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
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
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
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.
What's the difference?
Seriously, it's apples and oranges. Intelligent design is not science. It's religion. It doesn't belong in a science class. It might be a nice idea, but it's not a real theory in the sense of the word as used by science.
Intelligent design is not a viable alternative to evolution. It is a viable alternative to young-earth creationism, perhaps. But it's not something for which there is scientific evidence.
Having a good academic discussion which debates the merits of Intelligent Design as a scientific theory would be on the same level as a good academic discussion that debates the merits of the Apollo's chariot model as a scientific theory for the observed motion of the Sun across the sky.
-Rob
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?
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 don't think it's possible to have a good academic discussion about it. You either believe that in the scientific principles (all theories must be falsifiable to be valid, and occam's razor.. roughly ;) ) and so think this is wrong, or you don't believe in that, and hence cannot be argued with via logic and so cannot have an academic discussion.
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.
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
my point is, Integgegant Design != God
Good point. If we assume that the designer is not a God, how do we explain the evolution of the designers?
The problem with ID as far as I can see is that it seems to violate Occams Razor. Now, theres no hard and fast rule, that the simplest theory is the correct one. But by including a designer I think ID is adding a whole lot of complexity based on assumnptions which don't seem to be very valid.
The alternate approach is to admit that we don't know everything about how evolution works. Fine with me - it just means we have to do some more work to find out what its all about.
Not pass the buck of onto some God figure
(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)
Dismissing Intelligent Design as not being science is the same as dismissing theories of a round world revolving around the sun as heresy.
No, it isn't. One of the key factors (or, according to some people, the only key factor) which distinguishes a scientific theory from a superstition is the notion of testability and falsifiability. How can you test the doctrine of intelligent design? Don't say that it's not important -- if you can't test it, then it doesn't belong in science.
-- Help Digitise the Public Domain at DP.
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
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.
Evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution by natural selection is a theory, supported by cell biology, DNA analysis, geology, and probably all other hard science. It also makes localised predictions on the variation of alleles within a genome, as well as the traits of offspring generations of species (ones within a lab environment at any rate).
Intelligent design produces no models, makes no predictions, and explains no currently understood phenomena. It is neither theory, nor fact.
-Tez
Haskell, the static-typed, lazy, polymorphic, programming language.
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.The problem with Intelligent Design "theory" is that it's not really a theory.
There's no description of the process, as there is with evolution. There's no observable current phenomena which can illustrate that process, as there is with evolution. There's no specific evidence that such a thing even happens, as there is with evolution.
At best, you could call Intelligent Design a "conjecture" or perhaps a "hunch."
Also, regarding evolutionary notions of the Descent of Man: It's not really enough to say "there are many flaws"... certainly not in this crowd. Kindly point a few of them out.
Personally, I don't think either theory runs afoul of Hebrew/Christian concepts of God. After all, the scriptures don't say: "And The Lord made light." The say: "And The Lord said, 'let there be light.'" It almost makes it sound like the creation of the universe was pretty much the tacit act of allowing it to come into existance.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
I'll start by saying I am a christian so you know where I stand.
You lost me already.
There are Christians and there are Christians. It's an extremely diverse religion.
I am a Christian. However, I accept the evidence for evolution and believe (not in the faith sense, but in the same sense that I believe that a neutral Hydrogen atom has one electron) that all complex life evolved from simpler forms through a process of mutation and natural selection (which is well established, though not perfectly understood). I believe that the Universe is at least 13.7 billion years old, and that it was once extremely hot and dense. (Science right now can't really take us to the moment of the big bang, but it does take us back to a when the Universe was a soup of protons and neutrons and electrons that hadn't formed into elements yet.)
All of that, yet I'm a Christian. So how can I know where you stand?
