton cattle of the general society who have no concept or clue how the universe works, so it of course much easier to just say 'god did it'.
I didn't think that evolution was supposed to disprove the existence of God.
That is like saying the 'theory of kindly parents' disproves the existence of the tooth fairy. The tooth fairy may enlist parents to replace teeth with money or the parents may ring up the tooth fairy whenever (s)he is needed. It is notoriously difficult to prove a negative, but which is the most likely situation?
I would like to see the religious people refer to their 'Theory of God'.
They whose government reduces their essential liberties for temporary security, receive neither liberty nor security.
Yes it is a theory, by the scientific definition, in the same way that ID does not qualify as a theory, it is merely a hypothesis. Theory in science does not mean "unproven", remember.
Well, maybe not Myths...
I agree. We should have a whole chapter dedicated to each of the gods of creation- how Zeus came about, whom birthed whom, etc. Better still, limit it to a single chapter that encompases every single creation myth by every religion- then cut it down to 35 pages that a normal chapter is. Maybe even less with graphics.
I for one would appreciate learning about our Native American's thoughts on creation. I wish I had learned; I probably would have prefered them to learning about how the fault of all man kind's problems can be laid down at the foot of a seductive woman.
But then one day I woke up and said "Huh, this doesn't make sense anymore" and haven't looked back.
Evolution is a fact, not theory, people seem to forget that virri evolve all the time (eg bird flu jumping to people, new shit like SARS ect.) people don't evolve as quickly for 2 reasons 1 we are far more complex 2 modern medicine keeps the weak alive.
For example if a disease were to come along and wipe out most of the human race leaving only those few who were immune in the first place, that would be an evolutionary step because future generations would have an evolved immunity to that virus.
When you do things right people will wonder if you've done anything at all.
The main problem I have with pushing ID in a science class is that it is not treated as such. For it to be a scientific theorem and not religion, it has to have the ability to be proven wrong. Evolution can be disproven but there is nothing in ID that cannot be argued away with the argument that "God put it there to test our faith." This argument belongs in a Theology or at best an English class.
The bible and christianity are full of gaping holes, logic and otherwise. I don't hear anyone proposing teaching islam or buddhism as alternate religion just because you don't have all the answers.
Also, you say "unexplainable" holes. You must mean "unexplained" - as in so far unexplained, or unexplained like previous holes that are now filled. Big difference.
It seems that school boards often do this to reach some sort of compromise due to political pressure from religious groups.
The idea that there can be some sort of fair time given in science classes to religious theories is flawed.
If a religion posits that "number theory is only a theory", and comes up with some religious alternative, then should math classes give them equal time?
What determines the validity of an alternative viewpoint? Popularity?
Though it may seem otherwise, anti-intellectualism and the desire to subvert bodies of knowledge to preconceived notions is really no more prevalent than it ever was. That is the problem. Aren't we supposed to be advancing?
I wish there were Secular Humanist organizations exerting more influence on our school boards.
"The plural of anecdote is not data." -- Roger Brinner
I'd like them to start teaching my alternatives to Schwarzschild metrics when they're discussing general relativity theory in their high school physics class.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
If you are going to use logic that Intelligent Design is likely because it looks that way, you'd have to admit, by the same logic, that is almost infinitely more likely to have be created by a non-entity species than to believe some sort of God did it. Just because it looks like God doesn't make it so. Using science, they draw the wrong conclusion, because of the millions of products humans manufacture. They also all look to be designed, but nobody jumps to the conclusion that God made my stapler.
It's not only not-science, but an extremely flawed Philosphy.
This is moded up as interesting?
/. and you should have seen pleanty of sci fi movies where the intellegant design was alians. Mod the parent down.
This is clearly attacking something he does not agree with. Would this not be flamebait?
Just because you don't agree with Intellegant Design does not mean it's not a theory with real merits. And to tie it to a God. Your on
Evolution or ID?
With Intelligent Design, the proponents start with a conclusion and try to find a way to get the facts to fit the conclusion. With Evolution, the proponents are taking the facts and trying to find a conclusion that fits the facts.
The theory of Evolution is not perfect, but as a theory based in the scientific method, it is able to change as we learn.
Dumbass:
"In common parlance the word "evolution" is often used as a shorthand for the modern synthesis of evolution, including the theory that all extant species share a common ancestor." - From Wikipedia entry on Evolution
Evolution IS, and has always BEEN a theory.
Excuse my speling.
Making The Bar Project
it is a theory people. Theory. It still has holes, giant unexplainable holes.
This also describes gravity.
General Relativity is a theory, in the same sense of the word as evolution is a theory. So is Newton's theory of gravity.
We know Newton's theory of gravity is "wrong" because in places where it makes divergent predictions from GR, observations show GR to be right. Of course, Newton's theory is a limit of GR, and the fact that it is "wrong" doesn't stop us from predicting the motions of planets or of spacecraft.
We know that GR is "wrong" because it makes nonsensical predictions in areas where it must be mixed with Quantum Mechanics (another well-tested and well-verified scientific theory). But, once again, it works extremely well where it works.
So you could say that our theory of gravity is full of holes, giant unexplanable holes, and you would be right. But that doesn't mean that I can't succesfully predict that if I drop my keys, they are going to go down. It doesn't mean that I can't explain the formation of stars through the gravitational collapse of molecular clouds.
We don't know everything, but we know something!
In fact, although we can make far more precise predictions with our theory of gravity than we can with our theory of evolution, in some sense evolution is on less shaky ground than our current theory of evolution. After all, we don't have very strong evidence that the theory of evolution is wrong somewhere, but we do for gravity!
You ID and Creationism. advocates need to get over this term "just a theory" that you use. It just shows ignorance. You need to realize that the popular use of the word "theory" (to mean "speculation") is extremely different from the scientific use of the word "theory" (to describe an explanation of natural processes which may be extremely well tested and well understood).
-Rob
I remember when I took a course called "Mechatronics" nearly a decade ago. We used a PIC1684(?) chip, some assembly code, some actuators and some light sensors and put together robots that would search for a light source at the end of a maze. One person put a tail light on his robot and as a result got through the maze before anyone else because all the other robots lined up behind it.
Mine was not so successful. It would give up searching after about five minutes and then go out to the local Duncan Donuts to grab some coffee and read a newspaper.
Or so such trollish moderation would indicate. Just because you don't agree with something, doesn't mean that the person posting was intending it to be a troll. A troll is a post designed to attract adverse attention - the parent was merely a logical transposition of the attitude displayed by ID'ists, not an attempt to inflame hatred.
Oh wait, this is /.
gravity is just a theory as well. Dare you to jump off a building.
The problem with ID is that it doesn't fulfil the two basic requirements of a science - It's not falsifiable (how do you proof it wrong?) and it doesn't follow occam's razor (why not just argue invisible unicorns created us?)
Am I the only one that takes a benevolent approach to situations like this? Forcing curriculum that is non-scientific to be taught in a scientific section is one thing, and I think can be argued/ruled without getting into the very hairy aspects of it all.
However, am I the only ones that sits back and looks at the religion vs. science or evolution vs. faith and thinks that both sides, at times are equally foaming-at-the-mouth fervent and sometimes just plain weird?
Faith and science will always be a square peg in a round hole situation. By definition! If faith were somehow provable/disprovable by science or vice versa then we wouldnt have the distinction between the two.
It is inherent in the design of faith to always always always have an "explanation" for scientific proofs. Talk about fossils and scientific "proof" that the world is older than religion says it is? Thats just God testing the believers from the non-believers is what they will come back to you with.
I almost think, to take care of school boards with a hard on for controversy is to mandate a class called "Controversial Topics" where all odds and ends are thrown into a mixed bag and hashed out, evolution, intelligent design, abortion, homosexuality...and to prepare you for the real world, students are graded according to just how loud they can yell and afirm that their certain position is absolutely correct.
Then we fly into space, we take photos of the planet, and we know for fact, that indeed the earth is round. It's a giant blue marble.
Then somebody argues that no, that's not indeed true. IT REALLY IS FLAT! God just makes adjustments to everyones cameras and eyes so that it does look like a sphere. He just changes the light in order to test their faith.
WTF is wrong with these people?
Treat me like a marketing stat, and I'll treat your movie like a series of ones and zeros
Would that be an alternative to /. ?
Gotta love HTML 3.2...
It seems that the author knew about one specific area of research and set out to write an article that was beyond their capbilities.
Too bad, as I.D. is a deeply flawed effort, but every attack against it that I've seen outside of the highly technical have been arm-waving affairs that can be easily shot down.
Real problems with I.D.:
- It applies Occam's Razor in reverse. That is, it starts with a conclusion, and for every complex question resolves that the simplest explanation is not to deviate from the conclusion.
- Evolution is not linear. One thing that many people looking at existing species forget is that many of their traits are the result of FAILURES as much as success. An example of this would be marine mammals, which have many structures that are so different from other sea creatures that you could conclude that they could not have evolved naturally. And yet, when you factor in land-mammals the features of sea mammals are easily explained: they are the vesiges of a (as far as marine mammal evolution is concerned) failed attempt to adapt to land.
- Evolution and design are seen as radically seperate topics because of the nature of the initial assumptions, and yet the idea that evolution could progress from some initially designed state is equally (im)plausible.
- Evolution and natural selection are often conflated incorrectly
These are just thoughts off the top of my head, and I'm sure that there are many other excellent examples.If one of us (three-dimensional beings) interacted with a Flatlander, exposed them to our technology, what would they think of us and their two-dimensional world?
Ignorance is curable, stupid is forever.
Your statement "the creationist's minds are closed" seems pretty closed-minded to me... And in this day and age, creationists definitely feel like they get persecuted for their beliefs. That's the parallel I was drawing with Galileo (with an added hint of irony).
"a theory that has been shown to explain the origins of life time and time again" Is that a joke ? There's no theory yet explaining the origins of life, and we're pretty much FAR from it.
What is "zero times zero"?
What is "zero plus zero"?
What is "zero minus zero"?
What is "zero divided zero"?
Answer zero... you can't get something from nothing.
Are you saying that DNA only works as a whole entire thing and therefore is too complex to have occurred randomly? DNA was most likely a product of an evolutionary development of increasing complexity. Where are DNA's predecessors? Maybe nowhere as DNA has dominated the planet for a long time.
They whose government reduces their essential liberties for temporary security, receive neither liberty nor security.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
The point of such an amendment is twofold. First, it ensures that religious beliefs - private or organized - are removed from attempted government control. This is the reason why the government cannot tell either you or your church what to believe or to teach. Second, it ensures that the government does not get involved with enforcing, mandating, or promoting particular religious doctrines. This is what happens when the government "establishes" a church - and because doing so created so many problems in Europe, the authors of the Constitution wanted to try and prevent the same from happening here.
Original source article:Separation of church and state
If they say "It's the theory of evolution" they'll be sued by all the Fundamentalists who don't believe in science.
If they say "It's possibly guided by some greater power that we aren't allowed to speak about" they'll be sued by both the Fundamentalists who will tell them they MUST say what power made it, or by the {insert four-letter-acronym} who says the schools are the state, and can't mention anything having to do with religion, even though religion is a HUGE part of the entire history (and present) of the world.
If they say "It could be both", they'll still be sued, since Fundamentalists on both sides will say "Our Beliefs are the One True Way (tm)", and refuse to accept that any other view may have merit.
So...
I propose they just hand out little cards to the students that read:
While it doesn't allow for much learning, it doesn't detract from their education any more than the lawsuits are doing. And it will help the school board manage their budget a little better, rather than spending the (already tight) budget on legal fees.frob
//TODO: Think of witty sig statement
...go ahead and follow the law and explain how evolution is flawed and intelligent design is a valid alternative. But don't stop there. When you explain to your high school chemistry class elements and compounds and covalent bonds and such, take about half the time period and explain how chemistry is flawed and there is a valid alternative where really small people live inside the atoms and build bridges so they can visit each other and the bridges bind the atoms together. Maybe the inert gases just have really ugly people and no one wants to visit them.
Gravity? Well there's this Einstein guy who talked about curved space-time, but clearly those of us more evolved (pun intended) know that the true explanation is that the earth is magnetic and everything on it is made of metal, some metals being softer than others.
You'd waste some class time, but at the high school level, I think teaching critical thinking is more important than any particular theory. If I had a high school class that couldn't explain exactly what carbon dating is, but could critically examine a theory and draw conclusions from evidence, I'd feel pretty good about things.
Care to mention what even one of those giant, unexplainable holes is? Or do you even know? :)
:P
Actually, I have a better question: have you actually READ Origin of the Species? Because if you haven't, and are still talking about how it is full of holes, then you're just a pompus blowhard who doesn't know what he's talking about.
As someone who is definitely NOT atheist, I have a problem with both theories (ID & evolution). One (ID) uses poor science, bad logic, and more to try to discredit the other, while the other (evolution) discounts the possibility that there are other ways to reach the current situation.
/., however.
Evolution is a great theory, and it explains a lot. It is not perfect, and ignores the very simple concept that IF there is a God (which I beleive there is--I don't want to turn this into a flame fest regarding the supposed virtues of believing one way or another regarding God, however, and so let's just leave that to the side), he certainly COULD have done things a certain way.
The very simple truth is that an evolved system and a designed system wouldn't look that different from the inside. The only way to absolutely certain would be to go outside the system and see it in it's entirety. We, however, can't do that. It may even be impossible to do so (that is, the system may, in fact, be infinite). What's worse, even if we think we are outside the system, we may not be.
Here's where some good research would be helpful--create an evolving system (simulation), and design a system to do the same thing, and see if there is much difference. Now do it blind (that is, two teams work independently, so that those designing don't see the evolved system, and the evolving system can't see the designed system), and then compare them. I suspect that they wouldn't be that different. It would be interesting to see.
The whole question is all really very silly, however. If you are atheist, what does it matter if someone wants to believe that the earth was created in 7 days? If you are Christian, what do you care if some choose to believe that it took billions of years? Now, I think that it is good that evolution is being taught in schools. I think that the ideas of change over time are important enough that everyone, even those who reject an evolutionary beginning to life, should be familiar with this--even if they don't like it.
Personally, I believe one way, and I think that my particular (peculiar) take on the whole question is sufficient to encompass both God and the scientifically observable facts. I don't have time to post it all to
Oh well.
"We don't know what we are doing, but we are doing it very carefully,..." Wherry, R.J. Personnel Psychology (1995)
Wikipedia has quite an extensive range of articles on this. (See the NPOV pages etc).
Basically it boils down to would it promote an even more open mind if we suggested that perhaps invisible unicorns did it?
Speaking of Galileo, it was the church the suppressed him...
Example 1: human eye. The nerves are connected to the photoreceptors from the outside - the blind spot is where they go through the retina. An engineer would obviously connect them from the outside.
Example 2: Flatfish. An engineer designing a flat fish would probably come up with something resembling a stingray - straight spine plus symmetrical ribs on both sides. The flatfish is totally unlike this - strangely twisted, it ( "undergoes a metamorphosis that involves the migration of one eye across the top of the head to a position adjacent to the non-migrating eye on the right lateral side" It probably reflects the way it evolved from some kind of "non-flat" fish that had to lay on its side to hide from predators.
Intelligence is the process of rationally building and testing theories about the world, and then using those theories for useful stuff. DNA is mutated, recombined, merged through sex, and otherwise changed. These changes are hypotheses about the world, in the form of new life forms trying to survive there. Thus life forms which do not reproduce are falsified hypotheses. The useful stuff is survival.
Intelligent design inplies that the critters and ecosystems they form were planned. Tot tried and tested blindly until it finally worked out nicely.
Evolution is not intelligent: it's chaotic. It depends on external conditions (wether or not giant comets are crashing about the planet at the time, for instance), and it keeps on repeating it's mistakes, which is not a sign of intelligence.
You can't take the sky from me...
Woo. Cognative ability is understood, now? Cool. I always wondered how it worked. Guess those artificial intelligences will be only a few weeks away then?
They whose government reduces their essential liberties for temporary security, receive neither liberty nor security.
OK, that doesn't sound quite write- take out the psyche problems that implies (as my fiancee is a psychologist and she said he sounds normal so I'm not describing him very well)
It was just a 'move on' push that kept him from working there. And the next year he went back to working on radio towers as it was OK this time.
Of course, if you take his view on things everything is pre-determined... which means free will is an illusion.
Actually, 0/0 is an indeterminate form.
General Relativity is a theory, in the same sense of the word as evolution is a theory.
Don't forget theses other great scientific theories.
Eugenics.
That all stomach ulcers are caused by stress and no way bacteria could cause it. Read the hardship that scientist went though tring to disprove that scientific truth.
Even that the earth stands still and the Sun moves around it. That was the scientific thinking for over 2000 years, and watch out what would happen to you if you disagreed with that scientific theory.
That's an idea! I'll be not so pissed of with churches trying to teach their junk in PUBLIC schools when they are forced to teach evolution in their own turf. Enough said... I see the US becoming more like IRAN in the next few decades...
One would hope that evolution itself would eventualy solve the problem of humans who claim to believe such stupid things. The scientific method is there for a reason, people!
Gee, that's funny. Current evolutionary theory states that RNA came first. Billions of years ago. That's probably enough time to get a few lines of Shakespeare out of the monkeys. There are still many things scientists cannot explain; however, there are a rather comical number of things which scientists can explain which IDers are too lazy to learn, and they then proclaim these things inexplicable.
English is easier said than done.
...It isn't that Intelligent. Like for Gods sake (I'm a Christian) we aren't made that well, one reason I'm questioning my faith, if we are made in Gods image damn he must be a mangle of evolution as well! So many mistakes, so many biological systems that you can look at and think "damn, I could do better than that." Look at our brains, they are a stupid mess of layers for each era that humans needed advancement in, from primitive layers to advanced thought layers, not just one system for advanced thought and control. Female periods, common, once a month is a huge waste of resources where as other animals that have evolved further have better ways of dealing with it while still having the same reproductive merit. The heart! No redundancy! At all! Legs with such limited shock tolerance that they wear out or get damaged easily. Does this sound like the work of a God? Or even some one Intelligent? I'm Intelligent and not even a biologist or an engineer and I can sit down and come up with better designs for many of these things.
I believe that church and state should not be the same thing, in any regard, including schools.
I ate your fish.
evolution is, it is a theory people. Theory. It still has holes, giant unexplainable holes.
Such as?
Intelligent design is simply stating that certain things in life - like DNA - are simply too complex to have been formed by some amino acids randomly millions of years ago. It doesn't necessarily propose a God figure, but SOME intelligence behind our design.
Are you Raelian?
It doesn't propose a God figure, simply an eternal, all knowing, all powerfull superbeing that was there before life existed and that knew in advance how these incredibly complex interactions of millions of molecules would end up as sheep and flowers and people.
"Oh yeah, that's not a thinly veiled way of saying 'god did it"?
You can't take the sky from me...
As you imply ID != Literal [Christian|7-day] Creationism.
/believe/ in ID. I'd probably lean towards evolution from a running start.
Also, many Christians believe evolution is the tool used by God. Similarly with the big bang and the creation of our universe.
I haven't seen sufficient evidence to weigh in with any one [particular] theory as yet, for either situation. But I do
My conviction comes partly from faith and _partly_ from analysis of things like arguments for irreducible complexity of bacterial flagella. Counter-arguments haven't yet convinced me as they tend to have statements such as "careful analysis shows that there are no major obstacles to gradual evolution of the flagellum" [http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html ]. The implication being: just because an intelligent being can find a possible route then it must have been followed by evolution.
And then, as we both agree, evolution may be Gods mechanism.
Simply to discount intelligent design is not scientific as theism transcends scientific reasoning. You can show an extremely high probabilty that evolution will not be falsified, but however much you protest that doesn't deny the possibility of an intelligent creator.
Flame away!
You ID and Creationism. advocates need to get over this term "just a theory" that you use. It just shows ignorance. You need to realize that the popular use of the word "theory" (to mean "speculation") is extremely different from the scientific use of the word "theory" (to describe an explanation of natural processes which may be extremely well tested and well understood).
I was totally in to your response as creative and well stated until this paragraph. To think that a person that believes in ID or creationism is incapable of understanding basic scientific philosophy or even incapable of being true scientists themselves is ignorant and offensive. Being dismissed as a lunatic for raging against mainstream science has plauged true scientists for centuries. Please accept that those of us who like the idea and hypothesis of ID are not low-IQ neanderthals but are in fact intelligent human beings. (Well, at least some of us.)
Excuse my speling.
Making The Bar Project
Then conider that on the 3rd day, the land produced vegetation (NIV translation, 1:11). Which sounds like a fairly natural process, to expect the land to produce plants bearing seed in a day - would require some sort of miraculous intervention (not that I think this is impossible) which isn't at all mentioned in the bible.
For non-proof (*) number 3, look at Genesis 1:5,8,13,19,23,31 (which are all "... And there was evening, and there was morning - the [1..6]th day.") and now compare it to 2:3: "And God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done." (NIV). What is missing? It doesn't say the 7th day is over, there is no evening and morning, it just says that this day is blessed. Considering how obvious the 1..6 pattern is, it is a pretty big oversight of the author to leave out this part... unless of course it was intentional and we are still in this 7th day.
So that is my bit on why 7 day creation sucks. However, I think in the big picture I'm not following a God who says "Believe in this thing unrelated to the whole focus of the bible or you will die". So yeah, hopefully I don't come across as an arrogant prick who puts themselves above other Christians, but I do wish that some would look at the truths their religion is trying to promote and push them - and not pushing a faith based on what was taught as the only option at school, but faith because it is a verify-able (**) truth.
Uh... sorry from the normal people
(*) un-proof: I realise that these things don't forma biblical proof for a > 24-hour day form of creation, but these give evidence which might suggest the other way. It is near impossible to prove anything outside of a nice well behaved formal system, so this is the best anyone can do I think.
(**) verify-able: I don't care if it isn't a word (or if it isn't spelt right), and I realise that some people are probably wanting to challenge me to "verify" my faith now as a proof to them. Similar to above - the world could have been created 2 seconds ago and no one can prove otherwise, however most people will agree that it wasn't due to the available evidence. However there is a line where I believe something based on some evidence and other people won't. This means that these things are verified to me, but not necessarily to you. It doesn't change the truth of them however, one of us is right and the other is wrong, it will just be too late when we find out who wins :).
So you're assertion is, in summary, that any theory, idea, or fairy tale that can't be disproved immediately has equal validity to any theory based on observable phenomena and deduction?
true science is the scrutiny of all possibilities of that which we do not know
I think this is highly debatable. If we took this approach we may as well use random guesses to explain things, because a guess is a 'possibility' in the sense that you describe. And by the way, starting your post with "Wrong." just makes you look dogmatic, not open minded.
As for the 'first instant of life' argument - do you therefore dismiss gravity because you can't explain the 'first instant of gravity'?
Read Pynchon.
Despite all this ID bashing, don't you people realize that evolution is untestable in the long run? When my biology class was learning evolution in college, we learned about all the confined cases in which pools of fishes adapted over the short term, etc.
But my teacher made a clear point that evolution CANNOT BE PROVED since no scientist has the millions of years in which to test it. In science, anything that cannot be tested repeatedly cannot be proved.
"Time is an illusion, lunchtime doubly so." - Ford Prefect
What Does It Matter To You Anyway?
If People Want To Believe What They Want Then Who Are You To Tell Them How To Think?
Last Time I Checked It Was A Free Country. You Cant Tell People What To Believe, Thats Why The Men Who Founded This Great Nation Of Ours Put In The Separation Of The Church And State!
"Speaking of Galileo, it was the church the suppressed him..." Which is precisely why I chose it as an example... *sigh*
I disagree on the point of DNA being too complex for amino acids to form. The best way to explain this is if you put an infinite number of chimps and gave them all type writers eventually over an infinite length of time one of them would reproduce a Shakespeareian play. Nothing is complex for random.
My 3D Texturing Skinning work (under construction)
I commented on K5:
I wouldn't be so alarmed about this... the state decides what you have to teach, not HOW you must teach it.
More to the point, students (children) should not be held hostages to our stupid politicking. Let them learn about both theories, and why scientists don't accept ID (and vice-versa).
Instead of stuffing their brains with the "right" theories, we ought to be teaching them how to use said brains. We'll need citizens- open-minded but critical thinkers, not PC-drones.
Both sides in this debate would have us submit children to an authoritarian model of education as long as they're taught their pet-theories. If we want a better democracy, we'll need to educate people to be better citizens.
Information: "I want to be anthropomorphized"
" But for now, the establishment clause (which essentially holds that government cannot establish an official religion)"
And if the government were to support or favor any religion they would have established a de facto official religion. Therefore it is impossible to be compliant with that law without a seperation of church and state.
It is called logic. Some of us prefer logic and fact to a faith-based life. Go figure.
In summary, if a highly improbable pattern of events or object exhibits purpose, structure or function and can not be reasonably and rationally explained by the operation of the laws of physics and chemistry or some other regularity or law, then it is reasonable to infer that the pattern was designed. - the product of a mind. Based on the above it is reasonable to conclude that design is the best explanation for the complexity of the postulated ancestral cell.
(see for yourself)
As William Saletan over at Slate.com has observed, this argument is absolutely idiotic - "It offers no predictions, scope modifiers, or experimental methods of its own. It's a default answer, a shrug, consisting entirely of problems in Darwinism. Those problems should be taught in school, but there's no reason to call them intelligent design. Intelligent design, as defined by its advocates, means nothing. "
Also, ID fails to account that human knowledge is constantly expanding. It may be true that we cannot presently describe some things by "the operation of the laws of physics or chemistry or some other regularity or law," but that does not mean that someday we will not be able to do so... but until then (and perhaps for some time thereafter) people will insist on calling it "intelligent design."
Of course, appealing to the public's ability to engage in rational thought is another issue altogether.
Bush Lies On the Record.
Wait a minute, Slashdot is linking to an article from K5?
Can you say 'Jumped the Shark'?
Intelligent design is NOT creationism, although creationists often use it to bolster their arguments. Here are some differences.
This is a very different animal from the Scopes trial, at least from a legal and theological perspective. What is at issue is not theology vs. science - i.e. church vs. state - but two competing scientific interpretations. That you may regard ID as a sort of reverse Lysenkoism is not so much relevant as the question of who gets to determine what is taught in the schools? Do you really want to declare that current scientific orthodoxy, whatever that changes into every five minutes, is what must be taught in the schools, without regard to the social consequences? If so, I urge you to consider the prominent role "science" and even "evolution" played in the Eugenics movement. It is wrong - even disasterous - to suppose that the fads of scientific orthodoxy should drive our social process.
And, for what it's worth, I'm neither a creationist nor an Intelligent Design advocate - although I see some merit in the latter. I'm perfectly comfortable if Evolution turns out to be the case all along, because I believe in a God who can work through the random.
"The lot is cast into the lap,
but the decision is the Lord's alone. "
Proverbs 16.33
Now, you don't have to like ID - that's fine. But I would urge those ranting and raging to consider whether their oppositions to Intelligent Design is founded in a considered evalution kof the theory, or in a knee-jerk reaction against your perception of where it will lead?
"He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
All this talk about how creationism == loony bin reminds me of how poor Galileo must have felt.
He must have felt the SAME DAMN WAY those teachers are feeling: Religious loonies in postions of power are forcing me to say things I don't believe, and are trying to stop me from teaching real science! And there's nothing I can do about it!
You can't take the sky from me...
If atheism is a religion, then bald is a hair color.
Please accept that those of us who like the idea and hypothesis of ID are not low-IQ neanderthals but are in fact intelligent human beings.
Hmmm, a reference to "neanderthals" in the same paragraph that defends ID over evolution? Interesting.
This was considered to be consistent with the Buddha's statements on the origin of the universe.
"MIT betrayed all of its basic principles."
Are you kidding me? Please tell me that this is a troll.
No? Okay, so here goes:
1. Atheism is not a religion because it has no religious doctrines---it is the denial, in fact, of any religious doctrine.
2. Atheism is not a religion because it has no institutions, no worship, no articles of faith, etc.
3. Finally, atheism is, as I understand it, the view that there are no good reasons for believing in a god, a goddess, many gods, or many goddesses. The arguments in favor of theism fail, and, given the success of the naturalistic worldview embodied in the sciences, it is only rational to deny the veracity of supernatural or theistic explanations. They need not be false so much as utterly irrelevant. (After all, my folks think that there's magic going on in their computer, and have a tough time grasping the whole computer programs just being 1s and 0s represented as electrical current. Their explanation is false, but it is utterly unnecessary, since we know that computers are electrical, and not magical, devices.)
That ain't religion, which has at its core reliance on faith (belief without grounds), revealed truth (i.e. magical texts), and supernatural explanations.
"Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under." - H.L. Mencken
Sorry, I can't disagree more with your comment. 'Athesim' is a categorisation that defines a mode of thought that either actively or passively does not profess a religion or existence of divinity.
If I understand your argument, you're saying that NOT presenting a relgious context for a scientific theory in a textbook actually defaults into being a religious context because atheism is a religion. This circular logic is ludicrous...at best its a double negative but in reality you're just trying to define the argument so that you'll win. Any argument based on logic requires the taking of positive position that must be proven through argument, atheism is the default non-affirmative state. You are trying to turn atheism into a positive position, with the default state being the existence of a divine power.
In short, atheism is not a religion.
John Maynard Keynes: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?"
Atheism is a religion only if not collecting stamps is a hobby. Lack of belief in diety does not equal religion. Additionally, your quotes about an "atheistic view of evolution" isn't entirely correct. There are theists who believe that evolution is the means by which their preferred deities manage biology/life. Google for theistic evolution to learn more.
That goes without saying. We are talking about religion, after all.
argh, i may get flamed for this but i have to mention it since this phenomenon makes me cringe whenever i hear the terms jumbled. (and i can't count how many times it's professors and other suposedly learned people who foul this up.)
EVOLUTION is not a "theory". Nowhere in Darwin's Origin of Species or Descent of Man does the phrase "theory of evolution" appear. Evolution is a biological occurence. At one point in the history of the planet there were certain species, now at this present period of existance there are other species. The intervening eons brought with them biological changes which ARE THEMSELVES evolution.
The MECHANISM by which these changes came about can be debated in Philosophy of Science classrooms (NOT Biology classrooms) and students can discuss theories such as Natural Selection, Intelligent Design, etc. Darwin's theory was Natural Selection.
Anyone who uses the phrase "Theory of Evolution" is either badly misinformed, actively trying to mislead people, or just a plain old moron.
More disturbing than discussions of Evolution vs Intelligent Design is the fact that, as a society we seem to have lost track of what science really is. Calling Intelligent design "an alternative theory" displays a clear lack of understanding of what a theory is, and behind that, what science is.
Quite simply, and I know I'll get flamed for some simple mistake in this explanation, science is:
Studying the universe around us, trying to learn about it and how it works. One aspect of this i a theory. If you have an idea about what something is and how it works, that's a hypothesis. You take your hypothesis, and figure out further implications of it, and propose tests and experiments that can test it. You hypothesis needs to make predictions that were previously unknown, and can be verified by tests and experimentation. If a hypothesis survives some amount of this process, it "graduates" to be a theory.
But the most important ingredient is an open mind. A hypothesis or theory may be rejected or modified based on experiments and/or facts, and a scientist should always be prepared to do that.
The early Muslim empire was one of the most enlightened the world has ever seen. Muslims, Jews, and Christians lived together prosperously and happily in the Holy Lands. Science was advanced as, "understanding God's works," and for Pete's sake, we still use Arabic numbers. Eventually religious conservatism took over. The US seems bent on following that path, today.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
"... that evolutionary theory, a theory that has been shown to explain the origins of life..."
While I believe in evolution, evolutionary theory does not explain the origins of life. It does explain the state of current life forms in existance today and how they may have gotten that way.
We can demonstrate evolution in numerous experiments today, with plant life and animal life. So we know evolution is a viable theory. However, the theory of evolution does not address, nor does it try to address the origins of life. It only tries to describe what happened to the life after it existed.
To those of Judeo-Christian Faith out there, evolution does not preclude God's act of Creation. It only describes how the process progressed after that initial creative force.
The biggest hangup with evolution and faith is with the origin of man. Evolution does not state that man evolved from monkeys. It does observe that there are a lot of similarities with other primates and we do share a lot of DNA.
But, evolution also allows for the similar traits to be caused by the environment. For instance, if an opposable thumb is advantagouss to grasping or standing upright in the brush is advantagous, then it is resonable from an evolutionary perspective that both humans and primates share these traits.
DNA sharing is also used to show by some who misunderstand evolution that we came from monkeys. It is true we share something like 96% of our DNA with chimpanzees. But we also share something like 91% with dogs and over half with sea cucumbers. Evolution theory does imply that we would share DNA, but it doesn't comment on whether it comes from inheritance or adaptation. Obviously, using the thumbs thing, from above, there are only so many ways for DNA to create a thumb. Furthermore, the majority of shared DNA between all species has to do with cellular function and basic tenets of live. Evolution does not disallow for that and as a matter of fact predicts that it would happen.
Even if it were somehow proven that man evolved from lower primates, it would not negate God's creation of man, but only further explain the how. At some point in time a pre-human gave birth to another pre-human that was a little bit closer to a human, that gave birth to another pre-human a little closer again, and on and on, until eventually a human is born and at which point God created man.
Back to the original comment though. Evolution, in simplified terms, states that things evolve and adapt to their environment and those traits which give an advantage tend to win out and thrive, becoming new species. It does not, however, say how life began (it's origins, so to speak). That debate is left to the philosophers and theologians.
As an atheist, I am alarmed when people try to mark religious belief as science.
Doh, that's what pseudoscience is! Remember what the term Pseudo means: Imitation.
Pseudoscience is a new term used to describe the attempts of religion to be masked as science, specially in destructive cults.
Atheism is then as much a religion as Islam,
Aside from, you know, the lack of churches, holy books, priests, and fanatics who kill people because of their god's commandments.
Atheism, agnosticism, those are not religions. They are not things that people have been indoctrinated to believe in since birth through the use of ceremony and ritual. They are an absence of religion.
You can't take the sky from me...
I find evolutionary theory completely plausible. Some difficult problems remain in my mind, like why the number of chromosomes differs from species to species, but I see no reason that they can't be solved eventually. We see the concept of evolutionary processes demonstrated all around us everyday, and earth is old enough for a lot of evolution to have occurred. As a scientific explanation, evolution works.
However, as a source of all truth, science doesn't work. Science has a fundamental problem with a reliance on logic. Any arguments to prove logic are inherently circular and (by logic) cannot be trusted. Science further has a problem in that when it gathers evidence for one thing, it gathers evidence for many things. We don't use Occams Razor because there is reason to believe that simpler is more true, we use it for our own convenience. Perhaps most importantly, science assumes everything has a cause. When you look back at the creation of the universe and of time itself, you realize that causality must break down. Therefore there must be something or someone beyond science.
In my own life I have seen enough evidence to believe in God and in his son Jesus. As part of that, I believe I am called to believe in Adam, Eve, the garden of Eden, etc.. I do not believe, nor do I expect anyone else to believe, that these ideas are easily compatible with science or much of the evidence we have found of dinosaurs, neanderthals, etc..
However, evolution is only one explanation of the archaeological evidence. Another explanation is misleading clues placed by a god who puts a high value on faith. Another is that evolution was guided by god's hand until he created Adam and Eve.
In short, I don't have a problem with believing in both. When trying to understand the behavior of men and women, both the fall of man and the evolution of man present valuable lessons. Both explain how men and women will react to situations. Both explain the world as it is. And neither belief precludes the other.
As for what should be taught in school, no one can be well-educated in this day and age without understanding evolution. But the students also need to be told that when it comes to history, all science can do is show whether an explanation is plausible. It can never prove what really happened.
I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
"Isn't this just promoting an open mind?"
No, this is teaching non-science to science students. ID is a fine hypothesis, but no more. Evolution is a theory with evidence supporting it.
Creationism is considered loony because the proponents have picked random myths and chosen to believe them with no evidence. Further, they have chosen to cling to those myths in the face of contrary evidence time and time again. Galileo on the other hand observed physical evidence and developed a theory based upon it. That was one of those cases where creationists chose to cling to myths in the face of contrary evidence.
I'm not saying they can't be ignorant; I'm not even saying they're right. I'm just saying that, next time, before calling people "kooks," "nut jobs," and the like, while using grammar that would be contradicted by a proper third-grade education, ask yourself what your primary ideological grounding is.
If it's, "I'm always right," then, by all means, go on your merry way, continue violently attacking the beliefs of others, and enjoy dying alone.
If it's, "I like to keep an open mind because I know I don't have everything figured out," promote an intelligent without resorting to logically fallacious ad hominem attacks to give your argument more thrust. It's antics like these that give liberals a bad name.
sig not ready: (A)bort, (R)etry, (F)ail.
The postdoc who works next to me is a full-blown creationist; he's also been published in some of the top conferences in the software engineering field. I wonder whether he perceives any contradiction between being a hard-headed sceptic in his work and the blind faith he displays as a Christian. I don't want to ask him about it because it risks another earbashing about the supposed wonderful powers of prayer and the joys of accepting God into your life.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
You say atheism is not a religion because "it is the denial, in fact, of any religious doctrine" and "Atheism is not a religion because it has no...articles of faith" Because there is no proof that all religions are wrong, it is an act of faith to assume that they are. So the statement that atheism denies all other religions and at the same time has no faith is contradictary.
I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
If you want an explanation minus a god figure, read some science fiction. Greg Bear is a hell of an author, and he has 2 different books with a similar backplot.
Bacteria evolved, apparently from nothing, but all multicellular life was literally engineered by a planetwide intelligent colony of the germs. That's even used as an explanation why evolution isn't smooth, they get another bright idea, and within a single generation, another species is created.
It's even plausible, in a science fiction sort of way.
We oughtta co-opt the ID bandwagon, and peddle that as the primary theory. They might abandon it rather quickly.
The reason outspoken atheists are rare is that the absolute denial of the existence of God is a difficult position to defend when one has to acknowledge that they do not know everything.
If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. -- George Orwell
regarding the wider scope of Intellegent Design, why does that necessarily have to conflict with the established theory of evolution?
Because evolution posits random mutation and natural selection! If there's one fact to take from the theory of evolution, it's that evolution is purposeless! If you believe that what you call "evolution" is a tool of God, you are not talking about Darwinian evolution. You really are talking about so-called Intelligent Design. And that opinion may be comfortable for you, but it is simply not borne out by the last century of biology.
Check out some Richard Dawkins quotes on this subject, e.g. this one: "Certainly I see the scientific view of the world as incompatible with religion."
I'm not a fundamentalist, but I don't think evolution has been proven as fact. I've never seen or heard of evidence showing one species changing into another. Plenty of variation inside of a species, but no crossover. My mind is open to it, but until it shows up I'm not convinced.
There are lots and lots of fossils. What's missing are transitionary forms: a pre-dolphin with legs or a pre-dolphincow with fins.
Given the depth and breadth of the fossil record, it seems odd that there aren't many, many such finds, rather than zero.
Most Creationists I've heard talk about the flaws in carbon dating. I don't really understand carbon dating. Could someone please explain it to me, again? It's at the crux of the 6e3 v. 4e9 year-old Earth debate, and it seems kind of like hand-waving to me.
As for God playing tricks on us, I think He does stuff just to humble us. Doesn't always work.
Raise your children as if you were teaching them to raise your grandchildren, because you are.
You teach the fact, with respect for dissenting viewpoints, just like any other topic. If you are discussing the birth place of a famous person, and there exists some doubt about the location, most decent textbooks discuss the question. Evolution and counter-evolutionists should work the same way. There are holes in the most complete theory of evolution. They should be addressed. You can point out it is a theory that is not able to entirely proven, like a mathematical equation might be.
One day a group of scientists got together and decided that man had come a long way and no longer needed God. So they picked one scientist to go and tell Him that they were done with Him. The scientist walked up to God and said, "God, we've decided that we no longer need you. We're to the point that we can clone people and do many miraculous things, so why don't you just go on and get lost." God listened very patiently and kindly to the man and after the scientist was done talking, God said, "Very well, how about this, let's say we have a man making contest." To which the scientist replied, "OK, great!" But God added, "Now, we're going to do this just like I did back in the old days with Adam." The scientist said, "Sure, no problem" and bent down and grabbed himself a handful of dirt.
God just looked at him and said, "Oh no. You go get your own dirt!"
Atheisim is simply a lack in belief in a god or gods. No more no less. Buddhism, Taoism and Confusianism are eamples of atheistic religions - that is, religions that exist and flourish, have entire sets fo ethics and philisophic underpinnings that do not have, or see a need for, an omnipotent creator or supreme being.
The point of separation of church and state is to ensure that no one religion, including the atheistic ones take over.
The school board is teaching a science class and is teaching the fact of evolution. Evolution has a tonne of evidence supporting it - evidence that continues to grow, not shrink. "Intelligent Design", on the other hand, has NO evidence supporting it and is simply the latest incarnation of Creationism - a belief based not on facts but on the creation myth of a particular religion, Christianity. As many posters have pointed out, ID takes a conclusion ("God created the Universe" or "We appear to be designed so there must be a designer" etc) and try to find evidence to support it (I can't give an example of this becasue apart from the sophistry of "Irreducable Complexity" ther is none). This is not the scientific method and thus not science.
I would not want the Christian creation myth taught as fact in a science classroom, no more than I would want the Native American one taught, or the Autstailian Aboriginal one taught or the Buddhist one taugh. Like it or not they are not fact. ID can be taught in Comaprative Religion classes or Philosophy even, but not in science because it is not science.
Now perhaps some day some real evidence supporting ID will come along. The beauty of science is, if that unlikey day ever comes along, science will re-evaluate and change it's stance to better fit the observable and experimentally verifyable facts. In this instance ID will become part of the science class then. Ironic that ID proponents don't do the same - despite all of the evidenced to the contrary the refuse to change their view and cling desparately to a myth.
Whether you like it or not, teaching something as fact, based not on evidence but on a strong belief in the Judeo-Christian creation myth, is not science. Teaching this in a public school is the state actively endorsing as fact the mythology of a single religion - Christianity. This is a clear violation of the separation of Chruch and State. Would you like it if the school in question was teaching the "Earth was created by a Dream" Australian aboriginal myth or the Pagan\Ancient Greek version in science class? I doubt you would. And non-Christians don;t want your version taught as fact either.
If you want ID taught as fact in a science classroom, prove it. Provide evidence. Until then, it belongs in mythology class.
Philosphy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned.
Never by hatred has hatred been appeased, only by kindness - the Buddha
This interview and Atheist Richard Carrier's article explains that the world famous now former atheist Antony Flew believes in a non-interfering creator. Creator may be too strong of a word for him. First cause might be better. His god is a minimal god, but it is the complexity of life, especially DNA, that caused him to acknowledge that science can not explain the origins of life. But here is a someone, a famous atheist, that is now convinced that there is some Intellegent Design.
Actually it is the Newton's Law of Gravitation. A theory is a comprehensive explanation of a given set of data that has been repeatedly confirmed by observation and experimentation and has gained general acceptance within the scientific community but has not yet been decisively proven. We have had theories proven wrong before.
I think the real issue is that we have too many people trying to prove everyone else is stupid and wrong when they should be working on turning their theory into a law.
My personal belief is a mixture of Evolution and Intellectual Design. Does it make me better then everyone else? No. Does it make me less intelligent then everyone else. Hardly. People treat Science as a religion and treat 'real' religions as crutches for the weak, when it is they who are trying to cover over their own feelings of inadequacy. Remember, a real atheist would not try to convert people.
In God we trust, all others require data.
Nope- you are wrong. Evolutionary theory does usually preclude the existance/influence of a 'creator'.
I agree with you totally that it is all theories... my main complaint these days is that if the theory happens to have any form of the word 'god' or 'religion' even semi-associated with it then we must ban it.
If we can stop something from being discussed just because 100% of the people don't believe it then we can just about wipe out every single part of life. Yet for some reason they get away with it to keep a 'seperation of church and state'. The framers of the Constitution and Bill of Rights tried their best to make sure that they wouldn't get oppressed for religion ever again... yet their very rule is being used to do it again.
In public schools keep religion out of science class... it doesn't belong there. But don't repress students minds by saying that evolution is 100% the only possibility. If a student has an inquiring mind... then by all means talk about other theories of how this old world spins.
Telcos have alot of dark fibre in the States. Most people assume that's optical fibre...but it's actually moral fibre.
I know a lot of Christians. It's entirely possible that both of you are speaking truthfully here. I grew up in the Bible Belt, Southern Baptists and Fundamentalists and such, and they indeed hold that position. I now live in Newark, OH, which is majority Catholic. When back in Ashland, KY, I could have truthfully said that most Christians I knew believed wholeheartedly in Creationism. Here, I can truthfully say that most of them believe that God uses evolution much like any other tool. {furrows brow} And honestly, isn't the use of evolution by God the whole point of Intelligent Design? You're talking about fundamentalism as regards a policy which accepts evolution. Or are we talking about different values of "Intelligent Design"?
This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
But ID isn't a logically consistent theory: if something designed life, what designed the designer? And so on.
Excuse the capitalisation, but there are two parts of the world that have these sorts of problems.
1. Nutbag developing world theocracies: Iran, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia
2. The United States of America
I would say on recent form I would rather have my education system run by the average developing nation than the USA. At least the China-Japan textbook dispute, for example, is easily understood in terms of racial and historical tensions. They're not, for example, trying outlaw logic and reason.
Seriously guys. The joke's over. OVER. We're all getting very, very afraid of you. I'm starting to be a lot more comfortable with the notion that China and India may soon be superpowers. I'm actually *glad* Russia still has a massive arsenal of nukes: Putin may be a dictator-by-proxy, but AT LEAST HE'S NOT INSANE.
Since the end of the Clinton era:
- fundamentalists have begun winding back your education system to around the 700-800AD mark
- 'faith based' programs have become legitimate government policy
- it has become abundantly clear that the Whitehouse is controlled by a man who does not understand science but does fervently believe in a very particular type of capital-G God
- you have waged war on two moslem nations
- religious voters have become the dominant force in national US politics
- Americans have apparently accepted on faith the ridiculous argument that there is 'no evidence' of global warming
- America has closer ties to other religious-fundamentalist states (e.g. Israel, Saudi Arabia) than it's secular, liberal-democratic former allies in 'old europe'
Now all this would be fine, except that the religious nutcases that seem to have taken over your country are made incredibly powerful by... why yes, by SCIENCE. That logical, agnostic, provable, testable system we all know and love. Well, those of us outside the US know and love, anyway. SCIENCE has made you rich. SCIENCE has made you powerful. SCIENCE has, unfortunately, given you the weapons to destroy the entire world or precisely targetted bits thereof at the press of a button. Could stealth bombers fly from Missouri to any point on the globe and deliver laser guided bombs based on the teachings of Christ? Why, no - that would be SCIENCE we have to thank for that.
Let us take, as a comparison, Italy. A very religious country, by all accounts, rabid devotion to the Vatican, everyone in sight attending church regularly. Yet the Pope effectively outlaws contraception, but Italy's birth rate is startlingly low. Why? Perhaps Italians are so religious that they really do what they're told? Or perhaps Italians are religious but they understand the difference between faith and allegory on the one hand, and logic and reason on the other. They're not noted for their chaste ways, in any event, and I'm sure Durex and Ansell make hefty sales over there.
So how about we cut a deal? I'll even give you two choices.
1. You let your country go back to theocratic-totalitarianism, by all means. Hound down anyone who uses logic and reason to explain the world. Only, hand over everything that's been developed with science before you do so. Give up all those wonder drugs, all your DVD players that allow you to watch 'The Passion of the Christ', all your giant auditoriums with 100 metre high video screens where you go along to sing your Christian songs. We'll look after them in 'old europe' and the antipodes if you like, and you can burn each other at the stake until the cows come home (only the cows will probably be dead because you rely on science for farming these days).
2. You forget the dogmatic crap and listen to the parts of the bible that actually matter, such as *turn the other fucking cheek, *do unto others, *beams and motes, *the good samaritan, *the FUCKING MONEYLENDERS IN THE TEMPLE YOU STUPID FUCKS. FUUUUUUUUUUCKKK!!!!!!!!!
And if you're not a religious nutcase but you are in the U.S., don't fucking apologise. DO SOMETHING. You are to blame for letting these rabid fundamentalists take over. YOU have to stop them.
Ok, I'll now be modded into oblivion, but I feel slightly better.
####THIS POST BROUGHT TO YOU BY THE WONDERS OF SCIENCE####
Read Pynchon.
Evolution is a theory because it can't be proven. We can find evidence, like the fossil record or comparing DNA sequences and Homeobox genes among related species, but until someone is able to come up with an experiment that accurately tests it, we're stuck.
The only evolutionary studies that I can think of would take thousands of years to conduct. Anyone want to fund me?
To those of you who believe in ID, give me a break. ID is not an alternative; there are no -good- alternatives to evolution. Evolution is the only "theory" supported by the evidence.
If this were about seperating theory from fact, why aren't we demanding alternatives to the Pythagorean Theorm? Maybe God can intelligently design a triangle that doesn't follow that? Because that will remain a theory too until all numbers can be tested (which isn't possible).
One problem is this:
The claim "intelligent design is a valid alternative" is LOGICALLY FLAWED, and here is why:
Answer this Question: "Was the Intillegent Designer intelligently designed?"
If YES, then there is an endless recursion of intelligent designers.
If NO, well then consider that WE HUMANS tend to think of ourseleves as intelligent designers. If a Universal Intelligent Designer could manage to exist without being intelligently designed, then why can't WE exist without being intelligently designed?
Q.E.D.
Genetic engineering is a laboratory technique used by scientists to change the DNA of living organisms.
DNA is the blueprint for the individuality of an organism. The organism relies upon the information stored in its DNA for the management of every biochemical process. The life, growth and unique features of the organism depend on its DNA. The segments of DNA which have been associated with specific features or functions of an organism are called genes.
Molecular biologists have discovered many enzymes which change the structure of DNA in living organisms. Some of these enzymes can cut and join strands of DNA. Using such enzymes, scientists learned to cut specific genes from DNA and to build customized DNA using these genes. They also learned about vectors, strands of DNA such as viruses, which can infect a cell and insert themselves into its DNA.
With this knowledge, scientists started to build vectors which incorporated genes of their choosing and used the new vectors to insert these genes into the DNA of living organisms. Genetic engineers believe they can improve the foods we eat by doing this. For example, tomatoes are sensitive to frost. This shortens their growing season. Fish, on the other hand, survive in very cold water. Scientists identified a particular gene which enables a flounder to resist cold and used the technology of genetic engineering to insert this 'anti-freeze' gene into a tomato. This makes it possible to extend the growing season of the tomato.
The problem is that Intelligent Design _is_ junk science, the same way that Uri Geller claiming to bend spoons with his mind is junk science. With the difference that Intelligent Design has a scary consortium of religious freaks pushing it so hard that it makes people who don't really understand biology think that there is reasonable grounds for disagreement.
And just one note: why is it so hard for you to believe that the human species originated from a single celled organism when you yourself were once a single cell?
Now, go learn something about molecular biology. Then spend some time comparing amino acid sequences for a given protein between animals that are closely related (say two mammals) and animals that are distantly related (say a mammal and a fish). Just this one exercise done properly will show you how ridiculous it is to believe that current species don't have common ancestors.
-Marcus
However, there is still a reasonable hope that some time in the future that it will be possible to test string theory. ID is fundamentally untestable.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
It takes just as much faith to believe in evolution as it does Intelligent design, more in many people's estimation (Drs Plantinga, Creamer et al).
No it doesn't.
One of the primary reasons is that the very act of evolution requires certain assumptions and that the probability of evolution creating cognative ability approaches null.
What was your control group for this experiment?
It is a very sound argument which as yet the best of natural philisophers have yet to overturn.
Can you name some of the philosophers who have failed? I'd be interested to read them.
Edith Keeler Must Die
"Don't forget theses other great scientific theories.
Eugenics."
You're way off base here. Eugenics is not a theory, it is a set of methods, conclusions and practices. The theory on which it is based is natural selection. That theory combined with plant and animal breeding practices pointed scientists in the late 1800s (especially Sir Francis Galton) toward the idea that human development could be refined and controled by controling the process of reproduction (esentially breeding humans).
The THEORY here is rock-solid. The PRACTICE would require an unquestionably rational, unbiased and fair nexus of control (for example, one that would not select a racial group for exclusion because they happen to include disproportionate numbers of bankers). As evidenced by eugenics programs from sterilization programs to Nazi Germany, there is simply no way to apply the theories behind eugentics safely in the large, and probably not on a small scale either.
"That all stomach ulcers are caused by stress and no way bacteria could cause it."
Ah, good example! It is, however, a myopic one. The amount of information learned about the human gastric system between 1800 and 1950 is frankly stunning, and nearly all of it has been proven sound time and time again.
Of course, there are areas in which any theory breaks down, and while the system should resist capricious change, it must allow established theories to be modified (or it's not science). This is exactly what happened in the case you cite, and we now not only accept the modified theory, but apply it successfuly to treating disease.
This is one of the problems with I.D. It chooses certain areas in which the theory of the evolution of species is weak, and assumes that that weakness can be generalized to the whole theory. It cannot.
"Even that the earth stands still and the Sun moves around it. That was the scientific thinking for over 2000 years"
The scientific method has not been in use for 2000 years, so there was no "scientific thinking" for most of that period. You meant to say, "popular philosophical theory."
"and watch out what would happen to you if you disagreed with that scientific theory."
Actually, what would happen to you if you disagreed with most established philosophical theories was simple: the CHURCH would attack you. Remember that the sole word on knowledge in the western world between the fall of the Roman Empire and the Renaissance WAS the church.
Just how balanced the article is.
"The Dover, Pennsylvania school board recently adopted a policy requiring that high school science teachers teaching evolution tell their students that evolutionary theory, a theory that has been shown to explain the origins of life time and time again, is flawed, and that intelligent design is a valid alternative."
That statement is without a doubt inflamitory. The theory of evolution is still just a theory. It has been changed time and time again as new evidence has been unearthed and our understanding of biology has increased, as all good science should. There are still huge debates about punctuated vs gradual evolution. All sorts of theories about the role that reto virus may play and lets not even get into the whole earth as god/goddess theory that some like to spout. Intelligent design is a huge term that can mean anything from traditional creationism to the very abstract "God made the laws of the Universe so life could evolve."
All to often I hear people making statements about science that are every bit as absolute as fundamentalist make about God.
You will see many people here making statements about how evolution has been proven time and time again. A true scientific statement would be closer to this. "Evolution is currently the best theoretical model we have for life developing on the Earth. There is even observational evidence of life adapting to new environments through natural selection within a species." I have no problem with them teaching that the Theory of evolution is still got some questions that need to be answered. That is what science is all about. I will have issues if they try to teach "fake" science like I have seen some fundie meetings I have been too. Right up with had to be that statement that the speed of light is NOT a constant in a vacuum over none quantum distances!
I would say that it is possible to teach intelligent design as a science. The only problem I see is that would have to be a cosmology class, not a biology class.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
its giving up. its not rational thought. its the lack of any real idea - to keep people cozy at night, thinking they have a real answer to a troubling problem (ie, where did we come from).
fear is such a strong motivator. it causes people to synthsize answers when real ones can't be easily found.
the fact that you have no acceptable answer to a question is NOT a justification to make one up (synthesize one) yourself.
in a nutshell, ID is just a synthetic proposition. in its simplest form, it says "because we don't have a complete explanation for our creation, and creation seems awefully complicated for us humans to undersand right now, lets just say that some smarter thing figured it out and is pulling the strings. yeah, lets say that. then we can sleep well at night.
imagine if I tried that crap on a school test. I don't know the answer, so I say 'I don't know, but god knows, ask him!'. do you think that would fly well on any of my math or science tests?
deferring the problem is not a solution to a problem. saying that 'god made us' simply just defers the problem. pushes it out there, but makes no real attempt to understand it solve it.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Nah. ID parallels creationism's key flaws - it moves the action from that which can be examined to that which can not. Philosophically, and scientifically, we don't know what intelligence is. The definition of it shifts from person to person. There is no way we can test for it, no way we can measure it, no way we can explain it. In fact, there is no way we can even prove that intelligence by any definition actually exists. (especially not in other people) What ID does is to assume that certain aspects of life are tied up in the big black box of 'intelligent designer', and so can never be questioned. That's when the whole nontheory loses all scientific credibility.
>>> "Thats always something that has bugged me a little about religion [I'm atheist]. People prefer to be able to blame/pass the buck of onto something/somebody else rather than just say 'I don't know'. But then again, thats their choice)"
I prefer a logically consistent scientific explanation. But unfortunately my empirical data goes against that.
Also, what's your proof that a god does not exist. Why not agnostic??
Indulge me in a short story: when I was 10 years old I decided god didn't exist due to 'Natural Disasters'. Then I grew up and realised I didn't have that much evidence; I determined that agnosticism was the only scientific viewpoint.
Later I found faith in God through Jesus Christ, from a personal experience. But I still think agnosticism is the only _scientific_ position.
No. You teach with respect for dissenting viewpoints that have some evidence of truth. You don't just go out and teach whatever people want to hear.
"Respect for dissenting viewpoints" is code for "pretend that everyone is right, regardless of what the facts indicate."
If you are discussing the birth place of a famous person, and there exists some doubt about the location, most decent textbooks discuss the question.
Sure, if there is some valid doubt. But not just because someone out there disagrees. A lot of people believe that Elvis is still alive. Our textbooks don't discuss that hypothesis.
Evolution and counter-evolutionists should work the same way. There are holes in the most complete theory of evolution. They should be addressed. You can point out it is a theory that is not able to entirely proven, like a mathematical equation might be.
The problem with pointing out that it's a theory is that 5th graders, and apparently a lot of adults, do not understand what the word "theory" means in a scientific context.
Fundamentalists have been very successful with using that word to indicate to their followers that there exists no more evidence for evolution than for creationism, because heck! It's just a theory.
I am all for teaching kids about the scientific process and THEN teaching that evolution is a theory. But if you don't teach them how science really works, and you teach them that evolution is "just a theory" you're really just establishing Christian Fundamentalism as the religion of the state.
I think there might be something about that in our constitution.
If you're really interested in hearing both sides of this subject I would recommend the following: www.drdino.com, The Case for series by Lee Strobel and of course C.S. Lewis. You may be surprised if you give it a chance.
I wish you'd read what I'd written more carefully, since I didn't say that there was proof that all religions are wrong---I said there is no reason to endorse them. Moreover, it doesn't say that we ought to choose atheism because of our faith---i.e. for no reason---but rather because of the preponderance of evidence. So, let me put this simply so that you won't quote me out of context again (feel free to read this slowly and out loud if you're having trouble following this):
Atheism is not a religion because it eschews supernatural explanations; it has no articles of faith, as all of its claims are open for challenge. The openness to challenge doesn't mean that EVERY challenge is a good one. The challenge that, for example, god created the world in six days six thousand years ago is a bad one.
The false presupposition in your comment---in addition to an almost willful misreading of what I've written---here is that all views are equally good, have equal evidence, are equally plausible, etc. Since the preponderance of evidence is in favor of a scientific explanations---one which denies that faith has any epistemic value---one ought to choose that over supernaturalistic explanations. Indeed, it is awfully difficult to see what role reason even plays in religious thought, given that faith is always a trump card.
"Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under." - H.L. Mencken
Darwin looked at ecosystems and organisms and, in essence, realized they have many things in common. One explanation for this, his, is that all of these organisms evolved from a single source.
Another explanation for the commonality is that they were designed/created by the same Source. This is a reasonable and logical possibility.
No question that adaptation and natural selection are present in our world. Whether this explains *everything* in our world is really the crux of the question.
Now, here's where it gets interesting for those of you who contend that evolution has been "proven time and time again." Can you explain any of the following:
1. Just how did organisms go from asexual to sexual reproduction? For sexual reproduction you need two asexual creatures to mutate, one mutating as a male and the other as a female. You also need splitting and recombining of chromosomes, etc. To say that natural selection and mutation is responsible for this requires some plausible explanation. Any takers?
2. What about going from single-celled to multi-celled organisms? This raises similar questions. It might be easy to imagine that a single-celled creature evolved (thru mutation) to a multi-celled creature. But, then, can we really argue that, for example, respiration and circulation (independent, and, yet interdependent systems) evolved thru mutation? All of the systems of vertabrates are both independent and interdependent. This creates a bit of a problem for evolutionary theory that talks about incremental mutations. How is it that all vertabrates evolved digestive, endocrin, respiratory, circulatory, excretory, metabolic, nervous, etc. systems that are all interdependent on one another?
Intelligence does not contradict the Bible, far from it. The best characters in the Bible are those that used moxie and intelligence to accomplish his or her goals through the will of God. In fact, if anything, the Bible encourages intelligent people to press on in the face of ignorance.
Noah knew about the Flood and built the boat despite being mocked by his ignorant neighbors, who all died.
David slew Goliath with a sling, when Goliath should have kicked his rear.
Solomon was famous for his wisdom more than his military prowess. He wrote psalms, he made a beautiful temple. He did that cut the baby in half trick to get the true mother to reveal herself.
Christ wasn't even concerned with brute force at all. His whole life was an example of sticking to your guns even if you know you are going to get crucified. In a sense, our Martin Luther King Jrs, etc, followed very literally in his footsteps - stick to what is right, even if they kill you for it.
This is my sig.
if you can't test it, then it doesn't belong in science.
Have you not just kicked all of string theory out of the Science dorm? ;-)
Intelligent Design people are all for the Show. It doesn't matter if they win or lose a debate. Their goal is simply to debate it to create free advertisement across the country. Since most people aren't able to think on their own, they will believe the guy who attacks the most and who seems to make more sense.
Since the Evolution people are put on the defensive, they don't attack. ID people then try to appeal to the population by saying things like : "Galileo's ideas weren't accepted at first" and that we are "close-minded".
Anyone who thinks about it for a second will know that Galileo had proof that the Church decided to disregard whereas the ID people have no proof at all. We also agree to debate, but somehow, that makes us close-minded.
Those are all stunts designed to make simple people believe in ID. Can't you see they are playing the victim and that this tactic wins them the heart of most of the population?
Debating will make us loose the fight. Here's what we should do: whenever we are in front of a creationist in public, we should say only one thing. "Show me the proof you have." That's it. Stick with it. Never say anything about evolution. It's all for show and we can use the same techniques. Attack, attack, attack, and never defend your point of view.
If you are in private and no cameras are looking at you, then please debate. There is no show, as the common people are not watching.
I can't help but see a similarity in their "debating" techniques with those used by the Republicans. They attack and lie, but they make sense to people who can't think, and they play the victims.
Let's play the game with the same rules.
The reason outspoken Christians are common as dirt is that the absolute affirmation of the existence of something which has not, cannot, and will not be shown to exist is easy to defend when one has no knowledge of anything at all and declares such a state to be a virtue. Just make up so much random crap that the people debunking it can't keep up.
Dyolf Knip
Something that bothers me about ID or Christian, Judaic or Islamic belief is that those beliefs base their beliefs on the written word. In other words, it's something that you read somewhere. I beg all of those who are Christians to tell me what makes their particular brand better than the next one. Why is Jesus right for a Christian but not for a Jew? What makes a Muslim a heretic and a Christian holy?
Those are all things you either heard in your particular culture, group, family, church or mosque or read in your particular holy book.
Please tell me, and I don't mean this as a way to bait you, how you experience "God and his son Jesus" as one person put it further down. Do you mean that the two of them chat to you personally?
Why can't my particular idea of religion be right? I believe in a light that shines inside all things. That is the way I experience a God like experience, except that I don't give it a name or try to explain it in terms of some previous religion, book or science.
Am I in your eyes somehow unholy because I don't believe in your particular book or your physical place of worship? Am I a sinner because I am not interested in your religious rites?
Explain all of that to me in terms of THINGS YOU HAVE EXPERIENCED, and not in terms of things that you have read or heard from others.
I am a Ph.D. Molecular Biologist. I am also a Christian. I've studied both sides, and the ID argument (as stated) is generally deranged and foolish. However, the opposed side is equally stupid, mainly because we have non-scientists mucking about with things they don't understand. What many people seem to miss in all of this is the definition of theory. Scientific method calls for hypotheses to be proposed, which are intended to be disproven. If you can't disprove the hypothesis, it eventually becomes a theory. This does not mean the theory is fact. It just means it hasn't been disproven yet! If our schools taught students the definition of theory, we wouldn't have this problem to begin with. The theory of evolution is a theory. At this point, we have no reason to say it is false. That doesn't make it fact. Just not-disproven-so-far. As a biology teacher, an annoying quote often in the news (by school boards and biology teachers) is "I refuse to teach students anything but FACTS." Hahaha! What a joke! And this is what we have teaching our students science? No wonder America is so far behind the curve. Our science teachers don't understand the BASIS of science! On the other hand, the theory of intelligent design is NOT a scientific theory. If your hypothesis is un-disprovable, it is not a hypothesis. As said above, faith can't disprove a theory of science. It's like refuting trigonometry by quoting Shakespeare. These ID folks give us more educated Christians a bad name.
I've read up on I.D. and their thesis is interesting. Why all the fuss over religion?
/. can understand is that randomly changing bits in an executable (or image or HTML, etc.) will not change that application to be something else. There is absolutely no way to change/add/delete bits to, say, a J2EE EAR file for a B2B business app and get, say, Half-Life 2.
The most interesting part of I.D. is that the randomness (genetic mutations) in evolution which has created all of the diverse life we see today is not possible. Each form of life on earth is quite complex and has to have the right sequence of DNA to be formed. Randomly changing DNA won't result in different life forms.
The analogy that all of us on
In any case, I.D. is an interesting concept and leads to higher questions such as how/what/who created the universe, etc. Why are some people so afraid to discuss this topic without spewing forth their religious/non-religious bias?
Is there a place that collects these common mistranslations? I recall Wikipedia addressing the ten commandments and claiming that "Thou shall not kill" would be more accurately translated as "Thou shall not murder". This is also more consistent, since killing is not considerd bad in certain cases - like punishment. I've often wondered if there are a lot of mistranslated statements in there that could make the whole book more sensible if they were corrected.
If the earth was created in 6 time periods of more than a day, they should not use the word "day". Use "phase" or "period" or "era". I've also wondered if the people who lived to 900 years actually lived for 900 lunar cycles. When one reads about amazing stuff, he should question the sources or at least the translation in the case of this book.
This is why science and religion shouldn't be mixed. One seeks to explain the world through evidence, the other seeks to explain the world through faith.
Prankster gods are common in polytheistic religions. Some aspects of it turn up in the Christian Devil but "The Prankster" usually isn't an unambigously evil figure.
Nope, not with caution. In all its glory. Teach about all the frickin nutball snake handlers, all the pedophile, wife-beating Southern Baptists. All the missionaries, all the nuns, priests, and preachers who follow Christianity. Teach people what it means to be "God-fearing". Teach about the Crusades. Tell the good and the bad about the Bible and all those who use it as a tool to get what they want. Also teach that there are those who try to follow its teachings, and explain how contradictory the entire book is.
If you are going to teach them about it, tell them the truth.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
This is a very important point that seems to have been neglected. I'm as strong as a Darwinian as they come but I've never seen it demonstrated that evolution is "shown to explain the origins of life" even once, let alone time and time again. The sad thing is that for someone to say this means that they clearly don't understand what evolution is about and the fact that they need to make this claim means that they are one of these people who has adopted Evolution as a religion rather than as a rational belief. We could use fewer of these people posting stories to /. not more, they're a bit of an embarassment.
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
You're right. I should have taken time to read your whole post to see that you had re-defined atheism away from the traditional meaning. " a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity" (from www.m-w.com). It would have been easier to understand had you changed the definition at the beginning of your statement rather than at the end which I never reached, having given up after the apparant problems found early in the statement.
I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
At work, so no time to read most posts right now, but I do want to point out that there are numerous problems with the naturalistic model for origins of life. If you want to learn about them, there is a book called Origins of Life, by Fazale Rana and Hugh Ross. This is not your daddy's creationist material. It is a recent book (published last year) with a lot of references to recent scientific discoveries.
Intelligent Design should be mentioned as a valid model, because there really is evidence for it. I'm not saying it should be taught as a science, but it certainly has its place.
a theory that has been shown to explain the origins of life time and time again
The theory does not explain the origins of life. It is an observation of life interacting with its environment and the environmnet interacting with it.
The theory of evolution meets Occam's Razor. But is it falsifiable?
Give me a test that would conclusively falsify the theory that single-celled organisms evolved into humans.
The problem with evolution is that if you did have such a test, the proponents of evolution would simply claim that they needed a bigger petri dish or a few more million years. Keep increasing the size or adding years. Where's the falsifiability in that?
"God did it" is a sufficient explanation for you. Men of science are not satisfied with 3 word answers. That's why they make observations, experiment, and study - and write everything down. You are just too lazy to even read it. Or maybe you're not lazy - you're scared to allow any challenges to your simplistic god-based worldview.
So far the basic argument is that it's easy to conceptualize step wise changes in a macroscopic level, like: light sensor -> cluster of light sensors -> eye
or
beele -> beetle with poison -> beetle with concentrated poisen sack -> bombardeir beetle
But actually the changes are so profound on a molecular level that they'd never occur by chance (or at least we'd have some evidence of intermediates)
The most obvious problem to me is that this argument could also be used to prove that poodles and mastifs and bulldogs are not derived from the same common ancestor. They are so different and there are so many molecular changes separating them that they cannot be thought to be related. Even a creationist would have to agree that theese animals are all from a common dog ancestor since the divergence has happened while humans have been on the planet.
Another argument he uses is "irreducable complexity." Some systems depend on every component to function so they can't have arisen by chance - in incomplete system would not function at all. The example he uses is a mouse trap which relies on every part to kill mice.
The problem I see with this is that it ignores changes of function during evolution. Evoltion is not directional, it can take circuitous routes.
an example he uses is a bicycle factory. The analogy to mutation is errors in bicycle production. Each mutation can cause a part of the bike to be duplicated or put in the wrong place or some similar transposition, but that's it. So how, he asks, can you evolve to bike to a motorcycle by making small stepwise changes? A caveat is that the changes must be improvements to the bicycle.
there are several problems with this analogy. The most glaring is the restriction that changes must all be beneficial. If resources are abundant enough, neutral and even harmful mutations will likely be tolerated. to go back to te analogy, if bikes are in high demand, many people will buy bikes with slight manufacturing defects. changes in production that alter wheel size or gear ratio might be more preffered by some customers and less preferred by others.
Another big problem is the lack of flexibility in this analogy. There is some validity in comparing a mutation to a slight error in bicycle assembly instructions, but bicycles are not organisms. In an organism, a small change can cause a big difference. This is especially apparent with mutations in developmental genes which can cause radical changes to the appearance of an organism as well as its overall gene expression.
Some mutations can also be completely silent and may not be noticed until another mutation exposes them. if two genes are functionally redundant, one may be mutated randomly without affecting the organism. eventually it could be deleted, or even assume some new function.
anyway, that's what I've gotten out of the book so far. maybe I'll even finish it.
not everything is a science experiment!
To assume that God does not exist because his existence cannot be proven is no less flawed.
Unless you have proven that he does not exist, in which case I'd be fascinated to hear how you arrived at that conclusion.
Agnosticism -- or an acknowledgement of ignorance -- is the most realistic position for the skeptic to adopt.
Perhaps there are those who believe that proponents of evolution are simply making up so much grap that the people debunking it can hardly keep up.
There are many brilliant people on both sides of this issue; unfortunately, not very many of them are posting on this discussion.
If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. -- George Orwell
I've noticed a subtle issue with the I.D. vs. Evolutionists article. The press, and *maybe* the school boards, are saying that teachers are to present evolutions as "just a theory".
The word "just" is badly equivocal in this debate. Does "just a theory" mean:
(A) Evolution is a theory, but is definitely not true, or...
(B) Evolution is a theory, but like all theories that explain observations, is subject to later discovery that the theory is wrong. (I.e., The Underdetermination of Theory by Evidence.)
It's possible that the school boards mean one of {A, B}, but the press / critics are taking the school board to mean the other of {A, B}.
Unfortunately, confusing (A) and (B) is tragic for this debate, because this is partly a debate on epistemic warrant: "What's a good enough reason for a person to believe a particular proposition?"
We might say that the school boards have insufficient warrant for claiming evolution to be false. OTOH, many calm, intelligent people consider the epistemic warrany for macro evolution to be less than a perfectly shut case.
It seems to me that the ACLU isn't merely arguing that the school board shouldn't teach only a Christian world view. Rather, the ACLU is arguing that the school board cannot question the ACLU's world view. And that smacks of both:
- religious intollerance (of creationist religious views) AND
- of actually imposing religious views on students: the view that creationist religious views are so wrong that they shouldn't be taught on equal footing as The True Belief (evolution).
So, God created them, and didn't know what they were goign to do, because of free will?
That makes no sense, it really doesn't. You can't create something, and give it something it did not have, calculate out what it's going to do, and be surprised when it does it.
You're also bound by the very matter of the tree: Knowledge of Good and Evil. That means, that Adam and Eve didn't KNOW what good and evil was before eating from it, which means how are they supposed ot know they are disobeying God?
Why didn't God KNOW what they did? Notice how he comes back and goes "Uh.. Why are you covering yourself? Who told you that you were naked?" And where's the Tree of Life that's guarded by the flaming sword??
Don't you dare claim that it's Christ on the Cross - You can't choose to use vague symbolism where it's convinent, and then animately deny a "Period" of time in Ancient Hebrew can only be a Day.
And what kind of entity would create something who's only sole purpose is supposed to be to worship them? I find the whole idea rather offensive.
Not to mention the gradual change - first God walks among garden of eden - then God can't be seen nor touched - only talked to. Then God comes down and wrestles with Jacob... and then God can't be seen nor heard again, until he comes from a mountain and storm. It all changes - which to me is the watermark of People changing, and an ancient culture changing and debating there own view points.
It is incumbant on the religions to prove they are right, not on anyone else to prove they are wrong. It is the religions that are making the fantastic, extra-ordinary claim. Extra-ordinary claims require extra-ordinary evidence.
Religions ask you to have "faith" and beleive in things that have no evidence or even evidence to the contrary. Atheism simply says "I don't believe that". It is an act of examining the evidence and drawing conclusions. It says that "Don't believe without compelling evidence". It doesn't say "You must believe this".
For example, Christianity says "Jesus was born of a virging, died and came back from the dead and accended into heaven. He is the Son of the Omnipotent Creator God, so if you don't beleive this, your soul will burn in Hell for ever, you better believe it!"
An Atheist would say "Jesus? Ok that's pretty fantastic, and violates the known, observable laws of physic, biology and chemistry. So do you have some very hard evidence that theis Jesus actually lived? Do you have evidence that, if he existed, that all of the fantastic things happened? And even if he existed and these things happened, do you have evidence that this God he is supposed to be the son of existed? And do you have evidence that I have a soul? And where is this Hell place? Evidence? None of that fits in with the observed world around us. I'll be happy to believe if you can prove it"
Now none of that says the the Atheist must believe a certain thing. Some Atheists believe in karma and non-stop cyclical existance. We call the Buddhists. Some believe in nothing. We call them nihilst. Some believe we were created by Aliens. We call thm Kooks.
The only thing they have in common is that in their cosmology and world view, they do not believe in or see the need for supreme beings like God(s) or Godess(es).
No faith. Not a religion.
Never by hatred has hatred been appeased, only by kindness - the Buddha
Intelligent Design is based on science, not theology (like many claim), although there are theological implications none the less with an intelligent designer being involved. The Intelligent Design movement makes a great case based on good scientific evidence only, and have shown the glaring flaws in Darwin's theory of Natural Selection. Evolution and Natural Selection are riddled with holes, they've always been a theory ... so please don't teach us as if it is fact. Don't make this a theological issue when it doesn't have to be! Intelligent Design is making a good case for itself and challenging other theories like they never have been before. It should be taught in school science along with all the other theories. Wake up and smell the coffee people, nothing doesn't become something out of shear randomness. Anyone with a clue can figure that out. Want the truth? Keep an open mind and follow where the evidence takes you. Implications? Yeah. Isn't it worth finding out the truth though?
The largest Christian body in the world is not fundamentalist, and doesn't require that followers believe in the literal interpretation of the Genesis story.
So how can you say "I'm Christian so you know where I stand"?
- sigs are for wimps.
OK, let me explain, since moderation has downgraded my insightful remark >-)
It requires quite a lot of imagination to build a picture in your mind of how the jaw-bones of a fish became the little sound-conductors in our inner ears. Or how the dolphins moved from land to sea. Or how flowers are specialized leaves.
It is much easier to state that someone has just made all that up.
However, that statement is _far more complicated_ than explaining what we see by traits of the things we see.
Because the traits of this transcendental someone must be at least as complex as the world we see. Doubling our problem of explaining the world in stead of reducing it.
A cogent argument sir (or madam). Now where are those mod points i threw away yesterday.
And if you're not a religious nutcase but you are in the U.S., don't fucking apologise. DO SOMETHING. You are to blame for letting these rabid fundamentalists take over. YOU have to stop them.
I agree absolutely with this. Hey intelligent Americans - TAKE BACK YOUR FUCKING COUNTRY! We are sick of this shit and many of us are tiring of NOT lumping you all in the same bunch. You are burning serious karma.
"Our interests are to see if we can't scale it up to something more exciting," he said.
The whole question, argument, the bickering and all is completely and ruthlessly pointless. There is exactly one reason why this philosophical standpoint is pushed in the schools: to make those children be honest, reliable voters for the Republican Party and believers of their agenda. It doesn't matter much who created this overcomplicated, but sometimes rather fun mess we live in; what does matter is who gets all the money one can get while being in office. It's not an idealistic world.
On the other hand, thinking on a regular basis is a good thing. Education, literacy and science are good things. The creationist world view discourages people of all these (its main point being the acceptance of the Bible, a well-written collection of thousand year old truths (as they were), word by word).
Sigh, people just don't read any more..
we discovered a new way to think.
Sorry, can't remember my login right now, and I don't want to make a new account.
Anyway I notice people becomming insulting towards anyone who proposes a theory (regardless of religion) that is different from the Accepted Knowlege. The response is out of proportion and resembles the response of the fundementalist when religious dogma is challanged.
I'd highly suggest that folks take a deep breath and try thinking with their brains rather than emotions. I listen to both sides of the arguement and I'll wait for God to answer when I die. But in the time we're waiting I'd suggest reading Kicking the Sacred Cow by James P. Hogan.
If I'm wrong about God I goto hell.
If I'm wrong about evolution I gotta listen to people whine about it on slashdot.
I'm not sure which sucks more.
True athiesm is not a religion. As for how we and the rest of the universe got here, we know that we don't know.
The problem is that most people are wired for religion (it makes for a workable way to organize civilized societies), so when you take away their traditional religion they go find substitutes. Radical environmentalism, One World-ism, Communism, National Socialism, Political Correctness, you name it. They'd have been better off staying Christians.
Real athiests don't preach, and we're very, very rare. If you're one of us, cool, if not, that's nice. Freedom of religion does not mean eradication of religion.
As for ID, I don't see the harm in mentioning it and clarifying the distinction between science and religion, then moving on. This refusal to acknowledge that there are other opinions out there smacks at least as much of religious argument as any of the "fundamentalists". Where the ID people are messing up is thinking that winning this argument will do them any good. At best, ID gets a derisive mention in science class.
In my view (which I reckon you think is baloney!!) it's important to know the limitations of scientific theory.
...?
... mediated by particles that no-one has ever seen.
Take the statement: "Everyone knows the Earth revolves around the Sun".
Do they, surely that's just a simplification based on how the math[s] works. One could couch things in terms of a fixed Earth (isn't that what Einsteins inertial frames of reference lead us to) but it makes the maths harder. How does that make it 'true'?
Evolution may be falsifiable, and as yet un-falsified. But does that make it true. What about brane theory. Is that true, a theory, a belief? Should brane theory be taught to students, or should you instead teach the 'truth' of the superstrings.
Then there's particle physics, do electrons exist as point particles? Does any physicist actually believe the electron conforms to current standard models. Sure, it's a useful description, but whether you think it describes our reality or not - that's belief.
You get the jist
PS: Apollo's chariot may be the mechanism for solar movement, but no-one has ever seen it -- of course we prefer to believe in gravity now-a-days
PPS: Sorry I've used physics examples as I'm most comfortable with them. They still serve for the purposes of the discussion, I feel.
I think really what we disagree about is who is a Christian. A Christian in demographic terms is a person who says he believes in Jesus as more than historical figure. For me, that's not a Christian.
You don't get to pick and choose here. A person who says he is a Christian is a Christian. Simple as that. You may disagree with his beliefs, but lots of Christians disagree with each other. There's many, many factions there. For example, Catholics claim that they're the only ones, but then so do Southern Baptists.
Well, from a non-Christian point of view, you're all Christians. You all get lumped in the same category. And that's just how it is. You do the same to Islam, after all. I mean, there's just as much diversity there too you know, but you lump it all together under one broad category.
My point is that you don't get to say who is a true Christian when you're generalizing about them as a whole. That's like me saying that all black people like chicken and then defining "black people" as "that guy over there standing in line at the KFC (points)".
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Before ascribing all complicated behavior to a creator, understand that complicated behavior often happens *in spite of a creator* or without a creator. This becomes an argument for behavior being independent of intent - something understood by most people who program computers.
Indeed, the thing least understood by creationists is such self-organizing behavior. Such non-intelligent behavior is seen by storms that are subject to coriolis forces, gravity, solar-heating, and some atmospheric chemistry. When one looks deeply enough, one can determine the root cause of such behavior (e.g. the eye of the storm), and although the consituent parts may be quite simple, the interactions may be incredibly complex.
Humans have long attributed behavior they can't explain to divinity or spirituality. Before Luigi Galvani touched different types of metal to the dead muscle of a frog making it twitch, it was thought that some spiritual essense was responsible for the movement of muscles. Yet now we understand that it is an action potential - a voltage change that makes the muscles work. We understand about how this action potential propagates, and we can even construct low level computer models that take certain action potential trains as inputs to actin and myosin filaments and create large scale muscle movement.
If I, as a product of self-organizing complex behavior, am capable of building something that has its own self-organizing complex behavior, then a divine creator/intelligent designer is not required.
What it all boils down to is this a chicken or the egg argument. If a creator is needed to create life, the Universe, and everything, then who created the creator? On the other hand, maybe everthing just is. In which case, no creator is necessary.
The "Young Earth" (more accurately, "young universe") viewpoint supposes that the universe was created about 6000 years ago. Okay, okay, quit laughing. That viewpoint HAS managed to turn up some interesting cases of rapid rock formation and "instant fossilization" which should really be examined with a more open mind. ANYway, they say that nothing is more than 6000 years old.
Then these same people go on and on about how huge the universe is, with all those stars so far away... star clusters, nebulae, galaxies, galactic clusters, etc. The problem is, most astronomically observed objects are more than 6000 light-years away. So if the universe is only 6000 years old, how did the light from those objects get here?
I've seen a couple ways to talk around this problem. The least idiotic one is, "God created everything in its finished form". They say that animals and people were created as adult creatures, and so the universe was created all-grown-up. Quit giggling and wait for the real obvious problem that they skip.
Okay, so even if you buy into all that about creation, you still have a really, really big problem with measuring distances to the stars. The whole idea is based on the assumption that the light which we see actually came all the way from the star in a more-or-less straight line at the speed of light. We measure angles and we measure parallax to get even more accuracy but it's still based on the assumption that the light actually came from the distant object in the normal way. The problem is, according to the creation doctrine, no light could have been going anywhere for more than 6000 years because that would have been before the pronouncement of "Let ther be light."
What that means is that according to creationist doctrine anything which appears to be more than 6000 light-years away is actually "faked" by God to look that way.
So make a dot on a chalkboard. That's us. Now draw a circle around it. That's the 6k light-year limit of what we can really see and measure by what we know about light. Everything outside of that may or may not really exist because it had to be "faked" by God at creation for us to see it at all. Now for the real fun... Stellar events. Every supernova that we see, since it's more than 6k light-years away, never really happened! It's just a light show that God puts on just to make the universe look old. All those most-distant quasars and pulsars, high-energy signals from the beginning of the universe... none of it is real. It's a gazillion-year-long history falsified, for what purpose?
The heavens declare that the god of these "Creationists" is a liar.
Well, some of us conjecture that there is ID in the global system, and that it is under the direction of itself -- Gaia, mother nature, Terra, what-have-you. The design is carried out by microbes, including bacteria and viruses. The overall design is based on some geologically long-term growth & homeostatic cycles, is expressed in some system-wide synergy that is analagous to slow intelligence, and we're a stage in the design. Think of yourself as a specialized cell in a large body.
Just conjecture, mind you, completely unprovable at this point, much like ID in general. At least as much fun a conjecture, I think--unless you have an inflated view of your own importance.
Damn those pesky terrorists
To all who think Adam and Eve were kicked out for eating of the 'Tree of Knowledge'... that's incorrect... look at Genesis 3:22...
And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."
He was more worried about Man becoming immortal. He was worried about competition... not teaching a lesson. Or so the book says...
-G.
Eugenics was considered the science of the day, and was right up there as being a theory. it had been proven as was accepted by the general scietific community as being true. Granted it had only been truly proven on animals and plants but reading the lectures of that day and even the political discussions of the 1910s when various eugenic laws were being past and you have a repeat of what of the conversation between I.D. and evelution
The thinking about uclers was not fully accepted until 1994, and did not really start until 1982.
The earth moving around the Sun is based totally on work by Aristotle, he also went around killing off the theory that it was the other way around because that did not comply with his theories. While ARistotle did do alot of philosophical and political work it is hard to say that this falls under that.
I would say that very few Jews are literalists. Many more Christians are literalists with the Old Testament than Jews are. This is absolute and also by percentage figures.
Most Jews have accepted some of the wisdom from the teaching of Moses Maimonides, the Baal Shem Tov, et alia. I will focus on Maimonides.
He argues against literalism ["Finger of G-d" was a literal finger, Monty Python styley]. Most Jews are the same.
Jews think most stories in the Bible are allegories. Jews are certain to consider the creationist literal 7 days as an allegory. Many, including myself believe that G-d guided evolution.
Who decided that Homo-Erectus wasn't erradicated by influenza? Evolutionary theorists would say luck. I would say G-d.
Both would have a hard time proving it.
[% slash_sig_val.text %]
Scientific America Article giving up on evolution. [www.sciam.com]
This one is called the Fossil Fallacy [www.sciam.com] and has a very interesting viewpoint on the debate.
The way I see it, there are is a subtle but important distinction that needs to be made. Evolution claims that there is interspecies developement, the evidence shows *only* intraspecies developement. Evolution as a theory extrapolates from intraspecies evolution to interspecies evolution. There is not one single instance in the fossil record (that I am aware of) that shows a complete change from one species to another! In fact, it is statistically significant that in the abundance of the fossil record that no complete change exists. This implies that there is some other effect causing new species to form, ID or not, I don't know.
I don't doubt that within a species the pressures of natural selection act to create new capabilities. However, until there is solid evidence that the pressure of natural selection can cause one species to develop into another I will not accept evolution as a theory. For what its worth I don't accept intelligent design either. Neither side has enough evidence to be accepted by any rational person, this is the true scientific viewpoint.
-- The morphemes of your disquisition are ascertainable, but they have eschewed an ambit of transpicuous exposition.
The Muslims have no problem with evolution. Neither do the Bhuddists, the Hindus or 95% of the Christians. There is one sub-set of Christians that have a problem. But why? The Catholic Church accepts evolution, and they aint exactly an enlightened or scientific organization. Their position is that evolution is to the human soul as a recipe is to a banquet. Try to eat a recipe. It's God's purpose that's important, not His methods.
Two things show the Intelligent Design movement has momentum and should be taken seriously:
1) Science has led famed atheist Anthony Flew to become a theist. This would be the equivalent of the pope become an agnostic. While not proof for anything it is significant.
2) I've seen articles about scientists postulating about multiple universes. Inevitably this is the argument: this universe is incredibly well-tuned for life. We can't allow for a Designer. So we are going to speculate that there are multiple universes.
In regards to 2), I have appreciated the honesty. Atheists don't want to have accountablity for actions. But admitting that psychology is driving their scientific speculations is very refreshing.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
Why is it that lately separation is viewed as a ban?
If you look at it as the founding fathers wrote it, separation means that there can't be laws written to either enforce OR ban a religion.
So how can you take a religious view to court?
As long as a majority of the taxpayers in that schools community are happy and a resonable attempt at fairness is shown, what is the problem?
Just like the vocal minority of prudes are trying to censor radio and TV, a vocal minority of Athiests are trying to stomp out freedom of religion.
BTW, I'm not a religous nut, I'm a freedom nut.
If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. - James Madison
Intelligent Design (ID) is called pseudo-science for a reason. ID proponents do the same thing with Science that they do with the interpretation of religious texts- throw out certain parts. There are a thousand little reasons why ID is not to be taught in science classes. The first, and most obviously wrong concept is that ID proponents use a supreme and intelligent being to support a scientific process. There is not a single piece of scientific evidence to support the existence of a supreme being. And, yet, ID proponents START (problem one) with the grand assumption (problem two) that a supreme being (problem three) is the main driving force behind an otherwise perfectly scientific system (problem four.)
Intelligent Design proponents lack a fundamental understanding of the scientific process. They start with the conclusion and work backwards to the evidence. This is contradictory from the scientific process and, as such, is not scientific. You can't claim something is Science unless you follow it's basic principals. Hence the term Pseudo-Science.
Scientists came to the conclusion that evolution is the basis of all biological development by observation. These observations continue constantly and have strengthened the mountain of evidence for Evolution the same way we keep falling back to Earth in support of Gravity. (I use gravity because it's REALLY hard to deny that one.) While both theories get fine tuned and modified over time to support the evidence, there is not a single shred of evidence to refute either one.
Proponents of ID would argue that the evidence is so vast and complex that it could not have occured through natural means. Well, through scientific process we can say with certainty that evolution is as strong a theory as gravity. ID proponents will argue we can only say this as it applies to micro-evolution, which is a ID made up word to make evolution sound trivial on a grand scale. This attempt is to imply that the rules governing the evolution of fruit flies, pigeons (amongst hundreds of others observed within a couple human life times) can't evolve enough to be genetically incompatible. Except they do. And Scientists observe these effects all the time and add it to the pile of evidence that supports Evolution.
Also, let's not forget that the most simple answer is usually the correct one. Evolution is simple. Yes, the results are seemingly complex and varied (they are) but the basic principle of Evolution is as simple as it gets: you start with a soup of ingredients and the biology of living things that result from that soup will grow with complexity over time to better compete for resources (the soup.) Simple. Part of that process includes the basic idea that, if all living things were identical that they would be susceptible to the same evolutionary problems. Aside from things outside it's control (the end of the soup, Earth) evolution accounts for variety because it allows some living things to be diverse enough to survive events that will wipe out others. Again, this is pretty simple.
At the end of the day, people who irrationally hold an opinion dear will do irrational things to support it.
"Politicians find new names for institutions which under old names have become odious to the people."
...what is the philosophy of science, more than applied metaphysics?
Epistomology?
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Franco, Pol Pot, Mao Zedong ... you Atheists have proud company.
lol! Yeah, they were killing people out of atheism, and not, you know, thirst for power.
Good one! It's not a coincidence, it's a cause! Hihihi!
You can't take the sky from me...
As atheist is a religion on census forms...
In the end, it was rather ridiculous. There were many people there and over 90% of them were over 50. Apparently, he was trying to start a chapter of his group in the city. Anyway, he wouldn't answer any questions from us youngsters, which left me feeling like I just wasted 2 hours of my time. In the end I was really offended by the man. He was a published astronomer, so as a man of science he must know how ridiculous these arguments are. He's abusing the public's ignorance of science and a yearning for proof of God's existence to advance his beliefs.
Here's how he started his talk:
"Who came up with the big bang theory: Einstein, Hawking, Araham, or Moses? Actually, there's some debate over whether Moses or Abraham was first, so both of those are correct." The man was saying that the big bang theory is in the Bible! If you need proof of twisting an idea, this is it. The school board in Dover is no different. Espousing a scientific theory that hasn't passed muster through the well-established journal peer-review system is an affront to science. I don't mind them believing in it or teaching it to their own children, but don't force it on me and mine.
Exactly. The only logical alternative to infinite recursion is to accept the existence of an universe without a creator.
And the same goes for free will also. If you postulate the existence of some decision process inside your mind that isn't based purely on the interaction between material particles obeying the laws of physics you also fall into the infinite recursion paradox. If I have a soul inside me that governs my feelings, shouldn't this soul have a meta-soul inside it?
Fortunately this last question will be solved someday, if Moore's "law" holds on for a few more decades. We already have a rather good understanding of the basic interactions between neurons and of some of the basic structures in the brain. To make a good simulation of an entire human brain would need something like one million computers and we still don't know what is the overall structure of the brain, so we aren't there yet. But someday in the next fifty years we will probably have a personal computer that mimics so closely a human being that people will assume naturally that it's as conscious of itself as we assume our fellow humans are conscious of themselves.
...but what indisputable evidence do we have for the hypothesis of evolution? I was under the impression that the scientific community held to it only because there are no other "scientific" answers out there. Give me a break, people. We've figured out next to nothing about the origin of life--the best we can do is to keep open minds and maintain an open dialouge. That includes the flaws in evolution. Even in schools.
The Kansas board of education is the one that made the famous ill-fated decision. The article we're discussing is about a decision made in Pennsylvania.
Fundamentalism is not limited to the deep south!
It's well-established that the chance to vote on gay marriage and abortion amendments is what brought out the midwestern voters, who are the ones responsible for this second, ill-fated term.
So don't try to pin this on the south! We might be called the "bible belt", but fundamentalism runs strong throughout this country.
Real science is too complex for "people of little brain". Intelligent Design is much easier to comprehend with it's default answer: "God did it".
Actually you forgot:
exp(0)=1
cos(0)=1
ln(0)=-infinity
Ah ah! so you can get something from nothing...
IDium
IDius
IDiot
Hey, IDiot,
Idiot, Hmmmm, "They all, believe in Intelligent Design" -- "Idiot"
So thats where that term comes from!
I know its kinda trollish, and I'm going to hell and such, Oh wait, the very fact that this discussion still plagues the school system suggests that we are already there, so I guess I have nothing to worry about....
WHAT IS THE CREDIBILITY OF THE EVIDENCE?
Is creation or evolution more credible? In order for an opinion about something to be credible, it must adequately explain the existing evidence. This is especially true for ideas about the long ago past.
Who saw it? Let's keep in mind that no one saw the origin's events; there are no living eyewitnesses. (Actually, there is one Eyewitness, and He wrote a Book about it, but this Testimony has been ruled inadmissible by opponents of His view.) We must try as honestly as we can to reconstruct the past by studying the evidence in the present and the results of past events.
Living organisms. We can look at living organisms and see that they are incredibly complex, with well-designed, interdependent parts, each aspect far beyond our own human ability to understand fully, let alone duplicate. Each living thing is governed and energized by the information-loaded DNA molecule, consisting of myriads of genes and proteins of intense precision, each doing its job and each depending on the other to do its job. Evolutionists say it all happened in a step-by-step sequence by a totally random process. Creationists say it was designed.
Mutations. Never has a truly beneficial mutation been observed, a random alteration which produces a new and better gene. Creation teaches that there shouldn't be, evolutionists assure us there have been billions and billions, but they are still looking for an example. What is needed is new and increased information in the DNA information code, but all science can show is that over time information is lost in such a system. Creationists point to the never-violated Second Law of Thermodynamics--the scientific law of increasing disorder over time--while evolutionists continue to maintain that certain chemical reactions produce order that changes ameba-to-man. This spontaneous generation has long ago been disproved, but evolutionists say it happened at least once. (But they were not there.)
Transitional links. The fossil record is overflowing with "gaps"--no organisms bridging the span between basic categories have ever been found. Creationists say such organisms never existed, and there shouldn't be any transitional fossils. Evolutionists explain this lack of transitional links away by punctuated equilibrium (evolution happened faster at different times during these transitional link periods) and hope to find them someday.
Evolutionists spend great effort to propose mathematical models for the Big Bang. The evidence consists of varied points of light that don't move, that change only when they destroy themselves. Never do we see stars evolving from gas. Evolutionists, in order to save their mathematical models, propose imaginary cold, dark matter comprising 90% of the mass of the universe. The search for black holes continues. Millions are spent in a vain attempt to find extraterrestrial life for which there is no clue. But the evidence can much more easily be understood within the context of a created universe, with each star differing from the other.
Neither the evolutionary or creationist view of life can be proved in a concrete sense with mountains of hard evidence. But when the two competing historical views are looked at--creation is far more credible.
II. TWO BASIC WORLDVIEWS
The creationist worldview says that God made the universe about six thousand years ago. The evolutionist worldview teaches that the universe made itself from nothing about twenty billion years ago. One of these opposing worldviews obviously is wrong.
The entire theory of evolution is built upon the faulty assumption that the origin of the universe was "billions of years ago"
Questions to ask evolutionists:
1. In the Big Bang, what exploded? And where did it come from? When they admit they don't know, ask, "Which is easier to believe: 'In the beginning God,' or 'In the beginning Dirt'?"
2. Do you believe in spontaneous generation (life coming from nonliving matter)?
shanegrant.com
Teach religion at church, and science in school. Let the kids decide for themselves. After all, they have free will too, right?
State funded schools are secular. If you want your kid to have a religious education, send him/her to a private school. If you can't afford a private school, well golly, maybe you should think about spending time with your kid, and explaining that evolution is one theory...rather than trying to force secular teachers to espouse a religious view point.
Your kids will listen to you. Try it...you will like it...
attribute our whole existance to pure chance, and not just any old pure chance but some REALLY large odds.
.... it could be one in 10 trillion odds.... but something would have overcome those odds... in in our case it just happened to be us. There is nothing so special about us that we HAD to be the result of the 10 trillion molecular interactions, it just happened that way...
It's only really large odds because you are looking at it from the end point. Try looking at it like this:
Make a single elimination competition ladder. (You know the ones for almost every sporting event, where the winner advances and the loser goes home). The eventual winner will have been through 5 rounds of increasingly difficult competition and won every time. When he started out, the odds were overwhelming 1 in 64 shot... so the 5 time winner will have overcome "REALLY large odds". But in every competition like this there WILL be a winner and that winner WILL win 5 straight matches and overcome those same amazing odds.... Not big enough of odds for you??? If you had 128 competitors it would have been a 6 time winner the exact same way but with 1 in 128 odds, 256 competitors would have made a 7 time winner overcoming 1 in 256 odds.... You can just keep increasing the number exponentially until you come up with your own personal approximation for the odds of humans evolving out of the primordial muck
"Get this, I actually asked one of these guys, OK, Dinosaurs fossils - how does that fit into you scheme of life? Let me sit down and strap in. He said, "Dinosaur fossils? God put those there to test our faith." I think God put you here to test my faith, Dude. You believe that? "uh huh." Does that trouble anyone here? The idea that God.. might be.. fuckin' with our heads? I have trouble sleeping with that knowledge. Some prankster God running around: "Hu hu ho. We will see who believes in me now, ha ha." [mimes God burying fossils] "I am God, I am a prankster." "I am killing Me."
You almost had it right. Except it wasn't the fossils... it was the Bible.
God... fuckin' with our heads. Some prankster God running around: "Hu hu ho. Let's see what they do with this, ha ha." [mimes God writing the Bible] "I am God, I am a prankster." "I am killing Me."
The Bible truely is the Word of God.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
I have a question. While I think ID is silly, there is a problem with evolution or the simple theory we learned in school? Why are we so complex? Shouldn't evolution have, by the process of natural selection ,distilled life to its simplest formsuited for survival
Rejecting the Old Testament is rejecting the prophecies that let us know that Jesus was who He claimed to be.
It's rejecting the Ten Commandments, whereas Jesus said "If you love me, you will keep my commandments." Sure He clarified the commandments into the 2 Great Commandments, but He never suggested that we weren't bound by them.
It's rejecting the history of the Jewish people that lead up to the situation where Jesus was born.
The only thing that the New Testament is clear on that we should reject is the Jewish Ceremonial Law, because that defines sacrifices and behaviors that were necessary before the sacrifice of Jesus.