I am also extremely angry when religions try to interfere with the progress of science, and when creationists (whether they call themselves that or intelligent design advocates) assert that science must be wrong when it disagrees with the Bible, or when ID advocates assert something like irreducable complexity simply because they don't have the imagination or intellectual capacity to imagine how something complex could have happened without the direct interference of a supreme being. I'm very angry when Christians assert that to be a Christian, you must believe the literal truth of the Bible, even though reading just the first few chapters of Genesis shows that the Bible contradicts itself and that any reasonable thinking person can't accept it all as literally true. I'm boggled that some Christians think that for something to contain wisdom and truth, it must be literally true-- is your view of God so amazingly simplistic? For heaven's sake, Jesus taught in parables! Make the connection, people! And meanwhile, stop trying to spread ignorance about science in our schools and set our children back into the dark ages by refusing to allow them to learn about the best understanding we have of modern biology!
-Rob
Dismissing Intelligent Design as not being science
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."
Every other scientific theory is falsifiable. It's the fundamental requirement of the scientific method.
It is not "closed minded" to say "this is not science, because it doesn't even satisfy the main requirement of a scientific theory."
I would say we don't know much about evolution or ID. But, to presume one over the other and attack the other side is both wrong for anyone.
You don't know much about evolution.
Humanity as a whole, however, does.
You speak from ignorance. Your points are all well-taken, except that you assume that nobody else knows more about evolution than you. They do. Which means that your whole post is "wrong" by your own definition.
-Rob
Nope, no Christian-bashing is implied. If you move outside the USA, you'll find that the majority of Christians are quite happy to accept that modern science is not antithetical to religion. There are many Christian biologists -- and working in biology without accepting that evolution is an inescapable *fact* is like working as an architect without believing in gravity.
-- Help Digitise the Public Domain at DP.
Go ahead, disprove Evolution. If Evolution is a crock of shit it CAN and WILL be disproved. Go ahead, disprove Creationism. Oh wait. You can never prove God doesn't exist, because maybe that's the way He meant it, and He IS all-powerful.. That's why one is a scientific theory, and the other isn't.
Jesus taught in parables!
Thank you. It never fails to amaze me how many Christians believe that the Bible must be taken literally while Christ taught many of his lessons by telling symbolic stories.
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.
Wrong. People love to think that evolution is the complete explanation of life as we know it, and want to teach that as "science" and as fact. However, we still have so little true understanding about the origins of life. Assumptions are made about the first instant of life, but it cannot be recreated in a lab.
You're mixing your apples and your oranges up.
Evolution doesn't explain how life started. It doesn't even address that. It explains how more life changes over time. It explains how more complex life may arise from simler life. It explains how one species may fade away in favor of another. But it says nothing about how it all started.
It's also not a "fact", in the scientific sense of the word. It's a theory. Just like the theory of gravity. Facts are the basic observations, from which we build connections and understanding in order to put together a viable theory.
Evolution represents our best understanding of the development of life. Modern biology does not make sense except in the context of evolution. It's a big topic that schoolkids aren't going to be able to fully understand in high school science classes, no more than they will fully understand Newton's theory of gravity (never mind General Realtivity). But that doesn't mean it shouldn't be taught, and that it shouldn't be taught as "the" answer.
If we really want our kids to have a clue about science, we need to teach the process of science, and our best understanding today of how the natural world works. Insisting that creationism (whether you call it that or ID) be taught alongside evolution as a viable alternative is tantamount to insiting that you teach the Aristotlean "everything has its natural place" as a viable alternative to gravity to explain why things fall down.
Is it closed-minded to teach kids in science that Aristotle was wrong? Is it closed-minded in science to teach kids that the world is round rather than flat? Is it closed-minded in science to teach kids that the Earth orbits around the Sun, and that the Ptolemeic model is wrong? No! Because all of those things represent our best understanding today of how the world works, and to teach the kids otherwise would be to trick them with false understanding. As far as science is concerned, Creationism is on the same level as all of those things. Evolution is what we should be teaching in science classes, because it represents our best understanding of how the world works.
-Rob
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.