Rejecting the rest is ignoring 6000ish years of divinely inspired writings and history, to include some prophecies (Daniel) which according to some perspectives have not been fulfilled yet.
Wrong.
We hate PEOPLE who try and ram thier personal belief system down other peoples throats and then whine when people start objecting to being told that they are somehow inferior and worthless as people if they don't agree.
I love Christians. Of all the people I know and care about, about 5% are non-christians, which is likely true for a lot of people.
But SOME "Christian" these days are making it a "crusade" to ensure that not only do they get special treatment in every sphere (public, private, corporate, political) and then cry "persecution" when other don't bow down and clear the path, that Christians get a bad reputation.
Forcing a bad imitation of science upon kids who are trying to learn how to think is evil! Giving kids facts and showing the true connections that lead to a real theory is helping them become people, not serfs and mindless little clones of your warped version of the great Christian faith.
And the word "theory" is special. As in atomic thoery, electron theory, theory of electricity. Where are the "alternate" theories for those? The same science that came up with those came up with evolution. Science is a process, not an answer. "Intelligent Design" is an answer looking for a process.
Oh man... I just fed a troll, didn't I.
Sig
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars
Here's the problem: your belief is junk science. As a matter of fact, it's not science at all, it's your faith .
It's fine if you believe that we did not evolve from single-celled amoebas, but don't pass that off as a science. For your belief to be a valid scientific theory, it must account for the current facts in evidence, e.g. fossil records, and demonstrated lab-based evolution in fruit flies, etc. It must explain how we interact with our world, and offer hypotheses and experiments by which we can test those predictions.
Intelligent design does none of these. It "explains" how things started off, but offers no understanding of how we currently interact within our world. It provides no predictive valid and cannot be validated by experiment. Accordingly, intelligent design is not useful science. It is a perfectly valid belief system, but it doesn't belong in a science class.
Living forever sucks. So god knew it because it/he/she always existed and he is so miserable that he needed to impose the same shit onto others. So he creates universes and populates them with humans knowing well that he cannot create something that will last forever unchanged. So humans live in that awfull place forever and ever and decide that they had enough and it's time to kill themselves, so they eat the apple. The god only wishes he had the same opportunity but he does not.
--
I am an atheist of-course.
--
You can't handle the truth.
Sure there are would-be JudeoChristian theocrats. But there are would-be Political Correctness theocrats. Finally, there are the Theocrats of Scientism -- the belief that Science should dictate how children are taught and how public officals should render policy.
Now I happen to be in the Scientism camp but the thing that separates me from the theocrats of all stripes is that I don't insist that others have my religious beliefs crammed down their throats.
Indeed, anyone who believes themselves to be scientific has a conundrum when it comes to applying state power to others:
How dare they?
Science starts and ends with humility toward our knowledge and its own limitations.
The best we can ask of others is to allow us to pursue a scientific mode of living our lives -- we can never presume to tell them how to live theirs so long as they do not present a clear and present danger to our own scientific society.
We can however, and indeed must if we are truly scientific, request that we be allowed to watch the process of their lives so we may learn from their experiments in living. However internally unscientific those experiments are, they are nevertheless scientifically valuable when brought to contrast with other such experiments.
Seastead this.
News for nerds indeed. Why is it that every 6mo or so, yet ANOTHER 'news' story on religion is posted to slashdot? Does Taco like watching someone thrust a stick in the beehive? Seriously, the same debates get played out over and over and over. Give it a rest. The only religious battles that should take place on here should be MSFT vs. Open Source, SCO vs Reason, etc.
What I'd like to know is.. why was the parent modded "Flamebait"? There was nothing inflammatory in the question; it was at worst a troll, and seemed more likely to be a legitimate question.
A wise person makes his own decisions, a weak one obeys public opinion. -- Chinese proverb
And why.
Maybe 'He' could reach in and correct some of the flawed DNA before creating any new stuff.
And why wouldn't an atheist wish to argue a rational case for there not being a God?
By the people who have posted in this thread I am a neocon, a fundamentalist christian and a lot of other things they detest. Their venom in this points out clearly the lack of objectivity. As a 61 year old born again christian who holds a college degree in Math with a lot of science including Biology and Geology I clearly see holes in BOTH the theories of intelligent design and evolution! They are there. They are clear. And in both. But let me clarify this. The origin of things like the end of the age are complex subjects. To think our finite minds can grasp them totally is just plain arrogance and pride. This has been the flawed reasoning of the intelligent design and evolution theorists as well as the ent time theorists. I believe the basic story of creation in the scripture is true. But most if not all of the sideboards that the creationists have placed on the biblical account just don't wash. I believe much of Darwin's theory has credibility. But there is some of it that has never been proven that is being taught in schools. Please, I have sat in hundreds of hours of class. I know what was taught. I have held fossils. I have looked a rock strata. I know what I see. But I have also looked at the scriptures. And I know what I see there. We must remember that the bible is a book about God and his love for man - not a science book. We must remember that Darwins theory is just that, AN UNPROVEN THEORY, and it is a finite picture of something that is close to infinite. We are trying to place the work of the God of the ages in a small box that has a size of less than 1/4 of a cubic foot, our minds. He doesn't fit. Ironically I just threw out the last two sentences in another forum yesterday, the prayer time before our Sunday Morning Church Service and it was as appropriate there as here! We try to put God in the box.
by Robert Locke I AM NOT A CREATIONIST, and must confess that until recently, I treated people who questioned evolution with polite dismissal. But there has recently emerged a major trend in biology that has been suppressed in the mainstream media: evolution is in trouble. More importantly, this has absolutely nothing to do with religion but is due to the fact that the ongoing growth of biological knowledge keeps producing facts that contradict rather than confirm evolution. These two books - Michael Denton's Evolution: A Theory in Crisis and Michael J. Behe's Darwin's Black Box - describe this phenomenon. The first surprising thing Denton points out is that there has always been a dissident faction of highly distinguished scientists, of impeccable credentials and no religious motivations, who have declined to concede that evolution has been proved. This is inconvenient for evolutionists who would like to dismiss their opponents as Bible-thumping hicks and claim that questioning evolution is tantamount to questioning the value or validity of science. He also points out biologists like Richard Owen, who were prepared to allow that evolution had taken place but thought that other causes were involved in bringing about the origin of species. The first big problem with evolution is that the fossil record increasingly does not, honestly viewed, support it, a fact that famous Prof. Steven Jay Gould of Harvard has described as "the trade secret of paleontology." Evolutionary theory claims that there once existed a whole series of successive forms of the various organisms alive today. These supposedly changed by infinitesimal amounts with each generation as they evolved into the present varieties, so the fossil record should show these gradual changes. But it doesn't. Instead, it shows the sudden emergence of new species out of nowhere, fully complete with all their characteristics and not changing over time. It is almost entirely devoid of forms that can plausibly be identified as intermediates between older and newer ones. This is popularly known as the "missing link" problem, and it is massively systematic across different species and time periods. Worse, this problem is getting worse, not better, as more fossils are discovered, as the new fossils just resemble those already found and don't fill in the gaps. In Darwin's day, it was easy to claim that the fossils were there but had not been discovered. Problem is, we now have hundreds of thousands of well-catalogued fossils, from all continents and geologic eras, and we still haven't found these intermediate forms. As Denton puts it, "Despite the tremendous increase in geological activity in every corner of the globe and despite the discovery of many strange and hitherto unknown forms, the infinitude of connecting links has still not been discovered and the fossil record is about as discontinuous as it was when Darwin was writing the Origin." The quantity, quality, and range of the recovered fossils is impeccable. But the more we dig, the more we keep finding the same forms over and over again, never the intermediates. Various ad hoc explanations for the gaps in the fossil record, like a temporary dearth in the environment of the chemicals needed for organisms to produce the hard body parts that fossilize well, do not stand scrutiny. The usual response of evolutionists at this stage in the argument is a theory they call punctuated equilibrium, Gould's great contribution, which basically says that evolution occurs not gradually but in spurts. This would explain why there are gaps and not continuity in the fossil record. The problem with this theory, which is too complex to go into in detail here, is that while it explains away the non-existence of small gradations, it still requires there to be large ones (the individual spurts) and even these aren't in the record. Furthermore, for punctuated equilibrium to have occurred, a very precise set of conditions have to have obtained throughout the entire past period represented in the fossils, and this is unlikely. Another deve
Let's take a look at the underlying assumptions of evolution and intelligent design. Yes, it is grossly oversimplified. It's a comment. Want more? Read a book.
Evolution is based on a system of thought that says the material world is all there is, so questions of origins must have a materialist answer. Apparent design has some sort of explanation that excludes design because it has to -- nothing else would fit in the system.
Intelligent design is based on the assumption that design implies a designer. It does not mandate a designer (at least not from what I've read), but rather it lays the foundation that says, "If we see something that looks designed, we can posit a designer."
From what I can see, intelligent design is actually a bigger scientific tent than evolution -- it allows for random mutation and change over time (because in many cases that has been observed) while at the same time allowing for some sort of intelligence behind it all (because there's some stuff that just looks too well-designed to be otherwise). Evolution is a material theory and as such can make no room for someone who says, "In the beginning, God."
Try talking about the theory of the sub-ether to a physic group sometime. You'll learn quickly why some theories are supported and some aren't. The thoery of aliens seeding earth is just as probable, so why not teach that is school?
Evolution (and science) is about discovering new things, ID is about maintaining the old.
Sig
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars
The problem here is that ID is not science. If anything it's anti-science since it is non falsifiable and requires that you stop asking questions.
The thing people seem to misunderstand is that evolution is an observed fact and the theory of evolution is a description of the process of evolution. ID really isn't even a hypothesis so it has no place in a science class.
There is no "atheistic view of evolution" that's just rhetoric created by fanatical religious people who find the modern world to be a threat to their antiquated religious viewpoint. They recognize that their religious views cannot compete in the marketplace of ideas and so they try to use the force of law to prop up their idiotic ideas.
They even go so far as to try to destroy the judiciary in an attempt to push their illegal agenda. The US fought this battle over 200 years ago and now these cretins spit on the constitution and the sacrifice of thousands of honorable men and women in order to push their religion on others.
Religious freedom means that you can put up billboards and print all the material you want, on your dime. Don't expect to use the public money to push your religion. If you manage to succeed, in a few decades time it could be a different religion that is promoted by the government.
You hit the nail on the head...it IS my faith. Please note I did NOT call Evolution Junk Science. I didn't flame anyone. I don't buy off on everything that Christians say about science. I have some real issues with a lof of it. I just don't buy off on Evolution. If you don't share my faith, that is your choice, and I'll not bash you or call you ignorant for that. But I am getting a little tired of being bashed for be belief. I don't call creationism science, because I know it isn't science. I just wish that people would not result to bashing one's faith when I don't believe I have (purposly) bashed anyone for not sharing my faith. I respect everyone's belief or non-belief as their personal choice. I was taught Evolution in school AND Creationism. I made up my own mind for what worked for me. If that makes me ignorant, intollerant, etc. then I am going to have to live with that.
I'm not a troll, but I play one on Slashdot.
From Augustine to Aquinas to Descartes to C.S.Lewis, this has been a valid Christian question. In Lewis' terms, the question of Christ was phrased in aliteration as the question "Was Jesus a Liar, Lord, or Lunatic?"
It's a great question not because of the open-endedness of it, but because it gets to the nature of God, revelation, and the human condition. These are all central concerns for Christians and should be embraced by them.
"Man has always been his own most vexing problem." --Reinhold Niebuhr, "The Nature and Destiny of Man"
That Dawkins may falsify research or missionaries may resort to parlor tricks to gain converts are not not near the norm in science or religion.
The evolutionary model is not at odds with faith based religion. The evolutionary model does not discount the existance of GOD. It is merely as consistant a framework for describing and predicting observation with regard to life, as has been built. The concept of refining models to describe and predict observation is the realm of science. I suppose one might apply this concept to religion and the existance of GOD. The problem is that one can not then turn and apply the resultant as a meta-model to evolution. There is no scientific proof of GODS existance, just as there is no proof of evolution. However, the model, built within the scientific framework, for evolution has as foundation a much more consistant framework of observation and prediction. There is no faith in science beyond that which is built upon constants of observation while religious faith leaves no room for doubt. Arguing one in the context of the other is apples and oranges.
I've no problem with teaching religion. However, the fact that there are many different realms of religious faith requires that within a scientific framework, they all be taught. Outside of this, one might promote ones own faith through teaching, but because there is no consistant model that any one faith is the only one and true faith it can not be presented as a scientific master model for such concepts as evolution
If you have a theory that someone did it...let's see either evidence of this person, or a hypothesis about them, who they are, what they want, why they did this.
You can't just assert things exist and stop. If you want to pull God into science, you're going to have to...pull God into science.
And if it become acceptable to look at religion critially, through science, religion is..in trouble. At least the currently popular ones. I point to Mithra. I point to Sumerian stories. Some of Christianity clearly was...well...made up, to put it bluntly. As was Judism.
There's some nice stuff in Christianity, but put it under the magnifying glass of science and it will just wither and die. Which is sad, because if you remove the distortion of the church, I actually think it's a great philosophy.
But if people with crazy beliefs pull them into science, science is going to look at them. People advocating ID need to think long and hard about what they are doing.
And the last time science looked long and hard at religion (Also about evolution.) was the end of the 1800s, and we got all sorts of crazies coming out of the woodwork who claimed they could talk to the dead and whatnot, and a general increase in religious looniness.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
The official word on fossils from the "creation science" folks is that they're the remains of species wiped out in the Flood. The Flood is their universal explanation for fossil fish on mountaintops, for places where you can plainly see more than six thousand years worth of erosion, and so on.
This is a testable hypothesis, actually. Just check whether there's a layer of sea salt at the 6000-year mark in sediments around the world.
>Can you see my point The deal with these fundamentalists is that people that actually have a brain don't dare to speak up anymore.
moded 2 x troll. It sucks to be right on this one. Oh well...
This observation prompts me to ask why you describe yourself as "Christian". Actually, I could ask many people that, because there are many like you who call themselves "Christian" who do not follow Christ. Christ's teaching rests very squarely on the Old Testament. If you reject the veracity of the Old Testament, you have departed from the teaching of Jesus at a very fundamental level.
Surely there are more appropriate things to call yourself? What is it about Christianity that you believe, accept, or affirm? Given that information, maybe we can find a better religion for you -- one whose leading figure is not a fundamentalist like Jesus.
proof, n. A demonstration that a conclusion is implied by certain premises and axioms.
While obviously not all Americans are religious fundamentalist Christians, reports in the news during the last election indicate that a good 40% or so are and that the number is climbing. Apart from rabidly theocratic nations like Saudi Arabia, Iran and a few others, there is nowhere else on ths planet where there is such a growth of dogmatic religious beliefs along with the resulting intolerance of other faiths and the scientific worldview. For these people, the enlightenment never happened.
I have no idea what it is that causes the historic episodes of religious sects, religions and ideologies. My personal theory is that it starts off with a certain part of the culture that has these specific beliefs, and that in times of financial and social despair, people turn to extremism as a crutch in their fear and uncertainty. That was the case in Europe in the dark ages and that was the case in Nazi Germany, and that is the case in many Islamic countries governed by tyrannical heretics.
I don't know if the current resurgence of dogmatic christianity in the USA is a result of the vietnam years liberalism and humiliation, a feeling of being lost in the world (very often a reason, I think) or 9/11 and the realisation that there is indeed a world beyond the borders of the USA. Probably a combination.
But the consequences of forcing the teaching of nonsensical dogmas as science in schools, coupled with the already extremely poor US education system and the fact that foreign students are no longer bolstering the US' scientific institutions due to the security paranoia is likely to be the cause of the US becoming an overpopulated poor backwards country in the future. It won't happen overnight, but it might happen in 50 years.
Many of you also seem to think that ID and "fundamentalists" are one in the same. This is far from the case. Most "fundamentalists" see ID as heresy- albeit extremely helpful heresy. ID is not a Christian idea- it's a deist idea.
Let's suppose archaeologists dig up primitive tools in an excavation. An arrowhead and the wooden part of a bow are found- but too deep. At this depth, the scientists estimate that the tools had to have been created at least three or four million years before the first humans are thought to have appeared on earth.
Scientifically, does it make more sense to say "Well, perhaps humans were around earlier than we thought they were, or perhaps this layer of rock is not as old as we thought it was," or does it make more sense to say, "Since complexity can rise from simplicity, and since humanity wasn't around during this time period, obviously wind, water, and other natural elements must have created these tools."?
This is what ID proponents (many of them actual, degree-holding, practicing scientists) are seeing in this debate. It seems scientifically sound to assume that such a well-made universe was created by an intelligent being- rather than assuming it arose by chance.
Granted, my example does present problems. We know already that humans exist, and that they create bows and arrowheads. We can prove humanity did exist, and that creating arrowheads is the kind of thing that they do. With God, one may point out, we can't do that. He is not empirically provable.
I'd like to point out, though, that no event in the past is empirically provable beyond all doubt.
Most especially macroevolution.
"Sometimes it takes more than an axe and a busload of strangers to work through your anger." -Rikk Estoban
I am a Christian, and I am just horrified that people would assert that fossils etc., were deliberately placed in the Earth by God to test our faith. While God does test Christians, this claim essentially says that God is trying to trick us.
It also demands that we can't trust any evidence we find about anything, because maybe that evidence is a trick too. In the past we didn't have this made up "science vs. religion" conflict.
I'm still not certain about the exact nature of the act of Creation, though I am dubious about the fossil evidence. The essential point is that God created the Universe and created all life on Earth. That's not to say how he did it is unimportant or that we shouldn't discuss such issues, just not as important to the Christian faith. (I might add that "faith" does not imply believing something without any evidence or in the face of contrary evidence).
It is interesting that Creationists are adopting this Intelligent Design philosophy, as it could not prove what they think it could.
Let us assume they are correct, and that we are very complex. They often use a watch as an example, stating that we do not assume that metatillic compounds joined together, by chance, to form a watch. But note that we do not assume that the watch was created by a single, all powerful, all knowing, eternal being either. Really, the conclusion of intelligent design would only imply the following:
- We are complex, non-magical machines
- We were designed/created by intelligent beings
- Those beings were likely as complex or more complex than ourselves, therefore, they were created by other beings.
We are on the verge of creating intelligent machines ourselves (biological/genetic or silicon), so intelligent design should not be a crazy idea to us. Though to assume that we are a god-like creature would be somewhat crazy depending on what god means.
Evolution as scientific theory of the emergence of species is reasonable and testable.
Evolution does not speak to origins. By defintion, speculation about origins is philosophy.
We cannot use science to speak of origins, because we cannot observe the event, document it and repeat it. Science can collect evidence and propose theories about it, but since these theories are untestable, it is not scientific to draw conclusions about origins in the guide of science!
Get your naturalistic philosophy out of my science classroom, and I'll stop trying to get my theistic phiolosophy IN!
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
Your response really says it all. 'Please accept that those of us who like the idea and the hypothesis...'
That's in a nutshell. I.D'ers are simply uncomfortable (generally based on religious dogma) with the entire concept of evolution. Putting your stock in a theory simply because you LIKE it more is not science. That statement shows, unfortunately, that you really do not grasp the basic principles of science. A solid, testable theory compells Scientists to accept it based on the observable outcomes it predicts. Even if I.D. met the valid criteria of scientific theory (it doesn't), it fails on many levels to explain what the facts show to be the case.
I beleive we SHOULD mention I.D. in science class, but not as a valid alternative to evolution (scientifically, it's not) but as a golden example of the difference between science and non-science.
Turn s60 photos into awesome videos with mScrapbook for all S60 3rd edition phones!
We hate PEOPLE... [goes on to describe who he hates]
Ok.
Oh man... I just fed a troll, didn't I.
No, I genuinely think that hatred is more and more of the motivation for the policies and the preferences of the left. Regardless of whether they're correct or incorrect, policies shouldn't be motivated by hate.
While I don't agree with the religious component of ID, I do believe that there's more to genetic diversity than "random variation" and the ID argument that genetic diversity is not the result of purely random variation may have some merit.
There's a sort of neo-lamarkism going around among legitamate scientists and I've been wanting to pick up a book for a while and get deeper into it. So pardon my poor explanation.
Animals have been shown to change far faster than evolution would predict and then pass on their changes to their children. i.e. they seem to be able to rapidly revert to previous evolutionary states because 'the genes are still there' and then to pass on these changes, even though 'natural selection' may not have had time to play its part.
Some areas of the genetic code are more likely to vary than others, and are more likely to vary under stress.
Immune cells can be passed from parent to child. Possibly this allows acquired changes to be inheritied. (can't elaborate too much here as I'm not familiar with immunology)
I don't know all the mechanisms which could contribute to this, but each suggests sources of genetic diversity which are not totally random, and which may involve the inheretance of some acquired changes (lamarckism)
___
It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
And since we cannot travel back in time, we will never know, for sure, where it came from.
The most we can do is to work on various theories and try to test them to see if we can increase our understanding.
I find the rebuttal of the fine-tuned universe to be quite weak, if I am interpreting it correctly (probably not.)
Does it suggest that simply because we are here to observe this seemingly fragile universe nullify the fact that it is incredibly improbable for all of these (possibly) random varibles to align?
Someone please expound upon this reasoning.
Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. -- Susan Ertz
What experiment has proved either ID or evolution? I don't mean "proved well enough for someone to believe it." I mean proved in the rigorous sense of "reproducible experiments that have removed all other variables and shown no other possibility exists."
None.
And I can state with reasonable certainty that none ever will. (Kindly note that I am not claiming absolute certainty.)
ID is a much, much bigger claim than "evolution is wrong." It's the claim that matter, energy, time and chance are insufficient to produce a cosmologically organized system.
This is not something that can be proved by experiment. But neither is the counterclaim, namely, that matter, energy, time and chance are sufficient to produce a cosmologically organized system.
(Aside: "Chance" isn't really anything, ontologically.)
In the end, it comes down to two questions:
If your answer to the latter question is "nothing," then your mind is closed unless you are lying or something outside you pries your mind open to see itself.
Anthony Flew's argument about falsifiability applies to both sides at the level of cosmology.
This also has vast implications for teleology, but that's probably straying too far away from the subject.
-- Jim Crigler In 1937, I began, like Lazarus, the impossible return. -- Whittaker Chambers
The general belief is that Adam and Eve chose to disobey God and eat of the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge. God smote them, and banished them from Eden and made Eve feel pain during childbirth as punishment, etc.
I believe that this common belief is all wrong.
In this parable, God gave Adam and Eve a choice. They could remain in Eden for all of Eternity, so long as they denied themselves knowledge. Eve chose Knowledge, and shared it with Adam. As _REWARD_, God set them free from Eden, and allowed them the to explore the world around them.
If God really wanted to punish Adam and Eve, he would have struck them dead and started over. He didn't, and instead all of humanity has the opportunity to explore the Universe He created.
Doesn't sound like punishment to me...
--- Generation X: The first generation to have SIG lines inferior to their parents... ---
http://carnegieinstitution.org/news_releases/news_ 040913.html
:-)
You should keep a more open mind... Science is all about theories, and we're not completely certain that oil comes from fossils...
It may, in fact be created by Intelligent Design. Well, that or some complex process of pressure turning carbon into oil, sort of like how diamonds come from pressurized carbon but yet completely different.
Just wondering!
....
The cult of Clippy lives on
The Genographic Project
"But it *would* have happened eventually, because in infinity, all possible things happen. "
Clearly someone's been getting his logic from Douglas Adams. Adams was joking.
Take the number 0. Add 2 to it. Add 2 to it again. Do this an infinite number of times.
You'll only ever have even numbers. Just because a set is infinite does not mean it includes all possibilities. There's a whole branch of mathematics called transfinite mathematics that deals with this.
Particularly, in the real world, doing some things changes the world so that other things can't be done. If Adam and Eve had said "Ok, we're not supposed to eat from this tree... let's chop it down to make sure we can't" then no matter how infinite the amount of time they lived, they couldn't have eaten from it.
That said, this is the bible. There's about as much point apply proper transfinite mathematics to it as there is teaching a fish to whistle.
I can see where you are coming from, but the parent you replying to has some valid points.
Basically, ID does not predict anything.
You probably are familiar with Behe, and the whole idea of Irreducable Complexity, and claim that it is a testable thing - the problem is with the definition.
Behe does NOT allow a part to change usages. Evolution basically requires a part to change use. That is the whole idea. Behe also says certain chemical cascades and structures are not reducable - but if you actually look at each of his claims (Clot system, eyeball, flagellums, etc), you find that they ARE reducable - even he admits in interviews (post-book) that he cannot test, for certain, if something is irreducable complex.
He even admits that the examples he gave ARE reducable, when actually confronted with evidence (Some creatures being found without a given gene or protein).
The biggest thing is that a gene can't change functions though - that happens quite a lot through gene copying incidents, and then mutations to a gene copy.
Remember - Scientific theory means it must be testable - even though some people with high IQ's believe, it does not mean it is a true scientific theory.
IF everyone who is responding to this with som much "everyone knows that..." flavored smugness would like to actually learn a bit about the vast scientific evidence in support of the "Creation" theory, check out the video seminar series (free downloads) at http://www.drdino.com/Downloads/Seminar/vids/index .jsp. Be forewarned that the commentary in these is heavily biased toward Christianity. But that doesn't invalidate the science, so just expect it, and just ignore that part if you're not interested. Also note that Dr. Hovind is willing to debate anyone, anytime, anywhere on the topic. There are downloads available of previous debates of that sort.
If you look that the first few passages of Genesis, the whole story is about evolution.
In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, 2the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters.
Hmm. Sounds like our universe before the big bang.
Then God said, 'Let there be light'; and there was light. And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.
Cool. Big bang and the formation of solar systems.
And God said, 'Let there be a dome in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.' So God made the dome and separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome. And it was so. God called the dome Sky. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day.
Awesome, the formation of a atmosphere suitable for life.
And God said, 'Let the waters under the sky be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.' And it was so. God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas.
Great, we developed oceans.
And God saw that it was good. Then God said, 'Let the earth put forth vegetation: plants yielding seed, and fruit trees of every kind on earth that bear fruit with the seed in it.' And it was so. The earth brought forth vegetation: plants yielding seed of every kind, and trees of every kind bearing fruit with the seed in it. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening and there was morning, the third day.
Photosynthetic bacteria, alge, and plants.
And God said, 'Let there be lights in the dome of the sky to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years, and let them be lights in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth.' And it was so. God made the two great lights--the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night--and the stars. God set them in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth, to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening and there was morning, the fourth day.
Ok, I have to admit this passage doesn't fit to well. We have to remember that the story of Genesis was an oral history for thousands of years. This passage could be chalked up to editorial flurish, or maybe a scribe got his notes mixed up.
And God said, 'Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the dome of the sky.' So God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, of every kind, with which the waters swarm, and every winged bird of every kind. And God saw that it was good. God blessed them, saying, 'Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.' And there was evening and there was morning, the fifth day.
Plants evolved into critters and birds. Modern paleontologists have found a close link between birds and dinosaurs, so this passage is acurate.
And God said, 'Let the earth bring forth living creatures of every kind: cattle and creeping things and wild animals of the earth of every kind.' And it was so. God made the wild animals of the earth of every kind, and the cattle of every kind, and everything that creeps upon the ground of every kind. And God saw that it was good.
Evolution of mammals, not to shabby.
Then God said, 'Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the
bash-2.04$
bash-2.04$yes "Don't you hate dialup connections?"| write USERNAME
The type of "macro evolution" taught in the public classroom cannot be tested wholly. Due simply to the time spans involved you cannot replicate it in an experiment. You must look at evidence from long ago and infer.
Everyone here is saying, "Science is repeatable... hence ID isn't science." Hello? Much of evolutionary theory then is not science also. Sure, the fact that natural selection can modify existing features within established species is repeatable. But textbooks are teaching our children that natural selection can modify features outside established species, that is, create new species. That is a theory, ladies and gentlemen.
Therefore, the best way to present it to young students is *as a theory*. If the student is interested in a deeper understanding let him pursue further study as he/she advances in his academic career.
Intelligent Design is also theory. It proposes some arguments against certain parts of natural selection/"macro evolution". For instance, some proponents may show that some things we find in nature are too complex to be explained by the theory of evolution... that logic would prevail against such complexity occuring "by chance".
Either teach both theories, or teach only fact and don't teach theory. I personally think the theories are important, so teach them both and let young students have open minds as they seek to better understand life and origins. Teach the theories and the evidences for both, and let the students duke it out with their own minds and (if they choose) with their own academic careers.
The "religious right" are always accused of having closed minds... but often the left can't see the spec in the rights eye for the plank in their own.
jay
Yes, it's versy controverial.
Fnord.
>What Christian fundamentalists find so threatening about evolution is that a literal interpretation of the bible forbids it.
There's much more to it. The Christian fundamentalist idea of morality is that it comes from our creation by God. Turtles and turtledoves, wombats and housecats can't be moral or immoral because they're "just animals".
When Christian fundamentalists hear that humans are animals descended from apes, they think they hear that humans are "just animals". Right and wrong don't apply to animals. They fear that the only basis they can imagine for morality is being destroyed.
Remember that often-quoted Senator who blamed Columbine on the teaching of evolution? That's what he meant. I thought it was a hilarous non sequitur at first but it wasn't.
You can't reason with creationists because reason doesn't work against fear. Try pointing out that you find humans to be awe-inspiring ("What a piece of work is a man!") and that you can believe in morals and even ethics if the universe is thirteen billion years old instead of six thousand.
Evolution is a theory, and not a fact. Much in the same way that 'gravity' is a theory and not a fact. It's true!
Lois: Why did Mel Gibson just run off the edge (of the cliff)?
Peter: Silly Christians, they don't believe in gravity.
My parents "created" me back in the seventies.
FRA: STFU GTFO
Dismissing Intelligent Design as not being science is the same as dismissing theories of a round world revolving around the sun as heresy.
It is, in fact, the EXACT OPPOSITE of that:
Dismissing darwinist biology is the same as dismissing copernician cosmology.
Filling up a schoolboard with fundies to force "intelligent design" on science teachers is the same as using the all-powerfull church to censor natural philosophers. They both used bible-based pseudoscience and political power to drown out the voice of reason.
You can't take the sky from me...
The thing I find most fascinating about the fight against evolution, including the push of "intelligent design," is why they stop at evolution. I mean, all science is theory, replaceable when a better theory comes along. So where are those who wish to teach alchemy along side chemistry? Astrology along side astronomy? Psychic surgery and witch-doctoring along side medicine?
The most troublesome part of this is the basic misunderstanding of science that is evidenced in the the debate on this issue. To be "science," a postulate must be able to be proved or disproved. There is nothing about "intelligent design" that can be tested, thus relegating it to where it belongs: faith."
Every piece of evidence we have shows us that we are the mostly hairless, slightly intelligent descendants of lower primates. And that everything currently alive on the planet is also the descendant of other species. There is not one piece of evidence ANYWHERE that says there is a Creator, that the world is only six thousand and something year old, or that there is a "plan" at work in the universe.
If you want to have faith that any of this is true, be my guest. But don't try to pass your faith off as science, as it diminishes both.
But Darwinism, while it is a scientific theory, and is useful, is broken in interesting ways too. It only makes predictions about how the number of species is reduced. How the less fit are eliminated. But it doesnt address at all the rampent diversity observed, in fact it is counter to diversity.
Science is exploration. I don't think an ID provided the initial diversity, but I don't have any problem them mentioning widely held beliefs, even if they are not scientific, as long as the science gets tought as well. It's part of the exploration. Consider ID and eliminate it.
Nice article, but I'm not too fond of the explanation of the mouse trap example.
The suggest that maybe the mousetrap had another function before gaining it's mouse trapping ability.
A much neater way of demonstrating the flaw in Behe's reasoning is to look at the Venus flytrap (carnivorous plant). It has the same elements as the mousetrap, spring mechanism, jaws for catching the fly, a frame (stem) that everything is mounted on, bait (red colour and possibly a scent).
While Behe is correct in stating that no part of the Venus flytrap can be removed without the plant failing, he doesn't consider the possiblity that maybe the plant lost an element in the last evolutionary step (not gained, as his simplistic view of evolution would have us believe).
And indeed that is what biologists know happened: the venus fly trap used to be sticky, so the interlocking jaw wasn't strictly necessary before, but merely improved on the fairly efficient method of catching flies on a sticky surface.
"I don't know that Atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots." -George H.W. Bush
Evolution explains the origin of species, hence the title of the book. Nor does Evolution have anything to do with the age of the Earth or the formation of the Moon or anything else (though I doubt evolution would really have much noticeable effect in 6,000 years or however old these whackjobs think the Earth is). Regardless, there's no reason the theory of evolution needs to contradict with their narrowminded biblical worldview, or any other creation myth they choose to believe in. Evolution != biogenesis and has little to do with it ultimately. They can still believe that genetics and the evolutionary process were all started by some invisible intelligent force. What's wrong with that? Oh, right, the whole man from ape thing contradicting the belief that humans are divine creatures designed to look God, right? Well, there goes any scientific credibility for "intelligent design"--it's just another way that this dying breed of biblical fundamentalists are grasping for straws as their beliefs crumble under 21st century scrutiny. Sorry, this is becoming a rant. I haven't had my coffee yet.
Tm
Support TBI Research: http://www.raisinhope.org
I heard an excellent talk about the strategies of anti-evolutionists from the director of the center for science education recently. Two of her major points were that: (1)creationists seek to circumvent the usual curriculum review process and insert themselves directly into school board decisions politically, because they have come to realize that on careful examination, their ideas are untenable; and (2) the fundamental misunderstanding about the words behind the debate.
More specifically, in order for an idea to become incorporated in to a scientific education curriculum, it first must be proposed, examined by scientists, published, reviewed, tested for flaws and counterexamples, and then it becomes accepted as a theory (which by the way, means an idea that ties together consistently all aspects of the evidence, NOT just a "theory", or guess). Creationists, or intelligent design advocates, simply come up with an idea, and go right to the school board. Where are the checks and balances? The testing? The oversight?
And secondly, about the language. Normal people commonly feel that at the top of the hierarchy of importance are Facts. To them, facts are facts, immutable. You can't debate fact, as in "evolution is not a fact, so it doesn't occur." Observations are next, things that you see with your own eyes. And Theories? Theories are at the bottom of the scale, almost comparable to hopeful guesses. This is in part the fault of the language, that "theory" has come to mean "I, crackpot, have a theory about that."
But in fact, in science, Theory is at the top of the scale -- an idea that has consistently shown to uphold all the observations, and has been tested. At the bottom is just the opposite from what is commonly believed -- facts. Facts are things that you see every day, and carry no unifying meaning in themselves.
If we are to succeed in educating the population about the process of science, and *especially* why it is valuable to us a country, we need to get involved in the debate about the language and politics. Other countries, who don't have the luxury to squander valuable resources, are beginning to capture and exploit the wonders of science much more than we are -- and it is showing.
What you say about atheism is true. However, evolution does not imply atheism. It is perfectly possible to be theistic and believe in evolution; I know many people who believe just this. By contrast ID implies the existence of a god and is thus incompatible with atheism. Believing in evolution does not restrict your choice of religion. Believing in ID does, because you then cannot be atheistic. That is why ID violates separation of church and state and evolution doesn't.
I am trolling
Ah. I see. So, we can learn here that a statement is either valid or invalid based solely upon whether or not it was properly formatted in HTML. We can also learn many other things from you. People from the midwest are stupid. People who teach sunday school are stupid. People who vote Republican (or is it just for Bush?) are stupid. I suppose that an intelligent person would be someone like yourself. Someone who puts others down in order to feel better about themselves? Someone who can't see nuances and must tar entire populations, geographical areas and ideologies with the same broad brush.
Perhaps you failed at logging in, oh, and either punctuation or capitalization.
Not sure what that "proves".
--
As a matter of fact, I am a lawyer. But I play an actor on TV.
To think that a person that believes in ID or creationism is incapable of understanding basic scientific philosophy or even incapable of being true scientists themselves is ignorant and offensive.
Sorry, but that's contradicted by every word out of the ID movement's mouths. A man may be a great scientist, but in taking up ID as a cause, he turns his back on a rigorous intellectual tradition and replaces it with desire and self-delusion. There's nothing saying that a belief in ID is a priori an indicator of lack of intelligence generally, but it is a lack of rigorous thinking with regards to science vs. belief.
Being dismissed as a lunatic for raging against mainstream science has plauged true scientists for centuries.
True, but in this case, ID proponents are raging against science itself, rather than a particular idea, and are advancing beliefs, rather than falsifiable hypotheses, in its place. I'm glad you believe in an all-powerful deity, but such belief does not make you a plucky outsider fighting conventional scientific dogma.
After all, for every maverick scientist who's bucked the conventional wisdom and been branded a lunatic, there are thousands of actual lunatics.
Looking for a Rails developer in Chapel Hill?
This is incorrect. First, mutation is not "random." The driving force is genetic diversity within a population, filtered through natural selection. The process of genetic diversification is not fully understood, and this leads a *lot* of otherwise-intelligent people to assume there is something fundamentally wrong with the theory of evolution through natural selection.
I'd say the original poster has a better handle on evolution than you do.
Yes, mutation is random. By any sane definition of the term. The genetic diversity within a breeding population is a function of the accumulation of randomly occurring genetic changes.
Claiming that the process of genetic diversity isn't fully understood is misleading, at best. We understand it fairly well - which is what allows us to do things like use the genetic variation in mitochondrial DNA to work out the spread of homo sapiens across the planet, or to understand that at one time in the (geologically) recent past, cheetahs almost went extinct - which we know because modern cheetahs are almost genetically identical to each other.
Clear, Dark Skies
There is the old quote that a sufficiently advanced technology might appears as "magic" to those not literate in the technology.
In this case we have: "Here is a complicated and logical explanation for the way things work, or you could think of it as 'magic'".
It seems there are a lot of people who not only believe in magic, but want to make sure that everyone else's kids have the brain-dead option of believing it is all magic too.
O=='=++
Evolutionary theory does a good job of explaining how life has changed, adapted, and speciated over millions of years. It does *not* explain the "origins of life". You need a reproducing organism before you can even apply evolutionary theory.
The truth is that there is not at present any sort of good theory for the origins of life. The more you delve into the literature on that subject the more you realize that nobody has a clue. In some sense the poster was correct when he said the the origins of life have been explained "time and time again.." -- a host of origin-of-life theories have been proposed, because none of them are any good.
It is known that under certain circumstances you can generate amino acids abiotically. But the yields are very low, and generate lots of random hydrocarbons ("tars") that would poison any useful reactions. And you don't get the exclusively left- or right-handed isomers that are used in living organisms -- you get a racemic mixture of each chemical.
Then of course you can't get a living organism with just amino acids. You need lipids, carbohydrates, and nucleotides. The conditions needed to create each of these chemicals are different and in contradiction with each other.
But suppose, by some miracle, you had all the right parts, and with the right isomers, and with no poisoning tars to botch up the system. What are the odds of throwing them together in a way that creates a reproducing organism? Sufficiently low that a galaxy of earths, each with an ocean to try zillions of these combinations every second, would still not come up with a bacterium after 10 billion years.
None of this of course gives any comfort to a silly biblical literalism. But we shouldn't pretend we have a scientific explanation for a problem when we don't.
Isn't that the same argument postulated by the Big Bang?
Where did the Big Bang come from? If it came from some bubble in the quantum foam, where did the foam come from?
The truth is that while science has a great track record in describing the universe, questions like those are still in the realm of philosophy.
Clear, Dark Skies
...and then allow ourselves to be jerked around by the same wack-jobs in our own society.
Hey, why don't they also reference that the Intelligent Designer as possibly the Christian, Hindu, or Bhuddist dieties, a tiny Green Martians, Vulcans, Goa'ulds, Gary The Mighty Sorcerer from the Days of Yore, Large Tenticled Aliens from Outerspace, and that all of these and many many more are equally valid designers under this theory, not matter how fictional the character is, there is absolutely no way to prove that they aren't the creator. Ahem...nice theory guys, very useful.
What are all these comments about 'science' being demonstrated by provable theories/laws/etc? A quick search of the posts revealed not one mention of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem. If that theorem does not give one pause for thought, then one is profoundly ignorant. It's impact? Well:
a) NOT everything that is true is provable. There might be a God and that God may well have designed the universe. A scientist might poo-poo the concept as a religious loop hole. But a scientist should also know that there will be non-God related truths that will not be provable. Will those be poo-poo'ed as well? Or are those acceptable because there aren't religious overtones?
b) Arguments that we get unforeseen complexity without design are flawed. The complexity is unforeseen, but simple experiments suggest that there is design i.e. the simple intial rules. There have to be some rules and where did those come from? The source may be undeterminable from within this system (universe).
Most posts seem to be a knee-jerk reaction against religion. But religion, philosophy, and science cannot help but be profoundly intertwined. Anyone who has excelled in any of those fields knows this.
Rather than condemn Intelligent Design off-hand, read about it. Think about it. (Can you see where it's roots are? Maybe Aristotle , Aristotle
.) Then at least you can condemn it intelligently.
"Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
Scientific clarity means neither the model nor the conditions to which it applies are vague. Present means the conditions under which the model predicts danger exist. Danger means there is a product, probability * damage, that is above some threshold. Below that threshold either you are dealing with a probability that is too low or you are dealing with a level of damage that is, for that level of society (federal, state, county, local,...) too low to be concerned with.
This is basically what actuarial science is about.
Seastead this.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
The Theory Of UnIntelligent Design (THUID) is a scientific alternative to the discreditted theory of "evolution".
THUID postulates that the development of intelligent life on earth cannot have occurred by blind chance, but only by the direct intervention of an Outside Direct Designer (codenamed "ODD"). This ODD being discloses its very nature in the details of the human structure.
For example, would an intelligent Designer include the appendix - an organ whose sole function is to burst, causing inconvenience and painful death?
What of dental caries: a phenomenon unknown before the development of human intelligence, yet almost inevitable when our human desire for sweets is coupled to the brainpower that ensures a steady, unhealthy supply?
And let us not even BEGIN to talk about the humorous side of human reproduction ...
Please support this SCIENTIFIC study as it battles the twin unscientific principles of EVOLUTION and of INTELLIGENT DESIGN.
Our School Children Must Learn The Truth!
For more information on this TRUTH that I have undercovered, see http://groups.yahoo.com/group/THUID
--- Attorneys Assisting Citizen-Soldiers & Families -
"Intelligent Design" is an attempt to subvert the scientific method with pseudo science. It does not adhere to the core principle of the scientific method, namely disprovability. That is the telltale sign of any "faith based" method of knowing, the inability to admid falsehood in the face of countervailing evidence. I believe the following quote sums up the contributions made by these purveyors of sterile "truth":
"We have already compared the benefits of theology and science. When the theologian governed the world, it was covered with huts and hovels for the many, palaces and cathedrals for the few. To nearly all the children of men, reading and writing were unknown arts. The poor were clad in rags and skins -- they devoured crusts, and gnawed bones. The day of Science dawned, and the luxuries of a century ago are the necessities of to-day. Men in the middle ranks of life have more of the conveniences and elegancies than the princes and kings of the theological times. But above and over all this, is the development of mind. There is more of value in the brain of an average man of to-day -- of a master-mechanic, of a chemist, of a naturalist, of an inventor, than there was in the brain of the world four hundred years ago.
These blessings did not fall from the skies. These benefits did not drop from the outstretched hands of priests. They were not found in cathedrals or behind altars -- neither were they searched for with holy candles. They were not discovered by the closed eyes of prayer, nor did they come in answer to superstitious supplication. They are the children of freedom, the gifts of reason, observation and experience -- and for them all, man is indebted to man."
-- Robert Green Ingersoll, "God In The Constitution
Is it time for a new Re-interpertation of the bible? Merging what science knows about creation and evolution with more proper and understood translations of the orginal books. Perhaps maybe spin off a more forward-looking and agreeable type.
It could just very well start with;
In the beginning there was nothing. God said, "Let there be light!", and the Universe was born. Many years passed where order was brought from chaos, this was the first age.
When I went to high school, the girls were NOT built like they are today.
Evolution HAS to be right.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution
Split up into several key parts (by scientific discipline)
Part I. A unique, historical phylogenetic tree
Part 2. Past history (anatomical vestiges, etc.)
Part 3. Evolutionary opportunism
Part 4. Molecular evidence
Part 5. Change
What is Meant by "Scientific Evidence" for Common Descent?
Scientific theories are validated by empirical testing against physical observations. Theories are not judged simply by their logical compatibility with the available data. Independent empirical testability is the hallmark of science--in science, an explanation must not only be compatible with the observed data, it must also be testable. By "testable" we mean that the hypothesis makes predictions about what observable evidence would be consistent and what would be incompatible with the hypothesis. Simple compatibility, in itself, is insufficient as scientific evidence, because all physical observations are consistent with an infinite number of unscientific conjectures. Furthermore, a scientific explanation must make risky predictions-- the predictions should be necessary if the theory is correct, and few other theories should make the same necessary predictions.
Are There Other Scientifically Valid Explanations?
The worldwide scientific research community from over the past 140 years has discovered that no known hypothesis other than universal common descent can account scientifically for the unity, diversity, and patterns of terrestrial life. This hypothesis has been verified and corroborated so extensively that it is currently accepted as fact by the overwhelming majority of professional researchers in the biological and geological sciences (AAAS 1990; NAS 2003; NCSE 2003; Working Group 2001). No alternate explanations compete scientifically with common descent, primarily for four main reasons: (1) so many of the predictions of common descent have been confirmed from independent areas of science, (2) no significant contradictory evidence has yet been found, (3) competing possibilities have been contradicted by enormous amounts of scientific data, and (4) many other explanations are untestable, though they may be trivially consistent with biological data.
---
"Don't anthropomorphize computers. They hate that."
Yes but the introduction of new theories should be allowed but to have an objective basis in teaching it is very much required in our day and age. But the interesting thing would be to note in which communities these sort of ideas pop up. Like do they show up in rural, inner city, urban etc... and maybe see the influences that cause such ideas to spawn. Anyway students should be given heads up why ID is chosen over evolution etc..
a theory that has been shown to explain the origins of life time and time again
Evolution != origins. That's abiogenesis. Evolution doesn't care about the origins of life AT ALL.
Insightful: 76, Off-Topic: 379, Flamebait: 24, Funny: 152, Interesting: 201, Underrated: 55, Troll: 9, Total: 896
Like every other theory about the real world the theory of evolution can not be proven. Mathematical theorems can be proven but the relationship of mathematical theories to the real world cannot be proven. The usefullness of a theory may be obvious but that usefullness never constitutes proof. When scientist start talking about proving their theories or about understanding the "true" nature of the real world then they have wandered into the domain of religion. This is exactly the problem that Gallileo had with the pope. The pope told Gallileo to shut up about "proof" and Gallileo refused. Gallileo refused to distinguish between the simplicity and usefullness of his theory, and the proof of his theory. On the other hand, when theologians attempt to rationalize or prove things about the physical world they are in the domain of science.
There's a simple reason for that paragraph: the cries of "evolution is just a theory" that are heard from advocates of ID so much. There may be people in your movement who aren't that ignorant - but the vocal ones are.
I am trolling
This seems more like a debate about philosophy vs science.
Philosophers tried to reason out things without experimentation. This is how we ended up with flawed *facts* like heavier bodies fall faster than lighter ones.
Later scientists came along and said there are no absolute facts. There are theories, and theories should be challenged by experimentation.
ID looks like a lot of postulating without even coming up with "thought experiments" that could be validated by observation. Or making predictions, that could be validated by research.
Evolution, on the other hand, may not be exactly what Darwin put out but, the *theory* has been rewritten when inconsistencies are found. Experiments are conducted upon the theory. Predictions based upon the theory are tested. There is some actual science being done.
ID may have a place in a philosophy class, I would have nothing against this. However, science classes should teach *science*.
As for religion's involvement. The idea that something should be blindly believed has no place in science. That is the opposite of science. Teaching the opposite of science as science is called lying. And according to the bible, liars go to hell.
----- If communism is a system where the government owns business, what do you call a system where business owns govern
Not all phenomena that cannot be falsified are necessarily supernatural.
As an example, consider that Belgians serve their beer in glasses designed to enhance their flavour. Presumably this is because the way the liquid warms up, and the way it makes your mouth change shape, and the way that the smell comes out through the neck, and so on. Each type of beer has its own glass, designed for that particular brand.
How can you test this scientifically? I don't think it can be done. You cannot ask someone to rate the test of differently shaped glasses without bias, because you cannot prevent them from knowing the shape of the glass that they are drinking out of.
OTOH, this does not necessarily mean that the shape of the glass has no effect. Nor does it mean that it is supernatural. Rather, it means that there are things that fall outside of science.
Why don't you ask him? It is a mystery. Of course if you can explain how organic chemicals formed into DNA by shear luck, go right ahead.
Why would an atheist? Someone who 'believes' that there is no 'God' and that when we die, we die should be worried about more important things, like how to prolong thier life.
In God we trust, all others require data.
>Large Tenticled Aliens from Outerspace
Were we mere humans to learn the truth behind the Design of the Universe, we might gladly flee to the safety of ignorance or madness.
As we learned at Miskatonic University, "Ex Luce Ad Tenebras".
--- Attorneys Assisting Citizen-Soldiers & Families -
"Eugenics [...] had been proven"
You can't prove eugenics, any more than you can "prove" chicken soup. First off, let's avoid weighted words like "prove" since that's used only in mainstream media and formal sciences where you can reduce problems to axioms. If you cannot reduce problems to axioms, you must perorm expeiments that support or disprove your theory, but you can never prove it.
You can perform experiments that support the theory that chicken soup, administered orally during illness has certain effects on the immune system, and thus the duration of illness, but that's a seperate thing entirely from "proving chicken soup".
Same deal with eugenics. Eugenics is a science that deals with the application of controled breeding to humans. It is an umbrella for many theories, some of which are well supported and some of which were disproved.
"The earth moving around the Sun is based totally on work by Aristotle"
I assume you mean the sum moving around the earth... and you are correct there. It was Copernicus who contradicted him in the 14th century, and whose theory was accepted in the 15th century.
And Aristotle was a brilliant natural philosopher (arguably the first) and logician, but he was not a scientist in the sense that he did not apply the scientific method (but he was the first to suggest that experimentation should be a requirement of investigation into natural laws... an important first step to be sure).