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
So then what you're saying is that string theory, multiple universe theory, the theory of evolution and a good deal many others are superstitions because they can't be tested?
That's just stupid. A lot of the work on stuff such as string theories which you mention is precisely to design tests so as to verify or infirm it. That's why we spend billions building particle accelerators and launching research satellites, etc.
I.D., on the other hand, cannot ever have any tests. You can't test its predictions, since it doesn't predict anything. Or when it does, it's already proven wrong by mountains of evidence.
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.
ID has no merits other than being non-Darwinist. There is no evidence supporting a designer being active to generate creatures (interestingly though we still call individual lifeforms 'creatures' even when we claim that they don't have been created by a creator ;) ), there is no conclusion we can draw out of ID that helps us deal with a problem we have with a single or a group of lifeforms.
We all know the problem with antibiotics: If you use them, and you are not reaching every single lifeform you want to wipe out with a deadly dose, some of the lifeforms might survive long enough to have offspring, which in turn might survive the antibiotics too. They even might be able to survive a low dose of antibiotics without any harm, so if you use the antibiotic again, they survive all competing lifeforms, which die due to the antibiotic, making the field free for a growing population of the slightly antibiotic resistant lifeforms.
In the end your antibiotic is not able anymore to harm the resistant lifeform, and all that happens if you use it: You increase the growing of the species, because the antibiotic helps battling all those other lifeforms once competing.
This is evolution at work, and there are enough antibiotics which are not effective anymore, because there are lifeforms resistant to them.
It does not only work for bacterias and other single cell organisms: Exactly those evolutative mechanisms were at work when coca plants grew resistant to RoundUp: The spraying of RoundUp on Columbian coca plantages had a strange effect: Because spraying from an airplane is quite incorrect, and you can't make sure that all plants you want to hit are hit with a full dose, and the one's you don't want to hit aren't, the coca growing pawns in Columbia faced a strange problem after a spraying attack: Most of their crops, coca and other crops, died. Most tomatos, most corn, most vegetables and fruit, and most coca plants.
But some survived, having only got a low dose and were able to survive.
Coca plants are mostly multiplied by the pawns by cutting small twigs and planting them into the earth rather than sowing the coca seeds. After a spraying attack almost the complete plantage of a pawn is destroyed, and only the coca plants which have survived can be used to plant anew, just cut some twigs and regrow your crops. Most cultural plants need to be grown again from seeds, and you have to wait until the RoundUp is washed out of the earth. In the end the whole coca plantages once attacked were replanted with twigs from coca plants that survived a RoundUp attack. And they were growing faster than before because the weed normally growing with the coca plants was suppressed by the RoundUp remains in the soil.
Within four years a coca plant was covering large areas which was completely immune against RoundUp. No genetic engineering (a.k.a. intelligent design) was necessary to outwith the DEA and Monsanto: Just having evolution go its way and taking the survivors of RoundUp attacks and replant the field with them.
You might love or hate Darwinism. But evolution is all around you every day.
So then what you're saying is that string theory, multiple universe theory, the theory of evolution and a good deal many others are superstitions because they can't be tested?
Your listing evolution in with those other two is unfair. It can and has been tested, repeatedly. Not by lab experiments, but by predictions of what we might find in the fossil record. Astronomy works the same way -- we don't do lab experiments, we go out and look in the Universe. (And thanks to the finite speed of light, we're always looking at the past.) Yet there are predictions of future observations that have been borne out.
So evolution isn't a superstition by any means, because it can and has been tested.
As for the other two: lots of scientists would agree that it's philosophy rather than science. String theory is hot at the moment, and lots of Physicists don't think it's good science. Those who think that but understand something about it think that it's good mathematics, so it's still worthy. But is it science? Myself, I'm more on the fence. I can see that one day, string theory could well produce predictions that we could test, but they won't get there if they don't do the development they're doing now. So I want to see them continuing. String theory does show promise of explaining things that our current understanding of Physics at the extremes can't explain, so it's worth pursuing.
As for the many-worlds interpretation--- that's a different matter altogether. That's a philosophical interpretation of how things in quantum mechanics work that you don't really need in order to employ the full predictive power of quantum mechanics. Maybe, perhaps, one day there will be predictions of the many-worlds interpretation that are different from other interpretations, at which point we could test it. But right now, it's really more a matter of how you like to think about Quantum Mechanics rather than a theory unto itself.
So all three things you list are not comparable things, and they are all in very different states of being well-designed and well-understood scietific theories vs. being mathematics or philosophy.
-Rob
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
He knew the gullible bint was going to eat the apple.
Um... no.
God gave mankind the gift of free will so that they could use that free will to obey him and thus show that they loved him as much as he loved them. After all, he did love them enough to give them life. That *one* tree that they were not to eat from was the *only* law that they had. They were perfect, and as such they would make no mistakes. They *chose* to disobey God. They decided they did not want to submit to Gods authority. That one tree was the only way that they had to prove that they were faithful to God. Without it, there would have been no opportunity to do so. They failed.
Why is it so hot? Where am I going? What am I doing in this handbasket?
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.
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.
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.
Here we get into some deep juju, which I can't deny is speculative. However, it has always seemed to me that if anything had to simply exist - i.e. if something were to spontaneously come into being utterly ex nihilo - that matter, the laws of physics, the point that became the big bang, etc. were too complicated to be that something.
To my way of thinking (and I have a fair background in academic theology although my specialty is New Testament) the best way to conceive of God is as pure, creative will. (I'm going to go ahead and say "God" here rather than trying to dance around it.) Out of that will - that ability to decide, if you will - everything else comes into being and is sustained in its being. God's will made the point that exploded in the primordial bang, and God's will made the laws of physics that made that explosion develop into our universe, and God's will made the peculiar set of circumstances that make it possible for other intelligentm, creative wills to exist.
However, before all this, there had to be ONE thing to be "first". Occam's razor requires that that one infinitely improbable thing that was "first" be the thing most able to account for everything else. And I am convinced that the best account for this is a single, personal God.
Seriously - you want me to believe that the simplest explanation is that sex, butterflies, and Picasso "just happened"???? I'm not there.
"He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
The problem is not what other people believe, it's that a fairly large chunk of our society is willing to believe things that directly and clearly contradict physical evidence and to alter our political process and how we educate our childred to remove any references that might be upsetting to their view of the world.
This is an old argument, but for the most part I think we'd agree that when you finish boiling down the evidence ID is simply religion (specifically, some Christian beliefs (that not all christians agree with, not trying for flamebait here, just noting the source)) in camoflouge.
How can you live in a modern, technological society and ignore the evidence of your own experience? To give one example, If you go get an MRI or an X-ray you're benefitting from some of the same technology and body of knowledge that allows us to date fossils. How can a person stand up and denounce evolution in one minute, and in the next go get a chest X-ray? People who are unable to filter out this sort of obvious mental nonsense are driving our politics and our policies, and it's a scary thing.
God gave mankind the gift of free will so that they could use that free will to obey him
Doesn't sound like He thought the concept through all that well.
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.
Free will with an omnicient and omnipotent creator can't work. He made Adam and Eve and if he is omnicient then he knew everything that would happen, correct? He knew when he made Eve that she WOULD eat the forbidden apple, and he WOULD kick them out of Eden. It would be like me making a bomb, putting it somewhere, setting it to go off knowing that it WILL go off, but when it does go off saying 'Oh, the bomb had free will. It is to blame, not me'.
Or maybe God is not omnicient?
Intellegent design does not mean it was God who did it. Does not say who did it just that some intellegance did it.
That's just because they're not being honest. They all actually believe God did it. There's simply no other reason to adopt such a hackneyed theory to the extent that you feel you have to prevent eveloution from being taught in schools.