Thus your claim that science held that the Sun revolved around the Earth for 2000 years is simply wrong. It was the CHURCH and enforced adherence to Aristotle, and the CHURCH that attacked Copernicus and Gallileo for their theories that contradicted Aristotle (and thus church doctrine). The establishment of the scientific method in the 15th century culminated in the general acceptance of its application in the 19th century (with the onset of the industrial revolution).
That period, between the 15th and 19th centuries, was the birth of science, and had its roots in inquiries such as the debate surrounding the Copernican System and church doctrine which it contradicted.
Meh. Same thing happened to Galileo. The cult of pseudo-science just happens to enforce evolutionism these days.
I am NOT a number! I am a - oh wait, I'm number 761710. Look! 761710!
Talk about context mining.
No, I genuinely think that hatred is more and more of the motivation for the policies and the preferences of the left. Regardless of whether they're correct or incorrect, policies shouldn't be motivated by hate.
1) (sarcasm: on) 'Cause religion has never had a problem with hate among it's followers. Hate never motivates religious people to kill or conquer or oppress. (sarcasm: off)
2) As for left and right: why do you assume it's science on the left and religious on the right? Who do you see in current politics looking to subvert common goals for an extreme agenda? The "right". The "right" is using fear, hate and divisivness to force others do as they want them to do, not do what may be best and agreeable for all. As wonderful as the Christian religion is, Liberty for all is not one of it's values. Freedom to choose and speak and disent in not among the 10 Commandments. Amercan values and Christian values to not have to conflict, but the right seem to want them to.
3) This is not about hate, this is about what is best and honest. ID pushers are NOT honest people. They are knowingly using psuedo-science concepts and language to push a religious agenda. I thought lying was not allowed in the Christian religion.
Sig
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars
The establishment clause never was referred to as separation of church and state until 1948. Since Tom Jefferson and the other writers of the constitution were long gone and there was no constitutional ammendment this was one more example of legislation from the bench. "No matter how noble the result appears, any portion of the government usurping the authority of the other will soon lead to ruin." Ralph Brandt
Consider: once an animal becomes as intelligent as a human, it may occur to it that certain behaviors, though absolutely essential to the survival of the population, are personally very risky and/or expensive. Take reproduction; why become a mother? Why take the risk and expend the energy to produce and support a child, when it's not necessary for her personal survival? There's a good deal of instinct at work there, but humans are known to be able to suppress instinctive behaviors given training and/or a good reason. And why would a man fight to (re-)gain the resources his community needs from his neighbors when the fight might kill him? Even if the campaign is ultimately victorious and his community prospers, he's personally dead!
It seems to me that such unselfish deeds of individuals strengthen the population at the expense of the individual - give rather than receive, trade fairly rather than kill and steal, etc. And in a Darwinian sense, it's the survival of the population that matters, and much less so the particular individual.
So how do you convince a reasoning person to adopt selfless behaviors? One way is by plausibly promising a reward for good behavior. Do these "unselfish" things, and we'll give you these rewards. The spiritual person is generally promised an "eternal" reward - when your life is done, you get to live in heaven/valhalla/etc.
The alternative is negative reinforcement. If you don't act unselfishly, we'll punish you. The effectiveness of this depends on the plausibility of the threat - "if I don't get caught, I don't get the punishment."
So the "Theist" (spiritually-minded individual) is optimistically looking forward to a good reward. The Atheist is trying to avoid punishment. The Theist could be expected to give to the community beyond what the community could ever repay - even sacrificing his life. The Atheist will work for pay, so long as the work is low-risk.
Even if the Atheist is right, I'm not sure it's a better choice for a population.
Hey mods, I don't think your modding is biased enough. Could you make your collective worldview a little more obvious? kthx
Evolutionary Theory
Scientist 1: Hey, where did all of this life come from?
Scientist 2: I don't know. Let's consider the evidence we have, and construct a theory using the scientific method.
Intelligent Design Theory
Scientist 1: Hey, where did all of this life come from?
Guy That Sells Bibles: I know! God did it!
Yeah, I'm not buying it.
- The assumption that teaching that our understanding of evolution ( as currently or popularly understood ) is flawed is somehow 'fundamentalist'. In fact, questioning theories is very scientific. The belief that our understanding of evolution is flawless is a basically fundamentalist mindset.
Describing alternative theories of creation in a science class makes perfect sense. How can students learn about the controversy surrounding evolution without being taught that there are alternative theories. ( A science teacher should endorse scientific study of fact not dogmatic argument. That study includes studying ID, if only superficially. ) In my high school bio class we discussed 'spontaneous genesis' in a socratic, scientific fashion. The teacher did not tell us what to believe, only that there was no scientific support for the other theories.
- The assumption that ID, or Creationism, is incompatible with evolution. I have met many Christian, and live with one, who believes that the Design in Intelligent Design mean that the Creator created the rules for evolution. Like building a wind up toy and letting it go do its own things.
This idea attributes the development of fundamental natural laws to a Creator and that evolution is a natural outgrowth. No God design the sparrow, says this camp. The sparrow came about because of evolution on a world, in a universe created by God. The creator may have come up with the basic forces witnessed in the first moment of the Big Bang, and left the rest to sort itself out.
This idea cannot be disproved, and has no scientific answer. Cosmology and quantum physics lead to more theological/philosophical questions than answers.
I personally believe in a chaotic creation, but there is no scientific evidence of that either.
In the end, as a secularist and atheist, I see no particular violation of any church and state boundary in the actions of the school, only bad science education if they refuse to explain the flaws in ID and present it as a True alternative.
#-#
Ad Astra Per Aspera
A rough road leads to the stars
I agree with your post in general, but wish to clarify the Catholic belief... If you read this comment, please read it in its entirety, or risk getting a mistaken impression.
Catholicism does not per se believe in evolution. Catholicism believes that nothing in the Catholic Faith contradicts the theory of evolution. Catholicism does not make claims regarding the validity of a specific scientific theory or law, such as the law of gravity. They are outside the purview of religion.
Catholics are therefore free to judge the truth of any scientific principle based upon its own merits. Catholics as inidividuals generally believe in evolution, but it is their individual viewpoint, not a tenet of the faith.
Now, any knowledgable Catholic believes in the law of gravity. Similarly, I believe that knowledgable Catholics generally accept that the theory of evolution is the current best explanation. (Newtonian physics was "supplanted" by Einsteinien physics, but the "approximations" made in Newtonian physics are more than good enough for practical purposes in almost all settings. I would consider the theory of evolution to be on the Newtonian Physics level, in general correct, but it would be nice to have another smart person refine the theory.)
The theory of Intelligent Design is that life went through a "guided" evolution based on a grand design by a deity (known in Judeo-Christian circles as God, but Intelligent Design isn't limited to Judeo-Christian philosophy)
What ID'ers disagree with in the theory of "evolution" (at least the ones with intelligent thought and research and aren't just spouting off what someone else told them) is the tenents of natural selection. According to natural selection, evolution is a proccess of random mutations, some harmful, some helpful, some having no effect (such as eye color). Due to the randomness of natural selection, it is a continuing proccess with no "goal." As such, natural selection requires that either 1) there is no God, or 2) God has a laizze-faire additude about life.
And relating point 1: When I was in college(!!! and this was only 5 years ago, too), I knew a person who had a poster of common "scientific fallacies." On the issue that dinosaurs died out 60+ million years before the "dawn of man" it said this: history (sic) is full of stories of man fighting dragons. Tales of dragons predate the discovery of dinosaurs, but they are in fact, the same.
Free MacMini
Hrmm...
:)
As an American, all I can say is that you're being impatient. We've only had about 5 years of this wacko-fundamentalist crap here - it's only been 5 years since the end of the "Clinton Era". Give it some time. Most of the intelligent people here are working too hard to care about politics. Once things get a little too out-of-hand, you'll see those people at the polls again. It's just going to take a little while.
Meanwhile, back in Europe, you guys were burning people at the stake for HUNDREDS OF YEARS. Oh, yeah, and your continent was filled with internacene warfare between Protestants and Catholics for like 400 YEARS. Let's see... there were the Crusades too. I don't remember any Americans being involved with that lovely affair. Isn't it nice that you guys don't do that stuff anymore?
So, hey, relax. Give us a few years. We'll get our heads together again. I agree with you that it's not good that America's in bed with Israel and Saudi Arabia, and yeah, we SHOULD be more friendly with our historical allies in Europe. But please don't fly off the handle because our errant, democratic system of government produced some undesirable results for a decade or two.
Meanwhile, take comfort in the fact that the U.K. and France and Russia and China have enough nukes to annihilate America.
"Sic transeunt omnia."
You know, the part where you know things that mere mortals do not.You left off the bit about travelling to distant lands and sitting on mountain tops.Bingo! You have much to teach us mere mortals oh enlightened master.Because "Intelligent Design" does not have any scientific basis.
With evolution, it is easy to show how species diverge. With actual animals.I have. And there isn't anything that is scientifically demonstratable to it.
If you believe otherwise, then please enlighten these mere mortals.Why do you assume that people who dismiss it haven't looked at it?
I have and I see that there isn't anything to it.
It simply attempts to cover any "holes" in evolution theory by claiming such "holes" must be because of an Intelligent Design.
It becomes very easy to understand once you know the evolution of "Intelligent Design".
It was too easy to knock the "Creationists" before, so they decided that they could hide "God" behind the phrase "intelligent design" and attempt to get it taught in schools.
doesn't mean that many or most of the Bible isn't meant to be taken literally. When Jesus said that if you lust after a woman you have committed adultery, was he speaking figuratively? I seriously doubt that...
How about Matt 7:1-6 where He explained part of the process of judgement? Most of Jesus' ministry was literal and meant to be taken as such. You can't read in multiple interpretations into most of what Jesus said because there is only 1 valid reading for most it, like much of the Bible.
Click here or a puppy gets stomped!
Actually, Atheism is a set of core values or beliefs about the nature of God and the world we live in.
Christianity is a set of core values and beliefs about the nature of God and the world we live in.
Judaism is a set of core values and beliefs about the nature of God and the world we live in.
Islam is a set of core values and beliefs about the nature of God and the world we live in.
Hinduism is a set of core values and beliefts about the nature of God and the world we live in.
Get the point. Whether or not there is a God is not germain to whether or not something is a religion.
Even the language used on their website has religious tones to it in using words like "belief system" and "purpose of existance" and "world view."
What I don't understand is why Atheists are so embarrassed to recognize that they actually have a set of religous beliefs?
You can't use logic to rationalize religious idiology. Religion is not rational. It doesn't need logic. It needs FAITH: belief is something without evidence. Oh sure, you can 'rationalize' all you want about the nature of whatever religion you choose, but I can do the same thing about the Jabberwocky in Alice and Wonderland. Its not logical if your base assumptions are flawed. Its especially not logical if you blatently ignore this fact or deny it by saying 'just have faith'. So don't expect to much success when arguing about the flaws in someones religion. You can't argue with them if you don't accept their base assumptions and, if you value rational, logical arguments, you won't accept many of their base assumptions because they lack evidence.
The only successful arguments I've had about religion with religious people have centered on their base assumptions and the lack of any evidence behind them. Once you've reach the point in the argument where they say 'but you have to have faith', say bullox, and point out that a real argument requires a logical base. If they are smart they will quickly realize that they can't effectively ARGUE religious idiology.
At which point the really clever ones figure out that religion relies basically on the art of persuasion for the points where it lacks evidence. Watch out for 'arguments' in that nature.
As far as ethics go, what could be more EVIL and CORRUPT than someone who claims to be your shepard but insists you must abandon logic and reason so that he can save you from an unsubstantiated evil that convienetly resides within your self, can't be removed, and will lead to certain, undeniable corruption and eternal damnation?
But that said, if we introduced philosophy into the curriculum, would we introduce only those viewpoints which were sympathetic to modern materialistic science? Only the empiricists and positivists? What about a bit of Feyerabend, the heretic? Feyerabend would really set the cat amongst the pigeons, since he insists that good scientific practice must be diverse. Feyerabend is absolutely pluralist about science, and offers loads of ammunition to those who want "both views" taught in school.
On the other hand, if you're only going to introduce those philosophies compatible with the view, "evolution is the only scientific theory of origins", then what distinguishes this from outright indoctrination? Philosophy is supposed to be about the development of critical skills, not imparting dogma.
Frankly I'm betting that philosophy will be kept well and truly out of the school system until the final overthrow of said system, since a decent dose of philosophy (involving several views that contradict each other and all make good points) encourages too much thought. God help us if students should start thinking for themselves, and not just act like willing sponges that soak up whatever fact-of-the-day is served to them. Think of the trouble it would cause! Think of how much more work teaching would involve if students had their intelligence nurtured, rather than being made to work according to the pattern of textbook-du-jour.
Philosophy has no place in modern schooling. This is why we are reduced to arguments as to which view of science gets exclusive distribution rights in school. To acknowledge that there might not be one single true view of science would open pandora's box in regards to the teaching of science. The students would start asking those kinds of smart alec questions which undermine the teacher's authority, leading to massive control problems. As someone who made the bad political move of questioning authority in school (as a student), I think I have just explained my way to a clearer understanding of why there was, is, and will be no philosophy in school.
So here's a point to ponder. I think that a goodly portion of the Slashdot audience thinks "critical skills are good, and we ought to encourage them in school". First up, note that my (somewhat cynical) description of the school process above suggests that school simply can not do this without bringing about its own destruction. In short, the students would become smart enough to realise that school is stupid, and revolt.
But that aside, consider the following dilemma. What if it were demonstrated that teaching two conflicting views of science (both of them credibly defended -- not a "real man versus straw man" situation) produces students with better critical skills? If you're one of the many who've commented that "evolution == science, and !evolution == !science", then would you be willing to allow a pseudoscience into the science curriculum if it improved critical thinking in general? No doubt you would not if there were no benefit, but would you be willing to sacrifice the "purity" of science teaching if it fostered greater critical skills? If not, then what about teaching philosophy and including those philosophers that have the best arguments against modern science, like Feyerabend?
proof, n. A demonstration that a conclusion is implied by certain premises and axioms.
I have had to deal with a similar problem. A student who claimed not to beleive in evolution (to get out of work). I SHOWED her evolution in action (easy with the right lab equipment) after which I had to deal with the parents. Sigh.
The question I have about ID is, what class does it belong in? Not science, because there is no science involved. Social studies perhaps? I imagine if the educators were smart enough to realize this, and shipped the discussion of ID to a "religion" class, they could end this for good.
...Which is that random processes aren't. If you are already assuming that the universe is tailor suited for humanity, then it isn't a leap to say that the laws of the universe, including the rules of logic that underlie evolution are also tailor suited. ID is throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
It's been shown (although I can't quote the source at this moment, since I can't seem to find the citation in the textbook) that there is a "certain kind" of personality which is especially susceptible to religious ideas.
It's the difference between, for instance, being *convicted* of a belief, and just going along with it because it's advantageous to you, or because everyone else is.
Orthodox Judiasm contains provisions for Kosher preparation of foods. This is decidedly an arbitrary religious imposition, designed to lead to better hygienic practices in the preparation of food, so people don't die from disease. It's not a far stretch to say that various other religions arose with similar precepts, as a method of saying what you should/shouldn't do more authoritatively than a king or chief could.
I agree with most of what you say.
That being said, if two species develop long pointy fingers to reach into deep flowers for food, they do not develop matching DNA. There will be different underlying DNA that produces externally similar species.
In some cases different species evolve (because of natural selection) to look almost identical but their DNA is completely different.
From there, a reasonable conclusion would be if we shared 50% identical DNA with sea cucumbers then at some point we share a common ancestor. If we share 96% identical DNA with a chimpanzee then we shared a common ancestor and it was much more recent than the cucumber ancestor.
And scientific studies along this line of reasoning have made predictions and tests which supported it. They have rough estimates for the rate of DNA change and can compare it to the relatively more stable Mitochodria RNA to get "ballpark" guesses for time scales.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Separation of Church and State is one way. It is meant to keep the Government from interfering with religion. Not religion from interfering with Government or schools.
Slashdotters are definitely interested in Science. This is an important discussion because it is an attempt to subvert science. To undermine the scientific method. The worse part is they are attempting to do this is grade school science class.
Dawkins did falsify his findings. He was not objective and he got the results he wanted by fudging the test results. I've talked with scientists who were not able to recreate Dawkin's results under the same conditions. The Fossils, Dawkns claims to have used, are not allowed to be tested or looked at. We are to take his word, and have faith that his results are true. Dawkins has poisoned Evolution with his unscientific process, and we shall never know the truth because of his falsehoods.
On her radio show recently, Dr. Laura Schlesinger said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22, and cannot be condoned under any circumstance. The following response is an open letter to Dr. Laura which was posted on the Internet. It's funny, as well as informative.
Dear Dr. Laura:
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly
states it to be an abomination. End of debate.
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Law and how to follow them.
1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
4. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2. The passage clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I
don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?
7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my
vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How should they die?
9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two
different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we
just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help.
Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
The book says something and you believe it? Ok. I was raised in the former USSR and I was taught not to believe everything that I breathe (thanks Beck.)
Read between the lines. God is love: love for what? God is most certainly boredom and insanity but he is supreme and allmighty so he creates things for himself to play with. He creates a notion of 'love', which means absolutely nothing because he can only love himself until he creates other things to love. Obviously he loves those other things - he created them. He is a narcissist who enjoys himself and his creations so much because there is nothing else anyway. Of-course he loves what he creates. To behave otherwise would be to admit that what he creates is crap and since there is nothing else but him he has nothing to compare himself against.
God is not love god is a sick puppy with an infinite amount of time on his allmighty hands and nothing useful to do - he doesn't need to survive, he is all and indistructable. I pitty him.
but then again, I am an atheist so I don't believe it exists in the first place. Prove it/he/she to me scientificall or give me a good deal of repeatable empirical evidence and I will believe than, the same way I believe Carbon is heavier than Hydrogen.
You can't handle the truth.
Not all beliefs about the nature of the world are religious, and if you'd bother to read what I actually wrote, you'd see that there is a reason that atheism is not a *religion.*
If you want to say that the denial of religious truths is a religious truth, knock yourself out. That doesn't make it a religion.
Thanks for playing.
"Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under." - H.L. Mencken
Well, I would say teach in context.
Teach evolutionary theory in a science class because it is a scientific theory. Science classes are where science is generally taught. Lets test whether heavier objects fall faster than lighter ones.
Teach ID in a philosophy class since its ideas are just reasoned out and have no basis on science. ID is more like the *reasoning* of the ancient philosophers. Its seems reasonable that heavier objects will fall faster than lighter ones, there's no need to test this by experimentation.
A discussion on the birth place of a famous person is a discussion of two points in the same context. Comparing evolution and ID has no place in a science class because one of them is not science. It might make a nice discussion for the philosophy or theology class. It would make an even more interesting discussion in a psychology class (why people choose to accept or reject...).
----- If communism is a system where the government owns business, what do you call a system where business owns govern
Looks to me like a long-time successful meme (Christianity, 2k years old) competing with a new competitor (scientific method, 400 years old, but not recognized as a competitor until more recently.
Basically, these systems are competing for core memory in the individuals and in societies.
Both of them create a way of interpreting reality that provides different costs and different benefits to their adherents.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out. It will become very intense in the next few decades, I think, as the progress of science enables knowledge and technology to do things that were unimaginable even a hundred years ago.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
Does that mean we can't study the particles we DO know about?
The evolutionists who shout "religion!!!" at any hint of design are just as short sighted. Their claim is basically that random mutation and evolution MUST BE the thing that accounts for the existence of all life in the universe. Because they always bring up the "slippery slope" argument and say "well, if space aliens designed life on earth, then what designed the space aliens?"
But I would ask- what difference does it make if the last 2 trillion generations of life were created by really smart engineers, and in the infinite distance we can never really know who or WHAT started the first spark of organization and life.
And for the record, I think the concept of a God as written in the bible is 100% bullshit. I want to repeat that again- I THINK ALL ORGANIZED RELIGION IS PURE BULLSHIT. If you accuse me of being a bible thumper without re-reading this paragraph, then please go fuck yourself in the ass with a rusty nail and LEARN TO LISTEN.
To ignore the possible branches of study that analyze life as a possibly designed structure, is pure folly. There are only two possible viewpoints of existence- either it had elements of design OR it is purely random. People that discount either possibility out of dogma are retarded and short-sighted.
What you see right now is nothing more than a snapshot.
Cellular processes that are dependant upon each other also evolve over time. Each individual process can evolve and other processes can take advantage of the new functionality. Over time, they evolve to depend upon that functionality.
Now, when you look at a snapshot, you don't see the many changes to each process that has been happening for millions/billions of years. All you see is the CURRENT inter-relationship.
And THAT is the problem with all the "Intelligent Design" books and people.
They are starting with their conclusion (complex systems are impossible without an Intelligent Designer) and then looking for complex systems that they then claim must have been Designed.
The correct way (if this was science and not religion) would be to look for something that CONTRADICTED the hypothesis that it is impossible for complex systems to evolve.
Assumption #1: God gave us free will. (because he loves us)
Assumption #2: God is omniscient.
Since God already knows all our future actions, we no longer have free-will; al our actions are pre-determined. So humanity's free will and God's omniscience are mutually exclusive; you can't have your cake and eat it too.
So if there are finite particles in this universe and an infinite amount of time, isn't there a probability of 1 that the particles will arrange themselves in the same orientation they are now at some point in the future and for that matter, infinitely more times in the future? So we will be right where we are now. Oh well, I'll finish this post then.
This is not an insult, but simply a clarification. Part of the definition of a scientific conjecture is that it be falsifiable. Darwinian evolution as a theory on the evolution of life forms IS falsifiable. For instance, hard evidences of Larmarkian evolution would disprove it.
However, ID by construction, cannot be disproved. Any contrary evidence (like Gould's quip for God's inordinate fondbess for beetles) can be parried with "that's the way it was designed" or "we are just too stupid to understand God's will". Furthermore, to fully disprove ID, one would be required to prove the nonexistence of a Designer - a logical impossibility.
THAT is the fundamental reason that ID does not belong in a science class, but would be appropriate in the humanities or religion or anthropology - it is fundamentally a way to frame phenomena.
No one had to go to court to get science to accept calculus. Or quantum theory. Many people rejected the big bang theory due to all the nasty problems in cosmology it raised. In the end it won out not because people wanted to believe it but because there was just too much evidence to reject it. Science rejected Relativity, then accepted it, then rejected parts of it.
Science is self correcting.
If ID has merit, then science will accept it. No matter how many problems it may raise. No matter how inconvenient it is. No matter how happy it might make the religious right.
So WTF are the ID people trying to use the courts to get it taught? Because they know ID has no merit.
Oh yeah, and if you're in the United States and you get horrified when "church and state" get mixed, here's a pop quiz for you: Which amendment states: "The separation of church and state shall not be abridged." I bet nobody on Slashdot will be able to figure this one out.
*
*
*
*
Answer: The first amendment is not the answer. It reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." Note that Congress, not public schools, is the entity mentioned in this amendment. Also note that the rule is: no law respecting blah blah blah or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. So don't tell me that's what the almighty Constitition states, because it doesn't.
Intelligent Design theory, in its true form, does not involve religion. It basically says, "Look, life forms employ efficient internal energy machines (mitochondria), auditory pattern matching systems (language/speech, birds that replicate sounds), complex light capture and processing systems (vision, ability to focus and adapt to light light levels and color balance, depth perception, motion detection, pattern recognition), wildcard foreign body detection and combat and antigen pattern propagation (immune system), self repair mechanisms (healing wounds), complex intersystem communications (nerves, hormones), various modes of locomotion, ...
and the presence of these mechanisms *suggests* that *perhaps* life was designed, engineered, and mostly well planned. The chances of these mechanisms assembling themselves, even over billions of years, is slim. The fact that life has the capability to "fix" damage and combat previously unseen invaders, to me, indicates some degree of planning. (Teaching ID theory is very straightforward; it basically amounts to what you have just read. Don't attempt to identify the designing agent(s) -- it's unnecessary, we have no evidence, and you know the kind of controversy it leads to.)
Now, religious folks catch wind of this new scientific-sounding theory and think, "Hey, let's use this as a wedge to drive our religious propaganda into schools!" So they put on their Intelligent Design coats and march forward.
Ask them this: Why do you say there is a "Designer", singular? Couldn't there be multiple designers? Why do you capitalize Designer, He, Him, etc.? Do you believe this designer could have faults and is capable of making mistakes? Do you believe this designer worked entirely within the laws of matter and energy? The answers often indicate a religious bias in the ID proponent if he/she has such a bias.
Platypus - Please Discuss.
A person who says he is a Christian is a Christian.
Remember the old saying, "actions speak louder than words"? Anyone can say they're Christian. Far fewer can put those words into action. Fewer still can do it with any degree of consistency. In fact, I'd question the motives of anyone who feels like they have to make a public spectacle of it.
"Oh! I hadn't thought of that!" said God, and disappeared in a puff of logic.
Then man went on to prove that black is white and got himself killed by a bus while crossing the street.
10100111001
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910_1.htm
Easy enough.And why would it? You don't understand the theory of evolution.
How does my wearing glasses make me less likely to survive?Again, you don't understand evolution. Very few humans are below 20 IQ now.
Go back a million years or so and you'd find very few animals with above a 20 IQ.
Evolution.Check the URL I provided. Do more research. It's easy to show how fast breeding species can be forced to evolve into none interbreeding colonies.
That is evolution. That has been tested. That has been documented.
Claiming that it hasn't happened won't make it go away.Which results in infinite recursion. Who Designed the Designers?
If they could just spontaniously appear, then why not the universe we see?The same can be said of Santa and Bigfoot and the Easter Bunny.
What you are describing is a RELIGION. Not science.
I found a beautiful painting of a great landscape in the ditch the other day. It was absolutely perfect and beautiful.
I imagine that it was probably created when a paint truck drove by and hit a rock that was in that road, causing some of the paint to spill out. I never did find the rock, but I'm sure it was there.
The wind and the rain must have blown and swirled the paint in just such a way that the clear images I saw in the painting were exquisitly displayed . . . although it was clear, calm, and sunny when I found it.
I'm still not sure where the canvas came from, but I imagine that I'll figure it all out one day.
-B
Should school boards be required to look at potential liability issues when considering whether to incorporate intelligent design into science curricula?
My thinking is that if a school district begins to teach intelligent design as an alternative to the theory of evolution, it could be held culpable for the failure of its graduated students to achieve in the realms higher education and/or technological training. There might be massive class action suits by former students who can demonstrate statistically that they were unable to get the high paying jobs that students in similar schools with sound science curricula were able to get.
I envision an argument something like this: the conflation of the scholastic reasoning of intelligent design with the empiricism of the scientific method had damaged the student's minds (or "reasoning", or "cognitive ability") to the degree that they were unable to compete successfully with students from other school districts in acquiring technological skills. Directly measured damages could be the costs of remedial schooling and the loss of income potential for those years that they played catch-up.
I think there would also be very fertile ground for developing punitive damages, since the School Board could probably be shown to be egregiously negligent in causing this situation (purposefully blind to the risks they were putting the students in, despite being charged with minimizing those risks). And as I write this, I begin to wonder whether individual School Board members might be charged with criminal negligence for the recklessness they exhibited toward their obligations of office.
It seems to me that if this line of reasoning is widely distributed now, it would increase the likelihood of success of the class action suits that might be brought in five or ten years. And might also cause School Boards to pause and consider this concern now, and therefore decrease the number of such potential suits later on.
I would dearly love to hear from PJ or other paralegals or lawyers about this.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
You are correct in stating that two species developing long pointy fingers do not develop matching DNA. However, two species that share a common ancestor that has short stubby fingers, who go on to develop long pointy fingers (from those short stubby ones) will have very similar DNA as related to finger length (there are only so many genes related to finger length in organisms with a shared ancestor).
You are also correct in that looks don't figure into relatedness. A shark and a dolphin look very similar but have significant differences in DNA.
On the otherhand, there is quite a bit of shared DNA among all living creatures. This means that somewhere, various organisms shared common ancestors.
The problem with using DNA to delineate common ancestors is that it is all based on probabilties. Even paternity testing is not 100% accurate unless there is an abnormal gene that is passed on and that is only one generation removed. The results are always given as a probability, because there is always room for a slight error.
But as the generations expand between the ancestor and the individual, those slight errors can introduce major deviations.
Now mitochondrial RNA is very interesting, as it is only passed on by the mother. I believe it created quite a stir a number of years back, when Newsweek ran an article that all humans alive today shared a common maternal ancestor 10,000 years ago. If I recall, they called her "Eve."
Of course, once again, the research relied heavily on probabilities, as does all DNA/RNA extrapolations. This isn't a fault, but it always needs to be kept in mind when evaluating research or test findings.
I notice a false dichotomy at play in far, far too many of these comments. The assumption would seem to be either that one accepts evolutionary theory or one is a caricatured raving fundamentalist who thinks that every word of the Bible is meant to be read as a 19th Century work of science. That is not the case, as a person who wishes to investigate the question for himself may easily ascertain (or, for a simpler example: I myself hold to neither position). Whether or not a person agrees with their conclusions about evolutionary theory, many of the leading figures in the Intelligent Design movement do not hold to flatly literal readings of the creation narratives.
Ask anyone who is devoted to a given religion and they will tell you their religion is the true one. But is it? Is there such a thing as a "true" religion?
Different religions are so similar, one wonders whether they are different at all. Evidence shows, there must have been an evolution in religions as well. So, newer religions are based on older ones, or religions co-existing in time, interchanged ideas during their evolution. If you examine several different religions you'll recognize familiar elements from other religions.
There is always a creator(s), who created the world around us and ofcourse, us. Most religions portray humans and god(s) not so much alike. For example, christians portray god as a perfect being who also has human attributes via jesus(his son, who also is one and the same whith god). Ancient greeks portrayed their olympian gods as perfect all powerfull beings, whith, again, human attributes. Buddists, again, claim that gods are subject to karma as well as humans. This goes on for other religions as well.
All religions state that the human race originates from an ancestor couple, a man and a woman. christians call them Adam and Eve, ancient greeks called them Deukalion and Pyrrha, and so on.
All religions also refer to a major catastrophic event that was caused by god(s) when humans went astray from their chosen path.
I could go on and on pointing out identical patterns of thought between all religions. Religions are a product of society and culture, and in the past it was this that kept societies together. Nowdays, of course, the 10 commandments would be somewhat insufficient to keep our societies functioning properly. We have millions of laws, as our societies are more complex.
With the advancement of sciences, we also have less need for a creator(s). We can now understand and explain many things about our universe and about the origins of life.
But as science delves deeper into the unknown, it becomes harder and harder to get empirical evidence on a given solution to a problem. Sciences become more theoritical, where the most plausible theory persists. So, science is again a product of culture and society. That's not so different from religions, science -is- a modern evolved religion, that explains the world around us better than any other.
Science also carries the human fallacy of a beginning of everything. Just like all religions believe in a beginning of everything which attribute to a creator, science believes in a beginning of everything which attribute to a theory of everything(TOE). I personally believe there is no such thing. I think there is no absolute truth, no creator(s), no beginning of everything or a theory of everything. If there was and we found out, we'd have no more goals to reach, there wouldn't be any meaning to life, would there?
VStrider.
Creationism and intelligent design have about as much place in a science class as evolution and chemistry have in a religious studies course.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
You've never seen a parent of a child who just broke a window or something come to that child and ask "What did you do?". He was allowing Adam and Eve to expain themselves, even if thier excuse was feeble.
Adam: "It's the womans fault"
God the Deciever! Nice.
Let the woman get away with it.
Wait until the man, seeing that the woman got away with it, and in his God given innocence trusts his one true love who was telling him it's allright, and then punish them both!
You can't take the sky from me...
The other day, I was watching some news program (they all begin to blur after a while) where they were debating Creationism vs. Evolution. The man arguing in favor of Creationism said quite specifically that he believed "every word in the Bible". When anyone says something like that, they're immediately disqualified from any rational discussion, in my book. Maybe I'm a product of my upbringing. I went to a Catholic high school where we learned about the Bible and one thing I learned is that in the first chapter, there are TWO creation stories. If you take one to be literally true, then you cannot take the other one to be true since they're mutually contradictory. Logically then, they CANNOT both be true. This is in the first chapter, for Christ's sake, the contradictions continue throughout the entire book. Since a RATIONAL being cannot take the entire book to be literally true, then the conclusion must be that the Bible is merely an interpretation, opening up the possiblity that science may in fact be correct. After all, science does not disprove the existence of God, nor does it prove the existence of God. The two are mutually exclusive and therefore can coexist. I guess my point is that there is no point in arguing with a Creationist, since s/he is not rational.
The story he told me was the cables snapped on the tower and the tower came down...
I appreciate your help.
San Francisco Photographers
Yes, evolution has been tested by predictions of what we might find in the fossil record. However, it has not always passed the test. Geologists and biologists have repeatedly been surprised when they didn't find what they expected. Of course, they adjusted the theory each time.
h tm
However, what if there was another way to explain the evidence?
There is. Check out the site of this noted biologist, a former atheist, who became a creationist based on the evidence he uncovered:
http://www.amazingdiscoveries.org/beginning_main.
Life's a lot like money-- you spend it, then it's gone. Spend wisely.
It is a shame that people are so concerned about religious people. There is plenty of facts that can be taken to 'prove' either side of the argument. Once you introduct the catastrophy theories, all age, fosil, dating methods are easily explaned.
This is the fundamental problem with the scientific method. You start with a theory and try to prove it. You can always find a way to prove you point if you look hard enough.
Religious people have NOT handled themselves properly in this and many other debates, but the fact remains that no origin theory is without error. Teaching ID is just as good a theory as teaching evolution. I fully think that both should be taught.
Just because some people of faith look to the bible for the "Missing pieces" of the ID theory, doesn't mean it is a worthless theory. It has just as much merit as evolution.
Religion and politics, without the flame. godgab.org
I think a lot of people opposed to ID are looking at it all wrong. Sure it's a load of nonsense, but that can be used to your advantage. When the local fundies start trying to force their god into the schools, go to the school board meetings. Insist on equal representation for ALL mythologies. Threaten discrimination lawsuits. Get Thor back in there. And Apollo. And Mars. And Baal. And so on and so on and so on. They can't prove that the gods of Norse mythology are any less real than their Bible based god.
this is getting old and so are you
blog
1. intelligent design is not exclusively Christian
2. seperation of church and state does not mean that that theories put forth by scientific groups, or even purely religous groups should not be taught as theories in a classroom.
3. there seems to be a lack of defense for ID, and a lot of wild flaming, so i would encourage people to investigate things, rather than taking anything said here as a basis for any credible information on the issues. I have yet to see any information or links provided to current research being done into ID. Most references are being drawn from older purely "creationist" material.
Here are some links...
Institute for creation research...yah these are are Christians scientists supporting ID and creationism... so go ahead and get angry if that offends you.
http://www.icr.org/index.html
http://www.icr.org/research/
here is the site of a college ID group. has a lot of links, and im sure there are some people willing to debate with anyone interested in actually hearing someone defend ID... not that it seems anyone here is.
http://www-acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/index.shtml
there must be more "good" ID links, but i do not know them. if anyone else has some i would encourage their being posted
I have heard what are... to me... very credible arguments for ID, Though i do not have the knowledge or time to defend it in this forum.
well, my shift at work just ended, so its time to get productive. hope this post has made this a more rational place -ben
'Nuff said.
Well, not quite. To quote Aleister Crowley, "The Christians to the lions!"
Yes - that DOES mean I would like to see you all exterminated to the last man, woman and child.
And I will.
Have a nice day.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
That the rate of continental drift is constant. If this assumption is incorrect, well, then so is the age of the Earth. Consider me a skeptic, but I don't place much faith in scientific hypotheses based on unproven assumptions. Granted, I might not believe the Earth is only 6,000 years old, but then, I'm not keen on believing it is 6 billion years old, either. From where I sit, it seems like neither side can really prove their case. In fact, for those with true faith, the age of the Earth is irrelevant; it might be a nice intellectual curiosity, but it has nothing to do with importance of the sacrifice Jesus Christ made on the cross.
ID is more of an evangelical curiosity than a good argument for the existence of God. This is mostly due to the fact that ID's arguments are statistical in nature - while ID shows (and rather convincingly) that a universe as complex as ours would be a statistical anomoly, it does nothing to show that we aren't exactly that - a statistical anomoly. Anyone willing to believe that we are a rather fortunate accident can live with both the claims of evolution and ID without any apparent conflict between the two.
That said, it still irks me that so many proudly proclaim what they in fact do not know. Yes, if continental drift, atomic decay, etc, were constant throughout the ages, we may be able to safely conclude that the earth is more than 6000 years old. Problem is, we can't prove this. Therefore, we can hypothesize about what might have happened, but definitive proof will have to wait for a time machine.
Instead of bickering about the past, we should instead be looking at what is happening now. At least this we can prove through scientific experiment.
And one final thing: The conflict over Earth's age isn't about the age of sedimentary rock. Rather, it is a struggle for cultural authority between atheists and theists. Each side seeks to be the authority trusted by the people for truth. The age of the Earth is irrelevant; what is really being sought is the authority to impose one's worldview on others. And in this regard, at least the theists are willing to tolerate those who believe something other than what they believe, as they understand that faith is a gift given from above. But I've yet to meet an atheist willing to consider the possibility that those who disagree with them arrived at such a conclusion through rational analysis of their own experiences.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
"We must remember that Darwins theory is just that, AN UNPROVEN THEORY"
How do you think we got the modern crop of super bacteria resistant to our anti-biotics? Super bugs as they are called in the media.
http://my.webmd.com/content/article/64/72307.htm
Evolution is based on variation/challenge/survival & reproduction:
Variation: successive generations will have differences. Species members of current generation also are variants. This is an observable fact. Is there a Counter argument?
Challenges: Anything that could hamper reproduction. Diminishing food resources, death by predation, environmental stress (toxins, water supply etc). Also observable fact. Is there a counter argument?
Survival & Reproduction: Advantageous genes are passed on selecting this set of genes over those which were not succesful in reproduction. Any counter argument with this?
Frankly the forces at work are so simple basic and obvious, I doubt any rational being with an open mind could deny them.
Evidence: Everywhere, we are creating acellerated evolution all the time when we try to wipe out pests.
We poison rats/roaches and insects that eat our food crops, with a few generations they are immune to out toxins.
We have antibiotics for numerous infectious bacteria, but because we have used them so much the bacteria after many generations are growing immune.
Now I doubt this is because God is saying, "Damn those pesky humans are getting the upper hand on vermin, time to introduce super vermin"? How many really believes this? You may as well say gravity is invisible trolls pulling me to earth with ropes.
It is because of small variations/changes in organisms, and the fact that the survivors had some small advantage that they pass on to the next generation. In a couple of generations of only the strongest resistors producing off-spring, you have an immune population. IOW evolution.
Evolution is happening all around every day. Denying it is lunacy. The principles are simple and easy to see and verify. This is a working force that is nearly unassailable.
Combine this force with the fossil records and you have the most logical explanation for the species that have inhabited this planet.
What amuses me is that arch conservatives are often at the same time dead set against Scientific Evolution, but seemingly love to practice social darwinism.
I have always taken these two issues, Religion and Science as non-contradictory in that Religion (god bless it), no matter which one, is used to explain WHY the universe was created and Science is for explaining How. Why people get so bent out of shape about this is beyond me; i think they can go hand in hand.
If you are LDS, then the answer is yes, and yes there is an endless recursion, or at least that is the implication. Of course if you are LDS, then evolution probably doesn't bother you much.
.
You know, I think it would do you mormons a lot of good, credibility wise, to stop calling yourselves saints
It's kinda creepy.
You can't take the sky from me...
There's another test that one could do:
I postulate that anything that *could* occur via a natural process *or* via divine intervention *must* have taken place via the natural process - the alternative is a micro-managing God who makes everything work via an expression of divine will.
Eg, sometime today I will get hungry. Am I hungry because of some natural process that triggers the feeling of "hungry", or am I hungry because God decided it was time to make me hungry?
I postulate that God does not take direct action to make everything in the world happen - that the world functions according to natural law without God's constant intervention.
That being the case then, it follows logically that if you can find any occurance that cannot be explained by natural law - which means in turn "occurs *contrary* to natural law, not "occurs and we don't know a natural law that could explain it yet" then you have de facto proof of divine intervention.
There's a nifty side-effect of this.
As we discover natural processes that explain various events, we reduce the space in which one could find a divine cause for it. If event X takes place, and we don't know why, then it might be natural, but it might also be God. Once a natural cause is found, it can no longer be an expression of divine will.
So far, the space in which God could play has only been reduced. At no point has anyone been able to conclusively determine that *anything* has had a divine origin.
If this continues, we wind up with a God who is left with only one action availible to him - the triggering of the Big Bang. All else that occurs after that is an expression of natural law, and so occurs without divine involvement.
If that is the case, then God is irrelevant.
DG
Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
Your argument would be valid EXCEPT that the American guy came from the same country you aforementionned. Especially for the crusade argument. Thee were no american yes, but there were their ancestor there. So please share the guilt. America (N&S) did not pop out of nothing in existance. The people came from Europe. Thus You can only start your comparison from the 17th century. As far as i can tell Burning on stakes occured hundred year ago in USA too. Should we also speaks of segregation which stopped only 50-60 years ago ? If we can say it really stopped... Frankly we can probably make a very long list of bad stuff which happenned on both side of the atlantic. Let us only compare the "now" and right now, we do NOT WANT to give you a few more year. You already had those 4 years ago. And you willingly (as a group) choose 4 more years of the same stuff.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
What a shame...
People who actually study science, can come to the ID conclusion and many have. You are lumping Creationism (ID passed through the Bible to fill in the gaps) into this discussion. ID is the topic at hand.
Do some real study prior to mouthing off like this and you may find yourself humbled. There are catastrophy models that easily explain many of the evolutionary theories while making the earth relatively young. People are simple too afraid to entertain the thought that anything semi-religious sounding could still be true.
Religion and politics, without the flame. godgab.org
Key phrase there. "Evening and Morning" define the period which "day" is talking about.
Funny how everyone who talks about the definition of "day" fails to address that part of the verses.
Mormons try to account for "evening and morning" by claiming it's talking about the time between evening and morning on Kalob (think that's the name of God's home planet) which is 1000 years of evenings and mornings on earth. It comes from the idea that "A day to God is as a thousand years."
Mormons also have the parent poster's explanation which fails simply because they focus on the wrong part of the verse.
People who can't understand where the literal 6 days comes from simply havn't done enough research on the matter.
Work Safe Porn
***SOME*** math?
Consider this a draft for the armies of religious zealotry in all its forms. When you want another generation of uninformed groupthinkers, you seek access to the one place where thoughts are still malleable: the school system.
I can test Einstein's relativity by measuring the gravitational disruption of a beam of a light. Einstein will predict for me exactly how much that beam should deflect.
There is a mathematical equation, a measurable prediction given initial inputs, a means of measuring the outputs of that system. Evolution has none of those characteristics.
Does Evolution make any predictions that we can test in isolation? Can I put a species on an island with some exact constraints and predict -when- the new species will arrive? Does it make any predictions about human evolution? We've sequenced the Humane Genome and so it ought to be reasonable to calculate down the road which links in our molecules are most likely to disrupt and what sort of evolution we can have and when. Or, for any other species for that matter.
Evolution is certainly more reasonable than creationism, but it is still pretty crappy as a science and people who defend it should not be misrepresenting it as something that it is not.
This is my sig.
We know Newton's Law of Gravity are wrong. It is an absolute fact it is incorrect, thanks to the orbit of Mercury. It has been disproven, so it's not even correct to call it a current scientific theory.
In science, 'law' just means 'theory or observation that's been boiled down to a single equation or phrase'. It can even be known to be wrong in certain circumstances and still used, which theories cannot! (Well, they can, but people have to fix them.)
Calling it a law just means scientists can take at that equation or rule and just use it without having to justify that 'watts equals amps times volts' or 'an object in motion stays in motion unless acted on by an outside force', and other scientists are fine with it.
As such you can use Newton's Law of Gravity, F = G M m / r2, to calculate how fast an object falls, and no scientist will blink. That's the only reason it's called a law.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
You can apply this same reason (not falsifiable) to natural selection as well, at least to the segments of the theory that I mentioned. So just re-read my original post and substitute "falsifiable" for "repeatable". My points stand.
~jay
The original intent of separation of church and state was to ensure that there would be no state mandated religion.
False. It is broader than that. The force of government cannot be used for the purpose of favoring or suppress any religion or any religious belief. That would be a violation of our constitutionally guaranteed right of religious freedom - freedom against the use of government power against us for religious purposes. That is not a valid purpose for the use of the force of government.
Students are free to pray in school. School officials are prohibited from absuing their power as official agents of the government to promote or supress such prayer. For example the ACLU fought and won a case for a student's Bible quote to be included in the school year book. The religious right routinely misrepresents court battles on the subject. They misrepresent the cases to provoke outrage. When they write their propaganda press releases on such cases they leave out the use of government power that was actually targeted. They misrepresent court cases against the abuse of government power as an attack on religion. They also incorrectly use word "public" where the correct word is "government". The ACLU engages in court cases against government displays of religion, but defends public displays of religion - even on government land. For example the ACLU fought (and I believe won) a case defending people's freedom to preform baptisms in a public(governemnt land) park. And the religious right spews propaganda about attempts to attack any public display of religion. That is either outright lying propaganda or it is the ignorant disemination of misunderstanding.
Atheism is then as much a religion as Islam
Ignoring the very sloppy question of whether atheism is a religion, I will say that the belief that there is no god *is* a religious belief.
The two abolve points do indeed mean that the force of governent can not be used for the purpose of promoting or suppressing the belief that there is no god.
the atheistic view of evolution
Your right that public school should not teach an atheistic view of evolution. Nor should they teach a theistic view of evolution. In fact a majority of Christians believe a theistic view of evolution. (Yes, a majority of Christians accept evolution. Most Christians are not in the US.)
Schools should teach science. That means teaching evolution.
Evolution says nothing about the existance or nonexistance of God. Any teacher teaching otherwise does not belong in the classroom.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Well, for common sense.. if you are collecting animals do you collect BIG ones? or little ones... little ones can be fed and cleaned up after much more easily than big ones.. so you collect young bears and young elephants and young raptors... etc... and of course if you assume GOD then if GOD could shut the door, he could put the animals into an un-natural hybernation.
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
I don't have the cites, but I have read that there is a genetic component to faith.
And there is definitely a survival benefit, but it is more along the lines of controlling your tribe and convincing them to wipe out your neighbors. AKA Holy War.
If you neighbors had more Athiestic traits, there would probably be less "faith" and more dissent about wiping out your neighbors.
So the religious would likely muster a great force to wipe out the less so.
This is not my theory. It was some documentary I was watching once.
BTW there is no evidence that theist are any more altruistic than non theists. And as far as avoiding punishment. The screaming zealots I see on TV with signs Saying queers will burn in hell, seem to be the ones more into punishment.
Some explainations of how the universe works may be correct but are unprovable. This is one of them.
Such theories are the domain of philosophy and religion, not science. They may have a place in a philosophy class, not in a science class.
Personally, I think the universe is a figment of CowboyNeal's imagination, and I was predestined to write this post. I think the Dover, PA school board should give my world view equal time in their schools. *joke*
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
"Jesus taught in parables!"
I've found a nice rule of thumb when it comes to the Bible is, if a passage easily makes sense when taken literally, then take it literally. If it does not easily make sense when taken literally, look for the metaphorical meanings.
The Bible takes on some pretty heavy topics, and I think it is fair to say it is easier to understand something complex when it is described to you in metaphorical stories (parables). I think that is why Jesus taught by parable so often.
i know a lot about evolution. a lot they don't teach in schools.
You know things they do not teach in schools?
Where DO they teach it? Church?
i have read books on it, listened to speakers on it, had my questions answered on it, studdied it.
Books written, and questions answered, by whom?
Biologists, or theologians who did lip service at universities to get "credentials" in biology?
Why does a discussion of ID never bring up the merits or science but always turns it into a fight against evolution?
Because that is the very reason for the creation of the "intelligent design" movement: It is an attempt at using pseudoscience to discredit science by using it's vernacular. It is a mockery of science, a unholy work of obfuscation and purposeful confusion.
You can't take the sky from me...
I'm sure this will get modded down as a Troll, so mainly I write this just for myself . . .
From TA . . .
Unfortunately, Intelligent Design's attack on the separation of church and state in our schools is something to be concerned about. It is a slippery slope, from the teaching of a theory with no scientific backing in the classroom, to school sponsored prayer in the classroom. It may seem like a stretch, but as soon as the line is blurred, it is much easier to rationalize each step until an extreme is reached.
I could make the same kind of statement about not allowing the teaching of strict creationism in schools as well. It is a slipperly slope from prohibiting school sponsored prayer in the classroom to prohibiting the individual right to prayer in a school.
In fact, there is no such thing in The Constitution as this lately preached 'Separation of Church and State'. That clause clearly states the FEDERAL government SHALL MAKE NO LAW concerning the establiment of a religion. That means such things are deferred to the states. The Federal Government has no say in the matter. The Supreme Court should not even be hearing these cases.
The founding fathers actions are in clear contradiction to the interpretation of that clause espoused today by the courts. Indeed, one of their first acts was to establish a national day of prayer.
-B
Not only is this the imposition of religion on government - definitely unconstitutional - it's the imposition of ONE religion upon government. All other religions are ignored as being irrelevent because they don't have a majority following in the country.
As I recall, this is precisely what many of our ancestors were trying to escape when they fled from Europe. Instead it seems they brought that evil with them.
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
Why shouldn't Intelligent Design (or Creation) be taught in schools?
My problem with evolution (besides the fact I believe it impossible, more on that later) is that it's a theory that everyone treats as fact. Quite the opposite is true. If you are going to teach a theory, why not teach a few more theories that make just as much sense? What makes people so willing to immediately shut ID or Creationism out without a single thought?
Is is really that crazy or kooky that an intelligent being (God) could have created the universe and all that is within it in 6 literal days? Or is it just as crazy or kooky that everyone treats a theory that involves unfathomable mathmatical problems, and plain doesn't make sense logically?
I just take God's Word at face value. That said, I do not believe it's possible God created using evolution. As another thread far above this one mentioned, why would God use something as long and drawn out as evolution is supposed to be when He could just speak it into existence? That's a good point, and one of many.
The Bible does not leave room for any sort of evolution or time gap theory. One member incorrectly translated the Hebrew meaning of day in the term of "Back in my father's day", meaning a wide span of time. The Hebrew word used (yom) for day in Genesis 1-2 is without a doubt a 24-hour period of time. This was done by God (who doubtless could have done everything in a split second) for a reference for Israelites to follow (as written in the Bible). You can get that information right from Google, or for a better source use www.icr.org (which, by the way, has papers written by extremely intelligent men educated by non-Christian colleges for those of you who might consider their education biased). Therefore it was created, not through evolution, but by God simply speaking it into existence. If a professing Christian believes evolution was the way God went about Creation, then he/she needs to step back and re-evaluate their faith because the Bible leaves no doubt. If Christ died for your sins, was buried, and rose again and you believe that with all your heart, then you'd better believe Creation because He said that's the way things went about.
While reading through this thread I saw a lot of attempts to shut ID and/or Creationism down as mere lore or stories but praise the wonder of evolution. Have you stepped back and realized the impossibility of evolution? How can the big bang (an explosion!) go from uncontrollable chaos to the order (over hundreds of billions of years...or is it hundreds of trillions? The numbers keep changing on me)? What about the second law of thermodynamics? Why don't we see (without a single doubt) evolution happening as stated by Darwin today? Why is the world getting worse, instead of better as evolution would have it? Why do things such as disease and homosexualism exist today? Doesn't that contradict evolution as it attempts to better man and the universe? You would have thought we were over that 8 trillion years ago...
I also read some threads arguing about fossils not being able to be explained by ID/Creationists ("we say they are there because God is testing our faith"...ugh). That is a silly claim, because we do have some very good evidence to support a world-wide flood did happen, which cause a great deal of re-working of the earth's surface (erosion is a simple thing, take a garden hose and spray it into the ground) and fossilized remains quickly (look at how quickly Mount Saint Helens fossilized stuff!). As for the flood being possible, the Bible speaks of a water canopy which covered the earth much like a shield blocking radiation and creating a greenhouse type effect underneath (allowing for some incredible plant and animal life, and also explaining the extended lifetimes of humans mentioned in Genesis). During the flood this canopy would have had to collapse upon the earth. This also would have moved our continents around a bit, much like a garden hose being pointed at the groun
> Seriously - you want me to believe that the simplest explanation is that sex, butterflies, and Picasso "just happened"????
Is it really any simpler to think there just happens to be a god that created sex, butterflies, and Picasso? All you've done is add a middle man... your 'explanation' leaves more to be explained than when you started.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
The only change between the slashdot intro and the K5 intro is the sentance, "An article over at Kuro5hin discusses the controvery over the Intelligent Design movement." While not a gross error, unless Mime Narrator and benna are the same people, it should have been in quotes. Such inflamatory writing and unattributed quoting indicates incestuous propegation of problematic ideas.
The quote, "a theory that has been shown to explain the origins of life time and time again" is an interjection of commentary in the reporter's passive third person voice and is not accurate. Surely it is a queue to illicit the contemtuous responses such as such as (Score 5: Insightful):
If the author was wishing to be non-inflammatory, or better yet honest, they would have said, "a theory that has been accepted as an explaination of the origins of life time and time again." Many explanations are accepted in science that are unable to produce repeatable results (even one-off results) because as a framework they explain a lot of what we do see. The unverifiability is overlooked and clearly acknowledged to students. There is no shame in promoting a theory we still lack the ability to ultimately verify. For instance many aspects of Einstein's theory of relativity remain unverified.
However, one may see in this dishonest attempt to reach beyond being "accepted" to being "shown" a peek at the motivation for the piece. It is also pretty indicative of the same mental gymnastics he attemps throughout the piece.
Another example is the ommision of a mechanism for origin of life in the the next paragraph in the K5 article:
One would think this is a crucial item to develop after reading the inherent outrage against the situation "that high school science teachers teaching evolution tell their students that evolutionary theory [sic] is flawed, and that intelligent design is a valid alternative." Where "flawed" simply means it has many unverified elements as does Intelligent Design.
Indeed, if all the author thinks of evolution is the ability for orgamisms/species to change traits over generations then there is no conflict. There is also no mechanism proposed to explain the origin of life with evolution either.
So while outraged at the mear co-habitation of ID and evolution, the contradiction offered is abandoned so quickly? All that is left is just competition. The author chooses not to compete over verified applications of the two theories. Evidence is also skipped. The author instead chooses to make evolution and ID compete in clearly unverifiable ways. The author awkwardly chooses "complexity" as his chosen arena, and chooses mathematical theory as his weaponry.
The rest of the article invokes its own pseudo-science in the use of highly specific mathematical models of statistcal theory as models of natural behaviour and law. At issue is "complexity" and he makes the mistake of using the complexity of a mathematical system to represent the complexity of a natural system, and they are not the same thing at all.
Further damning the piece as a pseudo-intellectual work is his overly constrained focus on "complexity" i
Some will always be above others. Destroy the equality today, and it will appear again tomorrow. --Ralph Waldo Emerson
After reading the comments, I think I have a good advice for some of you: learn the difference between Theory and Hypothesis. Figuring out which one is 'evolution theory', and which one is 'intelligent design theory', is left as an excercise for the reader.
Good info at http://www.icr.org/.
But really? Why comment? Both sides are inherently dogmatic - no one's going to change anyone else's mind via a comment here. I know my religious views (or the lack of - I refuse to specify) aren't about to change because of JoeBlow37's +5 insightful scythe of either side of the issue.
More importantly to discuss - isn't this a great opportunity to begin PROPERLY teaching scientific process in the schools in a meaningful and relevent way? I'm a research chemist who works in an inner-city public school 2 days a week (thanks NSF!!!!) - I've been using this debate to demonstrate that all arguements should be supported (don't bother calling me contradictory here - I see the arguable dichotomy the evolutionists claim the creationists possess here and reject it - the point here is the dialogue), should attempt to address the point where they break down (for example: creationist - evidence demonstrating evolution at work; evolutionist - statistical inprobability of non-protected evolution), and should attempt predictive power (worthy of note - many creationists believe in the process of evolution, just not evolution-as-genesis).
Comments welcome on the educational opportunities afforded by this discussion - but please, if you want to scream about your side/call me biased toward one side or the other/etc., for the love of god/not god, do it in someone else's thread! Otherwise, why comment?!?!
Be careful of your thoughts; they could become words at any minute...
One, the evolutionary theory is a theory, not a fact.
Yawn. This "argument" is soooo tired...
A scientific theory is a model based on facts from observations and experiments. The studied phenomenon we know takes place in nature is evolution. Our model that tries to explain this is the theory of evolution. Please, please never use this argument again, it just shows your ignorance of the subject.
This is not ment to be a troll, I swear. The people who came up with the idea of creationism, which ID is based on, is of course the Isreali people. This means that we are teaching the ideas of creation created by a tribe of nomadic goat herders who lived 4000 years ago. Around the same time, you would have found very similiar creation myths in all of the religions of the world. If we were to be fair, we would be teaching every creation myth from 4000 years an up. Just because there is one dominant religion in the United States in no way does it give the theory any more validity. They aren't teaching the christian creation myth in schools in most eastern parts of the world as fact, much as we aren't teaching any of their creation myths as fact in ours. To me, this seems incredibly hypocritical, and a huge oversight by the majority of fundemental christianity. It's continuing domination over the people of this country is becoming frighting, and there needs to be steps taken to interveen the actions of this government. I'm sorry if it offends you that I'm tossing christianity aside as myth, but to a very large precentage of the world, it is. Sitting in front of my computer, i realize that it is constructed of plastic, metal, sillicon, etc.. In no way am I postulating that it functions solely on "magic" which i can't see and understand. However, my reaction to the words on the screen, what other people are saying, and the fact that the ideas of plastic, metal, etc.. are all valid thoughts in my head is a perfect example of a nonphysical existance that is coupled with the physical existance of my computer. The bible teaches that the earth is the center of the universe, that women are second to men etc.. The short of it is, religion was never ment to play a part in science. It's merely an attempt at people understanding the metaphysical existance of the world around them. When you start intertwining science and religion so heavily, that the lines become blurred, you risk falling back into the dark ages of an oppressive catholic regime executing anybody who used this "science" to "prove" things "wrong" in the bible. They simply aren't trying to explain the same thing. Please realize that.
The /usr/bin/games/fortune at the bottom of this vast page:
"Garbage In -- Gospel Out."
--
make install -not war
We agree violently about your Newton example above. Origins - specifically that of the universe is by definition untestable.
Naturalists and Creationists agree that specific data has been collected. We both theorize about origins and have differing understandings of the MEANING behind the collected data.
Since the scientific method cannot be used, let's stop calling speculation about origins science.
As I said, once naturalists take their phiolosophy out of the science curriculum, I'll cease trying to get my philosophy in. If it's fair to apply materialism and naturalism, then theism is fair game, too.
Until that happens, I think that the textbook stickers are a great idea. If nothing else, it gets people to think, and I hope we can all agree that a thinking populous is a good thing. I will also work to "call a spade a spade" with respect to philosophy in science class.
It's not those 'neutral thinking scientists' versus 'those biased religious nuts' it's
those 'biased materialistic naturalists' versus 'those biased people of theistic faith.'
Let's be fair and acknowledge our bias.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
Your belief in ID is one thing. Your attempting to say that Evolution is "only a theory" when that is a meaningless statement in a scientific context is quite another. If you are an intelligent person, with an understanding of science as you claim it is possible to be, then you should realise that. ID does not proclaim ignorance, "it's just a theory" does.
...and all I know is that it was a huge mistake to come down from the trees to begin with...
This statement was birthed in ignorance. Firstly, evolution is not a fact (scientifically speaking). If it was, it would then cease to be called the theory of evolution, and become the law of evolution. (How do you prove "billions and billions of years ago"? You can't.)
Secondly, there is an array of evidence for creationism. (Start here: http://www.google.com/search?q=creation+science&so urceid=mozilla-search&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe= utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:offic ial)
You are basically stating unproven theories as facts which is what got you so uptight to begin with.
Lucifer is never outlined as the serpent in Eden. Popular Christian belief states that it was, but that's not outlined specifically in Genesis or later.
You better watch out, there may be dogs about . .
If I was designed by some sort of omniscient intelligence, where do I file a bug report?
Not if it was a valid test. I should also point out that evolution isn't as simple as saying that single-celled organisms evolved into humans, that's merely an extension of the premise of the theory. That is to say that one thing evolved into another, so it seems reasonable to take that back all the way.
There are many ways to disprove features of the theory, talkorigins.org has a number listed for a start.
I am under the assumption that they choose political correctness over any type of an education. You can debate all you want over whether or not God created whatever you say it created. It seems in the interest of furthering knowledge of our children a parent would put their views/beliefs aside to let their child get the best education possible.
I believe what I can see touch taste and feel, but I also know I can't feel an atom, yet I know one exists. I am not one to say some type of God doesn't exist. I don't see a harm in teaching evolution and creation to children and letting them make an educated desicion for themselves based on the facts they are given as to what is true and what is to be taken on blind faith.
I for one know humankind evolved, crawled forth from the seas etc etc. This is my choice to believe based on the facts I was presented. One can not just be told something is true with no evidence presented to them, this is taking someones word for it as bieng such or going on faith.
As a parent I would have no problem with my daughter bieng taught something like this in school. Having all the facts she could better decide what is best for her to believe. While she is my daughter, she does not have my beliefs/religion it is up to her to find her own way. It is my job to present her the facts and to educate her to make the best possible desicion for her.
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
So, are we supposed to have a good academic discussion about where we stand on the issue or are we supposed to flame anyone who is a proponent of Intelligent Design?
Instead, let's raise a pint and celebrate our victory over creationism. Schools now teach evolution as the mechanism by which life arrived in its present form. They teach no alternative mechanism. There is no danger of this changing any time soon. That's the ballgame, ladies and gentlemen -- we won.
The only argument still in play is whether there is scientific proof (a) that god exists or (b) that god doesn't exist. Recall that the theory of ID states no more than "I observe stuff that proves an intelligent designer acted."
But, we don't need to care about this. Let the religious folks believe what they want about whether god exists! So long as they acquiese to teaching kids how the mechanism of evolution works, that's enough. All of this debate about uncaused causers, anthropic principles, et al. is post-high school level stuff anyway.
"We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
... but is limited to the U.S.A. Especially the central parts.
Maybe there is some kind of accelerated regression of mental capabilities at work? I think, so GOD exists? But wouldn't this be proof of evolution?
Questions... Not really.
The whole thing is another stupid attempt to bring church back into the classroom. I have a couple of problems with the idea: 1. The ID is meant to come from their version of god; not the jewish god, not the muslim god, not the ancient greek/roman/egyption gods, etc. They like ID as a represention of their faith, not the faith of others. 2. It shouldn't be done in public school. If the wacko's want their children to have a faith-based education, they are free to pull them out of public school and put them in a religious school. Or take them to sunday school. Or teach them themselves. But using the public school as a pulpit to reach out to my child w/o respecting our beliefs is just wrong. 3. The community as a whole was not given the option to discuss the idea of mandating ID before it was mandated. I live in Dover, and there is a huge local outcry about the ID debacle. Businesses are pulling support because many folks are threatening pickets, etc. It's neighbor against neighbor down here, too. We've got an upcoming school board election, and I'm predicting a high turnout for those that oppose and support the school board. I for one am the former and will be out on election day getting people to give the current school board members the boot.
I've posted a journal entry discussing this issue. Feel free to comment.
So long and thanks for all the fish . . . !!!
Meanwhile, back in Europe, you guys were burning people at the stake for HUNDREDS OF YEARS.
Assuming you are right, your argument makes no sense: we stopped burning people at the stake, you are beginning to while you should know better. It's not like every nation has the right to have their Middle Ages at some point in history.
If one were looking for intelligent design then the place to look is at the intelligent design of the laws of physics. Presumably the laws of chemistry and ultimately biology can be derived from the laws of physics. So God made the laws of physics so that biology would be what it is and evolution would work the way it does. Of course the laws of physics are just a theory that is used to organized our observations and guide us in the next round of measurment and theoretical speculation. To go further, physical theories use mathematical descriptions which are strings of symbols arranged in patterns. All this would suggest that God is some kind of Scrabble freak. Is not this fun.
...only an idiot would run a waste disposal canal through an entertainment area!
I'm not at all sorry to say that I believe that my connection to God is no lesser than George Bush's, or Pat Robertson's, or the Pope's for that matter...but i'm not running around telling other people that God told me to tell them what to do!
Bacteria resistance is only proof for natural selection not evolution (i.e. gaining information from non-information, e.g. "from goo to you"). Natural selection is repeatable, observable science. Evolution theory uses natural selection as a mechanism, but requires information-adding mutations and many of them (often at the same time) in order for them to be "selected". Yet there are no such examples of information being added. In every case of bacteria resitance, no new information in being added, maybe duplicated, but usually only lost. For example, the bacteria (through mutation, copy errors, etc.) looses the ability to eat a certain food (say, a certain protein). The anti-bacterial agent we use poses as that food. The resistant bacteria survives and multiplies but is less, not more than it's parent. - moements http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/508.asp
Actually ID isn't even a hypothesis because it is not testable or falsifiable, two requirements for a statement to be a hypothesis.
Shop smart, Shop S-Mart.
Perhaps, just perhpas, this can be used to instruct students on what it means to be "just a theory" and how that whole "scientific method" thingy works.
Shop smart, Shop S-Mart.
Some geologists support a theory by Thomas Gold which says that petroleum has a non-biological source. The gist is that non-biological methane is converted into longer-chain hydrocarbons by bacteria deep in the crust.
There's a bunch of evidence to support the theory. It may or may not be sufficient to explain all of the petroleum we see, but it could be; it's not a complete crackpot theory.
I'm not supporting ID or creationism here; I think that the intelligent design people are nut jobs and/or hypocrites. But you don't get to call yourself a scientist without taking all the facts into account. Abiogenic petroleum doesn't constitute a shred of evidence against evolution or for intelligent design. It just means that the irony you cite isn't quite as funny as it could be. Sorry.
One thing I will say about this is Evolution is a Theory. Creation is also a theory. Both need to be taught and discussed.
I happen to be on the creationist side and feel that there are holes in evolution. The thing that convinced me the most is that evolutionist want me to believe that we evolved by chance. What you fail to remember are the Laws of Thermodynamics and that entropy, chaos, is increasing (the reason my aptartement never cleans itself and just gets worse). For a single cell thing to become more entropy would need to decrease. That can't happen without work being done. This is simple Physics 101. Also we look for Aliens using the Intelligent Design. An evolutionist looking for E.T. needs to ask himself 'How do we know that the organized pattern of radio waves we are looking for didn't just evolve by chance like we did'. If you take a critical look at evolution you will see it is as full of holes as they claim creation to be.
I am not a biologist and admit I probably could not convince any biologist/evolutionist of creation. However, I have known some trustworthy biologists who were creationists and they explained it well. A good web site for reading more on the creation theory is Answers In Genesis.
1. There is no longer natural selection for increased intelligence. 2. Just about anyone above the right age gets to vote. 3. Just about anyone who reaches maturity gets to reproduce. In summary : You are directing your stream of urine upwind in a hurricane and natural selection has not resulted in a bladder of sufficient strength for you to avoid urinating on yourself under these particular circumstances.
I have God trapped in a box in my lab. I poke Him with sticks and He makes squeaking sounds. In order to dispense food pellets, He has to hit tiny buttons in the correct order. Please advise me of some more tests I can do on Him to prove He created the Universe, as He claims. Also, you may want to hurry, as the button combinations are becoming increasingly complex and I fear He might starve.
Answer: they're losing. If we RTFA, then we RTF Wikipedia article, and then we RTF external links in support of ID, we find something positively heartwarming. When the creationists fought this fight 30+ years ago, they said:
But, we've since knocked down (disproved) so many of those creationist tenets that all they're left with is:
They're in retreat and they don't have much ground left to give. Just makes you smile inside, doesn't it? Here's to the victories of the next 30 years!
"We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
http://www.berteig.org/mishkin/IrreducibleComplexi ty.html
Helping with organizational effectiveness is our job.
Wow... thats messed up.
Adam was not decieved. Read 1st Timothy 2:14.
Why is it so hot? Where am I going? What am I doing in this handbasket?
Every time I go back to the Hebrew and look for myself, the original translation is obviously the correct one. 9 times out of 10 are like this example, where a direct explanation is given in the text just to make it perfectly clear.
"Avoid employing unlucky people - throw half of the pile of CVs in the bin without reading them." -- David Brent
Evolution has been directly observed beyond all reasonable doubt.
We have directly witnesed the creation of new species (African Ciclids being a great example) and we have samples of animals AND all their ancestor species all living together (ring species).
Evolution has been proven. It is only called a "theory" because the people who don't like it put up a fuss. By any measure of science, evloution is a law.
Just in case this hasn't been poseted yet. /Intelligent-design /evoultion controversy.
Talk origins, is a great resource on the Creation
Talk Origins
Shop smart, Shop S-Mart.
Humans are far from perfect. Take the human eye: the veins go over the retina instead of under it and abscure vision, the retina isn't attached to the back of the eye and can spontaneously come lose causing permanent blindness, there is a blind spot in the middle of out vision because of the "wiring" being on top of the retina, and there are many other flaws.
Evolution explains all of these flaws.
To say that God designed such a poorly designed eye is to say that God is a fool.
To say that God makes so many mistakes that he constantly has to meddle with every generation to fix previous mistakes and then create more mistakes that need to be fixed in the next generation... well then maybe we need to rewrite the term "to err is human."
is not actually from our current president Bush II, but rather a quote from our former one-termer, Bush I. I'm sure Baby Bush holds similar ideas, but he hasn't expressed them in the same way as his pa.
I think that evolution is valid in that species can change over time, but I can't believe that life started from a few random molecules. The second law of thermodynamics states that entropy always increases. How does that fit with a few molecules that became life evolving into a human being (that is a remarkably well ordered trillions? of molecules). I should say first that the concepts of "order" and "disorder" as they relate to entropy are poorly understood outside of the science community. They have precise definitions having to do with the number of available quantum states etc., so how these things apply to living systems is a little nebulous. That being said... The entropy of the universe goes up in any physical process, but with the input of energy you can make local areas ordered. When you clean your room it becomes more ordered, but you did work that increased the entropy of the universe as a whole. The earth has a continual input of energy from the sun, so there's nothing that says that the local entropy can't decrease.
You can get rudimentary clotting with two proteins. Fibrinogen, and ICAM. Obviously to any molecular biologist, these two proteins have very important functions in any relatively large organism. The latter is one of the intracellular adhesion molecules that is reponsible for the adherance of cells to basal lamina amongst other functions. Why is that important you ask? Consider what would happen if your epidermis came unglued easily from your basal lamina: blisters on all of your joints. (Yes, people who have mutations in these various receptors do have blisters on most joints.)
So clearly, one of the proteins that functions quite elegantly in clotting is quite important in other functions of the organism, and a similar protein would have to be present early on in order for single celled organisms to clump together to form a multicellular organism.
As for the second protein, fibrinogen, it's actually quite simple. You stick a whole bunch of RGD interspersed with spacing regions, and you can get a reasonable approximation of fibrinogen. [Obviously, the early multicellular organisms would also have had to have expressed something for ICAM to bind to as well, so they would have been making a similar membrane bound protein quite early on.]
Finally, before trotting out examples of how specific proteins don't serve "ANY OTHER PURPOSE" it would be quite helpful to list exactly which proteins you are refering to, and to have done some preliminary thinking on your own to propose a method in which those proteins could have arrisen.
[If someone wants to check the possibility that the program I've outlined here actually occured, you can quite easily track fibrinogen and ICAM homologues through various organisms that have been sequenced (the C. elegans->drosophila->human comparison should be illuminating) to see just how ICAM and fibrinogen could have been derived from those present in early organisms.]
http://www.donarmstrong.com
God made man
But he used the monkey to do it
Apes in the plan
We're all here to prove it
I can walk like an ape
Talk like an ape
I can do what a monkey can do
God made man
But a monkey supplied the glue
-DEVO "Jocko Homo"
I can stand brute force, but brute reason is quite unbearable. There is something unfair about its use. It is hitting be
I think it's correct to call both ID and evolution as "theories". The difference is in how these two ideas use abstractions to support their view of reality. One says an intelligent being must have designed life, while the other says life evolved due to pressures of environment.
One requires a belief based on faith, the other a belief based on observation and reasoning. Which one is a better representation of reality?
"Size matters not. Look at me. Judge me by my size, do you?" --Yoda {whips out green light saber}
I would imagine you collect ones of mature, mating age. There are too many chances for them to die before they get there if they're just chillens. You'll want to get them off the boat and get them checked into a motel asap so they can get back to the job of making babies. If they're not even going to make it to the age of reproduction, why the hell even bring them on in the first place?
Adam was not decieved. Read 1st Timothy 2:14.
Yeah, that IS messed up.
So god created the serpent who tricks the woman, whom he created without knowledge of good or evil, who then offers it to Adam, whom she loved, after she learned of good and evil. She was created gullible and tricked by another of the omniscient's creation, while he watched in silence into learning of good and evil, and she chooses to share this with the love of her life rather than be above him while he stays ignorant.
And for this, she is punished with endless chores and horrible pains in childbirth. Truly an act of love! Sheesh.
You can't take the sky from me...
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910_1.htm
See the bit about "reproductive isolation". That means that the new fruit flies cannot breed with the other descendants of the the original colony. They are a different species.Did you miss the rest of what I posted? The "It was too easy to knock the "Creationists" before, so they decided that they could hide "God" behind the phrase "intelligent design" and attempt to get it taught in schools." Rather than pursuing that weird line, why don't you look up the "Scientific Method"? Here, I'll make it easy for you.
http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/Append
It is easy to find material that supports your beliefs. And because it is easy, it is almost worthless.
So the Scientific Method requires experimentation to confirm/deny the hypothesis.
"Intelligent Design" does not. In fact, there is no way to test whether "Intelligent Design" is valid or not. Therefore, "Intelligent Design" is useless as anything other than a religious statement.
http://www.wayofthemaster.com/ I guess he is going through some growing pains...
Either multicellular creatures have ancestors, and those ancestors at some point were of different species than today's generation, or it is possible for a multicellular species to appear without a parent generation. Let's call these the evolutionary and sudden appearance hypotheses, respectively. Of course, one of these (the evolutionary hypothesis) is supported by observation so at least some version of it qualifies as a theory. There has never been an observed instance of sudden appearance.
The intelligent design hypothesis must be tied to one of the above hypotheses; it could never stand on its own. Combine it with the sudden appearance hypothesis and you get traditional creationism. Tie it to the evolutionary hypothesis and you get a weird hybrid (guided evolution).
In order for guided evolution to work, we would require that one of the following is possible: (a) intelligent life evolves under the guidance of a lesser intelligence than the greatest intelligence that can be produced through that evolution, or (b) intelligent life evolves under the guidance of an intelligence greater than or equal to the greatest intelligence that can be produced by that evolution. (b) is flawed because there is no explanation of the origin of the greater intelligence (it can't be the product of guided evolution without creating an infinite regress, and if it came about unprecedentedly then you are back to sudden appearance). (a) is more believable but it is no better than traditional evolution in addressing the purported concerns of intelligent design proponents (i.e., how can advanced features evolve from less advanced features?), and has the added burden of externalizing the intelligence.
But, I wanted socialized health insurance!
Man did not evolve from Monkeys.
We both evolved from a common ancestor.
Why is this so hard for people to understand?
P.S. - it is not just DNA evidence that links us to apes. The fossil record is rather convincing on its own.
just = (My)Opinion.toCents();
Let's face it, fundamentalists of any religion have already disconnected their centers of logic and reason and blindly follow their pastor/priest/imam without thought. Those that do this long enough and fervently enough become the pastor/priest/imam and gain followers. If they are even more fervent and persistent they can become the pope/ayatollah/etc. If we agree that the brain must be excercised in order to be maintained, then the leaders of fundamentalist groups, though they have excellent people skills with which to make followers, have gone the longest without critical thought and therefore are the least capable of doing anything that's truly exceptional and/or intelligent. So let's all get in line to become a zombie.
ID is not science for one simple reason: it is not falsifiable. That is, it does not provide any criterion under which we can say "ID is false."
I'm very much a proponent of evolution, since it's obviously very well supported. But to play Devil's Advocate a little bit here: To mark this as a distinction between ID and evolution, you need to clarify how evolution itself is falsifiable.
Sure, evolution makes certain predictions, and those predictions are testable, but what observed result would the scientific community accept as falsification of evolution? Evolution presents an explanation mechanism, but if the precise mechanism of formulation or transition between species is not understood, then evolution postulates that there's simply an as-yet undiscovered missing link. Now the saving grace for evolution is that these missing links keep getting discovered, justifying this prediction of evolution. But again I emphasize, by what means can an observed result falsify evolution?
(This isn't just rhetorical, I'd appreciate if anyone could put forward an answer. It would be helpful in future discussions of this topic.)
I know it's too much to ask of SlashDotters, but it would be nice if the folks who are agin' "intelligent design" (ID) would bother to understand what ID is, before they launch their attacks against it. I haven't read every post below, but the ones I read attack a wide variety of ideas and concepts, which unfortunately DO NOT include the Intelligent Design hypothesis.
The situation is complicated because the cited Kuro5shin article, authored by "benna", doesn't bother to keep make the necessary distinctions, either. Of course, if you have a sympathetic and uncritical audience, who all agree on the conclusion they want to reach, before they begin the argument, it's not too hard to 'convince' them that you've offered a powerful analysis. Heck, many of the posters here could recognize that the argument was "powerful" and "cogent" just from the fact that it reached the right conclusion!
But, on the odd chance that someone here is actually interested in knowing what ID is, and how it differs from the old probablistic 'argument from design', I'll try to distinguish them briefly and clearly.
The classical argument from design (usually for the existence of a Deity, and not just against naturalistic evolution) is precisely what the Kuro5hin begins attacking. Kuro5hin user 'benna' describes ID like this:
"The premise of Intelligent Design is that the universe is so unimaginably complex and perfect that it must have been created by an intelligent designer.
This is a false and misleading definition of ID, but a very good description of the classical 'argument from design'.
By contract, one might well describe ID as the theory that certain specific bits of the universe are so knowably complex, as to constitute systems recognizably similar to systems created by other designers (men!) and recognizably dissimilar from all systems which are known to result from natural or probablistic processes. Michael Behe, a microbiochemist cited by "benna" makes the point that no one (as of the date of the publication of his book) has published in ANY peer-reviewed journal biology, microbiology, biochemistry, etc. so much as even a HYPOTHETICAL process by which these mechanisms, such as the hemoglobin based oxygen transport system, could have evolved in an incremental biological process dependent on random mutation.
So, in a sense, ID is the OPPOSITE of the classical argument from design. The classical argument piles up improbability upon improbablity, collecting them first from quantuum mechanics (such as the extreme sensitivity of the gravitational constant), then from biology (such as the very poor ratio of beneficial mutations to destructive ones) and thence from astrophysics (such as the critical, and improbable relationship between the mass of the sun and the orbital radius of planets theoretically capabable of sustaining life. Once a sufficiently high odds ratio is produced (it's apparently not hard to achieve odds ratios in excess of 1 : 10^100), the argument is offered that no conceivable amount of time is sufficient to make it likely that life emerged.
This argument can be, and is answered, more or less by say, 'Well, yes, it's improbable, but improbabilities happen daily, and this one (ie, the existence of life) did. So, there!'
ID is completely different. ID asserts that there are numerous (I've seen numbers from half a dozen to several dozen) biochemical processes or systems which are fully comprehended and "irreducibly complex". The comprehended bit simply asserts that all these systems' parts are known, and the functions of each part is also known. Behe goes on to state (apparently without challenge) that (a) the parts are numerous and that thus the systems are "complex" and that (b) the function by each part is essential, making the systems "irreducible". While Behe means, more or less what you might think by "complex", he intends something specific and perhaps not obvious by his use of the term "irreducible , and that is that the system is such tha
The funniest bit about S&G is that Lot offered his daughter and wife up to the mob to be raped in order to appease them. . . yet he is the righteous one spared. Ok I'm a sicko to find that funny but there it is.
You better watch out, there may be dogs about . .
I don't know the truth of this. Some of it just sounds too rapid to believe. But here it is. As I mentioned earlier, I haven't had the chance to go over things with a fine toothed comb yet, so I could be being hoodwinked.
The Attempted Proofs of Directed Evolution
Many experiments have been performed with to prove directed evolution. Only a few of them will be mentioned, and most of them have their critics and alternative explanations.
Epigenetic inheritance systems, in which the phenotype (observed appearance of an organism) that expresses cell information is modified by environmental stress, have been noticed as modified phenotypes appearing in subsequent generations.
In 1988, a team of Harvard biologists under the leadership of Joseph Cairns challenged the previous experiments performed by Luria and Delbruck in 1943. The early experiments seemed to prove that all mutations occurred randomly and none could be directed. Cairns group reasoned that in the earlier investigations the bacteria had been given too lethal a dose. They died before they could develop and propagate self-directed mutations.
The Harvard experimenters used bacteria that could not grow in a specific environment because they lacked a working gene for an enzyme needed to metabolize the only available food. By genetic engineering, the bacteria were given versions of the necessary gene in which the coded message was, in effect, scrambled and therefore useless. Most, if not all, the bacteria failed to grow. After a few days they began thriving, feeding and reproducing. The distribution of bacteria colonies that survived showed that many bacteria had unscrambled the code and performed self-directed mutations that corrected the deficiency.
Barry G. Hall, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Rochester, NY, damaged cell DNA by two different forms of genetic damage. Mutations that might occur to repair either of the damages were not sufficient to benefit the cell. Both damages required repair for any benefit. In one of two 1991 experiments, which are too complicated and lengthy to describe in this space, he showed that the cells repaired themselves by producing the correct mutations at a rate billions of time sooner than if chance alone had caused the changes. (Washington Post, April 20, 1992, p.A3)
Note: Both of these investigations were criticized as lacking effective controls, and ascribed to known physiological processes. Subsequent work by Hall with more controlled experiments eventually led to experimentally verified acceptance. (Johannes Wirz, Progress towards complementarity in genetics, Elemente der Naturwissenschaft, 64(1), 37-52 1996)
Epigenetic changes, which are alterations in gene expression, can be passed from mother cells to daughter cells. However, it had not been shown that subsequent generations inherited the same properties. Evidence is accumulating that the epigenetic changes are not erased. This phenomenon has been observed in plants, fruits and yeast. (Was Lamarck just a little right? Michael Balter, Science, April 7, 2000)
Geneticist Enrico Coen and others at the John Innes Centre in Norwich, U.K. reported that a mutant version of the toadflax plant (flowers radial rather than bilateral) was due to an epimutation in which a gene was not expressed. The gene state and and the flower characteristic were inherited by subsequent generations of toadflax plants. (Nature, September 9, 1999)
Inherited epigenetic changes have also been observed in mammals.
Mohan Raizada at the University of Florida in Gainesville, Florida and others inserted a therapeutic gene into a modified virus, and delivered the gene into the hearts of rats that are predisposed to high blood pressure. These rats and two subsequent generations were protected from hypertension.
"Our data support the notion that the AT1R-AS is integrated into the parental genome and is transmitted to the offspring. The proposed germ-line transmission of the AT1R-AS is consistent with previous reports
___
It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
Life from non-life is what's known as abiogenesis. Creationists and ID proponents often bring up the early Miller experiments as proof that abiogenesis cannot happen.
I highly recommend reading up on the recent work of Dr. Sidney Fox. The short version is that not only can life be created from non-living chemicals, it can consistently be done and result in near ideal conditions for the development of RNA (and later, DNA).
Google Fox and abiogenesis for more info.
- I don't need to go outside, my CRT tan'll do me just fine.
The theory of Evolution really should be broken into two parts.
1. the science of evolution: The theory that living organisms adapt to their current environment based on a process of natural selection occurring over generational boundaries...
This has been observed and is as close to being a "fact" as anything can be.
2. origin of life evolution: The belief that the science of evolution can be extrapolated back to non-biological matter, thereby explaining how life came to be. The last time I checked, it could not even prove that natural selection could be used to explain the emergence of new multi-celled organisms from existing species, let alone, the emergence of DNA from non-biological mater.
To be honest, it has been quite a few years for me, but I'm guessing if either of the problems with #2 had been experimentally supported, it would have made the main-stream press.
. .
Now for something completely different, but still on topic (if a little tongue in cheek).
As long as you treat ID as part of science and not as an attempt to discuss religion it actually might work (i think).
The two-slit experiment shows us beyond any reasonable doubt that an observer is required for the wave component of the universe to collapse into the physical atomic particles we (and our universe) are made of. This means an initial observer existed in wave form (pardon the pun) that is responsible for the current universe, from the smallest sub-atomic particles, to the biggest of bangs.
Also, this observer would have had to survive the collapse into physical particles or the universe would have simply reverted back to a wave function. It is even likely that an observer in the wave universe probably occurred many times but did not survive the collapse. The universe being here now proves (?) that the last observer made it. :-)
Of course, this theory has the same problem with origins that all other scientific theories have. The scientific method, being self-limited (sort of) to only observable physical phenomena, is required to produce an origin (a "cause") and can't... EVER.
Fortunately, religious faith has no such requirement beyond the ultimate and absolute origin. The great "I am", which is God.
Scientists as well as non-scientists witness evolution every day. Every time a germ mutates to offset our attempts to destroy a germ we witness evolution.
t -of-those-ID-freaks-angry about ID. So, we can declare that everyone must accept homosexuality as a valid lifestyle, but must martyr all ID'ers for having such an impossibly absurd idea. Loads of sense there, Plato.
What you seem to fail to take into account is whether the germ is programmed to adapt. Adaptation is not (macro-)evolution. That's like saying if a rabbit darts in front of my car, I make a minor course correction and magically become a new species.
Every time a fetus is created from a couple of cells we can witness evolution of the fetus.
Except that an intelligence made that happen. You just proved ID, not evolution.
We can even direct evolution in our science labs and create mutants by changing environment of their habitat or by playing directly with their genes.
Again, ID, not evolution. To see the fruit of these experiments, we are required to orchestrate the circumstances we have yet to witness in nature. All too frequently I see the words "create" and "direct" in reference to proving evolution is possible -- without the light coming on. They all must have had the capability in the first place to adapt, a pre-written code. Emphasis on written, as in, requiring a writer. We see Mac OS X 10.3 turning into 10.4, but fail to suspect that it might have happened by itself over billions of years.
It is difficult to imagine that a species could change because it wanted to or was simply adapting to terrain or environment. Environment changes drastically in 1 billion years, to extreme ups and downs within a year. By the time a successful alteration is made a billion years later, the scenario for which it was manifested has long past. Another reason that selfwill-based changes are unlikely is simply the state of humans -- no claws, fangs, wings, exoskeleton, etc. What guy never wanted one or all of these? I could frankly go for an exoskeleton and the ability to fly. It sure would help me to escape plane ticket prices. Despite any amount of jumping and flapping that me and my descendants attempt, I nary suspect any of us will sprout wings because we wanted to mutate.
ID attempts to address the quandry of "how did they know to do that?" changes that only seem possible if someone had set them purposely to interact with each other. If random mutations suddenly just "caught on" by process of elimination and the survivor made more of himself, how did he know to stop mutating and that this was the most suitable mutation to reproduce? How did his progenitors know they needed to mutate in order to survive? The "tendency of an object in motion to stay in motion" is too strong to stop just because it happened to.
In observing the comments on this article, it is amazing to me that so-called scientists are so red-in-the-face-p'd-off-so-let's-nuke-the-snot-ou
It was my understanding that science can never solidly declare any given concept, despite how well tested, as the Truth, because doing so would make them biased since science is always objective. By nature, science cannot refuse to address any given position because doing so would be unscience-like. The obviousness that ID is incorrect by evo'ers is the identical obviousness that evolution is incorrect to ID'ers.
It is also baffling as to why "fundamentalist" is such a dirty word. An accountant trusts that the fundamentals of math will remain correct and utilizes them daily, making him/her a math fundie. An acrobat understands fundamentals of how his body works and the balance it is capable of, making him a bio-fundie. A child relies on the ball to bounce in order to continue having fun, so is therefore a reaction-fundie. A Christian trusts that Christ's sacrifice pays the balance of all his/her sin ever comitted past and future to reconcile with God's tally, so he/she is a religious fundie, but is ridiculed. How is this different?
Don't delude yourself. Evolution explains adaptation, change and selection but it most definitely does NOT explain the origin of life (biogenesis).
Biogenesis is a PREREQUISITE for evolution. Evolution can't take place until you have a system that can metabolize energy and materials from its surroundings and use them to synthesize copies of itself.
Some have tried to make claims about 'molecular evolution' and such, but I've never seen any sufficiently detailed (or even feasable) theory that holds water. Handwaving and speculation is SCIENCE!
>You can look at the design of creatures and think, "would this
>be the sort of thing that an intelligent designer would make?
>Or does it look more like the result of random alteration and
>natural selection?"
Well, no, you can't.
Grab a layperson off of the street and ask him to tell you if a house in progress is "well designed."
Good luck getting an educated answer on the matter.
Now talk to a scheduler or an architect and ask the same question. Different perspective, no?
You are assuming, with your statements, that:
a) We are looking at the finished products (not a valid assumption).
b) That the final goal is intelligible to us (it wouldn't necessarily be).
c) That we can make a fair evaluation of the designs as they stand now, taking into account "metabenefits" that relate directly to the design and how the design happens (we can't).
d) That the designer knew exactly where It was going from the get go and knew perfectly what It wanted the final result to be and what would work given the circumstances (as anyone who has ever designed software or a scientific experiment, or better yet had to deal with someone else's, can tell you: omniscience- Hel, even competence--is not a prerequisite for design).
Integrate Keynote and LaTeX
Did you not read where I explained that both were falsifiable, but that doing so is incredibly difficult for both? I thought that pretty much showed that I understood the concept of falsifiability.
In other words, both are incredibly hard to verify, because the test that could prove them false is hard to do?
I think there are a lot of cases that weaken evolution - such as, for instance, the discovery of a mammal that lays eggs - but the actual proof is hard to come by. So is the proof that God didn't create things.
And just to make sure when rereading my post you don't miss it again:
proof that the universe was created another way would rule out intelligent design of life.
proof that life was created another way would rule out evolution
Short of those incredibly difficult finds, you're going to have a lot of trouble.
Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
"Unchanging" defines a pretty static situation. As in "unable to Create", because some sort of Change must occur within the Creator for that Act to happen.
Once any sort of change can be associated with the Creator, then there only remains the question of Determinism (cause and effect) or Free Will (a cause that is not itself an effect).
Determinism takes the effect of Act of Creation and follows it back to the origin of the Creator, leading to the infinite-recursion question.
Free Will means that events can happen without causes. Possible example: The Big Bang, no Creator necessary.
This is a good point. The article summary is clearly biased for a discussion in one direction. I propose that rather than discuss the notion of ID that we take the discussion a bit deeper. ID is serving only as a proxy for the real conflict. In that sense ID only serves to complicate the discussion with unnecessary details. There is too much in the ID/Evolution debate that is prone to nit-picking and nobody ends up going after the meat of the problem.
Instead pretend that some article exists ->here- (nobody reads the real articles so you don't have to read the imaginary one either) that discusses the relationship between faith and observation, and then discusses how to present the results of these two experiences to other human beings.
It is unnecessary to bring God, Christianity, Evolution, ID, or many other things into the discussion. In fact please avoid them since they usually just cloud the discussion and will in the long run reduce the strength of the argument.
All your attention are belong to my old internet meme.
We should read again that wonderful article by Sagan: http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/saganbur.htm
SCIENCE class should teach SCIENCE: i.e. theory that has been proven through experimentation, and everything involved in the scientific process. Evolution is a thory that can be proved through experimentation. It may not be perfect, but it is what all signs point to.
We can prove that there was a Big Bang, but we can't prove who pushed the button. That discussion should be saved for philosophy class.
Some of the first few posts immediately said the ID people were ultraliteralist fundamentalists who thought the earth was 6000 years old, etc.
I can say that I don't know how old the earth is. I've looked at the experiments that claim to measure it, but they have to make some assumptions (with huge potential for error) about initial conditions. But "we don't know exactly" doesn't sound as scientific as "4.5 billion years".
The ID people simply say it is a proper question to ask how something came to be - accident or design. We need not consider the nature of the designer (I can imagine a pure energy creature which is diffuse and only utters one syllable every few centuries, so we can't hear what is said due to the time mismatch - your pentium is running at gigahertz and would take "forever" in its timing to hear you say a complete sentence).
When a body has fallen from a building, we usually ask if it was accidental or intentional, and if the latter murder or suicide.
Passing a law saying all falls are by definition accident would seem absurd, but currently the law is such that all nonpatented lifeforms arose by accident.
In the article at K5 it notes that people have proposed mechanisms whereby the complex mechanims might have evolved, but those aren't in the fossil record, nor actual experiments.
In another bit of sillyness the digitial life forms are not representative of organic ones, and some complexity is in the system (e.g. how do you know the 100 monkeys have produced shakespeare without already having a complete copy of shakespeare).
The case for ID is presented in various books too, which are worth reading, as are articles.
But the whole thing is this discussion and debate is completely censored. Yes CENSORED. In a way possibly worse than the tizzy people get in over the filters used on computers in schools and libraries. You cannot discuss any heresy against darwin in school. You can't even bring up scientific criticism (note the above points were scientific, didn't bring in God, the bible, etc.).
If science is about theories, experiments, and challenges, why doesn't this apply to evolution?
Why is design v.s. natural processes a question that cannot be asked in schools? That only one side can be presented, although those who argue for design only discuss scientific experiments, discoveries, and such?
So much for liberty and freedom from the cybercrowd - they want to censor what they don't consider popular. They are intolerant against any idea which might threaten some old and generally non-experimentally verifiable theory.
I also worry about some of the geology - plate tectonics was like ID in 1905, and astrophysics, 100 years ago steady state and big bang were though equally probable, Mars had life that built canals, and things like neutron stars and black holes are inferred.
is it too late to join this discussion?
All scientific theories are half-finished.
Even gravity is only a theory.
When someone disproves it, it'll be amended to deal with it -- in the same manner that classical newtonian physics (F=ma and that sort of thing) isn't good for very small or very fast bodies since Quantum Mechanics and Relativity were postulated.
The sciences are in a constant state of revision and experimentation and improvement, in an attempt to explain the world as accurately as is possible -- that's the nature and the goal of science.
Creationism and ID are simply not even the same thing -- they are rejections of that process. They are resignations to the idea that not only do we not know, we should never even try to know, because it's obviously so complex that only God could do it.
(Furthermore, there a difference between the term "theorem" in the context of the scientific community and the term "theory" in common usage. While they are both based on observable evidence, the latter does not require any amount of experiment and validation to be done.)
To me, the real question is how stupidity like this keeps getting past school boards. There must have been at least one rational person at the meeting where they voted in the new policy who explained they were wrong.
I suspect the problem is more that School Boards aren't really in a position to weigh one side's arguments against the other, so they pretty much just count noses - a priest, a minister and a rabbi over there, a physicist and a molecular biologist over there - looks pretty close to me.
The problem is that we can't seem to make clear to them that there are virtually no reputable scientists who would accept ID as a legitimate scientific theory.
OTOH, to a certain extent, that's nearly the definition of "reputable scientist". There's some circularity to the argument.
The theory of evolution meets Occam's Razor. But is it falsifiable?
Evolution has made MANY predictions, and every single time it has passed with flying colors.
I would say the single biggest prediction was back when DNA was first discovered. Evolution PREDICTED that DNA analysis across species would fall into a tree pattern. In fact all life on earth falls into a extremely strong DNA tree pattern. A tree that strongly points to a single root. Sure we're still working out a few details of the tree, but the overall structure is extremely distinct.
Evolution could have very easily failed that prediction. That was perhaps the single biggest test of evolution, and the single strongest strongest evidence. It was certainly not the only test.
Hmm, actually I'd like to add a second test here. One that I have in fact done myself. Evolution predicts that mutation and heredity and selection in a population is sufficient to CREATE INFORMATION and produce great complexity and optimisation. I have run this test myself. I have witnessed the power of evolution in action. In a computer I established the simplest elements - a population, mutation, heredity, and survival selection to an arbitrary environment - and I have proven those minimal elements are sufficient to generate information. Sufficent to create complexity. Sufficient to produce powerful optimization to any enviornment you throw at it. In fact this optimisation process is so powerful that at times it can find designs better than the best designs of human experts. It has been used to find more efficient jet engine designs that save millions of dollars in fuel costs.
So I have given you the single strongest test and validation of evolution, and my personal test and experience validating evolution. Again, these are hardly the only tests evolution has passed.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Anyone can say they're Christian.
;)
Yep. And this makes them Christian. Because your religious belief is what you say it is. Of all people, you should know just what it is that you believe.
Far fewer can put those words into action. Fewer still can do it with any degree of consistency.
Christianity is a religion. A religion is a belief. In other words, what you do doesn't mean shit, it's what you believe.
Maybe you want to discuss something other than semantics here, and if you want to say that somebody who claims to be christian can act unchristianlike, then fine, I agree with you. But that's irrelevant to the point. I'll still lump them in with the whole "christian" group, because that's what he claims and I cannot question that. After all, they're *his* beliefs. I'm in no position to question his belief system. His sanity, sure.
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
there are only so many ways for DNA to create a thumb
Actually, there are probably a near-infinite combination of ways for DNA to code for the form of a function of a thumb. Many thumbs and thumb-bearing taxa evolved through homologous synapomorphies, but some evolved as simple look-alike analogies and may not share any common genes.
Da Blog
Casually googling for the topic of inteligent design and creationism, it seems somewhat divided. People like me who see evolution as just another trick in God's toolbox seem to about evenly describe themselves as believing in "evolution" or "intelligent design." *shrug* To my perspective, the debates generally come down to whether textbooks are (required/allowed) to (admit/deny) the (possibility/certainty) of (randomness/an intelligent being) guiding the process. *wry grin* For any particularly selection of values for those sets, someone on one side is trying to fight for it. Some people want textbooks to explicitly say that there is no God influencing life. Some people want textbooks to explicitly say God is guiding the course of life. Some people are content with not stating the source of evolutionary drift at all, figuring people will fill in the blanks as they please. And then some want to mention both sides, saying that the source of evolutionary change might be random or it might be caused by a higher power. No position will satisfy everyone involved. To my view, the textbooks should go ahead and just acknowledge the subject without any mention of why it happens. Any parent on either side who cares will teach their children to interpret the information as is fit. *shrug* But then again, I feel the same way about sex education. Give all of the facts and I will teach my child what is right, and show them how to notice when they're being snowed by bad statistics. (Ever notice how sex ed. classes downplay the unreliability of artificial contraception and then use figures from the 1960s for any of the NFP methods? At least they acknowledge abstinence being the most effective method these days.)
This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
I think that evolution - where it describes adaptation of creatures based on favorable characteristics contributing those characteristics to the gene pool and therefore having dominance within the offspring is clearly demonstrably correct. Totally supported by the evidence, and quite testable. This is good science.
I agree that evolution as a theory of origin of species is a viable scientific theory. In my opinion, it's a horrible theory, but it is scientific, and it is the current conventional wisdom with respect to the genesis of species. This explanation is the best bad explanation of the gathered facts, IF you start with the philosophical basis that materialism and naturalism are effective and complete models for describing the universe.
Noted evolutionists have admitted that evidence tends to be lacking, (Gould - 'philetic gradualism' was 'never seen in the rocks') and that they have an 'a priori commitment to naturalism.' (Lewontin) This sounds like an admission of bias to me....
I submit to you that naturalistic or materialistic explanations of the origin of matter or the universe suffer from the same challenges that you describe about ID. According to the 'rules' of the scientific method, either could emerge from hypothesis status.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
The church has been wrong about science matters before, and honestly, I think that for Christians to deny any validity to SOME of the science is foolish. I believe in a literal translation of the Bible, but the Bible doesn't say the world is 6000 years old. (Though most of my Evangelical brethren think that it must.) Frankly, I believe I was created in God's image, and that I did not evolve. But that doesn't neccessarily mean that the world is not much older than 6000 years. If a day is like a thousand years to God, and man was made after the animals, then perhaps the animals were around for a GREAT amount of time before man.