Don't attack it based on how religious organizations use the theory but on it's merits
It has no merits as a scientific theory, and the religious thing is the only thing it's ever used for, and its sole reason for existence.
I'm not saying [evolution] isn't true but as it is stated and follwed, there are many flaws.
No there aren't. It doesn't claim to be the comlpete and final answer, it claims to be the furthest and most likely we can see so far from available evidence. ID does not even come close to fulfilling that criteria.
sudo ergo sum
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.
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.
In areas of research that do deal with Intelligent Design (forensics and archaeology), determining design can actually be quite tricky. I could walk through a field strewn with Mousterian tools, and not know it. But these sciences ask questions about the designer, who were they, what was their intent, where did they manufacture the object or event, and most importantly how did they do it.
ID, in fact, intentionally tries to shove these questions under the table. It is nothing but Creationism in disguise, an attempt to get God in the classroom. It's a dishonest legal fiction, and most importantly, it isn't science.
Don't believe me, go ask all the great ID advocates why they have no theory or no lesson plan, and why ultimately they want to push for teaching the weakness. When the Dover school board announced they were going to teach ID, mark how the professional IDers in the Discovery Institute backpedalled like nuts. They know they've got a pile of nothing, but they sure don't want a court to stomp them down.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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.
The Bible says that forbidden fruit came from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Until they ate that fruit, Adam and Eve did not know good and evil, hence they did not know that eating the fruit was wrong. Talking of them has having failed a moral test is nonsensical.
And if they were perfect, and chose to disobey God, that means that perfection is found in disobeying God.
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.
Maybe for the sake of humanity and its free will, God chose to ignore His omnicience. That is to say, if He wanted to make humanity with a will that is truly free, in certain instances, He would have to not predetermine everything.
C.S. Lewis in _The Problem of Pain_ suggests that God can do everything that is possible to do, but can't do what is a logical contradiction. So, God couldn't create a hot dog so big even God couldn't eat it. Nor could He make free will in a situation where everything was predetermined in such a way that people were prevented from making mistakes, because that wouldn't truly be free will. _The Problem of Pain_, btw, makes some great logical arguments and is worth a read by even non-Christians.
Imagine it this way: I have sysadmin powers in my house, so I can know what's going on on every computer if I so choose. However for the sake of the freedom of my wife to make her own decisions, and for our trust relationship, I choose to not monitor things as such. It doesn't mean I couldn't, it just means I don't, and our relationship is healthier because of it.
What flaws do you find in evolution?
No really I have studied it for a while and it works fine. Single celled to multi celled takes 1 billion years... Think about that 1 BILLION YEARS for life forms that be born have kids and have there kids have kids in less than an hour X millions of life forms in a cubic foot a water X 5280 X 5280 per cubic mile of water times who knows how many cubic miles of ocean.
Evolution is nothing more than life keeping as many mutations going at the same time and then combining them as needed when your environment changes. Poisonous creatures don't just make one poison they make hundreds so there prey will not evolve protection vs. 10 or 20 of them and get away they would have to come up hundreds of mutations at the same time to get away. That's also why snakes use super doses of venom why pump a mice full of enough venom to kill a human well that keeps mice form evolving a little protection to get them though the times when they got a small but survivable dose and building up ect ect. Now you say why would the snake make so many poisons well he only needed one to start with and then when protection evolved to that he made a 2nd ect until he is making so many that the pray start to select agents the forms of protection that are not needed and it ends up with a balance where snakes can make so many more toxins than are need and it's stable that way (For a while now having those extra toxins are nor really needed... But as long as there in the DNA somewhere there "free" to come out as needed.)
People say that there are these "huge" leaps that occur in evolution with no explanation but they seem to ignore the fact that whales have toes. Now if you ask yourself why whales have toes you can realize that evolution works by recombining existing pieces of it's self so things keep junk around because over time it's better to be able to adapt to change than become super optimized and stuck.