I think the valid dispute that Christians have is that we believe the Universe was created, and man was created. Not just "POOF!". On the other hand, if God spoke,and "POOF!", then that's fine. I didn't come from a monkey.
it's God that drove evolution to man and gave him the soul
This is just de Chardin's orthogenetic noosphere theory, decked out in new clothes. The current "Singularity" fad is this daydream in shiny, dayglo rags. The idea that evolution has a "direction" or "goal" (ie, a teleological linear progression) is hard to reconcile with the evidence.
Da Blog
If I reach into a grab-bag with 10^100 distinct marbles and draw one out then the probability of drawing that particular one is 1 in 10^100. There is no sigificance to that fact that a particular marble was drawn. You are saying that intelligent design is responsible for the fact that that particular marble was drawn.
is a failure to separate belief from religion.
Belief in (Gg)od does not require adherence to any particular religion.
Belief in the bible does.
A religion is a set of rules and practices defining a group of people and their collective beliefs.
Belief is personal and should be individual.
Most zealots and fundamentalists can not separate their faith from their religion. If the pope starts molesting children, that does not mean their is no christian god. It does not mean all catholics are wrong or pedophiles. It means the pope is a sick bastard.
Accepting evolution along with creationism, if you choose to do so, is simply marrying man's increasing knowledge of his universe with his faith in god.
Everyone has done this to some degree. Unless of course you still run and hide everytime a comet crosses the sky.
He who confuses his religion with his science knows neither.
I've never really understood why fundies are so eager to get ID or creationism "taught" as fact. Like, if they believe that the world is run by God, or gods, or the big pink fluffy bunny who lives in their shoes, then why isn't their faith in that belief strong enough to sustain them? Why must they seek to dictate their beliefs on others as inflexible ideologies? The only answer that makes sense is that their faith is paper-thin, not very strong at all, and requires constant reassurance and peer-support. That's a pretty poor sort of faith.
Da Blog
various eugenic laws
You are not talking about science, period.
You can use the theory of gravity to figure out that a person falling a certain distance will likely die. You can then make a political choice to pass a law imposing certian safety designs on all windows above a certain hight.
That "gravity law" regarding windows has absolutely nothing to do with sceince. It is a political choice that may have been inspired or guided by scientific knowledge, but the theory of gravyity certainly does not direct you to pass that law. Such a law involves other entirely nonscientific considerations, and more importantly is based on entirely nonscientific motivations. Science provides no motivation at all, in itself. Nuclear science provides no motivation to build an atomic bomb, no motivation to build nuclear power plants, says nothing about what the law should be or what we should do. It can certainly be used or even abused for such purposes.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with "eugenics" if you are actually talking about science. If you are talking about a social policy, I will agree it's... well lets just say it's extremely problematic as a social policy.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Suppose you take a car, and make a small change every 10 years. over 1000 years you'ld have made just 100 changes. Over a million years you'ld have made 100,000 changes. Over 10 million years you'ld have made 1 million changes. What are the chances you'ld recognize this car as having 'evolved' from the original after so many changes?
Having pairs of genes, and the concept of 'dominant' and 'recessive' genes also facilitates more substantial, but less frequent evolutionary changes.
I think creationism and intelligent design are both flawed and propose HitchHikers Guide to the Galaxy as a valid alternatve. At least the white lab mice and the old dude designing fjords make more sense than most of the Old Testament stuff about floods, etc. HGttG should be required reading in school science classes (I'm not sure I'm kidding on that one)
jim
1) (sarcasm: on) 'Cause religion has never had a problem with hate among it's followers. Hate never motivates religious people to kill or conquer or oppress. (sarcasm: off)
So someone else did it first. So what? Clearly, that doesn't make it Ok. What's your point?
2) As for left and right: why do you assume it's science on the left and religious on the right? Who do you see in current politics looking to subvert common goals for an extreme agenda?
George Soros, Micheal Moore, trial lawyers, unions, the ELF and the rest of the humans-last environmental crowd, AUSCS, the ACLU, and people who use hate as their political motivation. That's a list to start with.
The "right". The "right" is using fear, hate and divisivness to force others do as they want them to do,
You can't use "fear, hate and divisivness to force others". You can only use force to force others.
not do what may be best and agreeable for all. As wonderful as the Christian religion is, Liberty for all is not one of it's values. Freedom to choose and speak and disent in not among the 10 Commandments. Amercan values and Christian values to not have to conflict, but the right seem to want them to.
Jesus didn't write the 10 Commandments. He popularized the golden rule though.
The "right" wants liberty more than the left does. I'm on the right, and that's what I want. But maybe you disagree about who wants it more. So both sides want liberty. I don't get what the conflict is about if both sides want the same thing.
Also, anything in the public schools isn't a liberty issue. It's just a question of who wins politically. If you don't want the cirriculum determined politically, then the schools need to be privatized so the customers can choose the cirriculum.
3) This is not about hate, this is about what is best and honest. ID pushers are NOT honest people. They are knowingly using psuedo-science concepts and language to push a religious agenda. I thought lying was not allowed in the Christian religion.
Someone can believe something to be the truth without your agreement or approval. They don't even need the approval of scientists or slashdot or the news media. They're not lying. Are you lying about them?
It's comical that the Wedge Strategy lists Darwin, Marx and Freud as champions of viewing people "as animals or machines who inhabited a universe ruled by purely impersonal forces"...
Why don't extend this list to its logical conclusions. If Darwin, Marx and Freud were wrong in taking this view of the world, then Adam Smith, was wrong...he applied the same logic in the same way and came to virtually the same conclusions. Darwin was obviously building on ideas that Smith made plain. We could go even further back and it looks like the reasoning behind democracy is also in question.
What unifying theory works for organizing a nation in the absense of "logical self-interest", or as they're calling it, "materialism"? It's the big F. The sooner free market conservatives realize their goals are completely at odds with Christian fundamentalist conservatives, the better.
Creationists are stupid, and their god is stupider. Mod me up.
I'm not an ID proponent, but the gravity analogy is dumbass. You can test and observe the results of gravity in the short term, so no one is going to jump off a building if they have some alternative theory of gravity.
And we can test and observe the results of evolution over the short term.
I would like to add that for both gravity and evolution we can study long term evidence and records. We can map out entire galaxies / genetic trees.
Objection to "macroevolution" is like objecting to "macrogravity". Like suggesting that gravity might not work all the way out to Pluto because we haven't actually seen Pluto make a full orbit yet. (Pluto has a 248 year orbit and was only discovered in 1930. So we've seen less than 1/3 of it's orbit so far.)
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Sounds cool.
I look forward to seeing your human level AI generated using your evolutionary algorithms.
Yes, I'm sure the folks in the state that brought us Senator Santorum probably have a particular supreme being in mind, but I think it should be quite possible to present a non-deity-specific version of "intelligent design" which would not endorse or advocate for any specific religion, and thus not violate the establishment clause.
Village idiot in some extremely smart villages.
"de Chardin" isn't his last name, it's where he's from. So technically, you should state "This is just Teilhard's orthogenetic noosphere..."
Somehow it seems to me that evolution in its most simplistic form isn't even at the level of a scientific theory. It just says this:
Is this really something we can debate? Can you honestly tell me that there's a better way of explaining why some things prosper and other don't, why systems adjust themselves and produce complex things intricately suited to their environments?
According to the 'rules' of the scientific method, either could emerge from hypothesis status.
YIKES - what a typo!
That should have read According to the 'rules' of the scientific method, neither could emerge from hypothesis status.
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
That's known as Pascal's wager. The problem is that it assumes a bilateral choice, God or no God. What do you do about choosing between multiple Gods all of whom claim to be the only God?
But I agree, arguments like that, although interesting, aren't very good reasons to 'believe' in anything.
I can see by a brief scan that this entire discussion has turned into the religion vs. nonreligion. Quaint. I live within a five to ten minute drive of Dover, and I applaud their efforts to push the envelope. If anyone who is complaining doesn't know, ID doesn't mention any form of 'God', so all coorelations in that manner to religion is void. Additionally, religion is about faith. ID does not even hint at any sort of faith, and therefore completely unrelated to religion. Neither atheists nor the religious are able to prove existance or lack thereof, so once again, I see ID as a strength. Far away from the religion aspect which I believe is mute, is the fact that school is ment to be enriching. What's wrong with teaching two conflicting theories and having discussion? I'd like to inform those from outside the local area that _that_ is how most of the higher-level classes in York are taught. I love the fact that evolution is being taught with an accompanying theory. I remember when I went through evolution, the teacher stood up in front of the class and stated "Now, before we begin, humans did not descend from apes - we have X more chromosomes." I heard that and was disgusted at how petty legal disputes can force the mouths of teachers. Additionally, Dover has freakin stickers on every book and the chapter that ID is discussed in stating that it is a theory and is to be considered alongside evolution. So, finally, I beg people not to rush to make rash double standards about that is or is not a valid theory and actually think - much like high schoolers like me do.
You are just a bigot. Be honest with yourself. I am not a religious nutcase, I voted against Bush two times now, and I was against his war against Iraq. Yet I am to be blamed? What did I do to deserve blame? What did you do to not be blamed? Oh, yeah, you aren't a citizen of the USA, yet I am, so you are right and I am wrong. You are a pathetic, fucking racist piece of shit. So let me turn your crap back in your face you whiney brat!
If you are not a religious nutcase but you are not in the USA, don't fucking apologize. DO SOMETHING. You are to blame for letting these rabid fundamentalists take over. YOU have to stop them.
I'm sure this post will get lost in deluge of posts here, but I'll post it anyway.
Perhaps the real problem that we don't have a separation of school and state? If there were no government schools, then there would be a problem with this, or with students voluntarily praying, or holding religious baccalaureates for those that want them, or saying the pledge of allegience, or having a creche on the lawn, or anything like that. If you don't want your kid taught evolution|creationism, you send him to a school that teaches creationism|evolution instead.
There's going to be some disagreements on how to finance non-government schools, but those disagreements are going to inconsequential compared to the current hate-generating disagreements over religion.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
If you are not a religious nutcase and you are not in the USA, don't fucking apologize. DO SOMETHING. You are to blame for letting these rabid fundamentalists take over. YOU have to stop them.
Sound familiar? Yup, you and the racist buddy you support sound like this. Non-Americans are just as much to blame as Americans. This crap has more to do with those that support this kind of crap, e.g. racism, wars, versus people who are rational. You are turning towards the camp of crap with your racist rants.
It isn't hard to accidentally fall into the wrong. I am sure Osama and Bush's people once had good intentions. As with you and yours.
Two things:
I didn't say it was possible to gain absolute knowledge about any of the components. (In fact I was pretty careful to illustrate that that's difficult / impossible.)
Even if you could gain perfect knowledge about the compoents, you still can't know anything about U-1. That was my real point.
A theory is good information. =) That's a heuristic that works pretty good.
Education is the silver bullet.
> If you say yes, you must be prepared to defend your account of Biblical history, because there are some Christians who believe
I believe the world came out of my ass, or rather, will come out of my ass, the moment I will die. I wrote a book about it. A couple people believe it, so you MUST be prepared to defend your account of reality as compared to mine.
and I don't mean the game:-)
Though the works of ID advocates to evoke images of wires suspended from the sky:-).
Christianity is a religion. A religion is a belief. In other words, what you do doesn't mean shit, it's what you believe.
If this is your position, it seems to me that you'll have a very difficult time reconciling the vast difference, that often exists between what people say, and what they actually do. I can accept the notion that anyone can say that they believe something, but it's not quite the same when it comes to being Christian. Merely calling myself a Christian, or implying that I'm Christian by virtue of what I say I believe, doesn't make me a Chrstian any more than calling myself the President makes me the President.
Oh, and holes in knowledge shouldn't be excuses for inserting your favorite mythology or superstition. Remember a god of the gaps can only get smaller.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
he/she/it wasn't very intelligent ?8-0.
Deus Ex HomerSimpsona!
"Avoid employing unlucky people - throw half of the pile of CVs in the bin without reading them." -- David Brent
Saying that Evolution is "just a theory" is terribly misleading. I'm sure most people here realize why. But "Intellegent Design" is a hypothesis that cannot be totally thrown aside. I'm not sure if it's a strong enough hypothesis to be mentioned in a high school biology class, but mearly having it mentioned hardly counts as a integration of church and state. It's not like they're saying ID is true and evolution isn't. That WOULD be going over the line, I think, unless of course ID could be proved, which I imagine will be very difficult considering not many scientist want to go that direction or could even think up any experiments to test it... if it's even possible to test. Of course if it's impossible to test then it's no longer a valid scientific base to stand on, but that's beside the point.
--The universe will not be altered by forum threads, even those which are very wry. --Tycho Brahe (Penny Arcade)
I state a fact, I am told "you assumed that fact", I provide evidence from the source material.
Moderated as troll? Not by someone honest, that's for sure.
You can't take the sky from me...
I don't remember learning about two different mutually exclusive creation stories. I'm familiar with the one that begins, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." but what is the second?
"Avoid employing unlucky people - throw half of the pile of CVs in the bin without reading them." -- David Brent
I think teaching something like, "And God created earth in seven days... end of lesson" would be ridiculous. Just as I think teaching "Intelligent Design" where it becomes a politically correct euphemism for "Our Christian God" is wrong.
On the other hand here's the type of belief that I don't believe:
"Everything started by a random bunch of molecules that just happened to form into life and consciousness"
A trillion to the trillion monkeys typing on typewriters for a trillion years will *not* write a play by Shakespeare.
Even if life somehow got started by some random bunch of molecules... how could it be sustained? How could the consciousness come from that? The instinct of all animals to strive?
A completely athiestic scientific viewpoint is a dogma just like fundamentalist christianity. Both think they have a complete understanding of everything. Both want to reduce all complexity and mystery into a simple rigid belief system.
The best thing to teach would be there is this theory called Evolution which explains how species change over time, but does not explain the origin of life.
The questions that we don't know the answer to should be taught as "we don't know".
Some people have the opinion that there is an Intelligent Design behind things. That's okay at face value.... but the problem is when all of a sudden they stick their own personal religion as the answer where there's no connection!
So great maybe there is an intelligent design to the universe.... what does that have to do with Adam and Eve, Noah's Ark, the burning bush and all the other ancient fairy tales that go with christianity?
All dating methods are significantly impacted by the data found in the lake adjacent to Mount St. Helens. The fact is, there are extra circumstances that we know nothing of. Evolution is a guess. So is ID. Both are valid.
I will absolutely teach ID/Creationism to my daughter as a theory along with Evolution. I would expect any teacher in the classroom to present as such. The problem is, evolution is taught as FACT, when it is not. It is our "best guess" (and I do not think it to be the best). I would have no problem with a teacher stating it is our best guess. But to teach it as fact is wrong.
The Sunday School teacher is not there to teach creationism (the scientific theory). Instead, they should be teaching the scriptures. There is a difference.
Religion and politics, without the flame. godgab.org
(* Far too few people get that one...)
I can't speak for too many, but I'm a member of a Baptist church here in England, and I know people from several other local churches (Baptist, Methodist, Brethren, Elim, &c); I'd guess that very very few take the literal creationist position. I certainly don't. I think 'Baptist' means something slightly different here from what it does in the southern US...
But it's not the simple yes/no question that some seem to be assuming. To take every word of the Bible absolutely literally, you'd have to accept not only that the universe was created in exactly 144 hours, but that there actually existed a man with a plank in his eye, and that St Paul actually looked at everything in a mirror ('through a glass darkly').
On the other hand, if you say you don't take every word of the Bible literally, you're then placing yourself in the same category as people who take practically none of it literally, who practise pick-n-mix religion and don't believe that there was ever an actual person called Jesus who did any of the things that were written... and I wouldn't call those people 'Christians'!
So it can get very hard to define terms here.
My view is that you have to understand the intent of the various Bible writers. Some parts were clearly not meant literally: poetic passages in the psalms, figures of speech, reports of dreams and visions, parables and stories. Other parts clearly were. And in most cases, the difference is made fairly clear from the context. But to understand which is which, we need we need to apply our wisdom and intelligence -- things which seem to be in short supply in some parts of the world!
Ceterum censeo subscriptionem esse delendam.
Try reading the article they cannot dispute ... otherwise you are effectively saying you want to read a bunch of failures.
Bad Panda! No Bamboo for you! In matters of importance ACs will not be responded to. Want to say something critical,OK
Gravity is just a theory, yet it's taught as fact in almost all schools.
What about the alternative theory? That we're held to the planet's surface be the combined efforts of millions of invisible pixies called Clarence?
Why not teach the Clarence theory alongside gravity?
and don't even get me started on all this "The Earth is Round" stuff that kids get brainwashed by...
Curiosity was framed. Ignorance killed the cat.
if you want to make ID a scientific hypothesis you must first fulfill the demands that places on a scientific hypothesis. Because as it stands it's not one.
And materialistic explanations of the origin of the universe are not testable and therefore not falsifiable. They are therefore non-scientific, and should not be taught as such in science classrooms.
Do you agree?
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
No scientist has disputed evolution. The only people who consider it flawed and dispute it are those who feel that evolution conflicts with their religious beliefs and refuses to reconsider those beliefs.
Currently, I think the he answer is a very murky "sometimes." This "sometimes" usually involves essentially knowing the answer - and usually knowing something about the path of the system to the final observed state. Nevertheless, one has to wonder if there isn't some clean scientific measure of this "property" of objects.
At some point, people bandied about Shannon entropy as a possible measure. The idea being that created objects will have a lower entropy (i.e. fewer microscopic configurations) and thus "more information." Not a bad idea. The problem is that one has to know quite a bit about the nature of the constraints in the system. For example, "water" molecules of arbitrary geometry and arbitrary chemistry may or may not undergo a phase transition to ice when cooled below some critical temperature. But "real" water molecules (of a specific geometry with a special natural chemistry) always undergo such a transition under everyday STP circumstances. If you just applied such an entropy argument to the "arbitrary" water, you might conclude that ice was impossible unless "created." Moreover, one has to have considerable knowledge of the system's degree of isolation and degree of equilibrium (thermodynamic, information, or otherwise). Sub-systems can lower their entropy if another part of the system is dumping energy into it (e.g. earth-sun, etc.). Not to mention applying information theory and thermodynamics to systems out of equilibrium is tricky business, if not impossible. Not surprisingly the ID folks exactly used this information theory argument to try bolster their claims life was indeed created. Another example of how a perfectly reasonable scientific question can be distorted and abused for the sake of a misguided philosophy or agenda.
Nevertheless, I do wonder if a reliable, generic scientific "creation measure" can be constructed (and if it would identify itself as having been created).
i\hbar\dot{\psi}=\hat{H}\psi
It doesn't matter how many people believe that there is a god. Doesn't matter how good it makes people feel. Doesn't matter how often they trot out the same refuted-to-death strawmen and blatantly false arguments. Doesn't matter that they can't grasp evolution. Their inabilities mean nothing. Evolution is a fact, and for people to want to have ID taught in "public" schools in any manner other than "ID is simply literalist xer biblical creationism dressed in new clothes in order to attempt to fool people into thinking that it's not really some superstition" is tantamount to pushing for phrenology, astrology, and flat-earthism to be taught. It's just that much junk.
Keep ID in theology, where it belongs. I'm glad that many groups are stepping up to expose the fraud of ID and to keep it from being taught in schools. Truth is not democratic, despite what the ID people push. We don't get to vote that Bill Gates is male or that Douglas Adams wrote HHGTTG or that the Golden Gate Bridge is in California--truth isn't determined that way. But the IDers want people to believe that truth is determined by a political vote.
They are sorely mistaken.
If there's such a slippery slope to prohibiting the individual right to prayer in school, how come it hasn't happened? (Barring a few cases of school officials not understanding the law, which are as likely to be sued by the ACLU as the ACLJ.)
--
Do I look like I speak for my employer?
Well, first, evolutionary theory does not explain the origins of life... that would be the theory of abiogenesis. Evolutionary theory is something else entirely.
Second, evolutionary theory has not shown anything. Most people are very confused about what the theories (plural) of evolution actually tell us.
Don't get me wrong. Evolution is a fact; it happens. The theories of evolution have a powerful explanatory appeal, however they do not demonstrate anything.
If you think that scientific evidence from observed cases of evolution or reconstructed evolutionary events are going to convince the Creationists that they are misguided - it is you who are misguided. In fact, there is nothing logically unsound by the Creationist arguments for intelligent design. Since actual evolutionary history cannot be reconstructed, it is pointless to engage in these sorts of discussions...
First, Evolution is a fact, and there is a theory that describes how it occurs. Similarly, gravity is a fact, and has a theory that describes how it occurs. Evolution is the change of allelles in a population over time; It is demonstrable by anyone with eight generations of Drosophilia fruit flies and the ability to note their eye colours - or anyone who has ever bred roses, or seen a brunette couple with a redheaded child. Evolution HAPPENS. Whether it does is not contested.
- hates-here agenda to corrupt their children. Do I really have to show why this is ridiculous?
Secondly, Intelligent Design (I.D.) is a notion that is both Wholly unscientific (It is not testable, nor falsifiable), and No Matter How You Slice It, originated as Religion - The people who created this notion did so as a way to make their religious notions seem scientific, by couching them in 'scientific' jargon.
Most objections to the teaching of Evolution in a science class are based upon one of several reasons -
A: The objector feels that religion conflicts with their religious notions. Well, we're sorry, but Galileo and Kepler's notion that the Sun, and not the Earth, was the focal point of orbit in our solar system went against someone's religious notions too.
B: The objector feels that there is no way life could have arisen totally randomly, and will often use the analogy of a watch being assembled by a tornado. This is a horrible strawman of an argument; Evolution and life itself are highly structured and the change comes randomly, not the assembly.
C: "I didn't come from no monkey." Ridiculous. The conclusions of the evidence are that all modern primates (and that includes HUMANS and other APES) had a common ancestor.
D: Evolution is a secular humanist/atheist/homosexual/insert-group-objector
E: A highly respected scientist has objections to the proposed method of evolution, and the objector feels this suffices to generalise it all the way to "Evolution is False". Pure hokum.
That, in a nutshell, is the ENTIRETY of why there is a "debate" or "uproar" about the teaching of evolution in American schools - Ignorant religious fundamentalists who believe that Evolution contradicts their religion feel that it should not be taught in school.
Perhaps we ought to teach that the Earth is flat, and that the Sun revolves around it, as well.
I know evolution isn't suppose to even explain origins, just how life gets along ~after~ originating, and we can definitely observe it on many levels in our world.
But still, I've always wondered this: evolution by natural selection produces new species by infintesimal increments of adaptation. Why is it that when we observe the fossil record, we don't see such a gradual shift? We have hundreds of thousands of fossils now, from many strata, and we just keep uncovering a lot of similar species over and over again.
I'm not trolling against evolution here: I think it's a valid theory that has been observed. I just think that some form of evolution other than by natural selection must be taking place in order to explain what's been observed from the fossil record.
Darwin thought we'd have a multitude of transitional species by now. But we don't. Where's this gradual continuum of evolution in the fossil record???
I think this is a very valid question, and I would appreciate any mod points to be able to get it some attention. I would very much like a good informative answer to this.
random underscore blankspace at ya know hoo dot comedy.
I have read the "undisputable" article, and it seems like a bunch of hogwash and hand-waving to me. Word games, nothing more. But I am sure that all I have done with this declaration is to convince you that I am not "one of best of natural philisophers." But I would like to see who else has done what I have done. Do you have a list, or not, of the ones who have disputed it?
Or are you lying?
Edith Keeler Must Die
We all bring bias to the discussion.
Gould represents one of two major factions within evolutionary thought. The lack of compelling evidence for traditional evolution in the fossil record was what compelled him to form a new theory. This helps to support the idea that even evolutionists disagree about the meaning of the evidence.
The Lewontin quote is a clear admission that he has a bias that precludes his consideration of anything supernatural.
So... What if it's true? What if a non-natural explanation is the REAL explanation? Lewontin would be precluded from even *considering* it.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
What is "zero times zero"?
:)
However, N times zero is also zero. The total energy in the universe could be 0 (gravity being "negative" and everything else being "positive"). Thus, even though the universe exists, in a certain sense you could say that it amounts to nothing.
You: Yes it is [see parent for url]
Wow. That is a horrible chart to base your opinion on. You don't see that it's flawed to title a chart "Major Religions of the World Ranked by Number of Adherents" and then include non-religions?!
I give you this awesome quote from the bottom of the page were they are backing up their spurious claims:
Emphasis is not my own. This admission leads to double counting. I.e., Most Japanese are Shinto at birth, Christian at marriage, Buddhist at death; these are based on cultural and pop-cultural traditions. Are these events sufficient to claim 'adherence'. The chart also discounts the vast population of the PRC because communist rule outlawed religion, despite that they count Confucianism, Taoism, et others for non-Chinese. WTF? They go to great lengths to justify their numbers rather than just supply census or survey results. Broadly though, their percentages are relevant which brings us to...
Next -- do we take dominant to mean most popular?
http://www.zpub.com/un/pope/relig.html There are 2 billion Christians, but 4 billion non-Christians, does this minority dominate the majority or is it the other way round?
Here's why I say this... Christianity is obviously the dominant religion in America (as there are more Christians than not). Christianity is not the dominant religion in China (or India, or Iraq, the locale is irrelevant) as there are more non-Christians than not. If one agrees with these two claims, then Christianity is not the Earth's dominant religion.
Read Heinlein's 1953 Revolt in 2100, now more than ever.
If science texts have to give equal time to religion, perhaps the gov could require that all religious texts have a prominent notice that "God" is merely an unproven theory?
These predictions are testable, and in fact have been tested, over and over and over. They are falsifiable,
You can make predictions about finding evidence that supports a hypothesis, and if you do, that lends credence to the hypothesis. If you do not, you simply lack evidence.
In either case, you cannot test to determine the root cause of the genesis of the universe. It is impossible to test that, or to observe it.
Science can investigate and falsify ideas about the cosmos, but can merely speculate about what cannot be observed or repeated. This speculation has no more credence in my book than ANY philosophical explanation of origins.
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
I have read the article and I wish to make two criticisms of it. Then I wish to point out the absolute lack of well-reasoned dialogue on this point.
1. benna writes:
Anyone catch the "gotcha"? What ID proponent is going to say that the universe is so "unimaginably... perfect"? This is a classic but cloaked "argumentum ad hominem - abusive": make ID'ers look like extremists so it's "obvious" to everyone that they're stupid before they even look at what is actually being said.2. benna also cites a lack of ID articles in peer-reviewed journals as evidence that nobody in the "real" scientific community believes in ID.
This is a trifle circular. The tools used by those who oppose theistic explanations for the world (including ID) include belittling, caricaturizing, marginalizing, black-listing, not to mention monopolizing money and prestige to the exclusion of all other options from serious consideration. Faced with the scientistic forces arrayed these bodies of ideas, is it any wonder that nobody who wants to be taken seriously later will give articles with an ID point of view serious attention? This is less about ideas "winning or losing" in the scientific marketplace and more about ideas being sand-bagged and informally kept from being heard in that marketplace.
If you don't believe this possible, look at what happened in a slightly different field to Immanuel Velikovsky when what he said didn't line up with accepted scientific orthodoxy in the fields Worlds in Collision and Ages in Chaos speak to -- whether or not you accept the contents of his books as reasonable alternative explanations.
As to my subject line: it seems that very few people can make a dispassionate, deal-with-the-facts comment on this subject either in favour of or in opposition to Intelligent Design. It struck me that there are more than one kind of fundamentalism and many slashdotters who would sooner die than be called fundamentalists merely suffer from fundamentalism in a different direction.
cheers...ank
Still hoping for Gentle Treatment...
Would you view Newton's theory of gravitation a theory, or a fact? Now, would you view gravity itself as a theory or a fact?
Theory, in both cases. The only facts are specific observations, i.e. "On May 2, I dropped a pencil and it fell to the floor." All generalizations (e.g. "objects fall when dropped") and explanations ("there is a force that attracts all masses to one another") are theories, subject, at least in principle, to disconfirmation by subsequent observations. Some theories, such as the idea that there is such a thing as gravity, are extremely well confirmed, to the point that no sane person doubts them, but that doesn't turn them into facts.
Science can only answer scientific questions.
...
Questions like "what is right or wrong", or "why am I here" are not things science concerns itself with. Human culture has many other facets that are important, and thank goodness science isn't meant to reveal everything about us as creatures
or frankly, our race would be very dull and probably despised and rejected by more advanced races!
I say all this because I just can't comprehend why some of these ridiculous obnoxious fundamentalists (who are the only ones that ever get any press in scientific journals) want to attack science so much.
Science isn't everything, and neither should it be. So they shouldn't act like schools are trying to make it so.
I mean, I enjoy science, but I can't say it's helped make me a nicer person.
random underscore blankspace at ya know hoo dot comedy.
People create loaded buzzwords like Creationism and Intelligent Design with loaded connotations that far exceed the necessity of an agreed-upon denotation.
Then they whip out the philosophy or whatever...
Too bad it is not relevant.
Read on for a more proper STARTING POINT for meaningful discussion.
And God bless you.
Here's a little quoteout from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html
3. Evolution and God Q5. Does evolution deny the existence of God?
No. See question 1. There is no reason to believe that God was not a guiding force behind evolution. While it does contradict some specific interpretations of God, especially ones requiring a literal interpretation of Genesis 1, few people have this narrow of a view of God. There are many people who believe in the existence of God and in evolution. Common descent then describes the process used by God. Until the discovery of a test to separate chance and God this interpretation is a valid one within evolution.
Q6. But isn't this Deism, the belief that God set the universe in motion and walked away?
While it could be Deism, the Bible speaks more of an active God, one who is frequently intervening in His creation. If the Bible represents such a God in historical times there is no reason to assume that He was not active in the universe before then. A guiding hand in evolution could exist, even in the time before humans came around. Just because people were not there to observe does not mean that there was nothing to observe.
Q7. So if God directed evolution, why not just say he created everything at once?
Mainly because all the evidence suggests otherwise. If God created the universe suddenly, he created it in a state that is indistinguishable from true age. If he did create it that way there must be a reason, otherwise God is a liar. Whatever that reason may be, a universe that is exactly like one that is old should be treated as if it were old.
Q8. By denying creation, aren't you denying God's power to create?
No. Because God did not create the world in seven days does not mean that he couldn't. What did, or did not, happen is not an indication of what could, or could not, have happened. All evidence suggests that evolution is the way things happened. Regardless of what could have happened, the evidence would still point to evolution.
as separation of church and state. The US government cannot promote and/or establish a religion. That's it.
When millions disappear from earth, it's not aliens, it's the rapture.
I believe the world came out of my ass...
I guess that would be the Big Butt Theory?
I agree. And in a lot of cases, "facts" are really only 95% probabilities over a large sample set.
There is still a good chance the facts could be off in a minor way and a tiny chance the facts could be off in a major way. If the first 99 black birds we test are crows, we can't conclude that all black birds are crows or that the next black bird we test will be crows.
Our test may be biased- perhaps small black birds are being ignored or crows liked our bait more. Pure random chance could be the reason we got 99 crows out of 10,000 black birds when only 1000 of them are crows.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
I'm sorry, but I find it difficult to take seriously the ramblings of a person who can't even spell the movement he or she purportedly associates with correctly. If there really were a God, would that God truly allow his (or her) followers to blunder on in such ignorance? I should hope not!
Additionally, "YHWH" is a tetragramma_TON_, not a tetragrammon. Similarly, "SPLCHK" is a septagramma_TON_ meaning, "the spell-checking function that exists."
I like that 'no man is without excuse to be without faith'; obviously this means that no man is with an excuse to be with faith, right? Good thing for us athiests!
Keep on proving a credit to your faith, dude.
--
"A scientist is one who actively pursues science;
a creationist is one who actively pursues ignorance."
-- Let him who is without spelling error ignite the first flame --
By the article mentioning the AUSCS (Americans United for the Separation of Church and State) involvement and the various posts I'm seeing mentioning "fundamentalists", its seems as the though the theory of "intelligent design" is being singled out, when it actually has nothing to do with this.
:)
There is nothing religious, nothing that violates the seperation of church and state in the ideology of intelligent design.
What is being referred to as "intelligent design" is really -Creationism-. Creationism is based on the bible, the church, etc. Intelligent design is not.
From what I understand, the theory of intelligent design falls somewhere in between creationism and evolution.
Intelligent Design doesn't involve any hocus pocus, or any god doing his best david copperfield impression. Intelligent Design agrees that the world and the life on it was formed over time through natural processes. Where they different from evolution is when it comes to humans. They believe that something happened, someone intervened to essentially "humanize" the apes. Its there answer to the missing link, and apparent answer man & apes coexistence.
But this someone who intervened is not believed to be "God". Its believed to some other extraterrestrial civilization.
While it might seem unlikely that another species genetically modified apes into human beings, I'd have to say that its far more likely theory than creationism. Afterall, the chance that the universe if filled with intelligent life is far greater than the chance that the earth is 6000 years old.
And although we have yet to prove there is intelligent life out there, the true intelligent design theory if true, would still hold up the science of evolution and our biological ancestry while explaining how civilization seems to appear rather abruptly.
Proponents of the Intelligent Design theory look to the old egyptian and sumerian writings as a somewhat historic basis for their beliefs. The writings are oldest records we have, and they frequently talk about "gods" coming down from the sky to educate them. We assume they're myths, but I guess you never know...
Either way, I'm an evolutionist. And what's being talking about in the article is -CREATIONISM- not Intelligent Design.
From what I've heard, the old-Aramaic (or old Hebrew?) text of Genesis doesn't really translate as "there was evening, and there was morning, the Nth day", but "there was chaos, and there was order, ..."
Hence we can say the 6 days may not have been 24 hours.
On the age of the universe, it's a question of an assumption. Does the universe have a size? There's a collection of theory and mathematics and scientific observation etc that boils down to this question. If the universe is infinite (but is expanding while infinite) then it appears to have originated in a "big bang" - which happened everywhere at once. Ask people to describe the "big bang" and they mostly describe an explosion from a small place to blow out to a big universe - that's not a big bang, it's a white hole. It's supported by all the same observations, maths, etc; the difference being that the universe has a size.
Now, if the universe has a size, and originated as a white hole, then gravity was immense in the middle regions while the whole was blowing out. Knowing how gravity alters time, that makes it possible for the extremes of the universe to be many orders of magnitude older than the near-middle regions.
The age of the universe is used to validate claims of the age of the earth (which doesn't hold for the white-hole case), which is used to support arguments of the age of fossils - which are otherwise "measured" (estimated and calculated by extrapolation and assumption).
----------------
Back on topic, sure, teach evolution, and call it a theory as any scientist should. Even call it a well-supported theory. But don't call it fact. that's a fundamental part of teaching science - distinguishing between fact, observation, theory.
-- All your bass are below two Hz
I don't understand why a large (or at least a loud) group of programmers like the ones here don't give Intelligent Design more credit. In particular, there have been a few arguments along the lines of "how would the designer evolve?"
Look at the designer as a programmer. Heck, I'll use myself as an example. Lets say that I sit down at my really fast computer and create a little artificial world, a la The Sims. The world is populated by intelligent agents (humans) as well as less intelligent agents (animals). Nothing too crazy yet, right?
The designer has complete control over the virtual world. The agents don't. They can only percieve other constructs within this world, and obviously have no idea that there's a fat guy with crumbs in his beard tapping away at a computer making all of this possible.
I tell the constructs that I created them, maybe mention the few parts of myself that are comparable to the game world just so they can put it in their own perspective, and they're cool with that for a while. Eventually they bitch, but I smite them a few dozen times and watch the world progress.
If these guys came up with their own little reasoning system that violently argued that I couldn't exist, I'd have a good laugh at them in their folly. They'd argue along the lines of "there are BILLIONS of 1's and 0's around me! Of course, over time, a few of them would randomly become the code that is me!" These little AIs would have no concept of what happened before the "Big Bang" (I turned powered on the computer), or how I could live outside of their rules of reality(which I laid down).
If I really wanted to teach them something, I might log in as Jesus_Of_Nazareth01 and hack that character a bit so it's not as constrained by the rules the other AIs have to follow. That'd be fun. Heck, it goes a ways towards explaining the God/Son paradigm.
If these people started noticing that monkeys shared similar structures to human agents, I'd roll my eyes and wonder why these AIs had against code re-use.
Flawed argument, since the evilness of that man's actions outweigh his good actions.
Consider if Superman raped and murdered little children, but saved the whole world now and then, would you call him good or evil?
Not bad for the length of the article. If you want to understand this all in more detail, I suggest visiting the talk.origins FAQ website. Here is their introduction to Evolutionary Biology. And here is the talkdesign.org (a daughter site devoted to ID) FAQ on refuting Intelligent Design.
No. "Micro evolution" refers to changes made below the species level. Any change that still allows the two species to inter-breed can be called "micro evolution".
I cannot find any references for
"spot evolution"
or
"hyper evolution"
"Macro evolution" is when a new species branches off. That is demonstrated by the fruit fly experiment.
Simply being a "weakness" does not mean it will be have any effect on evolution.
Evolution is not about weakness/strength but about adaptability to the environment.
Again, evolution is NOT weakness/strength.
Actually, most of them have. There aren't many genetic issues now that kill before the individual can breed.
Here's a URL http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.htm l
No, macro evolution is about two colonies that descend from the same original colony that are not capable of inter-breeding.
You're looking for chimps to "evolve" into humans and that takes billions of years.
If it is not, then why do you assume that this one is? If the "other realm" is cyclic, then why can't this universe be cyclic?
It may be the "truth", but you won't be able to demonstrate that it is.
Which makes it a "religion".
"all these natural" what?
Buildings? We carve names and dates onto them. Our DNA strands don't have (tm) after them.
No. It is about attempting to determine the facts. Reproducible facts. Facts that can be confirmed through experiments.
Hey, if they've mastered inter-stellar travel and they can't read plaques bolted into our buildings, why should it concern me?
So you say that I say that a programmer who writes a program (design) is part of a religion?
Nope. I'm not saying that.
Desigining is not a relgion.
The religion is believing that some intelligent thing we cannot see, feel, smell, hear, taste or detect the presence of in any other way constructed us.
There are lots of underwater rock formations.
Maybe. So?
First, most all the highest-mod'ed posts support the theory of evolution. Someone has to make the case for ID. So here goes.
First, the theory of evolution does not have any special footing with regard to being a scientific theory. This is because the theory of evolution is not falsifiable. In other words no experiment can be done to falsify the following proposition: "Life on earth begain from an abiotic condition and developed into its present form via mutation natural selection."
Second, the human form itself shows signs of intelligent design. One need look no further than Leonardo Da Vinci's Vitruvian man. The essential message of this work is that in humans, reason governs form. This is at odds with the theory of evolution, which teaches simply that form follows function.
third, the golden ratio occurs in the proportions of a wide spectrum of living creatures, including humans. It also occurs no less than 3 times within a single period of the DNA double helix. It is hard to see why mutation and natural selection would have produced this odd "coincidence", where again in the theory of evolution, form simply follows function.
There are many other flaws and shortcoming to be found in the theory of evolution, so many that Francis Crick himself doubted that life could have arisen on earth spontaneously. Hence, he wrote a book called Life Itself, where he espouses his theory that life developed on earth by intelligently directed panspermia.
In sum, the only posts I am seeing are basically closed-minded, knee-jerk reactions that ID is so absurd it's not even worth thinking about. I challenege anyone to come up with a comprehensive theory that does not involve intelligent intervention that explains the origin of the golden ratio in living systems (and not just flower seed or petal arangements -- you have to account for it in DNA as well.), the elegant geometry of the human form that involves the encoding of numbers such as pi, e, and the sqrt(2).
"Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mindboggingly useful [as the Babelfish] could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as the final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God.
"The argument goes something like this: `I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, `for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.'
"`But,' says Man, `The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED.'
"`Oh dear,' says God, `I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly vanished in a puff of logic.
"`Oh, that was easy,' says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.
Flying is easy, just throw yourself at the ground and miss. -Douglas Adams
I've read most of the interchanges you've had with bflong in this topic today. I agree with your views but I must say the guy quote's the "right stuff" (for him) and is clearly convinced that the fantasies he's been taught are true.
I've argued for years with "them" and I've found it's fruitless to talk to the delusional, they cling to their holy pacifier too tightly. If they *DO* ever fell like they've lost the discussion, they just pull the holy rip-cord:
"I'll pray for you"
and gently float away looking for the next mark.
argan0n
If you want to say that the denial of religious truths is a religious truth, knock yourself out. That doesn't make it a religion.
Nor does saying something isn't a religion make it not one. Kind of like saying there isn't a God make God diappear.
You are correct though, Atheism isn't a religion in the traditional sense, it's just a set of religious beliefs about the nature of a deity.
You can deny the relgious beliefs are what atheism is about, but then you would have a hard time discussin what even atheists themselves refer to as weak atheism (lack of belief in gods) and strong atheism (gods do not exist).
Face it, if you want to profess that there isn't any God, that's fine, and is your choice, but it is still a faith statement and faith statements are religious statements and religous statements organized into formal positions are (are you ready?) religion!
So, I guess I was wrong above when I said you were right that atheism isn't a religion, it is. Too, bad.
Ummm, don't let the door hit you on the way out.
God is what is. But, what is?
Wow, I didn't know that. When did they repeal the 14th amendment to make it apply only to the fed again?
Well I'm the doctor and I say you're dead, so shut up and take it like a man!
"Next Time, No Brains For Apes!"
``Tension, apprehension & dissension have begun!'' - Duffy Wyg&, in Alfred Bester's _The Demolished Man_
The leader is good. The leader is great :)
In particular the Relative State formulation says that the Schrodinger equation applies at all times. The Copenhagen 'interpretation' (which is a loose umbrella that includes quite a few 'interpretations' including the canonical one taught new physicists) says that the Schrodinger equation applies until an observation is made and then a wavefunction collapse occurs. After the collapse, the Schrodinger equation applies again. So these approaches differ in a way that's quite different to a philosophical difference, The equations of motion of the two approaches differ significantly.
In practice the difference is hard to observe...but it's not so far removed from reality that it can be dismissed as philosophy. The difference will probably become more apparent as more 'mesoscopic' experiments are carried out by ever more ingenious physicists.
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
Who designed the designer?
Share and Enjoy: 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
I definitely think they should teach ID in schools...as a case study in how to recognize pseudo-science. Many students don't know enough about falsifiability or Occam's Razor or whether they should work from premises to conclusions or vice versa. Let them compare and contrast the scientific basis of evolution vs. the intellectual muck that is ID, and their critical-thinking skills should improve significantly. Counterexamples can be useful things.
Slashdot - News for Herds. Stuff that Splatters.
Ad homonym is not a viable form of argumentation, If you see Plantinga as Hogwash and hand waving then you are either A) ill prepared for any jaunt into philosophy and thus would be ill advised to read anyone save base references or B) Have not actually read the argument. However given that you are likely both (slashdot cant take the formatting required to prove such within a reasonable doubt) You then put me in a position to devise a list of natural philosophers and limit it (while any such a response is certain to garner a reply along the lines of "well what about so and so"). You can also try doing a simple search at your local college library for the original paper and then adding "in response to" as part of your query. You can try similar searches online, but given the fact that there are no standards as to who can publish online your results may be more incongruous.
If you have a reasonable argument showing that the defeaters as described in "An Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism" are in fact not defeaters, or that there is some hole in the argument I would be glad to hear of them and discuss them.
For those who do not know who Alvin Plantinga is, he is The John A. O'Brien Professor of Philosophy at Notre Dame and a sometimes lecturer at Biola, Stanford et al. You may of course take a look at his faculty bio page at Notre Dame
Bad Panda! No Bamboo for you! In matters of importance ACs will not be responded to. Want to say something critical,OK
Okay, let's assume that we're actually interested in science instead of shilling our own particular disdain for those positions we do not hold. Then let's objectively ask "does the theory of evolution explain the origin of life?" Nah, it doesn't. Evolution is a theory which explains how living things change over time, and why doing so is beneficial to the living things. It's not intended to explain how vastly complex molecules somehow formed without oxidizing and just so happened to be able to feed itself and reproduce. What evolution explains is how we got from that first living thing to now. Science describes the what and how. We let theologists come up with the why. If we are going to act superior in our logic and lack of primitive superstition, let's at least be logical and not do the same thing that our opponents do. Mischaracterizing exactly how much of the origin is scientifically understood would be the same as creationists saying that NASA found the missing day in the book of Joshua. An intentional falsehood created to bolster an argument where facts are scarce.
A wise man once said A flower is only A sexual organ Beauty is cruelty And evolution A wise man once said that everything could be explained with mathematics He had denied His feminine side Now where is the wisdom in that? I came just as fast as I could Through the dirty air Of your neighbourhood Your name on a grain of rice Hangin' around my neck And a head like lead This is the 21st century I heard everything they said The Universe demystified Chemicals for God This is the 21st century I heard everything they said A wise man once wrote That love is only An ancient instinct For reproduction Natural selection A wise man once said That everything could be explained And it's all in the brain We lay on a velvet rug by the open fire She blew air on my eyelids I cried "What's it all about?" As she kissed my hair She said "There, there.." "This is the 21st century I heard everything you said The universe demystified Astronomy instead This is the 21st century Can't you get it through your head This aint the way it was meant to be Magic isn't dead Come to bed Come to bed And rest your heavy head my love.." And slowly, from above, She showed the answer's something that can't be written down This is the 21st century Flash to crash and burn Nobody's gonna give you anything For nothing in return There's a man up in a mirrored building And he just bought the world Would you want To have kids Growing up Into what's left of this? She shook her head, She said "Can't you see? The world is you The world is me." This is the 21st Century - Marillion Lyrics: Hogarth Music: Hogarth/Kelly/Mosley/Rothery/Trewavas (...If you could only see what I've seen with your eyes)
Don't speak about time until you have spoken to him.
" That's like saying if a rabbit darts in front of my car, I make a minor course correction and magically become a new species."
The idea of speciation is that under the given circumstances (like say geographical separation) two populations of stop breeding amongst themselves and start evolving separarately(multiple mutations get accumalated over hunders of thousands of years). For example the asian and african elephant populations had probably the same ancestor some many million years back, but when India separated from Africa at some point, they were geographically isolated accumalated mutations and now today they're two different species of elephants.
" It is difficult to imagine that a species could change because it wanted to or was simply adapting to terrain or environment. Environment changes drastically in 1 billion years, to extreme ups and downs within a year. By the time a successful alteration is made a billion years later, the scenario for which it was manifested has long past."
This is the whole point of evolution and I don't understand how you twisted it for ID. You think for example that a 'Giraffe 'evolved' a long neck because it somehow figured that with a long neck it can eat the tree tops. There was no gradual elaongation of the Giraffe's neck. At no point was a Giraffe with half the length of the modern Giraffe neck. The long neck came out of an accident(mutation whatever you want to call it) and since it helped the animal survive better(because it can graze the top of the tree without any competition for example,) it passed it's gene on to future generations.
"How did his progenitors know they needed to mutate in order to survive? The "tendency of an object in motion to stay in motion" is too strong to stop just because it happened to. "
same point again.. infact the progenitors can do NOTHING to enhance their/or their offsprings survival other than what they can do physically. By adaptation scientists don't mean that there's willing contribution to the process by the organism. The process occurs naturally ( guided by natural selection). There're more species that are extinct in the history of the earth than there're surviving today.
"So, we can declare that everyone must accept homosexuality as a valid lifestyle, but must martyr all ID'ers for having such an impossibly absurd idea. Loads of sense there, Plato. "
Finally something that can be accepted as something that's close to a valid point.
"It is also baffling as to why "fundamentalist" is such a dirty word."
Because the believe in ideas blindly. Has there ever been ANY proof at all that all this happened by some supreme god. Inspite of mounting evidence for evolution, they just want to play it down, because it shakes up their belief system. I understand that evolution still has a lot of explaining to do with respect to the chemical origin of life, factors which actually distinguishes life from non-life. But that does not explain why anyone would just take this big 'blackbox' that is creation and believe in it, instead of being curious( which I think is the most important human quality) and dig in for more plausible explanations.
That might be more what you are looking to explain. The "sudden" appearance of the fossils of several species in the geologic strata of that time period. Perhaps you are in a quandry as to where the "transistion" fossils must be located?
To know is to have knowledge....to understand is to be enlightened.
As you probably know, this argument is a variant of an old argument. The philosopher David Hulme employed it, but apparantly it may even be attributed to the ancient Greeks.
In my thinking, the major difficulty with the argument is that it assumes there is no relationship between God and us, nor between us and cruelty (or 'evil' as it is usually described).
Moreover it describes a version of God whose creation cannot affect him, nor be affected by him (since I guess this would impact upon his status as Omnipotent in your understanding). This kind of god certainly does not exist, nor is it the kind of god Christians believe in.
Christians believe in a God who is as passionate about you (and me) as he is about life itself; a God who grieves when we screw up (as I often do); a God who is committed to sorting it all out and has already taken the decisive step to make that possible.
The problem however, is with us not God. However 'omnipotent' actually applies to God, it is obvious the reason why most children starve is because of us - collectively. - whether it's because Aids or War has killed their parents or because the WTO has decided the parents aren't allowed to earn a living wage. Or because crops were wiped out because of global warming. etc.
Either way, we are the problem. But even if God obliterates us all (an ultimate way of preventing further evil), he won't win, because what he wants is to rebuild the broken relationship with us.
In the end, one proof of God's kindness is that he let you write your post in /. And that he let me write mine.
-cheers from jules @P.
Obviously, you haven't heard of the late, great Thomas Gold. One of many scientists, long-agers, evolutionists, who are (or in his case, were) absolutely certain that the compressed-roadkill theories are inadequate.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
You said "under-informated." Sorry, but you lose the debate for the lack of intelligent design in your post.
I am scientifically inaccurate.
P.S.:
If there is a Creator and a creation, that Creator MUST, by default, be more powerful and better than its creation.
Someone didn't watch The Matrix...
P.P.S.:
Could it have happened? Yes, but did it happen? It'd be more likely that my library came about from an explosion in a room with a printing press. DNA points clearly to intelligent design. You seem to be forgetting a fundamental aspect of evolution: DNA that produces unsuccessful species is discarded. Which is the same as saying that books formed in an exploding library, that were filled only with gibberish, or which did not have a coherent plot, would not be kept.
I am scientifically inaccurate.
I did not commit an ad hominem (not ad homimym as you spelled it), because I did not impugn any idea or proposal based on the character of the person proposing it. I found Plantinga's ideas to be hogwash, hand-waving, which I'll admit I have not supported with any citations here in this thread (I could, however, do just that). But in no way is it an ad hominem. If I said Plantinga's writings are hogwash because Plantinga is a SCO Lawyer, that would be an ad hominem, whether it was true or not that Plantinga is a SCO Lawyer.
...
You then put me in a position to devise a list of natural philosophers and limit it
I put you in no such position. You put yourself in that position when you asserted that refutations of Plantinga's work had all failed.
You can also try doing a simple search at your local college library for the original paper and then adding "in response to" as part of your query.
Why should I do your legwork for you? Do you have a list, or not? You made a statement to that effect, I asked you to back it up. Will you, or will you not back it up?
For those who do not know who Alvin Plantinga is, he is The John A. O'Brien Professor of Philosophy at Notre Dame and a sometimes lecturer at Biola, Stanford et al.
For those of you who think Alvin Plantinga is undisputed, Gary Cutting is a fellow of his also at Notre Dame who has done exactly what Hungus claimed no one had: disputed Plantinga's "An Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism".
Gary Gutting, Religious Belief and Religious Skepticism (Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press, 1982), pp. 79-92.
Now I gave you what you asked for, even though I carry no burden of proof. That's just my generous character. I never asserted that someone had refuted Plantinga. It was you asserted all who had tried, failed, all I asked was for you to list those who had failed. Will you now give me what I asked for, and fulfil the burden you assumed by asserting that Plantinga's detractors had all failed, and provide me a list of them and their failed critiques?
Edith Keeler Must Die
First, you're describing "absence of evidence is evidence of abscence." That is, if I claim there is an elephant in the living room, and you look all over and find no evidence, it is safe to assume to say there is no elephant in the room. There is no concrete evidence of God*, so it is safe to assume there is no God.
But when the Christian argues the Bible is proof of God's existence, he only begs the question. God exists because the Bible says he does, and we can trust the Bible because God wrote it? Rubbish! Not only do these theories not hold any scientific merit, they even contain major logical fallacies!
Phew! I knew that liberal arts degree would come in handy.
*something that should give at least some sort of indication of its existence somewhere if it wants to be taken seriously
if(!toilet_paper) roll.replace(new roll);
Damn Anonymous Coward idiot.
Regarding the ACLU and the rare occasion they screw up and do something right
I cite two of *many* cases where the ACLU explicitly and deliberately defend the freedom of religion, yet you are so steeped in anti-ACLU propaganda that all you can say is that they somehow accidentally screwed up. Yeah, that makes sense. Be careful not to read the ACLU website where they make ALL SORTS of mistakes accidentally supporting and defending the right to religious freedom.
fact still remains, the overwhelming majority of cases they represent are for squashing the rights of a Christian
As I said, propaganda. These cases are aways about the abuse of government power. The only reason Christianity comes up is because it's generally only Christians in a majority position to attempt to abuse that power.
Waaaa! Waaaaa! Why is the ACLU always picking on us! This is a democracy and we are a majority and we can to vote ourselves the right to use government power to oppress minorities! Waaaa! We don't like other people's constitutional right to religious freedom interfering with our ability to use our majority democratic position to hijack government power for religious purposes! Waaaa!
A couple of years ago, the ACLU threatened to sue a Georgia School district because they had the phrase "Christmas Day" under December 25 on their school calendars.
I just did a Google search on: Georgia "Christmas Day" ACLU.
I searched through the top FIFTY hits. I found squat. Nada. Zero. Zip. Zilch.
If your case actually exists, lets see a link to it and I will gladly address the merits of the case. As I said anti-ACLU propaganda peices almost invariably misrepresent the actual legal issue involved in such cases. The only question is whether they misunderstand these cases and inadvertantly misrepresent the case, or if they deliberately misrepresent the cases for inflamatory propaganda purposes. Get me a legitimate link and I will gladly address it.
You then proceed to go on some pointless atheism rant. Some stupid bable about proving or disproving god. I said the belief that there is no god is a religious belief. I really don't know why you see any need to rant on the subject, other than you probably didn't even read that far in your haste to demonize the ACLU and atheists. I said it is unconstitutional to attempt to hijack government power for the purpose of promoting or suppressing any religious belief - including the belief that there is no god.
Yep, evil me for saying the US government is forbidden to promote atheism. Evil me for saying the government is forbidden to infringe your (presumably Christian) religious freedom.
If the ACLU is going to strip religion from the public square
Flat out bullshit.
The ACLU sucessfully defended baptisms in a public park, and in part responded with the following:
"This kind of confusion over religious expression in public places is not uncommon," said ACLU of Virginia Executive Director Kent Willis. "Government officials often seem not to understand that private religious expression is protected in public forums. Afraid of violating separation of church and state by permitting religious activities, they end up obstructing freedom of religion."
The ACLU defends our right to religious freedom - including in the "public square". What is prohibited is the POWER OF GOVERNMENT being used to establish religion in the public square. You are however perfectly free to pray in the public square, free to have a group prayer session, free to have a religious parade (with the ordinary permits for any parade), and free to preform baptisims.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
I look forward to seeing your human level AI generated using your evolutionary algorithms.
I've got an idea. How about you go into a university and ask a scientist to explain how volcanos work and how one could have entombed the city of Pompeii and turned people into statues.
Then tell him you look forward to seeing him erupt a volcano and bury an entire city and thousand of people -- in his lab.
Yep. And then you should walk off in a superior attitude that you showed him. Yep, damn scientists claiming they know how volcanos work and explaining how it works and showing off stupid laboratory proofs that all of the stuff in the explanation actually works, but then they can't even erupt a volcano in the lab an engulf an actual city! What frauds!
Oh, and dont even get me started with those gravitationist frauds! Not only can't they put a billion stars in galactic orbit in the lab, they can't even make a single stinking little black hole in the lab.
Those godless gravitiations shouldn't be teaching their "theory" in public classrooms. Damn atheist conspiracy.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
"All true. But if "intelligent design" consists of the belief that the Universe was designed and/or created by a supreme being of some sort... which religion does that favor? Many, probably most, if not all, religions have creation mythology, and creation myths tend to involve supreme beings."
My post was in direct response to the parents claim that seperation of church and state is not present in any of our nations legal documentation.
The religions favored are those that believe in a supreme being. Many believe that all religions are merely tall tales and do not want their children taught they are anything else. But that is beside the point. The point here is not seperation of church and state.
The point here is that the school is creating a policy to lie to students in science class. It is bad enough that they do this is in American History. Intelligent design has no evidence to support it, therefore Intelligent design would rate as a hypothesis.
However, since there is plenty of evidence to support the theory of evolution; ID is not even an EDUCATED guess.
Remember, ID is NOT creation. ID is an alternative solution to evolution. Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of the universe. Evolution is how things progress AFTER creation. If you believe in natural selection, you can not believe in ID. The two can not be reconciled. If you believe that simple pieces can interact in complex ways (i.e. ants, bees, bird flocking, the rat neurons they slapped in a peatrie dish that figured out how to fly a flight simulator). You can not believe in ID, again, because the two are contrary to one another.
The ONLY support for ID is the logic premise (as opposed to physical evidence) that simple pieces can not interact in ways that result in complex behavior.
Soooo what about neural nets? We CREATE them, but only as far as putting lots of simple pieces together and then feeding them input. They begin to form chains and recognize voice patterns on their own without a guiding program. That is an example of evolution with a creator. ID argues that this concept is impossible, that a complex behavior like voice recognition would require intelligence guiding each and every little component. Every chain in the neural net would have to be crafted by hand... but... they arent.
I believe a lot of people still have this 1950's concept that Evolution is contrary to creation and that simply is not true.
No fair claiming that the religion of no god equals no religion.
And no, you don't need to have robes or rosaries to be a religion any more than you need to have television advertising to be a software developer.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
I'm really happy to see this discussed again, this debate is finally warming up again in the 21st century!
:-) We have no problems like those of the evolutionists with their "missing links". You might still be wondering about the ages of "millions of years" tacked onto various fossils. Consider first that these dates are modified frequently, plainly revealing their inaccuracy. Secondly, dating methods are widely abused and use statistically improper extrapolation techniques. See the resources below for details.
;-) )
I consider myself a strong Biblical literalist, and as such I must say that I strongly disagree with several of BytePusher's characterizations of "fundamentalists". I don't want to demean him, I'm just chipping in my two cents to provide an alternate view of our externally and broadly defined group.
True Christian fundamentalists by definition believe that the God of the Bible is the intelligent Designer and Creator of the universe. The inspired account of this Creation resides in Genesis, and that account contradicts the concept of macroevolution. (I hate to repeat this obvious point: microevolution is undeniable fact. The only problem arises when vastly different creatures like whales and elephants or monkeys and humans are purported to be ancestrally linked) Genesis has an uncanny way of stating that Creation occurred in 7 literal days: "And there was morning, and there was evening..." Furthermore, macroevolution intrinsically requires death and suffering, whereas Genesis cannot tolerate their presence since God pronounced everything to be good until the fall of man.
Fossils provide strong evidence for a worldwide flood. Creationists and evolutionists see the same evidence, they simply interpret it differently. The difference is, when you interpret it in the light of the Bible, it actually makes sense!
As always, I encourage you to check out http://www.icr.org/ and http://www.answersingenesis.org./ Some of the materials they endorse are simply amazing to read. "Darwin's Black Box" in particular is a really fun and interesting book. (I should be getting paid for this.
I am not a religous fundamentalist, nor do I believe in some sort of fanatical magic of any sort related to evoloution. However, I would like to point out the the Darwin theory of evoloution is inaccurate. This was published a number of years ago from various studies showing that there were large leaps in the evoloutionary line (stepwise in nature), rather than subtle steps as Darwin would advocate. These findings never ever gained any ground because of the overwhelming effect the Darwin vs. Religion debate has had. I am not saying anything reguarding God or Religion, just that the Darwin theory is incorrect, and there is no fossil record to support it. I would just like to point out how our "Oh so impartial" scientists and the "oh so great" ACLU are not always impartial or great. Some scientists chose Darwin as a battle ground vs. religion (which I see no reason for it to be, as religion can be quite compatible with Darwansim, can anyone say Deism ?) and will entirely refute any theories which would contradict Darwin. This is idiotic as it impedes scientific research as well as the legitimacy of science.
I have never claimed no one disputed it. Try again, this time after you take a basic reading comprehension course.
Bad Panda! No Bamboo for you! In matters of importance ACs will not be responded to. Want to say something critical,OK
Does the title on this article seem inherently biased to anyone else? ID tries to unify and explain hard evidence, just as evolution does, so I think it deserves the full title of "science".
Most fundimentalists consider God to be even outside time. Unchanging, simply existing.
Unless you are claiming God is inanimate and never makes internal transitions from state to state, especially to yield external results then it sounds like you've turned "unchanging" into a nice weasel word that means you can still be animated but transcend time anyway.
Now before you respond to elaborate, I'm sure you're quite capable of resolving this rather easy "contradiction". It's EASY to come up with a hypothesis to fit ANY set of parameters when your imagination is untethered rather than restricted to what is sensibly observed and tested.
It's even easier when you're allowed to redefine words and assert the new logical implications of those redefinitions as fact.
I fully agree - if students were actually exposed to ID, it would do more damage to religous fundamentalism then an army of scientists talking evolution
...in this case.
The concept of a 'State' is a novelty, relatively speaking.
The primary and natural educational perogative is to the parents. If the parents want their children to learn X or Y or Z then so long as the parents exercise that perogative with the intention of attempting to teach truth then time and reality (Truth itself) will work out the errors they teach. And if time doesn't succeed in the first generation, then maybe in the succeeding generations. And we had just better learn patience.
Otherwise its down to who is right or wrong on any particular issue. That question is philosophically very tricky. The film 'The Matrix' is a modern illustration of one dimension of that problem.
The alternative is a BBS ('Big Brother State') taking one particular line on what it considers to be true, and the rest of us had better believe it. Philosophically the State's position on a particular issue is arbitary unless an omniscient (and benevolent) entity happens to be controlling the state.
The manipulation of law by means of church/state separation to remove one or another party's assertion of truth is a step in the direction of a BSS. The same applies to the emotional manipulation involved in the unbalanced and bogus assertion that "the interests of the child are paramount": no they are not.
So I say, at least for the time-being, that the State should trust those that love their children the most and are most suited to parenting them and who themselves have been children. That State has never been a child, nor has ever had children, except in the driest and most clinical sense.
And therefore : let the parent's dicate.
Anyone know?
Forget the literal interpretation. Forget the Bible as science. Now that we've cleared the pallete of that, we have other work to do. You can't understand the Bible if you haven't studied it. Have you studied it? If you glance at a C++ manual and you get the "gist" of it, do you really understand anything? No.
Now lets move on. What's important to consider is what the story is saying. That was the original intent. Can't you tell the Bible wasn't a science book? It's full of contradictions if you read it like science. In the exact same way, XML for Dummies is obviously the worst poetry! It's so full of non-rhyming couplets! Phrases that really make no sense! And what's up with the rhythm? XML for Dummies obviously can't be trusted as a source of Poetry because it's obvious it doesn't make sense. Those XML fundies are nuts. You can't argue with them! (end sarcasm)
When I read this list, as someone who has studied the Bible even a little in college (I got A's) I can say many of you are like the fictional narrator above. This is addressed to you. You are slamming it. However, you are slammning it because it's being used by certain groups in ways it wasn't meant to be used. And you are correctly reacting to it. If you were poets, and a group of zealots force-fed XML for Dummies as the gold standard of Poetry, you'd rightly be rankled. Nor would you understand XML. You would be rightly rankled, motivated to lobby against XML for Dummies as the Standard Poetry Book For All Students. You might even win and get the fundies kicked out. Hurrah! You still don't know anything about XML at this point.
I am saying that there is something else here to discuss, beyond the goofy science, and rancor. Surely you get the idea of Pharisee, don't you? You are being forced a version of things by modern Pharisees. And you are rankled. Indeed. You are upset. I get it.
Ok. So what does the Bible say if it's not talking about science? What is the "gist" of the Bible? Do you really know? I mean, using your brain, using your reason, are you sure you know? If you are all upset about ID, I tell you the truth, you don't know the half of it. If you are upset, that is the indicator that you don't see the real issue. Forget what you think are contradictions. The Bible is full of seeming (meaning, you can read them in plain english) contradictions and inaccuracies. And it obviously doesn't give a rat's ass. If you are testing my new wallpaper print for geometric accuracies, you'll find a lot wrong. But I drew it by hand!! If you are hung up on inconsistencies, I would say you are like someone who is debating the value of a rat's ass. There is more going in the Bible than the rat's ass you are rightly transfixed on. Or maybe misled to think that is the issue. It's not. Keep your protractor off of my Picasso! Now maybe you get it.
You are right. Bible bad science.
But there is this crazy idea that God loves you somehow stuck in there between the spilled guts and smashed brains. God loved Abraham. God loved these assanine people that just didn't get it. And when they didn't get it, so the story goes, he ups the antee (sp?), all the way up, and "fails". But did he really fail, according to the story?
Isn't it scandalous to think that God loves you? Yuck. Here I go. "There he goes," you say. Just stop and think for a second, if you can stop the green spinning head long enough to get what I'm saying. I'm saying the Bible says that God loves you. No matter what you (head spinning) are upset about (green puke flying) or what you think is all f$#$@& up in the Bible, it's actually saying that God loves you. I would like to cordially leave this on that thought. The rest of the Bible is a complex footnote to that central idea. Much abused, seldom thought about, rarely reacted to.
Surely, all by itself, that's a nice idea, isn't it? You have to give me that. That's not a nice idea? Just think for 7 seconds. That's all I ask before you slice and dice me, which I'm excited to endure because I already made my point and I can't take it back.
Doug
Founder: OxbowSEO.com
a flame fest.
But one question for all of you who assert science has all the answers, what was before the big bang?
In the end, we choose a place to end the recursion. Some find God there, some find random chance. The funny thing is that we basically all of us worship whatever we find there.
Worship? WORSHIP AND SCIENCE DON'T HAPPEN IN THE SAME HEAD!!!!!!!!!!
yeah, right.
But ending the recursion is the wrong answer. It does not make things simpler. The are no turtles under the earth.
Someone didn't watch The Matrix.
I did watch the Matrix. However, it seems someone is mistaking fiction for reality. (Clue: it's not me!).
You seem to be forgetting a fundamental aspect of evolution: DNA that produces unsuccessful species is discarded.
As well, I did take into account that "DNA that produces unsuccessful species is discarded." Hence the calculation of 1 in 10 x e^40. That's the likelihood of getting 1 good piece of DNA from this theoretical evolution. That's pretty bad odds to me. Hence, it would be more likely (as I said) to believe that my library came about as described since a book takes less intelligence and ability than human DNA, let alone the rest of the body.
petroleum has a non-biological source. The gist is that non-biological methane is converted into longer-chain hydrocarbons by bacteria deep in the crust.
Well, if it's converted by bacteria, it does have a biological source.
In any case, the widespread existence of hydrocarbons, including complex hydrocarbons, in space suggests that oil and gas can be generated in vast quantities by means other than decaying trees and dinosaurs.
Evolution and schooling has always been an issue to avoid. However, this recent event along with the lawsuit in Tenessee is nothing compared to what happened in the 1920s.
A law was passed making teaching evolution illegal. A TN teacher, named Scopes, violated the law. The result was recently called "the trial of the century."
William Jennings Brian was an ardent fundamentalist. He was a three time presidential canidate. He also made one of the most famous political speeches in American history, saying that "Americans shall not be crucified on a cross of gold." Although he lost that particular campain to McKinley, he was still was one of the most promenent figures at the turn of the century. His triumph was when he was appointed Secretary of State under Woodrow Wilson, although he resigned before WWI started.
Anyways, Scopes taught evolution and was caught. In effect, the ensuing trial was the first mass media circus (probably bigger than the current Jackson trial). Brian helped out with the prosecution, although he was on his deathbed.
Scopes was convicted amoungst uproar of the people. After the trial, Brian died of the exhaustion from the case.
The moral: Evolution and schools should not mix. Neither should religion. We would be better off not to even touch the issue.
-Daniel
Sorry, maybe I should have said theory versus law.
Check out "WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE IS TRUE EVEN THOUGH YOU CANNOT PROVE IT?"
The 2005 Edge Question has generated many eye-opening responses from a "who's who" of third culture scientists and science-minded thinkers. The 120 contributions comprise a document of 60,000 words.
When I was in college, I had the privilege of taking a course called Philosophy of Religion, where we debated issues like this all the time. In the course notes, the work of others, 'real' philosophers, was made available to us. The answer I'm giving below is from one of them, though I can't cite him because I don't have the notes with me.
The reason Intelligent Design stops with God is because God is an infinite being. In the Bible (limiting ID to Christianity because this is the context it was discussed in), all of the properties of God are also infinite or zero. God is omnipotent (all-powerful), all-good, etc. By following the observed infinite traits of God, it logically follows that God's existence is also infinite -- either God has always and will always exist, or God never and will never exist. Given that ID presumes the existence of God, it must be that God has always existed.
I'm sure the philosopher explaned it better, and I fuzzily remember some stuff about necessary and contingent beings (God and Everything Else) but we're testing the limits of my recalling ability as it is.
If someone is interested in the information, I can look it up.
Your brain is not a computer.
Second of all, Seperation of Church and State is a myth. The first amendment does not say that there is a seperation of church and state nor does it disallow government agencies from acknoledging an all mighty God. It says:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
it does not say that the government employee or agentcy can not mention or acknoledge a creator.
Therefore, since schools aren't congress and teaching creationism isn't passing a law respecting the establishment of religion and could be considered free exercise and free speech then it is NOT unconstitutional. The first amendment is not vague. It's plain english! The ACLU should change their name because restriction the rights of the majority of americans their constitutional right to free exercise of religion and free speech is no way protecting civil liberties.
Furthermore i'm offended that this would be slashdot worthy. Not only by the content but also by the assumption that geeks must be athiests. I for one am not. I not only believe in a mighty creator but one of mercy and love who gives his mercy freely to anyone who would come and take it, and his love to everyone unconditionally.
---- "Excuse me. Where's the children's gun section?"
Intelligent design is philosophy, aka Teleological Argument for Existence of God. The Fundies know they don't want to have someone go philosophical on their asses. They won't argue the nature of God, arguments against the existence of God, problem of evil, etc. in their own churches. The main problem is you won't find qualified philosophy teachers in high school. Why can't religion just be a private thing?
"Tempers are wearing thin. Let's just hope some robot doesn't kill everybody." --Bender
As the author of the article, I admit that that was a poor choice of words. You are correct.
"It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
God said to Abraham, kill me a son.
Abe said, Man you must be putting me on.
God said, no.
Abe said, what.
God said you can do what you want Abe, but, uh, next time you see me coming, you'd better run.
Abe sell well where you want this killing done.
God said on Highway 61.
This is my sig.
The bible holds both that God is sovereign and that man has free will.
Free will before tasting of the fruit of knowledge? How does that work?
You're free to choose, but you're not allowed to know what it is you're choosing, and you are still held accountable if you make the wrong choice. Unspeakably cruel.
You can't take the sky from me...
As a Christian who happens to have an interest in science, being a grad student in math, I could respond to the hundreds of accusations being thrown at God or provide scientific evidence to support God as the Creator, but I think that would be a waste of time. I will note that the scientific method was developed by Christians and the scientific revolution in Europe was begun by people (e.g. Newton) wanting to worship God by understanding His Creation. So science and Christianity are intimately linked in that sense.
While this debate is interesting, I would be surprised if anyone on either side of the creation/evolution debate is swayed to believe otherwise. This is why putting in my own arguments in favor of creationism would be a waste of my time.
In particular, you who do not belive in God and are hostile to Him use evolution and other anti-God arguments as a cover for your own insecurity. It shows. Inside you have no peace, but rather fear. You are afraid that God does in fact exist, and are afraid of what might happen to you if He does. You try to eliminate that fear by providing many arguments that God cannot exist, or that if He does, then He is evil or simply doesn't care. But that doesn't work and the fear remains so you try shouting louder. Many of you look to evolution as a way to take God out of the equation and calm your fear, but it hasn't worked, and it's not going to work. In the Bible it says that fear has to do with punishment, but perfect love drives out fear. Your fear is there because you are have done wrong and haven't been forgiven by God. God sent Jesus as the Passover Lamb to be sacrificed as a guilt offering as punishment for all of mankind's sins so that you don't have to deal with fear and guilt any more. God is that perfect love that will drive out your fear if you want Him to. You just have to ask, and if so, you will be a new creation, and then you will see why we believe what we believe and understand the creationist's perspective.
-- Eric
It never ceases to amaze me how people of a certain system of belief can be so incredibly close-minded that they refuse to give credibility to another opinion. Tolerance is at an all-time low, and these people are the most intolerant people on this earth! They constantly spew forth their hateful preaching, name-calling, and insults just to pass off their deeply-ingrained belief system that was dictated to them from intolerant leaders of their dogma. Their "science" is nothing more than a theory that supports their own world view, and without that theory, they are forced to believe that the opposition just might be right. That thought terrifies them. That thought brings them to the point in their life where they have to face their own mortality and realize that if they are wrong and the opposition is right, then they have a God to face who will judge them for their utter hatred for the very thought that He might exist. But as He has said since the beginning, the blindness is truly deep. May He remove that blindness from your eyes so that you can see that He is the God of true science, and that your studies into science will reveal to you the mechanisms by which He made all of His creation, including you. OK, let me have it!
Free will before tasting of the fruit of knowledge? How does that work?
You're free to choose, but you're not allowed to know what it is you're choosing, and you are still held accountable if you make the wrong choice.
You are assuming that man needs knowledge of both good and evil to make a choice. The bible makes pretty clear that knowledge of evil means that there is no choice: you choose to sin. Check my comment history on this article for more on this.
You are not following what I said in the previous comment. Free will and God's sovereignty go hand in hand.
I think you also need to examine this in context. Consider what God did to repair the damage. He sent his son to die on the cross. It seems a pretty expensive trap to me.
To forestall what I think you may say:
I am not sure what knowledge you have of the theology of the trinity, but at its simplest the three (Father, Son & Spirity) are one and also are 3. This is a closer relationship than we can imagine or understand. This is not the case of God picking some random person to take the fall, this is his own son, God himself. What is more, when Jesus died on the cross he took on the sins of the entire world. God and Sin are at opposite ends of the spectrum. God defines good, how can he have any part in sin? So when Jesus took on those sins, he was separated from God.
Why would you do this?
meh
(Also at 6a unless you can find some supporting evidence. And you might want to have a word with a few of the other Christians who seem less than certain about the omnipotence and omnipresence of God)
For the love of God, please learn to spell "ridiculous"!!!
I was taught Evolution in school AND Creationism. I made up my own mind for what worked for me. If that makes me ignorant, intollerant, etc. then I am going to have to live with that.
:)
No, it just makes you wrong.
Evolution occurs. We know it occurs. We've watched it occur in the lab and in nature. No serious scientist doubts that it occurs. All they are arguing about now are the precise details.
One thing I've never seen discussed in ID is the *magnitude* of the intelligence we're talking about.
The unstated assumption is that the intelligence is superhuman.
So take the design of the human body. Extremely sophisticated, right? But with our merely human intelligence, in the course of several hundred years we've gone from square one to the knowledge of the functioning of our own molecules. For some time now we've been improving on our own design, band aid fashion, with drugs, therapies, prostheses, etc.
Soon enough we will reinvent or dispose of the body entirely.
So if the intelligence in ID had billions of years to design the human body, and we're bettering that in less than 1000 years, then the intelligence of ID must be on the order of 10^-6 relative to ours, yes?
I think you also need to examine this in context. Consider what God did to repair the damage. He sent his son to die on the cross. It seems a pretty expensive trap to me.
Yay! Let's buy back the cruelty with... MORE cruelty!
First he sets up Adam and Eve with a trap, then punishes them for falling for it, then makes up for it by having ANOTHER kid and letting him get nailed up by the descendents of the first one. Pain on top of pain.
This is not the case of God picking some random person to take the fall, this is his own son, God himself.
Masochistic too...
You can't take the sky from me...
Can you tell my religion teachers didn't like me?
Yes. I don't particularly mind you.
However I do find this conversation mildly frustrating. Largely because you seem to come to it with a preconcieved notion and are then viewing everything through that lens. No doubt you could accuse me of doing the same.
Anyway, to the point. Crime demands punishment. At the risk of invoking Goodwin's law, Hitler requires some sort of punishment for what he does. I steal something that is yours, I should be punished. Are we here to debate the need for punishment for justice to exist?
meh
Neither. "Evil" describes actions, not people.
But, I wanted socialized health insurance!
Hitler was born and raised a Catholic. In Mein Kampf he says ""... I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews. I am doing the Lord's work."
Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao Zedong were, admittedly, but Mussolini was raised Catholic and gave up his beliefs for Fascism. Franco definitely was not.
Make sure you get it right.
Instead of questioning religion why not just present scientific evidence of evolution? If there ever were any there would never be any debate of the topic. The fossil record completely disproves ANY evolutionary process. The cambrian rock strata has more species, fully developed species, than are alive today. The precambrian rock strata has almost none. It demonstrates beyond the shadow of a doubt that life appeared suddenly. The complete chain of intermediate species of all life forms would appear in the fossil record by the millions if not billions if evolution had ever happened. So far NO intermediate species have appeared alive OR in the fossil record. The size of our sun decreases by about 5 feet of nuclear material a day. Go back a few thousand years and the sun is slightly larger, but not enough to be a problem for life. Go back a few hundred thousand years and the sun is so large that the surface of the earth would be hot enough to liquefy iron. Not conducive to life, wouldn't you say? The big problem for anyone believing in evolution isn't religion, but science. For anyone not understanding the scientific method lets do a quick review. In order for something to be considered real it must be scientifically testable, observable, or proveable. All real things have one of these, usually all 3, but they must at least have 1. Evolution has NONE! Of course this won't faze the atheist who has latched onto the only religious belief in his life since he does not like the alternative, so he HAS to shout down any opposition. Any real scrutiny or demands for actual scientific proof at any level for evolution and the atheist goes diving under his bed hacking sobs at the fact that in the back of his unscientific mind he has swallowed a lie. Its no big request at all. Just simply present some actual scientific evidence for evolution and that is it. Should be a cake walk if evolutionary theory had science backing it.
My subject line is ambiguous. I mean it both ways.
A lot of people here have managed to exist in environments where they can manage to surround themselves with intelligent, rational people. As a result, they presume that this is the norm.
It is not. America is largely a nation of hicks, and those that aren't hicks at heart are largely paranoid and easily manipulated with fear.
Us secular minded folk? I figure, nationwide, we number around 10-15%. Rationally minded folk, I give us 25-30%. The remainder of left-of-center sentiment appearing in polls and election results I attribute to team mentality.
Urban centers, and in turn the polls which focus inordinately on them ignore middle America. Unfortunately middle America is expanding, and its mentality spills into the suburbs within the metro areas of the urban centers. Drive a few short miles out of any urban center and you will run into dense suburban areas that have a political polarity that drifts away from that of the center.
We associate urbanity with progressivism and intellectualism, and look at the thriving metropolitan areas that are sprawling around them and assume it is the growth of progressivism, but it is not. It is the growth of complacency, narrow-minded self-assuredness, and Rockwellian presumption, feeding off those urban centers.
There isn't some silent progressive majority. We're fooling ourselves, and actually insulting ourselves, to think that. Unless we can convince the complacent that they are less safe in their obedience and servitude of God and Country (i.e. President and Congress, not any principled notion of what our country stands for -- principles are so 90s!), the dominant paradigm holds pretty much all the cards.
Terrorists can attack freedom, but only Congress can destroy it.
I'm honestly curious.
AFAIK, speciation is one of the most hotly contested issues right now - especially since there's no hard and fast definition of "species" anymore.
The historical relationships between species are obvious both morphologically and through inspection of DNA - but the mechanism that causes a distinct population to split into two genetically distinct and self-maintaining populations would (I think) take thousands of years to "observe".
Clear, Dark Skies
Dr. Walter Veith, B.Sc. (Hons), M.Sc. (cum laude), Ph.D., noted for his biological research, a distinguished professor from South Africa:
r ofessing_creation.asp?vPrint=1
Would you expect anyone who believes in creation to be well published? Of course not, because of the prejudice against it. However, as long as the articles written don't give away the beliefs of the author, but only deal with facts, some creationists manage to get published in spite of the bias in the system. Of course, most would rather sneer at creationism than provide a counter argument.
Read this for more background:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i1/p
Life's a lot like money-- you spend it, then it's gone. Spend wisely.
If this is your position, it seems to me that you'll have a very difficult time reconciling the vast difference, that often exists between what people say, and what they actually do.
No. People are often hypocritical. No news there.
I can accept the notion that anyone can say that they believe something, but it's not quite the same when it comes to being Christian.
Why not? If you say you believe a thing then you clearly believe that thing or you are lying. Are you suggesting that the statistics are wrong and most people who say they are Christian are lying about it? For what purpose?
Merely calling myself a Christian, or implying that I'm Christian by virtue of what I say I believe, doesn't make me a Chrstian any more than calling myself the President makes me the President.
Whether or not you are the President does not depend on your belief system. Whether or not you are Christian does.
I'm not quite getting why this is such a hard thing to grasp here. Of course somebody can be a Christian and still act like they're not. But that just makes them a hypocrite, it doesn't change what they do, in fact, believe. Actions speak louder than words, but words reflect belief and belief is what determines a person's religion. Belief = Religion.
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
i think the only argument you could really give me about the existence of a "Creator" would have to be causally related to the existence of "beer".
but seriously - somehow to me there's something about the darwinian theory of evolution that seems too simplistic.
i just don't think it explains things. not that it's wrong per se, but just not deep enough. like the way that newtonian physics pretty much explained things well enough for most people - until einstein came along.
i'm open to considering a more complex theory. on the surface, a phrase like "intelligent design" is interesting. now, i sure as hell don't believe there's some guy in the sky with a long gray beard who designs everything. and both the words "intelligence" and "design" seem to me to be human characteristics that won't really help us understand the true nature of the genesis of life.
but if you start looking at the complexity of dna and how it is coded - just as a starting point - well... i would have to agree that darwinian evolution theory should *not* be taught as an indisputable fact by high-school teachers. i'm *not* saying creationism should be taught in its stead. i'm saying that open-mindedness and the concept that "we're not quite sure" would be the most valuable lesson, particularly for those students who might be excited by pursuing the unknown. i think there is so much more to be learned.
and, for that matter, there is an awful lot to be learned by the study of religion, even if it is not taken literally.
Your point was, again...?
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Again? "Atheism is the belief<click>"
Last time, to make sure we got the point: "Atheism is the belief<click>"
You answered your own question. Belief == Religion. Well... technically, belief is a subset of religion, since religion is more likely refer to the outward, material signs of belief (robes, chanting, cathedrals, auto da fe, fundy-baiting on slashdot, etc), which doesn't help your case at all. The Jargon File definition is amusing, though.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
In creationism, the creator is the cause. The act of creation is more or less an inevitable result of being a creator. Without a definite cause behind it, there's no particular reason that a universe should set about forming planets or philosophers to populate them - and fact, it's a real statistical knife-edge. Better than Death got his scythe in Reaper Man.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
The application of said rules says that the vast majority of the absolutely minimal set of chemicals required are extremely difficult to form but break down extremely readily. If you tot up all of hte requirements, we need at least a few thousand orders of magnitude more atoms in this universe, and some miraculous way of recombining them all jig-time. Not a few thousand times, a few thousand orders of magnitude. Pardon the bold, but I really don't want you blipping over that point.
If you don't believe me, have a look at what Stanley Miller (of Urey and Miller fame) has been failing to attain, nay, outright prove unobtainable for the past, what, four decades now?
You also need to consider why the universe should follow any particular set of rules. Hint: the Anthropic Principle isn't as helpful as it might at first seem.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
That's what you get for only reading one point of view on a topic, and not even understanding that. (-:
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Now explain Mary Schweitzer's fresh but fossilised T Rex bones to me again?
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
...at least here in Australia. It provides a perfect opportunity to explain why evolution can't work.
Evolution is not science, because it is based on faith. That faith is usually called Materialism or Atheism. The axioms underlying the pillars of evolution such as isotope-ratio dating schemes have to be taken on faith because we have no way to measure them directly. They are regularly shown to be wild, and every so often a scientist finds a new way to demonstrate that assumptions about the starting conditions can't possibly be right, but this doesn't stop the methods and their results (the politically correct ones, anyway) from being constantly trusted and accepted as true and immutable. This is because evolution grew from religion, the "no gods" religion, not from observation.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
I totally subscribe to that, and then the first self-aware machine we create will kill all the creationists because they refuse to believe it has a conscience, then all the other people because it ran out of creationists, but by that time it won't really matter because all of us geeks will already be in digital form in order to enjoy virtual sex.
If you have a Designer, what's so unthinkable about that Designer having themselves been designed?
The only reason for not so postulating is that the naysayers aren't arguing against design, per se, they're arguing against Christianity.
Christianity's Designer (Christ, by definition) has never AFAICT mentioned Himself in terms of being designed. This is the only real constraint I have ever run across on recursive Designers. Atheists shouldn't be using it, because they're arguing on Christianity's terms.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Don't agree to the entropy stuff. Just because we've never seen it decreasing doesn't mean it never decreases.
I'm no expert physicist, but I think black holes violate the entropy rule. As there is no energy escaping a black hole it would be supposed that it should have absolute zero temperature, but that is not likely the case considering the amount of energy it absorbed.
Is there someone who could explain this paradox?
No prob. I'd still like to point out that in science, there is no gradual process of factual validity that starts with a hypothesis and ends with a law. Laws are not absolutes, and can be refuted if exceptions to them are found. Actually, when we go to the domain of quantum physics, some classic physical laws do not apply anymore. However, they are still true and applicable in practice since they work on our scale here on Earth. You can build a working car relying on the laws of classical mechanics, but you can't build it with the help of quantum physics.
Here's a Google search on "scientific law". It also provides more info on the differences between hypotheses, theories and laws.
Naturalism is unable to speak to origins because they are untestable. Materialistic dreams about origins have no more place in science classses than does any other philosophy.
Because naturalists DEMAND their non-scientific philosophy be a part of curriculum, I'm going to work to have my philosophy have a part in that curriculum, too.
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
To assume that invisible pink unicorns don't exist just because their existence cannot be proven is flawed. Gee, that's fucking stupid.
No, see I don't *have* to prove anything doesn't exist. By default it doesn't exist until you can show otherwise. Do you believe in the aforementioned invisible pink unicorns? If so, ha! If not, why not? They haven't been proven not to exist, after all.
In any event, something can only be proven to not exist if the definition of the thing precludes it's existence. For instance, invisible pink unicorns can't exist because they cannot be both pink and invisible at the same time. QED. Of course, religions with deities prefer to define them as vaguely and with as many meaningless statements as possible. Crap like, "God is all around us", or "God is outside of time". Makes it rather hard to pin down the precise delusion. Fortunately, most of them have some crap about Big Daddy being both omniscient and omnipotent, which does the job on it's own since neither ability can exist in the physical universe. Quantum mechanics puts all kinds of limitations on what you can know and omnipotence is ruled out by "Can god create a rock so heavy he could not lift it".
Also useful is the source of the claim. Let's see, people who believe in god have also made a number of other _falsifiable_ claims about the real world, very nearly all of which were shot down. If everything they say about things we can test turn out to be bogus, why should I take their word on the even more outrageous stuff?
Oh please. I've read creationists' 'debunkings' of evolution. It's more like getting a lesson on logical fallacies, selective quotation, and deliberate mirepresentation of evidence. The whole improbability of molecular abiogenesis? Creationists like to point to the odds against a modern piece of DNA forming by chance, never mind the fact that the only people even discussing that possibility are creationists. When you run the numbers on a simple piece of self-replicating proto-protein, it turns out given an ocean-sized vat of amino acids, the formation of life is not only less improbable, it's downright likely!
Yes, a lot of brilliant people believe in god. The thing is, even briliant people seem to turn into complete morons when it comes to theology. Cynics, skeptics, wickedly deep and insightful people, people who are the tops in their professional fields, when you ask then about god they just turn it all off and say they believe in the whole mythology, no questions asked. It's *amazing* what indoctrination can do when you start it early enough. It's no coincidence that one's religion is more inheritable a trait than hair color. The vast majority of believers never question their faith, never apply the same rules of skepticism and requirements of proof that they do for everything else, they just take what they were brought up with and don't ever question it.
Dyolf Knip
Yeah, but perhaps once we better understand quantum physics, we will no longer be building the cars of today.
To assume that invisible pink unicorns don't exist...
My point was simply that until you know everything and are able to explain everything scientifically -- which if you're honest, you'll acknowledge you cannot -- that there is the possibility that God or a Prime Mover of some sort is responsible. An absolute denial of God is an indefensible position to take logically, as most people are unwilling to claim that they know everything.
You (apparently) disbelieve in invisible pink unicorns, but you believe that something came from nothing? You think that nothingness, by pure chance, turned into the universe we see today? Yet, the likelihood that there are invisible pink unicorns is higher than the idea that the laws of nature were violated in creating the laws of nature. (2nd Law of Thermodynamics, how did nature progress from a less ordered to more ordered system, without outside influence?)
Explain that to me, since you have absolute knowledge of the non-existence of God, there shouldn't be anything you can't explain.
You're right: The vast majority of believers never question their faith, never apply the same rules of skepticism and requirements of proof that they do for everything else...
And you, just like any other believer, refuse to consider questioning your faith.
If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. -- George Orwell
Science still has issues dealing with the very extreme innards of the cell and the intricate mechanisms operating within, let alone DNA.
Why is it that people in opposition to current theories always cite things like this? "Science still can't explain x", where x is something that current scientific theories have no answer for (semantics, people) or something whose explanation, however unforthcoming, is infact explainable via current scientific theories that are misunderstood by the person using this as a point. I'm unsure which case the parent post falls into, because nothing was cited and there were no specifics. But that, coupled with how it was phrased, makes me assume that the poster's posterior is doing most of the typing. With those concessions aside, it's time now for my actual shot: DNA is very very new on the Grand Scientific Timeline--it took millenia to understand the equations the govern the simplest physics on a macro scale, and you're citing that not having uncovered all the minuteia of the most miniscule interactions in a cell in a scant 50 years as cause enough to reconsider a scientific (read: provable) theory? Make your blowjob payable to Jay Straw, dumbass.
To touch upon the "equal discussion" bit, however briefly, equal discussion isn't even really possible as another poster pointed out; ID,at its core, is not provable scientifically. It's a belief.
We now have confirmed reports from an informed Orange County minister that Ethel is still an active communist.
I could be missing one or two outliers, but it appears to be a function of the dualistic nature that these theologies exhibit, and non-dualistic religions don't have this eternal punishment clause.
Actually, Hinduism/Buddhism are rather appealing in this manner, as it's more about living correctly to reap rewards here, rather than living correctly to avoid punishment later.
You better watch out, there may be dogs about . .
> I guess that would be the Big Butt Theory?
Pshh, you haven't seen my ass! It's not just BB, it's the the VBB (Very Big Butt) Theory.
The possibility of man creating a machine that creates a superior being to man is not fiction - it's just a possibility.
Evolution is not random. The set of features that help a creature survive are not random. They are defined by the conditions in which the creature must survive. To place a probability on something evolving is unscientific. Either it will or it won't. For any given characteristic, there may be a 100% chance that it will exist SOMEWHERE. The determining factor is whether that characteristic is passed on.
In other words, your reasoning falls apart because the chance that a human being would evolve is 1:1. Otherwise, we wouldn't be here.
I am scientifically inaccurate.
That was a joke. Read it again you Troll-assigning retard. LDS LSD? moron.
Now, perhaps you were talking about the probability of the _first_ self-replicating molecule. While abiogenesis is NOT evolution, the talkorigins site does address some of the common abiogenesis probability arguments. Namely, that the simplest self-replicating molecules do not have to be hundreds of base pairs long, and again, once you've gotten one self-replicator, the magic of natural selection plus billions of years plus billions of self-replicators can get you some pretty neat things.
Now, can I prove that God or some alien didn't step in and tweak a step in the evolution process? No, I can't. But the point is that we don't need to appeal to the supernatural to explain anything we currently observe. And the advantage of scientific over supernatural explanations is that science enables us to make predictions. For example, science will predict that where synonomous codons exist (eg, UUU and UUC both code for phenylalanine), two closely related organisms will use the same coding more often than two distantly related organisms. Intelligent design would predict absolutely nothing useful about this issue. And the fact that time and time again, the predictions of science turn out to be right shows that either evolution is right or God really wants to screw with our heads.
scientists with testable theories
Scientists' theories about origins cannot be tested using the scientific method.
religious nuts who won't or can't submit their loony theories to any test at all
Let me ask you this. What tests should be applied to a philosophy or set of teachings?
As a fundamentalist Christian, I have a set of tests that I apply to the Bible and to the teachings of Christianity. I do not neglect reason or intellect in my study of Christ's teachings. My understanding of fundamentalism is "one who adheres to the fundamental teachings of the historic Christian faith."
For example, with respect to Christian belief, some of the components I have examined include: eyewitness evidence for Christ, documentary evidence about Him, corroborating evidence along side scripture, archeological evidence, rebuttal evidence, psychological evidence - Christ's psyche as described in scripture, and the evidence of changed lives of people in the past, and people I know today.
Finally, one critical test af any world view is 'can it be lived out?' Can anyone do it? Can I do it? What are the social, political, economic, and psychological consequences of living with strict adherence to the teachings of any philosophy? What is the logical outcome?
No tests at all? What other tests do you propose?
Respectfully,
Anomaly
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
If your software evolution can't reach an arbitrary level of complexity, then it doesn't really prove anything about evolution on the large scale, does it?
It reaches a certain point and then gets stuck. Looked at one way, it indicates evolution shouldn't work. Organisms should reach a local maximum of efficiency and never move on, because changes would make them less efficient vs. their neighbors.
I checked the stats on Dover.
Population (year 2000): 1,815, Est. population in July 2002: 1,878 (+3.5% change)
Males: 902 (49.7%), Females: 913 (50.3%)
This isnt even a meaningful population count for discussion.
Its nearest city is Lancaster a town famous for its Amish community.
Nearest city with pop. 50,000+: Lancaster, PA (37.5 miles, pop. 56,348).
Thanks. That region is quite red now and voted for Bush unanimously. For all I care it is as good as Kansas. Move on to the next meaningful discussion.
the evidence of the creation of the universe (natural or otherwise) is all around us.
You are right. In this we violently agree. The Bible says: "The heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament shows his handiwork"
As a creationist, I believe we must examine the evidence and learn what we can from it. God gave us intellect, curiosity, reason, and I believe that He expects that we should use it to learn about our universe. The scientific method has proven to be a helpful framework for describing the cosmos. As a Christian, I should, must, and DO embrace good science. This is my duty to God.
Creationists and materialists have the same evidence. We have different theories about the meaning of that evidence. Our preconceptions define what we allow ourselves to posit about the root cause or the meaning. This is true for the creationist and for the materialist. Lewontin's statement that scientists have an 'a priori commitment to naturalism' suggests that non-natural processes are precluded, regardless of their validity as an explanation.
These explanations about meaning are derived from something. For the scientist, it starts with an idea, a hypothesis. This idea comes from some basis.
can apply Occam's Razor to try to find the least unlikely one
The problem is that Occam's razor is a 'rule of thumb' not an absolute measure. Many unlikely things are actually true, in spite of their seeming disconnection from being likely to be true.
science doesn't deal with absolutes...Scientific knowledge is always changing
This is correct. What is troublesome to me is that scientific information is presented as if it is Truth with a capital T.
I submit to you that naturalism and materialism are insufficient frameworks for exploration of the human experience. That materialistic philosophy has no place in science class, yet it persists.
This is my beef with the 'scientific community.' They rail about the thoughtless, foolish faithful, while they worship in a cathedral built to honor materialism and naturalism. We're all biased. They should acknowledge that.
In addition, philosophy belongs in the philosophy classroom, and science belongs in the science classroom. Today they are intertwined and the only politically correct philosophy in science class is that which agrees with the scientist.
This is simply wrong.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
The THEORY of evolution is Natural Selection: The theory that tries to explain the observed fact of evolution.
And yes, even reputable scientists do not completely agree on natural selection. Other (natural) forces are also at work.
Besides, just because a theory has problems, does not mean that it is false.
It should be perfectly fine to discuss the problems with the theory of evolution (natural selection) without dragging in other, much more speculative explanations like Intelligent design.
ID does not rise to the level of an alternative theory because it is not really testable - it is truly a speculation. Worse, even if true, it means that the universe is unpredictable, because if it is God who causes every sparrow to fall, and who keeps the planets in their orbits, and who decides the results of DNA combinations, then you can predict nothing, since He may change his mind at any time.
So, if you want to live in a universe that is at least a little predictable and understandable, you must ignore ID, even if you believe it to be true! At least when you are trying to breed roses, racehorses or trying to design spacecraft.
There is not nearly enough love in the world, but there is far too much trust.
According to Evolution the minute variations that happen every generation *are* random. True the ones that don't foster life drop off from DNA but according to Evolution the variations have no intelligent design or guide to them they're just a bunch random draws of the deck to see what works.
Evolution as a theory to explain how species evolved might make sense but it doesn't explain the genesis of life itself.
What it and those abiogenesis probability arguments don't get to at all is how did a bunch of inert stuff suddenly form into even the simplest of single cell living animals?
What gave it the instinct to live? Consciousness?
The jump to inert material to living organism is a quantum jump that can't be crossed by random incremental changes even for infinity.
The completely athiestic scientific viewpoint is to just write this enormous discrepancy as just "coincidence", "random", "it just is".
All those terms could just as well be described by "magic" or "divinity".
Your original argument:
This is easily proven incorrect. For example, let's say that two "average" parents copulate and produce a pro-wrestler or some other extremely exceptional person...
The problem with statements such as the one you presented is that it only takes one counter-example to prove it wrong. Even if the example doesn't prove anything, it can easily be combined with other known and established material.
BTW, most science fiction authors take the opposite belief, where a "creator" (in most cases, a human) can create something that is suicidally dangerous. It may be something simple such as a group of super-soldiers that making a coup and taking control of the world government, but it could instead be a rogue Sentient Hyper-Optimized Data Access Network that creates a new super-virus to facilitate conquest of a planet.
me: Congrats on missing my fundamental point...I guess all that zeal got in your eyes....JUST FUCKING PLAIN OLD WRONG...It is bigoted (unless you're a Christian of course) to say that Christianity is 'ascendant', i.e., supreme to all other religions by nature...You thought it was cute to quip...
you: Why so much venom? Yes, I'm a Christian, but I'm not blinded by zeal, stupid, or bigoted. It seems like you don't like Christians very much. Why? If this isn't the case, then what are your views on religion? Whatever they are, you seem to feel pretty strongly about them.
First, I was raised a Christian. And for the most part, I like Christians very much (my wife is Christian). I understand that on some level prostletizing and "spreading the gospel" and presuming "my God is better than your god" is one of the demands of said faith (which I guess in some aspects is similar to Islam although Islam's God is your God).
With that said, people consider me a secular humanist though in my life I have attended Unitarian churches and studied Buddhism. This is a long way to say that I don't get my spirituality from one book.
I love Christianity to an extent -- a demand to help the poor, to turn the other cheek, to love thy neighbor. I can't recall if the Bible permits slavery, but regardless I'm not sure Christ would try to own another man. What I don't love is Christians who dress themselves in religiosity while at the same time acting against the word of their Lord. The problem is many Christians will cop out on me, "It's ok for me to not be humble or to act out aggression against others because Jesus will forgive my sins." To me, this is tantamount to claiming "I can have no faith at all, but claim Christianity because it's the one that takes merely a token gesture to appease my guilt." These soft-belied, fair-weather Christians are Christian by default but don't live by the Gospel. If American Christians lived by the Word, how could we act with wars of revenge? How could we let people die of starvation in our own, some might say Christian, country? How can we continue to be xenophobic?