Some ID people say look at this there is nothing like it that's useful for what it does and then you find 1 or 2 things that are like it but used for something else and you can see how most of these great leaps are really just minor changes that are from the ~3+ mutations in every life form that has ever lifted for billions of years. Even then some say you can't win the lottery 5 times in a row I say with enough games you would expect streaks of 100,000 games in a row.
Evolution does can start with people a single amino Acid that can replicate, and mutate. That's all it takes to get the ball going. You don't need cell walls, you don't need DNA you don't need mitochondria for the fist life form you just need replication, there's nothing out there to eat you and nothing is competing with you for space until you cover the earth and your descendents start to duke it out.
PS: As to knowing what your talking about have your ever written a program that uses evolution to find solutions to problems well some people have so humanity does even if you have only heard about doing this.
You see, there's this theory that when you put your tooth under your pillow, you'll get money from the tooth fairy. It's a perfectly valid theory, right? After all, you aren't able to disprove this theory, are you? Can you find a way to disprove the existence of the tooth fairy?
Well, The reason not to believe in ID is the same reason for not believing in the tooth fairy. There is absolutely no evidence for the tooth fairy's existence and there are much better explanations for how the money got under your pillow. Just because you can't disprove the tooth fairy theory, doesn't make it a viable option.
---Technology will liberate us if it doesn't enslave us first.
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?
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.
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... ---
Having said that, I think that someone from a Hindu or Buddhist background would probably be more comfortable with Evolution than ID, since these faiths don't tend to emphasize the creative aspect of God. In Christian thought, the aspect of God that is most important is his role in the creation of the universe - if you will, the Christian God is a bit more transcendant than the Hindu gods individually. Hinduism (as I understand it) only approaches the Christian notion of "God" through pantheism, conglomerating all the "gods" into "God". (Qualification: I'm not particularly knowledgable of mainstream Hinduism, so would welcome correction on this point.)
Well, I'm not particularly qualified in science. However, the book I found most convincing from a scientific perspective was "Darwin's Black Box" by Michael Behe. Basically, his argument is that, at the micro level, many cellular functionas are irreducibly complex - that they require a host of different parts to work, none of which do anything independent of the rest. So, how would all these parts have evolved gradually when each of them was useless without the others?Here's the thing. Behe (and most other true ID types) are not attacking evolution per se. He is attacking the notion that natural selection alone is a sufficient explanation for Life As We Know It. And he is founding that argument in scientific fact, asking the very legitimate question of how certain structures at the micro level could happen naturally. What I find unhelpful is the ranting and raving that goes on in the scientific community that refuses to actually address the arguments in anything resembling a systematic way.
"He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
"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.
Because there is nothing remotely close to proof for ID. The "evidence" is only assumed to be evident. ID does not help us build a larger model of understanding of the universe. It actually impedes the larger model. It also isn't this unspecific, religion unbiased ID that was mentioned. The ID talked about in schools is very specifically Christian.
The idea of ID originated in a religious mind for the religious reasons of combating evolution founded work and to attempt to explain the origin conflicts in Christianity. On the other hand, the evolution founded work was done to further our understanding of the world around us. Of course it extends to our understanding of the entire universe.
This is my sig. The post is over.
>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.
1'st John 4:8: "God is love". I'm sorry, but your reasoning is flawed. You assume that living forever is miserable becouse this world full of evil and imperfect humans is miserable. You also assume that God is miserable, and created humans (and as extention all life, including angels) to share his misery. The fact is, that God is complete in himself. He does not need anyone else around to make him happy. His modivation for creating is love. He wishes to share existance with others out of love.
You could spend a current lifetime studing one species of flower and still not know everything about it. Living forever we would be able to learn about Gods creation and never run out of new things. And, if after a few billon years we do learn everything there is to know about our world, or our plane of existance, God would undoubtedly create more things for us to learn about. Why would he do that for us? Simple. "God is love". The oportunities are endless.
Why is it so hot? Where am I going? What am I doing in this handbasket?
Er...not quite.
Simply, you're forgetting which tree it was that they were told not to eat.
That's right, it was the tree of knowledge of good and evil. (Genesis 2:9)
That Adam and Eve were forbidden to eat of the fruit of that tree, one can only conclude that Adam and Eve knew nothing of good and evil. Hardly perfect, wouldn't you say?
But, wait, there's more!
If Adam and Eve didn't know about good and evil, they were incapable--by God's own design--of knowing that it was an evil act to eat of the fruit of that tree. Incapable of knowing that disobeying God's direct order was evil.
God then punished Adam, Eve, and all the rest of humanity for a crime that God had deliberately made them incapable of knowing was a crime.
This, gentle readers, is the ultimate Catch-22.
Cheers,
b&
P.S. This incident is hardly unique. Read any of the so-called ``hard passages'' of the bible and substitute ``Joshua Gord of Topeka, Kansas'' for ``God'' and decide if those actions could, by any stretch of the imagination, still be considered moral or even tolerable. Especially read about the Flood, the Plagues, and the Crucifixion. b&
All but God can prove this sentence true.
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."
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.
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.
Right now, it's mathmatically identical to quantum mechanics , or at least 99.999999% identical, and no one is sure where it's not.
The only reason string theory exists is we know quantum mechanics can't explain the universe, because it falls apart at macroscopic levels.
And we have no useful theory of what's actually going on in QM...or, rather, we have too many of them. Transactional and Many Worlds are the best two quantum theories.
We have the math, and nothing behind it, we have no idea what it means. Hence calling it quantum 'mechanics' instead of quantum 'theory'. Quantum mechanics is not hard, we had that like 60 years ago. Quantum theory is some crazy shit, and working on it makes no sense when we don't know why QM breaks at the macroscopic scale. (Aka, collapsing the wave function, which we don't understand at all.)
So we need a theory that works exactly, or almost exactly, like quantum mechanics. Except it needs to stop working like that at a certain scale for an explicably reason.
So someone realized that, hey, you can explain that if particles are actually strings...
String theory is a theory that needs to exist and be testable, but really isn't all the way there yet. They've got some math that matches QM, but that's it.
In fact, I think they've basically turned that into m-brane theory, where these 'strings' are actually two n-dimensional plains that intersect with each other...
And if they were teaching string theory in schools, scientists would probably have a problem with that, too. ;)
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
"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
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.
Creationism and intelligent design have about as much place in a science class as evolution and chemistry have in a religious studies course.
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.
That's pretty much religion hating science in a nutshell.
It goes back to the idea of the Great Chain of Being, a philosophical concept developed in the Middle Ages to explain why a supremely powerful and good God could create a universe with error and sin in it. The idea is that evil is simply a *lack* of God's grace, the "privation" of God's goodness.
Here's where we get into trouble. The Great Chain of being relies on the notion that greater cannot come from lesser, and that thing like the world, people, and even ideas like infinity cannot come from things of lesser stature--the world can't come from dust, people can't come from animals, and infinity cannot be conceived of from finite numbers alone. Hence, all of these things must come from something greater than they are, and that ne plus ultra of greatness is God.
Evolution more or less rejects that claim, and consequently raises the possibility that *all* complex things evolved from simpler things. Suddenly, there's no need for a God to explain anything: if people can evolve from animals, then the world can evolve from cosmic gas and infinity can be invented/discovered through the negation of finitude. Where would God fit in now?
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
"It doesn't belong in a science class."
Christian here and I couldn't agree more.
It has a place in academia, however, and that place is PHILOSOPHY class where things like this are discussed and deconstructed as rational ideas that need evaluation in a rational manner, as they are not testable in a laboratory.
When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
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.
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.
But I don't dare take the close minded approach that if something isn't "testable" via the scientific method, that it doesn't or can't exist. Neither do I. But I do say that "it" doesn't belong in science class.
"UNIX" is never having to say you're sorry.
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.