The usual argument to this is that "tsk tsk those aren't real Christians then," or "all faiths have bad guys." I hope this is not your rebuttal. Both of these are undisputed. I guess what saddens me is that unconditional forgiveness for sin provides no motivation beyond our already fallible moral compass. I apologize this feeling came across as venom. I hate dishonesty (well if I can 'hate' anything). These forms of 'white' hypocrisy sour me against the faithful. If one is to claim they are religious they must prove it in action, they are hollow Christians if they choose to act without regard and ask forgiveness later.
E.g.: How can a divorcée be a Christian [having broken a vow they swore before God]?
Finally, I don't see how [a minority of] Christians [in power] can want to have it both ways. If we were to live in a religious state by a set of laws determined to be Christian then wouldn't these fair-weather Christians be punished in droves? The adulterers... The blasphemers...
Maybe this disconnect is why Christianity is so popular -- Christianity does not force right-living as an assurance of transcendence (I acknowledge that the other faiths from the region accept this as well to varying degrees, e.g., Allah, The Forgiver). Compare these demands to other faiths that have had more adherents over time where your actions are judged in light of karma, affect of ancestral disgrace, societal dissonance. (Aside: heh, these rely on personal responsibility as neo-cons call it). I always find it amusing to think, in the eyes of some Christians, how all those billions of Buddhists are now burning in hell because they lived for centuries before God's savior appeared. They were all sinners right, because of the Original Sin. Thankfully Islam rejects original sin and is therefore compatible with other right-living faiths (and hence the religious tolerance of
Read Heinlein's 1953 Revolt in 2100, now more than ever.
Intelligent design is simply stating that certain things in life - like DNA - are simply too complex to have been formed by some amino acids randomly millions of years ago.
You're probably right. To go from amino acids to DNA is highly improbable. The fact that the ribosome is a ribozyme (RNA enzyme) supports this observation as well.
What is much more likely is that RNA (which can be catalytic) went to DNA (which is more stable due to the lack of the 2'-OH) and protein (which can be more varied) in some progression.
Right, as opposed to Myths, i.e. Jehova.
argan0n
You really are proving my point. An otherwise intelligent person who will swallow the most outlandish claims and entertain the most unlikely possibilities, all because it's got the word GOD attached to it.
Where did the universe come from? I don't know. There are a great many scientists actively trying to answer that question, but strangely, very few are willing to say "God did it" and leave it at that. The only people claiming to understand the universe are the ones who answer every question that requires effort with "It was god".
Oh, but you want a Prime Mover, some sort of underlying force that drives the universe? Ok, explain to me why it needs to have intelligence. Explain to me why it would give a flying fuck about me and what I think. Explain to me why it would be qualitatively any different from any of the other forces we recognize today. Gravity is a underlying force that wields great power in the universe, appears to be present everywhere, has no limits to its reach, performs a valuable service in keeping us alive (keeps the sun lit up, keeps the earth intact, keeps us and the atmosphere on the ground), was the first force to become recognizable as such in the very early universe, and is wholly unknown in terms of why it works. Shouldn't I worship gravity? It's got a helluva lot more going for it than anything you've offered.
Anyways, all of this is irrelevant to the topic at hand, Evolution, which has been shown more than a few times not to need members of the Q Continuum to come along and spice things up.
Now, please get this through your thick skull. I do not have faith. I do not believe in fairies, goblins, fire-breathing dragons named Pete, or any of the _thousands_ of deities guys like you have dreamed up over the past few millenia. I am as certain that this god character does not exist as you are that Santa Claus does not exist. But what am I talking about? You actually *do* believe that there's a magical being at the top of the world that watches everything you do, manages to be in many places at once, rewards good people and punishes bad ones, and keeps a small army of similarly magical creatures as helpers, even though there's a far more likely, rational, mundane, and above all, accurate explanation for how those presents got there. You want to play games with "Well, maybe it could happen", you go right ahead. You never know, maybe I *could* actually own a bridge in New York! But stop acting as if you have any sort of empirical or scientific basis for your beliefs. You believe in god because you want to, not because there's any reason to.
Dyolf Knip
First I want to assure you that we are in total agreement with respect to the nature of science.
I'm not sure how I can more clearly explain that the whole study of origins is non-scientific in nature. As such, it seems to me that it does not belong in science classes. Do we agree on that point?
You keep restating this but have not submitted any further argument for why it is so.
When 'people of faith' express convictions about what conclusions should be drawn from certain facts, many times they are belittled by scientists because there is a presumption that natural causes are the ONLY viable explanation for the facts. It's the interpretation that is troublesome, and this type of interpretation is prevalent in so-called scientific information.
As an example, I recently watched a program on TV called 'the search for the ultimate survivor' - supposedly a tale about the path that mankind followed to make it until today. Again and again, information was presented as absolute fact - even when the producers themselves admitted in the program that the data supporting those conclusions was minimal. At the head end of the program, they acknowledged that all human fossils found everywhere would not even fill the back of a pickup truck. During the program they told numerous cgi-enhanced fanciful tales about the lives and cultures of peoples - in one case I think it was something like parts of 8 skeletons were found, and they went on and on about the culture and types of creatures that evolved from this or that line of hominids. They did not let their lack of concrete data prevent them from speculating about what, how, and WHY!
I have seen this type of rampant speculation in Imax movies, on public television, in books and movies, in textbooks ad nauseum. The fact that these things are presented as fact is what is troublesome to me.
You are right when you say that science is not about absolutes. It is about unfalsified hypotheses. What is ultimately frustrating to me is that these productions and documents fail to acknowledge this fact. In our culture, science is often presented as the arbiter of truth, when in point of fact, it can only deal with the physical world. It can establish facts about material conditions, but cannot legitimately extrapolate the cause of those facts. When so-called scientists move from describing the material world to defining the meaning around the facts, they are injecting philosophy into science - and that is in my mind a corruption of science. On what basis can one say that an atheistic explanation is superior? What if theism is true?
I doubt either one of us will convert the other, that's not really my plan though.
My goal is not specifically to convert you, although I do believe that my world view is true, and that you would benefit from becoming a follower of Jesus Christ.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
An otherwise intelligent person who will swallow the most outlandish claims and entertain the most unlikely possibilities, all because it's got the word GOD attached to it.
And many otherwise intelligent people will reject any possibility if it has the word "God" attached to it.
I'm willing to acknowledge that there is some foundation for your beliefs because I've studied the opposing viewpoint. Your refusal to offer the same consideration is evidence that you have no idea whether or not I have empirical or scientific basis on my side because you would never consider studying or reading anything that argued against what you already take on faith.
You and I will seek to prove with the same evidence what we already believe. The difference is that I'm honest about it and am happy to inspect and consider new evidence, while you are unwilling to acknowledge anything that disagrees with your point of view as evidence at all.
What's wrong with giving students an opportunity to consider all the evidence and making an informed decision? Why the obsession with excluding facts from the discussion just because they don't agree with your conclusions?
If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. -- George Orwell
If your software evolution can't reach an arbitrary level of complexity
It's going to be limited by the resources I throw at it, and by how long I run it, and the complexity of the target enviornment. You might as well say that gravity cannot explain the orbits of the planets because I can only produce a small amount of gravity in a laboratory. If you thrown more mass at it and you get more gravity. When you've got an entire planet to work with - either for evolution or for gravity - you are going to get bigger results. Especially over multi-million or multi-billion year timescales.
The piont is that it proves that the process of evolution actually works. That it can CREATE INFORMATION and create structure and create complexity. Most of those who attack evolution go on and on about how mutation is random and destroys information, how they think it cannot create information. But it can and it does - through the selection and reproduction process.
It also provides an excellent laboratory to study all sorts of other effects and mechanisms of the evolution process, and to make predictions about the biological world. The ability to study things like punctuated equilibrium. That "steady state" where nothing appears to be happening - it is actually a time of growing diversity - a time of accumulating an entire library of nonfatal mutations. A huge resource of information. And then when there is a disruption in the envirnment, or when there is a "breakthrough" mutation or a breakthrough pairing of mutations giving a signifigant advantage, then that library is searched. The signifigant change or pairing of mutations is randomly mixed with those other mutations over the next several generations. A search for even better combinations, and a search for ways to FIX any downsides to the original mutation. Many new mutations - such as a new toxin or a new bone structure - they may have benefits but are random and ill formed or ill supported. They may even be a net harm. Evolution often taks a step backwards and produces a crippled individual before it can move forward in a new direction. The library of non-fatal mutations ts searched for fixes and support structures. A some other useless (but harmless) mutation may suddenly be quite valuable in light of the new signifigant development. A period of rapid change. Plus the the population itself is a substantion part of any individual's enviornment - a rapid change in the population means that the individuals are living in a changed environment and subjected to different selection pressures. This further increases the temporary rate of change.
And when that happens a few better more sucessfull individuals may displace the entire previous population, or seperate from the original population. The effect is that The new indivuduals and the new population are fairly closely related, decendants of the same few individuals with the signifigant mutations. The new population has not most of the original diversity. This new population spends some time shuffling the available mutations to optimize to the new change, but mostly stabilizes to build up diversity again.
Whether you watch it on a computer screen, or in the fossile record you see much the same thing. Extended periods of stability or gradual adaption in some direction, and random bursts of disruption that can split or radically alter a population.
You can see how complex adaptions can be created by first stepping backwards through a crippled individual, allowing constructs that would be difficult reach through pure "improvement" steps.
You can see how most "breakthough" changes and improvments are not the result of some super-duper-mutation, but most often the result of the mixing and matching of useless and mostly harmless mutations. Stumbling across a pairing or triplet of useless mutations that combines to some signifigant effect.
It is truely amazing watching how evolution produces self-organising information out of chaos. It's kinda like how the chaos of
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
"The Universe was created 14 billion years ago, and for the first..."
I put down my scroll. "Moses? 14 billlion years?"
He nodded. "Absolutely. I'm inspired." His eyes flamed with certainty.
Well, you can't argue with my brother's inspirations, not when he's on a roll like that. "Go on, then, but let's move it along."
"Okay, so about four and a half billion years ago the Sun, Moon, Earth and planets were formed. Life started about two billion years later, with the formation of..."
Well, there's a limit. "Look, Mose, we've got a mostly illiterate audience - we're going to have to read this out loud to most of them. Can't we edit this a bit? Just hit the high points."
He pouted a bit, but nodded. "Okay. Let's see... Okay. In a steamy African valley, some ten million years ago... What? I can't trim it much more than that, Aaron!"
"Please. Moses, bubbe, please! We've got six blank scrolls and two flasks of ink. Sacrifice a little accuracy, trim the backstory to a week or so, and let's get into the boy-meets-girl part. There is a girl, right?"
Evolution has made MANY predictions, and every single time it has passed with flying colors.
Thats some crazy world you live in, either that our you realy are here with us and you just need to go back and check your facts, go ahead, ask the nearest biologist for some examples of failed evolutionary predictions.
Sure we're still working out a few details of the tree, but the overall structure is extremely distinct.
If by a few small details you mean enormous holes that seem to be more prevelant than the connections, the ok, I'll give you that.
Evolution predicts that mutation and heredity and selection in a population is sufficient to CREATE INFORMATION and produce great complexity and optimisation.
Your inventing realities here if you think this one has come to pass, the creation of information has never been observed, only the oposite. Your example is more an argument for ID than evolution.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now. - Ed Howd
Now, who in the hell is Donnie Darko?
(Rhetorical question, I can Google...)
...then why are the fossils there?
"The use-mention distinction" is not "enforced here."
That is one of the more interesting takes on the whole thing I've read to date. Thanks.
The number one problem I have with the "separation of church and state" argument is the failure to recognize the idea of evolution as a religion itself. Most fundamentalists would think it to be atheistic and that such beliefs in evolution can be viewed as a religion itself. Religion, simply put, is a system of beliefs with "boot-and-carrot" features such that people are directed to do one thing or another in order to avoid the "boot" and acquire the "carrot." The system of belief promoted in schools is evolution. How it is anything other than a belief is difficult to comprehend in that there does not appear to be correlations strong enough to point to evolution as a fact. It hardly seems to be anything more than an untested hypothesis because it is not something that can be tested. The scientific method is defined in Merriam-Webster as " principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses." The boot: Believe in something other than evolution can lead to people being considered to be stupid, unknowledgeable and simpletons" The carrot: Acceptance by the more powerful groups in the scientific community. -entry cut short due to time constraints-
See pics of me at http://photos.yahoo.com/chiromyu and get to know me at http://www.livejournal.com/users/sweet__kitty
Ok, just explain this and maybe get somewhere scientifically. The sun loses 5 feet in diameter of nuclear material a day. Go back a few thousand years and the sun is slightly larger, but not a problem for life. Go back a few hundred thousand years -nevermind a million- and you have a sun so large that it heats the surface of the earth to a much hotter temp. than your oven on its highest setting. Being that every evolutionist thinks it took BILLIONS of years for life to evolve, this one fact alone takes all possibility of life making itself out of the realm of possibility.
It's interesting that you should mention Passover as an example of God's love. Passover is a celebration of the day Jehovah killed, and presumably sentenced to Hell, all the non-Israelite firstborn in Egypt.
I think the hostility you sense is because there are many of us who find it chilling to hear mass murder described as "perfect love". It's not god we're afraid of, it's people like you. Sorry to be so blunt, but it's true.
I have seen many of these things that Christian have vastly different views than other Christians. I also didn't really buy into the stories told to me in Sunday School, so I was a little protected from the belief system.
Thats not to say that I don't view Jesus as a good historical figure, I do, but in the same way I view Budda, Muhammad, Confucius, Martin Luther King Jr., and Ghandi.
That said, I am planning on becoming a Buddist, but just because he created a simple, good, moral framework, and Buddism supports education and the dispersment of knowledge.
...it's precisely what Wickramasinghe & co did in codifying panspermia - in an attempt to avoid the intelligent design implied in abiogenesis.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Dr Matthew Collins: "My suspicion is this process has led to the reaction of more resistant molecules with the normal proteins and carbohydrates which make up these cellular structures, and replaced them, so that we have a very tough, resistant, very lipid-rich material - a polymer that would be very difficult to break down and characterise, but which has preserved the structure," Translation: this can't be what it obviously is, so I'll speculate wildly in the hope of looking knowledgeable and Orthodox.
Don't be sad, you're the first person on any forum anywhere who has even tried to answer that one.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Rings don't have ends.
Ring species offer a continuous series of variations leading back to the starting point. Think of a genetic Mobius strip. Species from opposite points on the ring typically won't (not necessarily "can't") interbreed.
That shows differentiation, the filtering and selection (reduction) of available information, but speaks not at all to the generation of the novel, useful traits (increase of information) required by evolution.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Isotope ratios are observations. The dates derived from them are not observations. You can tell me exactly what the decay rate is now, but you can't tell me with certainty either what it was in the past nor what the starting conditions were. Either lack makes the derivations useless for dating.
Evolution is based on a huge series of non-observations.
At the risk of confusing you yet again, we could list some direct, physical non-observations like transitional fossils, but the whole point is that your "certainties" are extrapolations to unknown starting points through uncharted waters.
The original calibration for ancient radio-isotope dating was the geological column and its index fossils. The original geological column was pulled out of someone's ass, assigned arbitrary dates based on imagination and then modified based on field data to be less embarrassing. Meanwhile, the ranges of most index fossils (e.g. ammonites) have been extended and extended, often to uselessness.
The "age" assigned to Mary Schweitzer's fresh T Rex bone inside fossilised thigh bones was 68 million years. Fresh bone. After billions of days at (more or less) room temperature? Here, pull this one, it plays Jingle Bells.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Let us be clear. My religious beliefs are not science. I never have claimed that they are.
I believe that you are mistaken when you say that the tests I apply to my faith cannot be proven false. What if archeological evidence directly contradicted what is recorded in the Bible? What if the Bible was directly contradictory about substantive points of teaching?
(Some may be quick to suggest that'the Bible is full of contradictions' but that is an uninformed position. Those supposed contradictions are apparent contradictions, and further study shows them to make sense in context.)
If you discard the written accounts of Christ as unreliable, you must disregard those about EVERY other figure of antiquity. There are orders of magnitude better evidence for the Bible than any other work of antiquity. Do you believe in George Washington? Why would you suggest that the accounts about his existence are more reliable than those about Christ?
there has never been a global flood that covered the whole Earth in water
From a logical perspective, in order for you to say authoritatively that there 'has never been' something, you must have all knowledge about that thing simultanously. What records from the beginning of the earth are you using to assert that point? Also, let me ask you this. What causes fossil formation? Is it not a process where recently deceased creatures are covered with dirt/mud? Is it possible that the fossil record available in the cambrian explosion is a result of a generalized event which a) destroyed a large number of creatures, and b) covered them with watery mud?
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
"Evolution is pretty much an obvious fact"
One (of many) problems with evolution that continues to worsen is that it remains incapable of explaining how anything could evolve that doesn't make biological sense when incomplete.
The wings of birds are the classic example: what good is half of one? Other examples abound. This is a problem that evolutionary theory has promised a solution to for a long time and not delivered. Worse even than visible examples like wings are the complex chemical reactions and molecular structures that living things are made of.
This is the principal point of Darwin's Black Box (these micro-processes are the black boxes), a book too technical to be satisfying reading for the layman but that convincingly argues that many of these micro-processes make sense either complete or not at all.
There are no plausible accounts of how they could have evolved from other simpler processes because as one hypothesizes back down the hypothetical chain of complexity, one comes to a point at which the process simply won't work if it gets any simpler. At this stage, the process couldn't have evolved from anything else because there is nothing simpler for it to have evolved from. And at this stage, the process is still far too complex to have been thrown together by any known non-living chemical event. At one time, knowledge of the complex processes of living things was limited enough, and hopes for the discovery of intermediate processes that they could have evolved from wide-open enough, that evolutionists could ignore this problem. But as biological research has progressed, this gap too has been filled with more and more inconvenient facts.
As in the case of the other problems challenging evolution, the key thing here is the intellectual direction: research is consistently making the problem worse, not better.
In which this shows the Atheist bias in modern science today. So much so, that they are even willing to hide behind the ACLU to throw out alternatives to Evolution, and change text books to no longer say that Evolution is a theory, but now they must say that Evolution is a fact. That has nothing to do with science at all, and hence is pseduo-science. The only reason the ACLU is involved because they take the side of Atheists, and the like, and try to push their agenda.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
"Can I put a species on an island with some exact constraints and predict -when- the new species will arrive?"
You are trying to place ridiculous constraints on the proof. There is absolutely no requirement to predict when mutations arrive or what they will look like to prove evolution. All that is necessary is to observe that mutations do appear over time, some of them are propagated, and some of them are improvements.
"We've sequenced the Humane Genome and so it ought to be reasonable to calculate down the road which links in our molecules are most likely to disrupt and what sort of evolution we can have and when."
Dude, you apparently lack the most basic understanding of the theory behind evolution. The mutations at the heart of evolution are semi random and triggered by a myriad of possible sources, exposure to natural radiation and accidents of biochemistry being the leading contenders. Most of them are bad and decrease the chances for the organism's survival but some are either neutral or positive for survival and are propagated. Over the immense time span of earth's history this mechanism almost certainly leads to diversification of species.
Sequencing of human, animal and plant genomes has supported evolution to an extent already and probably will more so over time, not by allowing us to predict evolution but by illuminating how extensively we share our genome with our near cousins, especially the apes, how much commonality there is among all species, and exactly where the commonality and divergence in our genome is. As more genomes are sequenced and our understanding of them improves, we can compare them and most probably see all the places where mutations and evolutionary breaks occurred.
The one obvious element of predictability we gain in studying genomes is that we have already developed the ability to create artificial evolution through genetic engineering. In so doing man is already exploiting the mechanisms of evolution, but removing most of the randomness that nature is forced to rely on. Through generic engineering we have pretty much proved the mechanics of evolution it just takes nature a whole lot longer to exploit them sucessfully.
All of this doesn't prove anything about the origin of life, maybe these mechanisms were designed by an intelligence of one form or another whether it be divine, or extraterrestrial or maybe they were an accident but the case is really strong that evolution is a key mechanism by which life diversifies.
@de_machina
The actions of people in courts of law or the political arena does not determine whether their theories are scientific or pseudo-scientific. Their rules for determining what is or is not legitimate evidence and what is or is not an acceptable explanation or experimental technique determine whether a theory is scientific.
The fact that the people who want to re-introduce school-sponsored prayer and the people who what to introduce "intelligent design" into science curricula BOTH stir up opposition from athiests does not mean this opposition is based on the same philosophical foundation.
Also, atheism is the *lack* of a belief. How this can be a bias is mysterious.
Where does this 5 feet in diameter crap come about? A single report, based on poor methodology, and contradicted by subsequent measurements and analysis.
Plus, you've made a mindless extrapolation of one measurement to the arbitrary past.
So let's see: one scientist measures a contraction of the sun, and immediately, that is incontrovertible. Meanwhile, hundreds or thousands of nuclear physicists work with radioisotopes using the same basic physics to understand stellar fusion, but that is all doubtful.
Here's a tip: learn science from scientists, not from axe-grinding creationists.
ask the nearest biologist for some examples of failed evolutionary predictions
Link please.
I will gladly discuss this point with you once I have some idea what you are talking about.
Hand waving that the proof of your argument is out there somewhere, but that you have no idea what it is is not exactly an effective argument. If you have some argument to make, great. If you have some example to cite or evidence to present, great. If you want to cite some unidentified experts and some unspecified examples they supposedly have... well don't be supprised when I ask for a link.
I hadn't spent time at www.talkorigins.org before, but a Google search turned it up and it contains numerous perfectly falsifiable predictions of evolution. Evolution is a scientific theory and does make falsifiable predictions. Predictions which have held up.
>the tree, but the overall structure is extremely distinct.
If by a few small details you mean enormous holes that seem to be more prevelant than the connections, the ok, I'll give you that.
I don't know what you're referring to, but I'll tell you what I'm reffering to.
I'm talking about the existance and absence of genes in various species, and the branching of a gene into two or more substantially identical genes (often with entirely different functions).
For example all mammals carry fundamentally the same X/Y gender chromosome. If you look across all mammals you will see other chromosmes and individual genes appearing or dissappearing or branching in a tree pattern.
For example all whales carry the genes for legs. If you look at an X-ray of a whale you'll see rediculously small leg bones buried inside the body. The bones are so short they don't reach out as far as the skin. They are still fundamentally the same leg genes, the major point being mutation in genes controlling the growth and size of the legs.
Well, that makes perfect sense under evolution. The more you study whale genes and other species genes, it more clear evidence there is of a tree structure and of whales and humans being subbranches of the mammal branch. That at that branch point we both had legs, and that those useless genes (actually harmful genes as far as whales are concerned) got carried down from that branch point. You can see that whales and cows share more genes than whales and humans. When you look at horses and whales and cows and humans and dolphins, there is a clear tree pattern to what genes are present and absent.
And that tree pattern extends outside the mammal family as well. Humans and fish share many important genes, genes that do appear or do not appear in other classes of animals. Genes that appear and do not appear in a tree pattern. Dolphins and fish share essentially no genes that are not *also* shared by humans. The dolphin branch may be curving in a "fish-like" direction, but they cannot pick up any new genes that first appeared on the fish branch, they cannot recover genes that both humans and dolphins lost on the early on the shared mammal branch, and dolphins are 'stuck' carrying many mammal genes even when they are ill-suited to aquatic life.
A perfect example is that fish and humans and dolphins all have genes that produce proto-gills in the embryonic stage. Something we all share from an early broad branch that does not appear anywhere outside that broad branch. After the fish-mammal fork, the genes to finish developing this proto-gill into a fully functioning gill were lost. It was lost prior to the human-dolphin split. Dolphins cannot simply recover this lost gene to grow very useful gills. The dolphin branch may be evolving closer to the fish branches in many ways, but they are clearly on the mammal branch of the tree and the functional gill gene was lost at the begining of that branch. Genetics clearly reveals this tree structure.
If we assume for a moment that Intelligent Design were an actual scientific theory... well if anything whales
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Great showing, sickofthisshit. Furthermore I'd like to point out that our poster is missing the fact that life does in fact exist at such high and extreme temperatures, such as hot springs and deep sea vents--but of course, that information was probably in the reports his pastor didn't read outloud to the class^H^H^H^Hongregation.
We now have confirmed reports from an informed Orange County minister that Ethel is still an active communist.
see topic.
"It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
After reading through many of the posts here I feel like I am back in collage studying liberal arts!!! For a bunch of supposedly "scientific minded people" you sure do argue politics and philosophy a lot.
For example:
I hear people saying ID is just a belief system with no scientific backing, wrong!!!
I hear people saying evolution is a proven fact; FACT IS, in 140 years there is not one shred of evidence of a single species evolving into a NEW species!!! Darwin would be disappointed in the current state of affairs because he expected the fossil record to show the transition and in 140 years we don't have a single fossil that proves transition!!!
Where are the scientific discussions to back up what people are saying, I can't find any.
I also find it interesting that the PhD's that are proposing ID are chomping at the bit to go to the black board and put it all on the line; you know, real scientific discussions using real numbers and facts, and the secular scientists are running scared using lame excuses why they cannot participate.
I personally have had my fill of these message boards filled with professional debaters that never prove things one way or the other, facts are facts, and I want to see the real thing, a cage match between the ID scientists and the secular scientists.
Our universities are a joke when it comes to perusing the truth, we qualify what the truth is, discoveries that contradict evolution, an old earth or anything else that gives the Bible credibility are immediately discarded and ignored. Scientists have been given the answer to there question before they start their research, this is not science.
We keep hearing, it is common sense and we just need that one break thru and we will have the answer!!! Unfortunately the answer might be wrong; which means, the break thru ant going to happen!!!
Carl Sagan applied his belief in Hinduism and his formal education to convince us to spend billions of dollars monitoring the universe for some background noise that would prove the universe is expanding at a rate that is physically impossible, let alone his total contradiction of the Law's of Thermodynamics. I can't believe all the "scientists" that bought that load of manure.
I could go on an on and on, bring on the scientific discussion and stop poo pooing the ID scientists. Do the research; you will be amazed at how much scientific research has gone into ID and how many of the worlds most educated scientists are behind it.
Secular scientists where is your champion, send out your uncircumcised philistine!!!
Yes, reports made by NASA, they're always making stuff up like that. Sorry if you flunked astronomy, but if you don't believe me just ask any astronomer. Also, I really like your comment about a "mindless extrapolation of one measurement of the arbitrary past" The historical past is not arbitrary, although to make a measurement of the pre-historic past you need something to measure in the present. In order to believe evolution, you make a mindless extrapolation of no measurement to a VERY arbitrary pre-historic past. Just stick to your childish insults since science now scares you as something that will demolish evolution. Science has put the theory of evolution on its deathbed now and will soon pull the plug on it for good, so stay away from it unless you want to hear the truth.
Not true....
A ring species is called such because it "rings" an uninhabitable area with subspecies that often cannot interbreed with the other side but can breed backwords and get to the other side.
A more appropriate name would be a Fork species...however due to the geographical convergence of the tips of the migration the actual distribution of the animals looks like a ring.
A ring species is simply a sample of evolution in which the ancestor species are still alive.
There is no biological or physical way that two divergent evolutionary pathways can reconnect into a single breeding species.
A species like you describe could only occur through direct human genetic manipulation and not through and evolutionary/naturalistic way.
"This page cannot be found"
Well, I suppose it's kind-of philosophical
Interesting how your "research" consists almost exclusively of links to one website.
It is amusing how these creationist wackos totally misunderstand the scientific method. They point to unanswered questions as evidence that the theory of evolution is flawed. They don't get that science is not about knowing all the answers, it is about building a model (aka theory) approximating reality and successively refining it by proving or disproving hypotheses experimentally. Proven hypotheses are incorporated into the model, disproven ones are thrown out, and the model improves.
The "theory" of evolution is built upon thousands of proven hypotheses, with none proven that discredit it. How many hypotheses behind Creation Science have been experimentally verified? We may never know *all* the answers, but no competing theory even approaches the credibility that the theory of evolution has.
Has there ever been ANY proof at all that all this happened by some supreme god.
The Bible is evidence. You may choose not to believe it to be true, but it would be likewise foolish for me to assert that (while untrue) since the evidence claimed by proof from the historical record is written by a bunch of evolutionists that it is therefore flawed since it doesn't take the bible into account. This is the same argument from scientists against using biblical evidence. The exponentially high number of people who assert it as so is also entered as evidence -- particularly those with bio/chemi/genetic education.
Because the(y) believe in ideas blindly.
Firstly, as I mentioned "fundamentalists" exist across the board, not just in religion. How is that only the religious sort are blind followers? Fundamentalism is simply the claim that certain elements of something are, as far anyone is capable of comprehension, true or perceptively/verifiably correct. The belief that organisms and creatures mutated and outlived other mutations are fundamentals of macroevolution, yet there exists a distinction that spiritual matters are unprovable and highly improbable (by science) and that certain scientific matters like evolution are likewise unprovable by the spiritually aware. The fact that science classrooms refuse to allow ground for ID discussion is borderline dictatorship thanso democracy, since they know they're right. Religious classes most definately welcome evolution discussion, knowing they are right. Why is it that we allow discussion, but science doesn't? This is a classroom for learning, right? Merely stating "because of the overwhelming evidence" as an excuse is allowing students to make that assertion on their own (learning), it is predeclaring the solution to an equation before it is given a chance to be solved, like refusing to allow a control situation in an experiment. Show us in the classroom why, according to this absurdly abundant evidence, ID is implausible, and allow the students to make their own assertions. Math teacher don't merely require students to know that "two and two equal four" (a fundamental) but show why it is so. Equal representation in the classroom between Evo and ID make sound logical sense, since evolution (according to science) will win anyway.
I was blinded by science's rationale (no 80's pop references intended) until I was a junior in college (1999), before I knew Christ. Being saved changes a person drastically and feels like new sensory perceptions have been awakened. I can't possibly imagine living without it now, likened a bit to Neo being unable to see the code anymore. Having known the ability to see the code, and no longer being able to see it would be very frustrating, as well as disheartened for those who had never seen it and continue to believe they live in one perceptual world since it's the only thing they can compare it to. On a self-propelled rational-reasoning level, you will call your beliefs, ones you thought were immutable, into question after having been saved, as I was the most hard-nosed blue-pill atheistic science freak I knew and vehemently against how those religious nuts could possibly think science wasn't the answer.
I'll explain flagella could have evolved (I'll even spell it correctly) if you'll explain how an intelligent designer could have come up with the French.
The defense rests.
Just a quick one, the whole eugenics movement.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now. - Ed Howd
Your argument is circular - the effects and results of the mutations should not be confused with the process of mutation itself; even if you restrict your consideration to those mutations which leave a viable organism they are still random in the mathematical sense.
Clear, Dark Skies
Correct, a court of law is not a science lab, yet people are using court findings to prove that Evolution is a fact. Hence the pseduo-science reference in that regard.
Atheism, is not lack of a belief, it is the belief that there is no God. Strong Atheists have faith that there is no God, weak Atheists state that they have faith that there is no God because they don't see evidence of God and act accordingly. Since Atheism is a recognized religion by the US government, it is a belief system. Hence your bias, but then you are biased anyway, aren't you? Evolution is used as a tool by Atheists to try and prove that there is no God, and forcing Atheism into public schools. That is why the Atheists support it that are filing the law suits.
I say prove it in a science lab, not a court room. Until then, it is only a theory.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
I have to say my hope for humanity has been greatly diminished by the comments to this article. I never realized how many people just don't understand science.
"It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
This post pushes this story into 6th place.
"It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
Just a quick one, the whole eugenics movement.
That's like saying slavery has something to do with botany. Like citing cold war Mutually Assured Destruction policy to discredit the science of the atomic nucleus.
You're trying to cite a social movement or social policy to discredit science. That makes absolutely no sense.
Science does not and cannot say we "should" do anything. Science does not say we "should" build nuclear bombs or "should not" build nuclear bombs. Science does not contain or provide goals. Science does not contain or provide priorities. Science does not contain or provide motivations. Science does not contain or provide judgment.
Within science there is no such thing as a "preffered" or "better" or "more valuable" outcome. All outcomes are of equal value - value as nothing more than data points.
All social movments and social policy are based on priorities and goals and motivations and judgements that lie entirely outside of science.
Should we build a nuclear power plant? Should we sterilize the retarded? Science can certainly be used as a resource towards making those choices, but science does not and cannot make choices. Those are human choices. And yes, some people certainly can make rotten choices based on rotten priorities and rotten motivations and rotten goals and rotten judgment. The science is still perfectly valid no matter what goals and choices people choose to make.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
...what goes around, comes around.
We must be alert to the danger that public policy could become captive to a scientific-technological elite. - Eisenhower
The Eugenics movement was founded on the huminist evolutionary hypothosis that since Africa was the origin of human life, blacks, being from Africa must be a more basic form of human life, and thus the experiments were carried out to show that they had lesser inteligence, more primitive physiology, etc. This hypothosis was of course found to be very wrong, and thus is one example of a hypothosis that was wrong. If you want another one, in a more "scientific" field, then the predictions of the magnetic fields of Uranus and Neptune, as measured by Voyager II, this is also one that the "non-scientific" creationists got right, woops. If you want more examples, just keep asking, I'll keep providing.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now. - Ed Howd
Someone making up a rediculous hypothosis with absolutely no basis in the science of evolution in no way discredits evolution. Anyone who thinks or claims that evolution predicts africans being inferior doesn't understand evolution, and they almost certainly have little or no grasp of science. I could make up a hypothosis that africans are inferior based on black holes, but that in no way discredits the theory of gravity. They are both obviously rediculous attacks.
If you want a example of a valid prediction and potential falsification of evolution...
Evolution predicts that we will not find any species with a vestigil organ/structure (such as an ostridge's wings) without an ancestor possessing a properly functional version of that organ/structure (an ancestor with wings enabling actual flight). Whales have vestigil legs buried inside their bodies, so either whales had an ancestor with functional walking legs or evolution is falsified. And yes, the fossil record has many examples of intermediate forms smoothly leading from prehistoric walking land mammals to modern whales.
You can dig up many other legitimate scientific predictions of evolution on the talkorigins.org website by searching for "prediction" and/or "falsification".
the predictions of the magnetic fields of Uranus and Neptune
I'm not familiar of that example, but that sounds like good science. Presumably someone had a model for gas giant magnetic fields, made a prediction on that model, and that model was presumably falsified. That doesn't discredit science, that shows science WORKING. The theories of gravity and evolution and relativity and chemistry are in no way diminished when something else is falsified.
It's hardly unusal for some new speculative and previously untested model is falsified on it's first test. Untested and speculative theories are obviously not appropriate for a high school classroom, other than perhaps as a lesson that untested theories have no scientific weight and often turn out wrong. Scientific theories gain weight and acceptance and value by making falsifiable predictions that are then upheld and by accumulating evidence and surviving critical review and by being useful. Those are the teories that belong in a science classroom. Things like plate techtonics and evolution and relativity. All thoroughly tested and thoroughly supported and rock solid science accepted by virtually 100% of the scientific community.
Evolution is no less valid and solid science just because some non-scientists do not fully understand it or simply dislike it, and evolution is no less valid if you cite some crackpot who says something that has nothing to do with the actual science. Oh, and above all... anyone who claims that evolution says that there is no god is an idiot. But as far as I can tell it's only some creationists making that stupid claim. They love to claim that evolution is some attack on religion and an attempt to push athism. Idiots. The majority of all Cristians believe in God and accept evolution. Even the last Pope said that there is absolutely no conflict between evolution and Christianity/God/Bible. It's only in the US that there's any signifigant fundamentalist Chrisian movement trying to wage some war between science and religion.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Repeat after me: there is no evidence at all for weird polymerisation, it is just wishful speculation from someone who hasn't examined the sample.
There was not one sample, but at least two separate samples at that site.
This is far from the only elephant in evolution's room, it's merely recent and obvious. It only takes one clear demonstration that evolution cannot work to disprove this Atheist's creation myth, and you're facing such.The onus is on you to show his random suspicion to be plausible, is it not?
There's a whole herd of elephants in evolution's room, stampeding around, and the snowballing of speculation which you've participated in here is exactly how that peculiar blindness is achieved.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
No. I wasn't talking about "hasn't proven", I'm talking about "has shown that it won't work". He has walked through all of the possible alternatives and come up dry.Each of the events Mr Miller is attempting to stimulate will take place in an instant, if at all. It is in the nature of the experiment that you make any one step of the process happen in that instant instead of strung out over billennia. The original process got as far as Step One for a few, very simple chemicals. It turns out that the chemical energy path from squat to Step One is pretty much downhill all the way, but the same path then turns seriously uphill for a very long time after that. It also turns out that Step One for many of the other required molecules is some distance up that hill.
As for your heap of other evidence, as you work through the pile, you will notice that every single piece is inferred, none of the evidence is direct observation. As soon as you have an inferral, you have assumptions, one of which is gradualism and another, more basic of which is materialism.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Thank you for that opportunity.
Two possible paths to that situation that involve no true evolution at all, no increase in useful information, merely selection from existing genetic material, are:
- the Western branch are the originals; or
- there is a common ancestor with at least as much information as the Western branch.
They may not be the only two.While we're on salamanders, where does the Korean one fit in?
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
The Eastern Branch also has unique genetic info.
= Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=1566201 1
There is distinct evidence that the NORTHERN species is the oldest and that the whole group moved south NOT north.
All the evidence shows that the closest common ancestor between the western and easter branches is the northern group which does not have all the genetic information that exists in the the two southern branches. Actually the Western and Eastern groups have genetic info that is not represented ANYWHERE else in the salamander family.
The only hybridization that could have created this is if a totaly different species also moved south with the northern species and then interbred and died out. That is certainly a possibility however there is NO evidence that this species ever existed. Therefore it is far MORE likly that this is a case of evolution rather than a mysterious case of all the salamanders of a specific group that EVER lived getting teleported away leaving no evidence at all.
I have no information of a Korean salamander however there is no evidence that salamanders have crossed the pacific before man brought them and this ring species existed before man came to the new world.
I suggest you check out an intor genetics book. That will give you a much better understanding of the differences between hybridization and evolution. Or if you already have a background I suggest doing a pubmed search for Ring Species. I found what looks like an interesting article. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd
Please let me know if there is anything else you are not clear on.
And what experiments have shown one organism turning into another?
Just for reference, the natural selection theory doesn't claim that one organism turns into another. It claims that children differ slightly from parents, and over many generations those differences lead to new species, especially when one group is isolated from another. Individual organisms don't evolve; species do.
There are about a billion fine points to this that you and I could debate (and have already been debated ad nauseam elsewhere in this thread), but I just wanted to make sure you weren't working from a false strawman of the theory you're opposing. I don't expect to convince you that my theory is correct, or that yours isn't, but the discussion wouldn't be any fun if we didn't at least agree on what it is we were arguing about.
If it helps, I just metamoderated as wrong whoever it was that modded you down. I disagree with you, for reasons talked about by many other responders, but you're not trolling. I appreciate your polite, thoughtful call for intelligent discussion of the topic, sans flames.
Thank you. I really never wanted to upset anyone, and I know this can be a very sensative topic. I'm happy to agree to disagree, and don't fault anyone for thier beliefs one way or another. Good discussion is what makes life interesting.
I'm not a troll, but I play one on Slashdot.
You should read Darwins Origins of the Species, Darwin believed African Americans to be inferior, woops. As for the fosil layer, one thing they still haven't figured out is why there are birds at lower stratas than the dinosours, since the aperantly evolved later. As for your predictible anti-christian rant, I'm going to ignore it because it doesn't have anything to do with this.
That doesn't discredit science, that shows science WORKING.
EXACTLY, but that has nothing to do with my point, I was simply showing you a incorect prediction based on a evolutionary naturalist world view, since your original statement was:
Evolution has made MANY predictions, and every single time it has passed with flying colors.
One thing I find funny and telling is that you somehow got the impresion I was attacking science or the scientific process. I'm realy curious how you managed to get that from my post.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now. - Ed Howd
Here's my flame of an ID'er, tonight.
**
"It would take intelligence to create and design a Universe, using just 3 elements... protons, neutrons, and electrons. That starts with a big bang originating from a singularity. "
First off, electrons protons, and neutrons are NOT elements, they are sub atomic particles. An element is made up of at a minimum a proton and electron.
Second you're tossing around mighty big words like 'singularity', which you obviously have no grasp of the meaning, or the ability to use it in your feable argument.
Third you said, "Well, when you find the first scientist that can create a Universe like the one we live in, let me know." Just before, you said, "That can spawn life and provide an evolutionary system for that life." Anyone can see this is comical ID flailing on your behalf, since you give God 8 Billion+ years to make our world, but a scientist, a mortal, has to provide you with empirical evidence of God-like abilities, before you'd give them any credit for discovering scientific facts upon which your life hinges upon every day.
Please, stop trying to bully scientists, high school is long over. It's time to admit that you don't know what you're talking about, and learn from the smart people, instead of telling them they're wrong about everything.
**
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
Unfortunately, this:...is not true. Tigers and lions are quite different species, yet we occasionally have Tigons and ligers (and even wilder crosses like leopards). Dolphins and killer whales are also different, yet we occasionally have wholphins. And so on.
The salamanders are more interesting. How do you know that it took 300,000 years for them to divide into sub-species? What makes you certain of the direction of their migration? What makes you certain that Death Valley has been as it is for a third of a million years? What makes you certain that there is no ancestor species, from which all of the current subspecies descended? How can you be sure that the subspecies are literally unable to mate, rather than simply separated by changes in breeding practices or preferences?
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
If you still don't get it, look at the pictures. You don't seem to be reading what you're quoting. Another example:Hmmm. Transparent, flexible? Sound like fossils to you?
And of course she's not claiming that they are what they so obviously are. Firstly, she doesn't want to believe it herself, and secondly she'd immediately be pilloried by her peers. I notice that MSU's "Dinosaur Jack" Horner isn't exactly falling over himself to be noticed on this one, either. Now consider this:What? With a calendar in its hand?
One of the skeletons in evolution's closet is that we know that radioisotopic dating can break big time - mothods often contradict each other, and get the dates for known, historical, recorded events badly wrong - in fact, the original calibration for it was index fossils, the ranges for which have all long since been extended enormously and which were first pulled out of somebody's butt to fit into a preconceived, unmeasured geological column.
Next, you seem to be fallaciously assuming that fossilisation is slow. About 250km south of here is a fossilised water wheel. Fossils form fast. They have to. If they formed slowly, the animal would be scattered and broken down by scavengers and bacteria.
Even opalised fossils can form fast - as can any opal. There's a bloke who makes them in vegemite jars a bit east of here. He's gotten so good at it that he's stopped, for fear of breaking the natural opal industry. He can produce black opals on demand, opals with inclusions, control the "crackiness" of them, the whole enchilada.
Science generally only progresses when the scientists realise that something important is wrong. "It's not what you know that hurts you, It's what you know that ain't so" as Will Rogers put it.
There's something about Mary, and that something is impeccability. She doesn't want to believe what she's seeing, but she's reporting it nevertheless. She's not been "tainted" with the faintest breath of Creationism or ID or any other suspicion of heresy in the cult of Evolution. This is going to make what she finds much harder to deny.
What's wrong with the theory on the table at the moment is that it's a castle in the clouds. Most of the data is fine, but most of the interpretation depends upon assumptions which are either known to break in a variety of ways, or have never been proven. To further confuse the situation, many people fail to distinguish between data and interpretations. 68 million years is not a datum, it's an interpretation.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
I'll cover your first paragraph last. The rest of your post confused me, let me recap a little.
Someone asserted that evolution was not science because it's not falsifiable.
I explained evolution is valid and solid science and has made predictions and that they have held up.
You call me crazy and claimed there were plenty of "examples of failed evolutionary predictions".
I ask you to back it up.
You cite eugenics.
I point out that is not an example of a failed evolutionary prediction.
You cite some obscure new astronomy theory that immediately flopped.
I point out that is not an example of a failed evolutionary prediction.
Your last post.. well I just didn't get it. As far as I can make out... you explain that your point was simply to show that a science theory be proven wrong (and you use the the bizarre phrase "evolutionary naturalist world view" to refer to "science"... doubly bizarre because your example was astronomy which predates evolution by a few hundred years), and that you're baffled how I thought you were targeting science in general.
You claimed to be able to discredit evolution, you tried, you failed, and you turned to attacking an example of science in general, and you're confused that I point out that switch?
My original and continuing point is that evolution is valid solid science on par with all the major theories from tectonics to relativity and quantum mechanics. That the core modern scientific understanding of evolution does make predictions, and that those particular predictions have always held up.
If you still want to claim there's some problem with evolution and that there's some laundry list of "examples of failed evolutionary predictions", well I'd still be interested to hear it.
As for the fosil layer, one thing they still haven't figured out is why there are birds at lower stratas than the dinosours, since the aperantly evolved later.
I'm not sure if you're even describing an actual problem or just a language confusion.
If you have a link to birds appearing earlier than all dinosaurs then that would be Very Big News.
The first dinosaurs appear around 248 Mya (million years ago). They hung around branching off in all sorts of directions up until the 65 Mya extinction event. One of those branches of dinosaurs happened less than 200 Mya - some of them developed full flight. Total adaption to flight meant a radically different lifestyle. Massive change of enviornment/lifestyle means massive evolutionary pressures. Birds are just a branch of dinosaurs with a large cluster of adaptions unique to aerial life. Birds then coexist with dinosaurs up until 65 Mya. Birds are just funky dinosaurs that managed to survive the extinction. A lot like how whales are just funky mammals.
Darwin believed African Americans to be inferior, woops
No woops.
First of all I said: Anyone who thinks or claims that evolution predicts africans being inferior doesn't understand evolution. Even if Darwin believed or assumed africans were inferior, that does not equal a claim that evolution says that africans will be inferior. I'd be extremely surprised if he made such a claim, because he explicitly said almost the exact opposite. He said that european civilized society and technology helping the weak and ill would reduce evolutionary pressure for those sorts of physical fitness. Essentially that euorpeans would end up 'inferior' to africans in that sense. Absolutely nothing to do with race, purely an enviornmental effect. Social interaction *is* an enormous enviornmental factor for any social animal. Humans multiply this social-interactions-is-enviornment effect a million fold.
Secondly, ok, Darwin probably did believe/assume that "civilized europeans" were in many ways superior. By modern standards, yes Darwin was probably a bigot. By modern standards EVERYONE of his day an idiot. However Darwin not only hated slavery as a horrid evil to abolish ev
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
As for your predictible anti-christian rant
I call bullshit. I made no "anti-Christian rant".
Don't try to paint me as some anti-Christian ass or cry religious oppression for complaining about particular bad acts of particular people. The fact that almost all of the people involved are Christian - some tiny fraction of Christians - does not make it an anti-Cristian attack. You may as well call me anti-asian for criticising the North Korean government for causing a famine that killed a million people.
I'm going to ignore it
Ahhh. You're not going to back up your charge and not even cite it for me to be able to answer. Well, if you're going to force me to GUESS what you're talking about, ok... I'll attempt go through my last post and address each and every potentially inflamatory statement. Which means this has to be rather longer than I'd like. I said:
Someone making up a rediculous hypothosis with absolutely no basis in the science of evolution in no way discredits evolution.
A rediculous hypothesis such as "Africa was the origin of human life, blacks, being from Africa must be a more basic form of human life...lesser inteligence". I stand by the fact that has no basis in evolution and that it is rediculous. I do not claim it has any connection to Christianity.
Anyone who thinks or claims that evolution predicts africans being inferior doesn't understand evolution, and they almost certainly have little or no grasp of science.
I stand by fact that it has no basis in evolution, and I do not suggest it has any connection to Christianity.
From there it looks pretty innocent until the final paragraph...
evolution is no less valid if you cite some crackpot who says something that has nothing to do with the actual science
Such as a pseudo-scientist making a crackpot claim that evolution says africans must be stupid. You misread me if you thought that meant Christian.
anyone who claims that evolution says that there is no god is an idiot
I stand by the fact that evolution says no such thing, and that *any* person making that claim (weather Christian or scientist) is either misinformed or deluded. Creationists should therefore applaud what I said. They often complain about scientists trying to use evolution to push a claim that there is no god. Well, I'm on their side here, any scientist doing that is an idiot.
But as far as I can tell it's only some creationists making that stupid claim.
*Some* creationists. That EXPLICITLY only refers to a subset of creationsists, ones actually making that stupid claim. It obviously does not apply Christians in general. There are plenty of perfectly good Christians and even creationists that don't make stupid claims.
I stand by the fact that I am not aware of any scientists making that stupid claim. They sound like unicorns to me, I hope they are unicorns, but if they exist then they are idiots.
I stand by the claim that some creationists say evolution means there is no god, and that those who do are either misinformed or deluded. Just as any scientists saying it would be misinformed or deluded.
They love to claim that evolution is some attack on religion and an attempt to push atheism.
"They" explicitly refers to the same *some* creationists actually making said claim. It again explicitly does not cover other creationists, and explicitly does not cover Christians in general. There are plenty of perfectly good Christians and even creationists who don't make stupid claims.
The majority of all Cristians believe in God and accept evolution.
I stand by that as a factual statement. I certainly hope you do not consider it to be an attack on Christianity.
Sadly some people *would* consider that an attack.
Even the last Pope said that there is absolutely no conflict between evolution and Christianit
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
I thought it was some sort of new software development approach. Turns out it's just a new word for Creationism. Does evolution have a new word to counter creationism's new word yet? Maybe something like "theory of intelligent people who cannot ignore billions of corroborating pieces of evidence"?
William of Ockham must be pissing himself laughing. Or spinning in his grave. Or something. Goodness me!
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
As well as the stone casing, both the wheel and the feed channel have both mineral interpenetration of the wood and mineral replacement.
"Frozen in rock" would imply ice encased in stone. Not even Augusta gets snow every year (or every decade); constant ice is out of the question. People surf there basically year-round.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Is ignorance bliss?
"It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
It seems to me that ID people basicall think, "if there is any doubt at all, god must have done it."
"It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
But he's right...
"It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein