Slashdot Mirror
Equal Time For Creationism
Brian Berns writes "Many news sources reported on
President Bush's recent semi-endorsement of 'intelligent
design', the politically correct version of
creationism that is currently in vogue among groups of conservative
Christians in the U.S.. While Mr. Bush was reportedly reluctant to make news on
this topic, he apparently felt it was an issue he could not duck. Most of those
same news sources, however, missed the
recent condemnation of Darwinian evolution by the Catholic cardinal
archbishop of Vienna. This NY Times op-ed appears to mark a deliberate attempt
to reverse the late Pope John Paul II's acceptance of evolution as 'more than
just a hypothesis'."
Oh, dear God...the Intelligent Design debate rears its ugly head once again. I predict a thousand comments on this story...easy.
OK...let's get the ball rolling, shall we?
Intelligent Design is not just unproven, it is inherently unprovable. Intelligent Design is not a science in any sense, but a theology, and as such, its place is in the church/mosque/synagogue/whatever, not in the classroom.
(Note: during these debates, the issue of my own faith is always raised, so let me address that now. I am a Christian. I believe in God. I believe that Jesus Christ died so that we may be saved.)
HOWEVER , I do not believe that such matters of faith should be taught in schools. I know that my faith is inherently unprovable...that's pretty much the definition of 'faith'. Matters of unproven, unprovable faith belong in your chosen place of worship. Matters of proven, or at least provable fact belong in the secular classroom.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
Sooo... a leader of the Catholic Church favors the teachings of the Bible over science? This isn't even news over at the 700 Club; it's certainly not 'news for nerds'. Guess Zonk just felt like fanning a religious flame war this morning.
Entrepreneur : (noun), French for "unemployed"
While I fully acknowledge that there are Creationists out there who quite literally believe the Bible's version of the creation of the Earth and our species, and indeed the universe, reject evolution out-of-hand, and ignorantly stand steadfastly against science, there is an actual place for philosophical debate about why we're here.
"Intelligent design", not in a form that has been co-opted by anti-evolution Creationists and people who think pi should be equal to exactly 3, has a place in this debate.
Does it have a place in a biology class? No.
Does it have a place in a philosophy class? Absolutely.
I rather liked this sequence from Star Trek: The Next Generation, in which Patrick Stewart elegantly sums up my, and likely many others', thoughts on this matter.
DATA: I have a question, sir. What is death?
PICARD: Oh, is that all?
You've picked probably the most difficult of all questions, Data.
[There is the beginning of a twinkle in Picard's eyes again. It is the sort of question that his mind loves.]
Some explain it by inventing gods wearing their own form...and argue that the purpose of the entire universe is to maintain themselves in their present form in an Earth-like garden which will give them pleasure through all eternity. And at the other extreme, assuming that is an "extreme," are those who prefer the idea of our blinking into nothingness with all our experiences, hopes and dreams only an illusion.
DATA: Which do you believe?
PICARD: Considering the marvelous complexity of our universe, its clockwork perfection, its balances of this against that... matter, energy, gravitation, time, dimension, pattern, I believe our existence must mean more than a meaningless illusion. I prefer to believe that my and your existence goes beyond Euclidian and other "practical" measuring systems... and that, in ways we cannot yet fathom, our existence is part of a reality beyond what we understand now as reality.
It's unfortunate that rabid anti-science Creationists have bastardized this debate, so that we can't really have a frank discussion about the science and theory of evolution on a backdrop of philosophical questions about how and why we're here.
In my 7th grade biology class, I'll never forget a kid raising his hand during the section on evolution and asking, "What about the Bible?" After a pause, the teacher replied, quite simply, "Well, some might say the Bible tells what God did, and science explains how he did it." Whether or not you agree fundamentally with religion in any form, it was a concise, non-confrontational answer to an honest question.
I do find it interesting the links that the submitter chose. For instance, a link of a center attempting to discredit Darwinian evolution was picked for "Intelligent Design" (in an obvious attempt to elicit a certain reaction), while the Wikipedia link was picked for Creationism. Why not pick the Wikipedia link for Intelligent Design, too, which describes in a pretty unbiased fashion what it generally is? Intelligent Design might not be science, but it certainly has a place in philosophy. And further, Intelligent Design and Creationism are NOT the same thing. That some Creationists have co-opted the term is unfortunate, but still doesn't make Creationism equal to Intelligent Design.
And is it any surprise that an agent of the Catholic Church condemns evolution? I mean, come on, people...is this really news? Why don't we have a front page slashdot story about what the Muslim Brotherhood believes?
Intelligent Design, at its most basic level, asks that with all the beauty, wonder, and astounding perfection that make up the physical world around us, and indeed the science itself which proves it to be more and more elegant as time goes on, might there possibly be a force that surpasses our understanding that has allowed for, or caused, its, and our, creation? Is this provable? Nope. Is it
This is likely going to be more important than abortion in the far future. We transhumanists will be seeing how we can transform to what is next. I myself think that Christians could be included--but hardline creationists will probably want to ban transhumanism.
If you seek to engineer yourself, you'll need to recognize why you are so faulty in the first place. Creationism is just a dead end that will go nowhere and lead to no progress.
I don't think religion is a problem (despite the knee-jerk reactions by intelligent people). We can work around it. Post-transhuman life will be much like the Christian heaven anyway. Vastly expanded lifespan. Living among the stars.
Transcend Humanity. Please.
It's strange to see Mr. Bush support intelligent design when he so clearly shows the link between man and monkey by his mere existance.
By which the future me went back in time and ejaculated into the primordial ooze, spawning life somehow. The details don't matter. In fact, the details create a ton of contradictions and other impossibilities, but hey, who cares about silly things like "evidence" when you have faith in my theory.
I never spellcheck and I freely admit it. Save your karma for more worthwhile "lol erorrs" replies
Well, I do believe in life was intelligently designed, just not by God. What many theists don't understand is that inherit-randomness in a system often improves the quality of the decision making process. For example, There are algorithms that run faster if they make random decisions. Free market economics is very good at allocating resources where they are needed precisely because the of the random noise in the market. The speed at which DNA is "unziped" is determined by the imposed randomness present due to the Heisenburg uncertainty principle. It is optimised to use this randomness to reduce errors.
Intelligent design is not a scientific theory because in principle it can't be falsified. Say a creationist said: "ah ha, evolution can not explain how this particular thing evolved therefore it must be designed". Then the scientists found an explanation of said thing evolved, the creationist would just retreat to the next scientific mystery.
Intelligent design is no different from the ancients saying Thor created lightening, or Mars was the god of war. For some reason, the ID crowd have a real problem with saying: "you know what, I don't actually know the answer!" - they need to be taught that there is nothing wrong in not having the answer to everything.
Simon.
Dave Silverman, Communications Director for American Atheists: "Not all opinions are of equal value, and we need to teach science - not religion -- in our science classes. We wouldn't teach astrology in astronomy courses, or give flat-earth teachings 'equal time' in the geography class."
The churches have to fight science. Every time science helps uncloud a mind they lose one of their sheep.
And don't tell me about some scientists that are religious, real ones aren't. A scientist uses logic and methods throughout their entire lives. If you can take off the lab coat at 5:00, turn off your rational mind and believe in invisible spirits then you aren't a scientist, you're a part-time lab worker, part-time delusional kook.
Trolling is a art,
say goodbye to US prosperity in 50 years or so if we continue to let fundies run the country. no one will fucking know how to make the simplest modern contraption.
It's already got the amount of time it deserves in schools, though if they want to add another mythology course, far be it from me to object.
Tell 'em to call back when they can add some facts to their "theory", though theory is too robust a word to apply to such twaddle.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
TIME IS CUBIC, NOT LINEAR!
By the way, prepare to get modded up from the administrators for being a Christian.
Transcend Humanity. Please.
> While Mr. Bush was reportedly reluctant to make news on this topic, he apparently felt it was an issue he could not duck.
Like we need Presidents' opinions on what makes good science. Does anyone care what Clinton thought about string theory? Should anyone care?
This is nothing more than a way of appealing to the votes of social conservatives.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
...this will blow up in his face and then he'll distance himself from it, just like with the whole Terri Schiavo thing.
Really? The US president endorsing something like intelligent design isn't even newsworthy in your opinion?
That's scary.
Rest assured, for someone from Europe like me this whole debate looks really surreal and scary, but it's definately newsworthy.
The article said nothing about Bush supporting "Equal Time". Also, why lump Bush with other religious leaders who condemn evolution? This whole summary smacks of Slashdot sensationalism.
The Church has no problems with evolution but they do with Darwins version. Darwin's version is done without God. It occurs by pure chance. The Church states that God is the source of all things. Also Darwin version states that things evolved slowly and when we look at the evolutionary picture we see that it is not true. Look at how the horse evolved. The traditional view does not fit the what really happened.
"creationism that is currently in vogue among groups of conservative Christians in the U.S." Ya, its in vogue... its just a trendy thing that just recently happened... and oh ya, its a belief that only happens here in the U.S. Sigh...
I do not get involved in arguments with religious fanatics.
My faith is expressed through Nihilism. Do you understand?
I'm not really against teaching "Intelligent Design" in schools. I mean, no one said it had to be Christian intelligent design.
What, would the fundies be opposed to me teaching their children the earth is carried by an elephant which rides on the backs of four turtles? Dare they say that their version of "intelligent design" is the one true myth? Blasphemy!
(I cannot take credit for the "teaching multiple intelligent designs" idea. See this.)
"Live as if you'll die tomorrow." Ridiculous. You could die later today.
Creationism and Evolution are both theories that cannot be 100% proven or disproven. For that reason, both should be given equal class time.
...All I can say is that my life is pretty strange...
Let the rehashed arguments begin. Let me summarize 90% of the forthcoming posts...
25%: Creationists are stupid idiots who are basically Luddite Talibans without the beards.
40%: Creationists are wrong for x y z reasons.
10%: Defending particular versions of creationism that are basically compatible with the non-metaphysical aspects of evolution.
15%: We went to Iraq for the oil. And people in Kansas are stupid.
So how about we just skip the posting on this article, and move on to the next? The repetitious was the Slashdot community deals with posts regarding evolution is boring.
What pisses me off is that people who advocate intelligent design are so sure that life is just so complex that God/gods must have been involved. Most of them also misunderstand evolution, mistaking it for some mysterious force that actively effects change. Evolution is the name of the phenomenon that results from "survival of the fittest," i.e. random variations in organisms are preserved (by reproduction) if they are beneficial; they are extinguished if they are harmful.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
...flame wars begin!
This is wrong in so many levels and fundamental issues.
Intelligent design is just a philosophical addition to biological evolution. It pressuposes biological evolution, but then adds that philosophically there is still something missing, and that would be intelligent design. It is not creationism, as it rejects six-days creation; it is, you may say, a form of guided evolution.
OTOH, the Cardinal isn't reversing the late Pope acceptance of biological evolution, just clarifying that it does not imply a negation of God's role in it; in other words, it states that biological evolution can't be used as a base for atheism, and is compatible with intelligent design.
Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete DUTRA
DA, DBA, SysAdmin, Data Modeller
GNU Project, Debian GNU/Lin
Ah, Christian Fundamentalists, America's Taliban.
Religious fundamentalism is the kiss of death for a creative society. These right-wing extremists would have fit right into Pol Pot's vision of an agrarian society devoid of intellectuals and teachers.
If they are going to dictate what is taught in schools then I expect the government then should have the right to regulate churches. They should then enforce equal access laws forcing churches to accommodate Jews, Muslims, etc.
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
In my beliefs I have a very short version of the relation between God and Science, especially in regards to the creation.
Let's put it like a question:
"If you should create mankind, and do it really smart. How would you do it?"
Answer:
"Snap you fingers! Make the big bang, set the fundamental laws in motion and wait a couple of billion years."
If you are God, time doesn't really matter, do it? Billions of years or some days would be the same.
In regards to the laws of energy, matter etc. everyone realize that the construction of the universe is brilliant. Today we even recognize physical laws by the way they look. If they are mathematically nice and simple, they are usually right.
But the one answer Science always fails is; What (or who) started it all? The creator is still a fully plausible explanation.
In my opinion, anyone who disregards the scientific laws, disregards the creation it self. If the laws that rules this world is brilliant, why settle for something less brilliant. Some ideas made by man. 7 days or whatever...
A lot of people believe that the bible is to be taken literal. I my opinion they could not be more wrong, for several reasons. It all comes down to the fact that the book I written by man! Some may argue that it was inspired by God (and I might even agree) but it's still a manmade text. The written language (in any form) will in my opinion always fail to explain the divine. The God I believe in is too big for letters and text. The creation he (or she?) made and the method he used to make it, is too big for any of us to fully understand, much less write down in text.
An other fundamental reason where the bible fails (still because it was written by man) is the fact that God, even if he dictated the words could not describe the fabric of space 2000 years ago. Humans simply could not understand it. We might have a better chance today (even thou some parts still eludes even the best scientists). Therefore God would describe only the parts that could be understood by man back then, and simplify the rest. Creation was simplified into a story about the 7 days. What else could God say to the poor human that should write it down? Should he start explaining about energies and matter? Even the words we use today are manmade. I bet God didn't call it a "proton" back when he made it. (Wonder what the divine word really is?)
So if God is brilliant, he made a brilliant world. Science shows us a brilliant world, the bible doesn't. The bible shows us a dictated world. A world that just is! Period! No arguing, no fanciness! But that is not the world I see. I see a world of possibilities... of brilliance. My God is a brilliant God.
-:) Oh no - not again.
www.rednebula.com
Newsworthy? Yes.
Should it be discussed somewhere? Yes.
Should that discussion take place on Slashdot? Hell no.
The submission is nothing but a troll...Everyone read this site knows it will amount to over 1,000 posters screaming at each other.
Just like Phillip Johnson and his Intelligent Design Movement I support placing creationism over scientific theories in science classes. But I'm just being an agent provocateur.
If the trend continues, it will no doubt bring about the fall of reason in American culture, essentially the fall of Western(that's where it's derived from I guess, of course reason can be found in the cultures of various geographic locations, not just the West) culture in America. And then the fall of America itself, which is good in my provacative stance here. Maybe then the pendulum could swing back?
It seems now the American scene is populated only by orthodox Middle Eastern culturalists. A far cry from those triumphant moments of Western culture that ushered in the United States with a liberty-promising constitution. Evangelical Christians, political Zionists and political Islamists. All would-be revolutionaries trying to use the government to bring about the dominance of their values (with the implicit violence of the state). The same Abrahamic religions, the same fundamentalist mindset and, from that, the same theocracy-aiming politics. The Middle Eastern cultural movements like Christianity have great aspects, like all cultures. Their tendency to theonomic statism isn't one of the good ones, though.
Anyway, have fun with Sharia/Noahite/Whatever theonomy. Everyone deserves freedom, but, regardless of what you deserve, you won't get it if you can't, for the most part at least, accept enlightened culture and reject nihilistic culture. The concept of free-association is the greatest political development of Western and all culture. But the public seems to have eschewed enlightenment for they have bought the heavenly promises of the confidence game played by the Middle Eastern culturalists. Why wouldn't you take heaven? All you have to do is destroy this measly little finite world. 100% satisfaction guaranteed. No one has ever came back with a complaint though! We always deliver the goods upon death.
This debate when schools are not even able to effectively teach basic skills such as math and reading. Most kids will graduate without any real grasp on history, geography or science and their lives will not be really affected by which way they believe Man got to his present state.
Worst. Sig. Ever.
In a breaking story, President Bush has endorsed the "Centrist" viewpoint that the Earth is the center of the universe. Contrary to observation, accepted "science" and basic physics, President Bush stated that all views that the Earth isn't the center of the universe are "Obviously incorrect because they don't explain Biblical accounts, which of course must be true".
Unbreakable toys can be used to break other toys.
I think Slashdot should add a page with pictures of bikini clad girls, alien abductions and elvis sightings because they are barely any better than the tabloid rags some housefrau might read.
Gravity is just a theory. I want equal time for the theory of an Intelligent Dropper.
How can you create a politically correct version of a theory/story based upon religion...which, in turn, has no place in politics what so ever!?!
"It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a fact, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution. It is a fact that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a fact that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a fact that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a fact that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun.
The controversies about evolution lie in the realm of the relative importance of various forces in molding evolution."
- R. C. Lewontin
in my opinion, this could be very bad for Religions.. The great thing about keeping religion OUT of schools, is saving the religious view from being criticized.. think about it.. depending on the teacher of course, the religious view of creationism will be in serious danger of being much more criticized when in a equal comparison of evolution..
if they wanna promote their religious beliefs, do it another way! these fundies and faith groups have so much fuckin money.. let them promote their view themselves!! NOT USING MY TAX DOLLARS IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS.. i'll teach MY kids that shit myself if I want them to know about it..
*plays the Apogee theme song music*
- Evolution is not "just a theory," because in scientific usage, "theory" does not mean "unproven guess" as it does in common usage; it means "hypothesis which has stood up to rigorous testing against the best available evidence." In this sense, evolution is "just a theory" the same way gravity is "just a theory."
- In a similar vein, "law" in a scientific sense means "theory which has stood up so well and so long that although it's possible to disprove it, that doesn't look likely to happen." Evolution in this sense is a "law" to the same degree as Newton's laws of motion (suitably modified by Einstein) or the laws of thermodynamics.
- Those who oppose teaching creationism in schools are not "afraid of teaching the controversy." There is no controversy among biologists about whether evolution happens, although there may well be controversy about the specific details, any more than there is controversy among historians over whether the Holocaust happened or controversy among geographers over whether the Earth is round or flat.
- If we are to include Judeo-Christian-Islamic creation myths (both "young Earth" and "Intelligent Design" varieties) in science classes, why stop there? Let's throw in the Hindu, Buddhist, Shinto, Jainist, etc. creation myths too. "Teach the controversy," right?
- There is no inherent conflict between religious belief and the scientific method, unless believers make it so. Many scientists are religious. Scientists do not "hate religion" or "hate God." When religion makes specific, testable claims about the nature of reality, then it is putting itself into science's realm, and faces the same risks of disproof that any other set of demonstrably wrong ideas does. As long as it sticks to matters of morality and spirituality, it can go its merry way.
There you go, folks. Now, enjoy your regularly scheduled flamewar.The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
If schools want to teach theology with time given to several different religions and their associated creation myths, then hey, do it. But keep the religious mythology out of science classrooms.
Yeah, but a good flame war can be a marvelous thing. 1000+ comments of psychotics vs idealistic scientists.
Makes a great show for those of us too cynical to see it as a battle worth fighting anymore.
The other person who replied to you gets it. My point is that there is no value in posting this material on Slashdot and that it will serve no purpose but to agitate the true believers on each side of this issue to start in on each other again.
Trouble making decisions? Just flip for it.
Original article posted here a few months ago!
Creationnism is not even a theory. It offer no testable hypothesis nor any falsifiable claims. It is therefore nothing more than an idea. Evolution DOES offer testable hypothesis (Like "random mutations occur and are passed on to the next generation") and falsifiable positions (if we found a fully-evolved human skeleton 100,000 years old that would certainly throw a wrench in it..).
I never spellcheck and I freely admit it. Save your karma for more worthwhile "lol erorrs" replies
Why is this under Science? Shouldn't it be under something more relevant, such as Humo(u)r?
In Kansas, we intelligently design all the time.
My favorite current theory is the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Please note how it also explains global warming with the decline of the world's pirate population.
From the founder's open letter to the Kansas Board of Education, which is considering re-writing the state's science standards to have none: "I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; One third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence."
Bush himself seems to be living proof of mankind's evolutionary connection with apes.
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
I think, here we find living proof that "Intelligent Design" is just a really weird idea...
Class these countries from the most religiously fanatical states to the least: Unites States of America, Sweden, Iraq Circa 1985, Iran, Russia.
1-
2-
3-
4-
5-
The slashdot editors have found a way to generate more clicks than ever before! Expect topics on abortion soon as well!
Obligatory Family Guy Quote:
... arrested for "teaching the evolutionary theory that Gil Gerard used a time machine, went back and ejaculated into the primordial ooze" ...
-everphilski-
What do you see that is the result of superstition? What do you see that is the result of science?
The problem with the creationist side is this isn't always a battle of who is right, it's a battle of time. Do we really want schools to de-evolve (joke intended) into 7.5 hours of creation stories, 0.5 hours of math, reading, grammar, and so forth?
Kombya... Ugh. The pope said this, that cardinal said that. Ever stop to think that there is more then one religion in the world? So the united states adheres to christianity exclusively why? Forgot about the people who don't believe in god, what about the people who believe in god differently? Nobody is suggesting teaching biology in churches, so keep religion there. If you want to teach kids (your) religion (which is the only one, and the only correct thing)in school at best you could lobby for theology classes to be opened and students going on a voluntary bases. Sheesh.
When I see Intelligent Design called a theory by the popular press, it drives me a little nuts. They are equating two separate definitions of the word theory. General Relativity is a theory. Darwin's theory of evolution is a theory. Scientific theories tend to incorporate facts, laws, and verifyable hypothesis, but generally fall short of becoming scientific law.
ID is not a theory in the scientific sense, because it does not incorporate any of the above. It's a conjecture -- in a scientific sense, nothing more than a hypothesis. I would not have a problem with ID being taught from a standpoint of world religion. It belongs there, but these ideals have no place in a scientific curriculum. It's not science, and teaching ID as such erodes at the definition and understanding of what science is and how it is to be performed.
-Turkey
Equal time for Creationism == Equal time for religious nonsense.
The owls are not what they seem
"Scientific theories that try to explain away the appearance of design as the result of "chance and necessity" are not scientific at all, but, as John Paul put it, an abdication of human intelligence." The church here is basically saying to the scientific community not only is what you're studying not science, but you're an idiot for even studying it.
The submission is nothing but a troll...Everyone read this site knows it will amount to over 1,000 posters screaming at each other.
I have read some of the most interesting discussions on the topic in times past when this debate was brought up.
Individuals that have a deep background in technologies, science, as well as religion are the ones to talk to when the ID/Creationism vs. Evolution debate come up.
It is interesting to learn how people w/a Slashdotter background is able to successfully ignore their technology/science roots to accept their religious ones. I am able to understand and relate to intelligent comments from people that have a similar background to me than to listen to a conservative religious leader with vested interests in "spreading the good word."
Perhaps you shouldn't jump to such a ridiculous conclusion just because people are arguing.
W = Missing Link!
Real ones aren't? I guess that depends on your meaning of 'religious scientists'. Do you mean scientists who belong to a specific religion? Or do you mean scientists who feel that there just might be some higher intelligence, which they base on their research and discovery of complexity of universtal laws and biological life?
Albert Einstein comes to mind. Isaac Newton. While not religious in the traditional sense, both had belief in God (not that certain about Einstein, but for sure Newton).
Or what about Galileo?
Huh, we are not just heading towards another dark age, we are running full speed towards it.
The world isn't run by weapons anymore, or energy, or money. It's run by little ones and zeroes, little bits of data.
Neither evolution and I.D. belong in the Science classroom. They're both historical hypothesis.
Given the historical powers of science and theology, however, theology has more potential for supporting historical claims. At least theoreticaly...
Science cannot demonstrate what happened in the past, but it can be used to demonstrate that certain hypothesis about what happened in the past are plausible, given the way the physics seems to work now.
Theology however has authoritative divine revelation - a direct expression of the genuine truth. So in theory, as long as you don't start out with the assumption that divine revelation is bunk, then it has the capacity for making claims about history with more certainty than science can ever make.
Well, perhaps it could be included in a philosophy clasroom as an example of modern day sophistry:
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
I've seen this debate over and over again, but one thing I see conspicuously missing from the argument on the side of the creationists is JUSTIFICATION for their conclusions. "I believe it should be so" is not a scientific or legal argument.
Right or wrong, the theory of evolution is science, because it's testable. Intelligent design could be taught in a religion or philosophy class, but it shouldn't be taught in science classes, because it isn't testable and therefore not science.
Is this a case of science creating its own circular argument? Science defines itself so that it can exclude anything scientists don't like. But just as many traditions have withstood the test of time, so has the scientific method. It's proven itself to be a valid and relatively objective tool for discovering the inner workings of the world around us.
The creationists tend to use status quo and popularity arguments to justify their beliefs and demands. It must be true, because so many people have believed it for so long. But they're not giving science the same treatment. The scientific method, in some form or other, has been around as a successful discovery tool for longer than Christianity has existed.
Well, if you are afraid of flame wars there isn't much left to be posted on /., is there?
/. that serve no purpose, so what. If that was the criterion for posting a story there wouldn't be much to post here.
New KDE or Gnome release. A no go.
An Apple story. Nope.
Maybe something about Windows. Ah, please don't go there.
Yes, there are a lot of discussions on
Do not worry it will only take about 400-500 years for the Catholic churh to accept Evoultion as more thna a hypothesis.. But than againudner scientific framework of prooofs Creationism is just a hypothesis without nay experimental data to back it up.. You would think after 2,000 years that there would be experimnetal data by now, right? The mnore intelligent question to ask is why Conservatives want the US governemnt in the positionof doing their religous parishoner recruitment for them??
Fred Grott(aka shareme) http://mobilebytes.wordpress.com
Actually, all *opinions* are of equal interpretive value, it is facts which are of differential significance. Opinions are distinguished only by their political or social value.
ZB -- this thread.
illegitimii non ingravare
Man, somebody in the whitehouse is on crack, or have a laugh and seeing how far they can push things.
This sounds completely crazy.
Somebody might want to tell NASA not to bother with their research on Mars as the creatures if any found couldn't have evolved over time.
You messed up one thing. Theories like evolution cannot become laws. A law governs something very precice and finite. A theory like evolution is a huge collection of laws, theories, and hypothesis, as well as a whole bunch of stuff that hasn't been discovered yet. Evolution as a whole is a theory that has withstood scientific scrutiny, but it cannot be a law because it covers too much scientific ground.
One more thing you forgot to mention. Intelligent design is the hypothesis that SOMETHING created all of this. Part of Intelligent Design is the possibility that we were all created by intelligent beings from another world. Fanatical Christians attempt to twist Intelligent Design to only include God as the possible creator, but that destroys it's standing as science. For it to be actual science and to even be able to compete with evolution, it HAS to take into account that aliens or some other type of intelligent being besides a Deity created earth and all of us. It does absolutely nothing to further their religious agenda, yet for some reason they cling to it like Jesus himself.
Sad but true.
You can talk to a christian who has faith and have a perfectly normal conversation. It's like talking to a gay guy...if you're not comfortable with your sexuality, its weird, but if you are, it's not. A christian who has solid faith is perfectly okay with saying, "I don't know" because they don't have to know. They don't have anything to prove.
But take someone who has no faith, and try and have a logical, rational discussion, and watch how fast they lose it. Because they have no faith, they need proof to shore up their belief, but since there is no proof, their arguments are weak and easily countered. They've built their whole lives on those "facts", so any attempt to reveal them as the figments they are is viewed as a personal attack, and responded to accordingly.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
That's because your athiesm is a product of your culture ;)
:)
(I'm actually agnostic, but I just wanted to poke you a little
Second, in real science theories must be supported by a repeatable experiment with consistent result. How can you prove a theory where not only the process cannot be reproduced but we do not even have a comprehensive record of the only occurance that we observed.
And after all, talking about scientific theories, ask molecular biologists what do they know about evolution of DNA. Some of them may tell you they believe it just "evolved", but that's an area of personal beliefs.
A way to mod entire stories as "flamebait"
I'm disappointed that more media sources haven't picked up on how clever the wording is when ID is discussed. Suggesting that we teach students "both sides of the controversy" sounds wonderfully reasonable, but it means you accept that there is a debate, and that there are two sides to discuss. Wonderful PR work.
A blunt anology is to holocaust denial; should we teach students in schools the version of history espoused by ring-wing neo-nazi groups? After all, we should show them both sides of the debate.
(Note that I don't think this kind of attack need lead to bad science in schools: you can have great fun accepting that neo-Darwinistic evolution is 'just a theory', as you can then discuss testability, predictions etc, and how it's doing against the evidence and what changes had to be made. Now do the same with ID - no testability, no predictions etc. Now pick the theory you want to use. For bonus points, discuss why ID is simply a stupid idea using Gould's separation of magisteria, or Fowler's mythos vs logos viewpoints.)
is the view of God using trial and error to create something ,which is what evolution suggests. Creationists can't accept the fact that a lot of 'beings' were created and died while trying to find the best one suitable to survive in it's particular environment. It's like they want Ford, instead of incrementally creating the quadra-cycle, the Model-T, the Model-A, the Mustang, etc - they want him to, out of nothing, create the 2055 Mustang with fusion drive, gps navigator and mp3 player. One minute you have a barren planet, the next minute, boom, you've got Adam walking around. What a great design! Yeah right, show us the blueprints please.
God just isn't as fantastic as his followers make him out to be.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
There is no harm in teaching both sides of the story in schools. Wheras, many believe that evolutionary theory provides a complete picture of how the universe formed, there are other plausible solutions too.
There is nothing wrong from teaching kids that there is an alternative opinion it helps to keep their minds open. To be a scientist you need to evaluate all evidence and opinions to ensure that there is nothing you missed in your theory. And in teaching our kids alternative (even if they may be partially wrong) it keeps them thinking and allows them to develop critical minds.
When you really want mod points...
Transcend Humanity. Please.
Part of this boils down to the fact that science can be used as a "religion".
Lets assume for a moment that it was a proven fact that aliens or "god" created the different species. What would scientists that believe evolution say now? Would they continue to believe life came about because of matter being blended around?
What if a new DNA study proved that a homus or species couldn't evolve into another species? Would the scientific community attack and discredit it because it does not meet their theory?
Basically I'm sick of dumb asses making a few observations and then explaining the universe according to them. Leave the speculation at home.
When evolutionary theory tracks all the way back to "origins" it becomes theological too. There is just no repeatable experiements to prove the assumptions it makes. Period. People who want to strip God out of society (like Joseph Stalin attempted to do, and largely succeeded). So don't stop at ID when you bash science that becomes theological.
And as far as not being able to prove your faith; I'm afraid there is ample evidence for your faith in the ressurection and saving power of Christ. Professor Thomas Arnold, for 14 years a headmaster of Rugby, author of the famous, History of Rome, and appointed to the chair of modern history at Oxford, was well acquainted with the value of evidence in determining historical facts. This great scholar said: "I have been used for many years to study the histories of other times, and to examine and weigh the evidence of those who have written about them, and I know of no one fact in the history of mankind which is proved by better and fuller evidence of every sort, to the understanding of a fair inquirer, than the great sign which God bath given us that Christ died and rose again from the dead."
He said this because there are vast amounts of historical and logical evidences for the ressurection. Look into the lives of early Christians and of the apostles. There is vast evidence testifying to the character of these early witnesses. Compare how these *historical figures* lived their lives to historical testimonies of the actions of founders of other religions and the evidence just mounts and mounts. Something powerful changed these men... the same something that resulted in an empty tomb of the most infamous religious figure in the world.
If Bush believes Intelligent Design, why aren't any of his goverment agencies providing any funding to study it?
It'd be cooler if they were zombie psychotics.
I don't have time to say much ... but I think that the conversation would be helped with careful attention to some fine distinctions on both sides of the fence. So, I'll throw these out without trying to support them fully, and hopefully this will clarify the debate.
Generally speaking, Christian Creationism refers to the belief that God created the earth in a manner more or less literally described in the book of Genesis. It is founded in the selection of the Bible as the foundational source by Christians of a conservative persuasion. There are two major types of creationist: young earth creationists (who hold the earth was created 6-10000 years ago in 7 literal, 24 hour days) and old earth creationists (who acknowledge that the earth is much more than 6000 years old, and generally concede that the "days" might be much longer than 24 hours.
While most Christian creationists agree with intelligent design to a point, intelligent design attempts to argue that the scientific evidence implies a designer. ID theory entails nothing regarding the age of the earth, nor does it entail the Biblical account of creation.
Intelligent Design is often but not always associated with so-called "theistic evolution." Theistic evolution (as opposed to Darwinian evolution) holds that a theistic god did his creating through the process of guided evolution. I think that this is where most moderate-to-liberal Christians land. Note that this is several orders of magnitude more liberal than "creationism", and that is why comparisons of ID to creationism are really just slanderous.
Finally, full-blown Darwinian evolution through natural selection (so far as I understand it) more or less insists that evolutionary processes are entirely naturalistic. It is this last that those of us who are theists (i.e. hold that a personal God created it all) but not creationists find onerous. And it is precisly this fault that ID proposes to fix.
The bottom line is that ID could be right, could be wrong -- I'm no biologist. But it's NOT creationism.
"He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
I am in the same position as the grandparent poster.
It's kinda simple let people get on with their lives and don't enforce things them.
There of plenty of people who just decided not to scream down the hills at everyone else until they cave in. It's called choice and is a wonderful thing.
Yeah, but that material actually is news for nerds. There's usually some substantive element.
That GWB thinks "the jury's out" on evolution is a tired old saw. That both sides of the debate distort each others positions is also.
BTW, I just registered your username. That is hysterical...
Trouble making decisions? Just flip for it.
and the approaching mob...
/me is dragged away to be burned at stake...
Hey guys, it was just a joke, ok? Really 6 days, then a day off, honest, true believer here... The Earth is the center of the universe, the CENTER!!!
I read the first few thousand words of the bible, and it really tells you a lot, and in fact (if you really read between the lines) supports evolution. Skipping to Adam and Eve, god created them like animals, not knowing good and evil, because he did not want them to be in any way like himself. However, not knowing who is evil can be deadly. A serpent said that the tree of knowlage is not deadly to the touch, and convinced Eve to eat from the tree. (Little did he know that that was actually true!) So Eve convinced Adam to eat from the tree of knowlage, and they knew good from evil, and relised that the serpent was evil. God was mad at this, because they were one step closer to eating from the tree of life, which would make them immortal. So he made it so women could not tell men what to do. (and so on...)
But take a look at this: The tree of knowlage was supposed to be DEADLY! So why didn't they die? Evolution. They adaped. If fact, evolution worked SO well, that god had to shorten the lifespan from 1000 years to no more than 120. (At least, thats my take on it)
Wonder what the public key field is for?
Like it or not, there is a public argument about Intelligent Design and Evolution. All Bush was saying is that if you want kids to understand what's going on in the public square, you ought to acquaint them with the issues.
One thing that frustrates the pro-ID folks is that evolution is still a *theory*, but is being taught as fact. That's not a surprising bias, considering that it explains an awful lot (but not all) about how life came to be as it is. And, it's an observable phenomenon. But, there are other theories, ID probably being the most prominent that other people believe.
The problem is: how do you teach this? Evolution is an important enough phenomenon all by itself, even if it wasn't the sole mechanism behind life, to be taught in science (and maybe math, anthropology and social studies) class. Beyond that, anything that says "this is how life began" should be taught with a healthy amount of skepticism, because we just don't know for sure.
If Creationists need any proof on the theory of Evolution and that we evolved from monkeys, just take a look at Bush.
Even if creationism could be considered as being the "easy way" to try and interpret things, instead of having a hard time experimentating to find the right answer, using the "it must have been created by some holy spirit" ideology truely seems to reveal a certain lazyness, one could consider creationism as futile, since it can be interpreted as not being the opposite of darwinism, but as a part of evolution itself: in order to oppose the arguments advanced by the intelligent designers, scientifics are forced to adapt their methods and technics, thus making science and human condition evolve...
The only thing I might disagree with is the statement that it does not belong in the classroom. It could very well belong in a philosophy classroom or a theology classroom but not in a biology class room.
I will go a little farther. I have been to some lectures on Intelligent Design. I found them deeply disturbing. They where full of at best bad science if not out right lies. I found them deeply disturbing on religious grounds. Part of my faith is a belief that lies do not serve God.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Chimpy-Mc-Flightsuit takes one step forward...
the whole country takes three steps back...
At this rate lets just all go back to being the Purtins that settled this country.
Will the insanity ever STOP?
The universe is soo complex that it could not have happened by itself. There must be some higher intelligence that designed it...
...
Oh, and that intelligence is sooo complex that it could not have happened by itself. There must be some higher intelligence that designed it...
And oh,
Nevermind.
ID: the nose did not occur naturally, how would we wear glasses otherwise? (apologies to Voltaire)
What I would call the law of evolution -- "species evolve as a result of mutation and natural selection over time" -- is a pretty simple statement. I think the analogy to the laws of thermodynamics is appropriate; they sound like simple statements, and in fact they are, but in fact they cover " a huge collection of laws, theories, and hypothesis, as well as a whole bunch of stuff that hasn't been discovered yet" just as much as evolution does.
As far as "maybe it's aliens, not God" goes, I think that's a red herring, honestly. The aliens had to come from somewhere; all that idea does is push the First Cause one step farther back. As a practical matter, AFAIK all the people actively pushing ID are in fact religious believers who, if pressed, will admit that their "Designer" is the God of Abraham.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
I was going to make reference to the last episode of the First season of Deep Space Nine. You know, where Kai Opaka Starts the religious teachings revolution on DS9 so that she can lure Kai Vedik off of Bajor so that she can try and kill her
Any god and/or religion that believes in the 'Intelligent Design' of George W. Bush is neither intelligent nor well designed.
If I have seen farther than others, it is because I was standing on the shoulders of giants.
You are assuming that space and time are infinite. I think that scientists have already determined that the universe is not infinite in size. And although it seems that there won't be a Big Crunch, so time is technically infinite, heat death will eventually occur, which means that the amount of time in which anything remotely interesting can happen is also finite.
Technoli
MC Hawkins says:
Fuck the Creationists
Trash Talk
Ah yeah, here we go again!
Damn! This is some funky shit that I be laying down on your ass.
This one goes out to all my homey's working in the field of
evolutionary science.
Check it!
Verse 1
Fuck the damn creationists, those bunch of dumb-ass bitches,
every time I think of them my trigger finger itches.
They want to have their bullshit, taught in public class,
Stephen J. Gould should put his foot right up their ass.
Noah and his ark, Adam and his Eve,
straight up fairy stories even children don't believe.
I'm not saying there's no god, that's not for me to say,
all I'm saying is the Earth was not made in a day.
Chorus
Fuck, fuck, fuck,
fuck the Creationists.
Trash Talk
Break it down.
Ah damn, this is a funky jam!
I'm about ready to kick this bitch back in.
Check it.
Verse 2
Fuck the damn creationists I say it with authority,
beause kicking there punk asses be me paramount priority.
Them whack-ass bitches say, "evolution's just a theory",
they best step off, them brainless fools, I'll give them cause to fear me.
The cosmos is expanding every second, every day,
but their minds are shrinking as they close their eyes and pray.
They call their bullshit science like the word could give them cred,
if them bitches be scientists then cap me in the head.
Chorus
Trash Talk
Bass!
Bring that shit in!
Ah yeah, that's right, fuck them all motherfuckers.
Fucking punk ass creationists trying to set scientific thought back 400 years.
Fuck that!
If them superstitious motherfuckers want to have that kind of party,
I'm going to put my dick in the mashed potatoes.
Fucking creationists.
Fuck them.
Creationists are a lot like zombies. Slow, but powerful and numerous. And they all want to eat our brains.
Both assumptions which are known to be false.
The POTUS endorses a lot of things, it is his job. He is not uncomfortable looking foolish or inconsistent. Most of my fallow Merkins have no illusions as to his powers of reasoning.
The point is that it's not news for nerds and neither is the inevitable *informed debate* that our slashdotterei will conduct about this insipid semantic question.
illegitimii non ingravare
"Isn't it funny how Creationists look sorta unevolved?"
Note: The above is a joke and is not to be construed as an attack on anyone.
Creationism and its relative Intelligent Design are not valid scientific theories. They are not predictive in any meaningful sense, nor are they falsifiable. This doesn't necessarily mean they're wrong or useless in a broader sense, simply that they are not science and, thus, have no place in a class on science.
What gets taught in classes on a particular subject (at least at the high school level) should be determined by what is the consensus view among experts in that particular field. Evolutionary theories are the accepted consensus among the scientific community, meaning this is what should be taught in science class. Thus, even if creationism and ID were valid scientific theories, they still would have no place in a K-12 science course, any more than the theories of those who object to special relativity or the heliocentric model of the solar system. The curriculum of science class should not be determined by popular oppinion among the uninformed. If we did things that way, we'd probably be teaching children that summer happens because that's when the Earth is closest to the Sun, since in surveys I've seen this is a more popular explanation than the correct one.
Creationism and ID might have a proper place in school, however. If the school offers a course on philosophy or on comparative religion, then these would be perfectly suitable topics for discussion. Ironically, they might be used in a discussion of the scientific method as instructive examples of ideas that are invalid as scientific theories, but that would obviously be a foolish example to use, because it's too politically charged.
"You call it a new way of thinking; I call it regression to ignorance!" -- Operation Ivy
Is GWB the result of intelligent design?
That seems unlikely http://slate.msn.com/id/76886/.
It must have been evolution...
I went to a Christian high school, and they did the whole "competing theories" thing. Basically, they spent the first class talking about all the theories of how life got on earth. They talked about creationism and all of the varieties of it, and they talked about evolution and all the different ideas on how the first live organism got its start. The rest of the semester they taught factual science, i.e. referring to geologic age in millions of years, etc using regular science books. My point in mentioning this is, this was a Christian school that was allowed to teach however they wanted, and they only mentioned creationism in one class the whole semester and didn't bring up religion the rest of the time. They didn't even talk about their specific denomination during the discussion. If they do the same thing in all schools, who cares? Kids are smart enough to decide for themselves what makes sense. I'll complain if people start skewing science to match their beliefs, but I don't really care if they mention creationism briefly when discussing the origin of life.
Boo hoo hoo. Poor AC wants to be popular like TMM is but he doesn't have the knowledge, insight, or social skills to pull it off so he resorts to name calling and inuendo. Ring ring, Junior High called, it wants its backbiting insecurity back.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Most of the people I know that are whole heartedly against evolution, haven't got the faintest idea how it works. They were never exposed to it and won't take the time to read anything about it. However, when I was in grade school, my science teacher would occasionally interject that intelligent design is a possibility that can't really be ruled out. Then he'd go right back into evolutionary theory. I believe he was doing it to keep certain people off his back. But, it didn't turn me into a right wing ultra conservative bible banger. It just taught me to keep an open mind. I still believe what I believe, but I do admit that I might be wrong.
Of course, the real problem they are going to run into is which intelligent design concepts they are going to teach. Even sticking within the Judeo-Christian dogma, there's quite a few different viewpoint on the subject. These are teachers after all, not theologians. But, that topic will only cause heated arguments amonst all the right wingers... which is always fun to watch.
"We shall party like the Greeks of old! You know the ones I mean." - HedonismBot
I wasn't going to post a comment - really I wasn't - until I saw that my captcha was quackery . Slashdot gets it right at last!
------
Actually, what I was going to post was that I go to MIT, and I've been totally astonished by some students' unquestioning faith and devotion to their God. (Usually it's a right-wing Baptist god, but there are some occassional exceptions.) There is a strong undercurrent of "yes, I believe the Earth was created by the dude I worship, and I'll carefully ignore the unspeakably obvious logical and scientific problems with my stance". You'd think at an engineering school full of diverse cultural backgrounds... well, I digress.
------
You see why that's inflammatory, why I wouldn't want to post it. I believe that everyone is important, everyone is valuable, and everyone's happiness matters. So I have difficulty laughing at people and it's sometimes hard to make strong assertions like "your view is wrong". But the so-called 'debate' between 'intelligent design' and 'evolution by natural selection' is preposterous. Luckily it's also mostly nonpractical; who cares whether we arose from Koko the breast-fetishist gorilla or whether God faked it all and created the universe, with us and our fake memories, fifteen seconds ago? I am thankful - so very thankful - that the religious zealots have chosen such a silly thing to fight about.
------
If the theory of intelligent design is taught in schools during science class, why isn't the theory of man's relationship with billions of dead volcano-stricken souls taught during history class?
------
It is unfortunate that another of the zealots' battles is whether to teach abstinence only in a health class. This is absurd on face - "Hey, teenagers aren't all interested in sex, and they'll never want to learn more than what they hear in health class!" - but it is also very, very dangerous. Especially since it's usually the same people who don't want these same teenagers to be allowed to kill their babies before they're born. (By looking at the demographics of people who have had abortions since Roe v. Wade, and by applying the fairly large and consistent percentage of people who inherit their political views from their parents, it's been determined that had Roe been decided the other way, the Democrats would have a solid majority in Congress and the country now. True story.)
1905.
CHRISTIANS: We should teach religion in schools.
SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY: No, we should not teach religion in schools.
COURTS: Yeah, pretty much.
(Pause.)
1955.
CHRISTIANS: We should teach "creationism" in schools.
SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY: Um, that's the exact same thing as before. You're just calling it "creationism" instead of "religion". And you shouldn't teach religion in schools.
COURTS: Yeah, pretty much.
(Pause.)
2005.
CHRISTIANS: We should teach "intelligent design" in schools.
SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY: Um, that's still the exact same thing as before. You're just calling it "intelligent design" instead of "creationism". And you still shouldn't teach religion in schools.
COURTS: Yeah, pretty much.
(Pause.)
2055.
SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY: We should teach science in schools.
COURTS: Citizen, you have committed an Error. Please stand by until an armed guard can escort you to a Free Speech Zone.
CHRISTIANS: Man, living in a hyperbolic hypothetical example rocks!
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
How much is there to exactly say about creationalism.. And some people think god created us and the fossil records... There is not thing really left to say, I say teach it in the class, it will take less than 10 minutes for a teacher to fully cover, and I wont have to hear about this crap anymore.
Oh, wait. You can't.
It's a matter of faith and thus completely outside science. And it doesn't contradict evolution in any way.
The scientific method can only be used to determine "how", not "why". And if you think matters of faith and philosophy don't belong in our schools you need to learn where such phrases as "We the People..." and "We hold these truths to be self-evident..." come from.
You need to learn why the writers of the 14th Amendment believed that all people were entitled to the "equal protection of the laws" (the reason that's not in the original Constitution is that it pretty much outlaws slavery - which the framers of the Constitution couldn't do...)
It must really suck that noone pays attention to you.
Instead of trying to tear down TMM, who is actually contributing to the forum, why don't you just contribute in a positive way yourself?
Jesus loves you...but then again, he loves everyone.
Okay, which assertion is more ludicrous?
The Bush administration has a history for the past 6 years or so of ignoring science.
This isn't news. Everyone in the world knows he is a Christian fundamentalist. This means he opposes naturalism, the values of the enlightenment, or rational thought for society. He makes judgments on ideology instead of thought. Too bad the only thing stopping these people is the judicial system. But they are already working on changing that. I figure we only have about 3 years and 5 months left of his office before we get another chance of electing a new megalomaniac.
Oh... wait... You meant that they should teach how your "God" created things???
I agree. People should be able to have equal time for their Intelligent Design mumbo-jumbo. One of my co-workers gets up early and takes his kids to some sort of religious activity before their school starts each day. And, hey, spend all the time you want to talking about it on the weekend in the church of your choice. No reason to pull it into science class, though.
That Bible has this line from Jesus in it about those that feel the need to loudly proclaim their religiosity in public. And it wasn't positive.
-- dR.fuZZo
Bah...slashdot needs to stick to the news. I'm noticing a definite trend in recent /. stories that is leaning more toward op/ed rather than news. This is at least the third article I've seen in a week that was heavily slanted...when people want that stuff they go to political sites...we come to slashdot for tech news...I'm quite close to turning my readership elsewhere, cause this is stupid.
From TFA: Gary L. Bauer, a Christian conservative leader who ran for president against Bush in the 2000 Republican primaries:
"It's not some backwater view. It's a view held by the majority of Americans."
This is what I hate about majority rule. Just because 51% of people believe in something, the other 49% is represented to have those same beliefs. I can't stand the fact I can't travel safely abroad because I'm American. I pretty much despise our current goverment policies, but it's hard to explain that fact to the rest of the world. [sarcasm] Hooray! "Intelligen" Design is held by the majority of Americans! As a junior scientist, that's exactly how I want my European and Asian colleagues to view me.[/sarcasm] It's bad enough the age of American dominance in science and technology is in decline, and now this. How much more credibility is the U.S. government willing sacrifice?
Mod me down if you must, but this is a fight worth fighting. I'm just more disappointed more scientists aren't doing anything to curtail the outbreak of ignorance.
If God is perfect and all knowing, why does he make mistakes every generation requiring constant revisions of his design? Why didn't he just design what he wanted instead of having to constantly manipulate the DNA of every single species for all eternity?
Also, given how many obvious flaws there are in the human design, isn't it an insult to God to say that he created us? Take the human eye alone. The retina isn't attached to the back of the eye, allowing spontaneous blindness. The veins and other "wiring" are on top of the retina instead of under it, hindering our vision and creating blind spots. Only an idiot would "design" us like that, and if we were designed like that, why do invertibrates have the "wiring" under the retina?
All of those flaws can be explained with evolution, but to say someone designed us like that is not saying much for the designer...
No no no no no. No. No no no. No no no no no, no. Just no. ID supporters, Creationists and the like should be fed to the lions, and I do mean that literally. For it to be linked to EDUCATION in any way is simply abhorrent.
Also George W. Bush.
Call it a hunch, but it seems like Mr. Bush is starting to gain a certain level of political influence.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
Now wonder why I never win the lottery. I used up all of Hawking's goddess of luck on my life. Damn the Wheel of Fortune.
What may come as a surprise is that most Creationists and IDists agree that there is speciation and adaptation. It's evident that animals adapt. What is more the crux of conflict is whether species can adapt to become an entirely new and different specie.
What's more, Creationists and IDist don't like the fact that evolution doesn't have any real answer for the source for life. The "lightning zapped a glob of primordial ooze, thus forming the first proteins" idea is not only unnatural (life coming from non-life), but also unproven (why can't we reproduce this phenomena today?)
To say evolutionists have all the answers isn't true, is it? Considering we can't even explain with certainty how life started in the first place, it's naive to think evolution is the answer to everything; evolution may be what's happening to species now and in the past, but that doesn't explain where the species originated. I read recently in National Geographic a scientist who was quoted as saying that evolution is right, but as far as how life got here to evolve in the first place, we'll just "leave that up to priests and poets". Priests and poets!
What we're going to see in this Slashdot thread is a lot of "Creationists are stupid rednecks. Evolution is triumphant once again!". Lots of gloating and lots of mockery will be going on. No doubt, several ACs will reply to this post with personal insults because I disagree with their view of the world. All I can say is, don't assume anyone has all the answers, because no one, evolutionists or creationists, has the answers. And if we don't have all the answers, then analyzation and presentation of conflicting theories is both scientific and beneficial.
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit
...there's no place for *any* religion in the classroom.
I have no objection to anyone believing anything like. From worshiping the sun to believe the universe was sneezed from the nose of the great green arkle seizure. But *any* kind of religious studies legitimise certain religions over other religions and that's not on. No to study religion, go to church, the synagogue, the mosque, the temple, the local wood, but definitely not school!
Evolution is also unprovable. I have yet to see any solid evidence.
First I wish people would not take the assumption that one who disagrees with them and there line of thought is a fool. In fact, it is foolish without understanding someone's perspective of creationism to dismiss it.
Secondly, It is noteworthy that nothing in history is provable. We must base our guess of the past on present information. We maybe able to one day clearly show evolution (not one instance but a large scale example over a vast amount of time, without simple loss of features but addition of new unique enhancements) but that will not prove what happened in the past.
Thirdly, the idea of teach intelligent design is not to bringing faith into schools but show the unproven points, gaps, and contradictions and then to show other possible interpretations of the facts.
For example:
It is a fact that in high mountains fossilized fish have been found. This probably means the mountain was once underwater: either it move up (techtonic movement) or the water receded (large global flood). Either way the fact is simple but the extrapolation is NOT fact.
Another fun example is C-14 dating which is based on half life. It is based on the assumption that we know the approximate quantity of C-14 present in the past. C-14 is created in the upper atmosphere (I think. Correct or insult if I'm wrong) and it's creation depends on particular type of solar radition (light), if the atmosphere were to change (many evolutionists believe is has changed over time) then quantity assumptions would be wrong. An example of this is a sea animal (I look up which one) when dated with C-14 dating is actually found to be several thousand years old (and dead), while it is still alive. It's enviroment has low C-14 quantities.
Just thoughts. Let's please be less critical and use more critical thinking.
Thanks
"and their lives will not be really affected by which way they believe Man got to his present state."
On the contrary. If someone comes away with an idea of someone's (God perhaps, or the CIA) hand in control of destiny and that science is really a tool of satan well then several thing might occur.
His Christian church attendance might go up.
He might surrender his will to the authority of the Church or his pastor.
He might get into the habit of surrendering authority to others and become a good Republican having not only theological but political issues decided for him with a fear of questioning authority.
We might continue to have Authoritarian "Leadership" in the government rather than a representative government.
For want of a nail the shoe was lost.
Our system of government only works with active questioning free thinking indivduals who are willing to challenge un-truth and hypocracy at all levels. Without that our system is lost.
Personally, I believe that the latest findings in science should be taught, however it should not be presented as *cough* gospel truth. It should be very clear to students that this is still an area where new discoveries are being made and we do not have a 100% reliable model for the way life developed.
(For what it's worth, before they got rid of the karma score, my karma was capped above 200 for a long time, then above the maximum when they lowered the max. I have some idea what in a post leads it to be down-moderated.)
This is exactly the sort of crap that leads to Christians feeling marginalized--because secularists ARE trying to marginalize us.
"He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
It seems to me that people are complaining because creationism / intelligent design can not be proven. It is a theory, sure it is based on faith to some extent but it is still a theory. As is Evolution. Evolution is a theory about how the universe came in to existance. It is no more provable than creationism / intelligent design. Sure there is a fossil record but still that record is being interpreted from a certain perspective and there are some unexplained gaps.
Unfortunately, all we can do is interpret the evidence that we have available to us. We are not able to know what has happened to our planet or our universe hundreds of thousands or billions of years ago. All we have is the evidence, and it can be viewed many different ways.
I see this being a problem for both theories. The creation story in the Bible could be interpreted literally or it could be all symbolism and be interpreted differently.
Supplies!
I am sorry but this is just complete, utter, bullshit. There are many reasons why our school system's are in such turmoil, and a major one is the complete lunacy that is dictating what is taught to our children. Theology has no place in the institute of public education. Religion has a proper place, and here is a hint: the privacy of your own home and/or place of worship.
I have a friend that is from Wisconsin, she believes in creationism, which is in part due to her upbringing. I was shocked to hear what was coming out of her mouth when she described how evolution is "fake". She isn't in any variant of the scientific field, but what if she could have been? What if she initially had the mind to, but it was striped away while she was at such an impressionable age? It's shit like this that poisons young minds and prevents them from aspiring what could be their true potential. I guess science is only cool when it's used to kill people.
The problem is that a good education is the only real chance that the very poor have of escaping poverty. Reducing the real quality of public education (whether by destroying real scientific education, or by the awful No Child Left Behind act, among numerous others) basically means that the rich stay rich, and the poor stay poor.
Whatever you think the American Dream might be, it's not that.
Mike Hoye
It's really hard to tell, though, since most of that article was covering ground in the past about how the Catholic Church had reacted to theories regarding evolution and history... In a nutshell, it says you've got to be pretty dense if you think that the design of human beings, Earth, and everything else in the universe came about as a result of chance and necessity. In other words, He is a busy man.
The pathetic thing about all of this is that pundits on both sides use the confines that scientific research must exist in as a means of trying to discredit each other... Science only looks at things that are known and can be measured, bringing with it a sense that everyone in the sciences has no problem denying the existence of God or his role in our universe. Any physicist worth his weight can tell you simply that it's not so much that God must be denied, rather that he can't be measured. Alas, this is why the word "mystery" is used so often in the Church. His way are not necessarily just unseen, but possibly far beyond comprehension: $10 bucks to the first guy who can explain to me how exactly a quantum leap works, how exactly a subatomic particle can instantaneously move from one position to another without actually traversing that distance.
Finally, there's the heart of the matter touched on briefly at the bottom of the article. Superstring theory will be used by plenty of people (many of them lovingly known as "Slashdot Trolls") to somehow deny the existence of God. The Catholic Church will likely not endorse it, but simply for the same reasons that Scientist can't endorse God... The church can't measure and prove string theory, and the scientists can't measure and prove God. Will there be room for the Church to say that string theory may indeed have validity? Of course. After all, someone's got to be pulling on all the strings around here.
I sent a two part answer on this to Alan Boyle at MSNBC. The first part appears here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3217961/
..."
"Dennis McClain-Furmanski, Arlington, Texas: "Bush isn't wrong: Both sides ought to be properly taught. I'm only a scientist. I'm not qualified to teach religion, only science. Science is the name for a body of knowledge, as well as the name for the process by which it is accumulated. This process is what I do. If someone can give me a replicable, independently verifiable and, most importantly, falsifiable hypothesis based on intelligent design, I can do this process called science, and add the results to the body of knowledge called science. Until it can be brought down to my level, it doesn't belong in my classroom, it belongs where its experts can teach it properly -- in church.
The second part, which he chose not to print was:
"Now, if they'd like to work out a time sharng agreement, I'd be all for it. They can have one of my classes per semester if I can have one of their church services per semester, including choir and organ. I've always wanted to work with musical background. "In the beginning was the Higgs field, and then symmetry was broken." [Cue Handel's 'Hallelujah']. Somehow I think this is as likely to come about as that falsifiable hypothesis.
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
There is no way to provide support for it or to refute it and the concept does not affect a person's life outside of his/her religion.
tsia
in Austria, there is at least one Catholic priest who tell people that condoms are entirely useless in preventing pregnancy and HIV. thankfully, the vast majority of the people aren't stupid enough to believe it.
You have to be a thinker first. To me it's great-grandparent.
Transcend Humanity. Please.
Bush's remark is unfortunate for a head of state whose constitution specifically spells out the separation of church and state. Although his curriculum vitae has never pointed to an appreciation of science anyway, so it's not much of a surprise.
If people want to see the "benefit" of religion, they need not look further than the daily headlines of religious extremists everywhere slaughtering those who do not share their beliefs, in the name of their gods.
Sun and Fun
http://www.venganza.org/
I think you miss the point of evolution, it's not random dumb luck that it happened upon a fantastic design - evolution isn't random selection, it's natural selection, sexual selection, genetic drift, and probably other selection mechanisms we haven't discovered yet. Evolution is in a sense guided - there are demonstratable mechanisms at work selecting the very best variations in offspring and discarding the rest.
The universe does not appear to be infinite, nor does the time it has existing for. Evolution isn't an example of infinite monkeys on typewriters coming up with shakespear.
Ok, I am a practicing Catholic. I even volunteer computer asistance to my Church. I believe that God created every single animal and plant on this planet. And I think Intelligent Design should be kept the HELL out of science class and taught where it belongs: religion class.
There is a way that God went about creating all these great things on this planet. And God's way is a process we scientific types call EVOLUTION. Evolution is a process put in place that all things to EVOLVE on this great planet. The process itself dictates what happens. No one needs to shape it or design it, because it was designed to work the way it does.
Not that I am going to preach religion to the masses here, but KEEP this CRAP out of the science classroom!
If you want to teach this stuff in school, start offering volutary religion classes in multiple faiths that a child's parents can make them attend, but in now way force them.
First time they try to teach this stuff to my kids in school, I'll walk in with the Bible in my hand and ask them when it became a science textbook.
If Intelligent Design is to be given equal time in biology classes (even though it does not even qualify as a scientific theory), then I demand that the Flying Spaghetti Monster get equal time as well...
But seriously folks, evolution is an observable fact. Darwinian Evolution is on of several theories regarding the mechanisms by which evolution works. As for the "it is only a theory" arguement, remember that gravity is only a theory as well.
It is amazing how non-scientists completely misunderstand the meaning of the word theory. A theory is a model for explaining phenomena. A theory is supported by physical evidence and observation. A theory can be used to make predictions about the phenomena in question. A theory is falsifiable (meaning that, if wrong, it can be disproven by experiment or observation). Various theories of evolution meet these criteria. Intelligent Design does not.
Take a gander at TalkOrigins.
*** Quantum Mechanics: The Dreams of Which Stuff is Made ***
If God is perfect, why would He need to tweak a system created to support His image as man?
And Bush is a moron. The end.
At some point, people bandied about 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
Yet for sixty years, they willingly and eagerly promoted lies about a well-documented event that could have easily been exposed as such. They totally distorted virtually every fact about the Scopes Trial. Only in 1998, with the release of Summer of the Gods, (Harvard Univ. Press) were those lies exposed. Read it for yourself and see.
Sorry evolutionists. Lie to me once. Shame on you. Lie to me twice, shame on me if I'm foolish enough to believe you.
Other books document how evolutionists have doctored photos, distorted the stages of fetal development in the womb, and continuted to use arguments for evolution (i.e. those white/dark moths) in textbooks long after the arguments were known to be invalid. And that's not even getting into the contrary evidence they've suppressed.
Like Marxism, evolution is more an academically fashionable ideology than a science. Like Marxism, it's the sort of all-embracing Answer for Everything that nineteenth century Europeans liked to invent. And like Marxism, it has been used as the rationale for great evil--racism and eugenics. (Interestingly, Karl Marx wanted to dedicated Das Kapital to Charles Darwin. Darwin, who lived quite well on his wife's inherited 'capitalist' fortune, declined.)
Finally, like the critics of Marxism, the critics of evolution deserve to be heard.
--Mike Perry, Seattle, editor, Eugenics and Other Evils
P.S. You might also want to read a just-out critique of evolution from a well-respected Italian biologist--Why is a Fly Not a Horse? by Giuseppe Sermonti, Chief Editor of Biology Forum, one of the oldest still-published biology journals in the world.
Yes thats what we are gods cosmic sperm god/allah/buddah whatever you want to call him had a "tryst" with his main bitch "the universe" needless to say his soldiers had good aim and landed on this here fertile ovum we like to call earth. Billions of years later through differentiation we are all here now.... Any questions?
I think the invisible hand of the market has its middle finger extended
--A wise old fart named SC0RN
America broke off from Europe 200 some odd years ago. You need to accept that europe was so _awful_ back then that it was worth starting a new country and fighting a few wars, just to get away from you clowns.
You shouldn't exactly be surprised if Americans could care less what european news agencies think about them from time to time.
You go ahead and be concerned. We'll keep working long hours.
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
Zonk posted a shaky story just to get people to yell at each other? Shocked, I am. Shocked, I say!
Intelligent Design was created by creationist for creationist purposes. To teach this in any class other than a religion class is stupid. You wouldn't teach biophysics in a religion class, why are people so deadset on putting ID in science classes? It's not a science, people!
Let's all say it together:
IT'S NOT A SCIENCE!
Well, you got me there. However, it is not newsworthy.
.. paranoid crackpot leftover from the days of Amiga.
The fundamental difference (if you'll pardon the pun) between creationists and evolutionists is that the creationist *starts* from a conclusion and works to make the facts fit his or her definition.
The evolution crowd starts from the standpoint of *not knowing* and using the data at hand to form theories based on scientific priciples known to us currently.
In my opinion the conclusion comes AFTER you've gathered data and analysed it.
If you'll pardon the comparison, creationists trying to prove intelligent design is not unlike what the NAZI's did to try and prove the superiority of the Aryian race...or in other words searching for evidence to prove their foregone conclusion.
The position of those who want creationism to be taught in schools is clearly that of a desire to defend ones views. So they try and ensure their view can reach as many people as possible.
The position of those who do not want creationism taught in schools is clearly that of those who do not wish to defend their views against an opposing one, so they attempt to shut the opposing view out.
You can prove parts of evolution such as mutation and servival of the fittest, you cannot prove rat-like creatures can one day become intelligent ape-like beings. but evolution is simply a theory of change, so teaching evolution is ok, cause evolution is proven, teaching that man evolved from such and such animal has not yet been proven (maybe one day?). Similar, you cannot prove, or attempt to prove that current creatures came about from intelligent design, but clearly with the breeding of dogs, and now even the creation of viruses specialised to fight cancers, This is intelligent desin, Man's intelligent design. So you can clearly teach intelligent design, architecture, genetic manipulation, programming, art, it is all intelligent design. so you can teach the theory of intelligent design along with the theory of mutation and survival of the fittest, aka evolution, however teaching God intelligently created everything or evolution of species into species on the grand scale since day 0 should both be taught as theoretical extensions of the base theory, however if eather is blocked so should be the other.
Honestly, the universe is not actually infinite. Yes, it extends farther than we will ever be able to gather data from (in theory) but it does have boundaries. Otherwise all this talk about the universe expanding would be irrelevant.
I'll never make that mistake again, reading the experts' opinions. - Feynman
I am surprised that Bush didn't mention his intelligent designer by name: Karl Rove.
..that reading "Equal Time for Creationism", thought "Flowers for Algernon"?
I listened to a radio show about this topic last night. What I got from it is a couple of points.
1. Intelligent Design is a theory, which is widely critised as being unscientific.
2. Evolution has not been proved, and thus remains "the theory of evolution".
3. That there are mitocontria in the cells which are like motors, which must be made and could not have happened by chance. (This is where I lost it).
I've done work with genetic algorithms on computers and I can safely say that out of apparent randomness fantasic results can occur. But on the other hand the Intellegent Design people would say that someone (me) would have have to put the conditions in place for the program to work.
Put another way, Intelligent Design people would say that for every level that evolution can be proved, there is a sublevel which can be thought of as put in place by Intelligent Design.
This is of course as unprovable as any faith, and must therefore always remain a theory.
For myself, I think of God as the programmer who puts together the rules for the atoms, and who decides the rules for statistics, and who decides the value of pi, etc. From all this, evolution takes place. So I believe in both. However neither can be proved to the exclusion of the other.
IMHO
- This is the first time that Bush has endorsed Intelligent Design as President, though he held the same position as governor of Texas.
- President Bush does not think that curriculum decision concerning Intelligent Design should be made at the federal level; they should be left up to local school districts.
- A quote from President Bush: "Both sides ought to be properly taught . . . so people can understand what the debate is about."
- Another quote: "Part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought. . . . You're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, and the answer is yes."
So here are some conclusions: First, the president is not making any sort of federal policy shift to cause Intelligent Design to be taught in schools. Second, despite that, the President knows that a high-level endorsement of Intelligent Design will be the difference-maker for some local school districts. Finally, Bush does not say that only Intelligent Design should be taught; he advocates for contrasting ideas to be presented to school children on the subject of the origin of species.
You posted highly similar comments here, back in May.
"Intelligent design" is, frankly, philosophically uninteresting. Descartes, Aquinas, Aristotle, et al. have contributed more compelling, diverse, and profound arguments.
A good introductory philosophy class could certainly include intelligent design. For instance, the instructor could require students to read a popular book on intelligent design and to analyze the arguments used, as an exercise in applying what they've been taught. This would be a difficult task for the students because they would have to wade through a great deal of Time Cube, David Icke-style "science" attacking evolution; the philosophy is sometimes rather thin. But once they found some philosophy to investigate, they could have a great deal of fun making allusions and comparisons to old arguments. Who knows - students might even find some novel argument! (I wouldn't bet on it.)
I wish more proponents of the Intelligent Design argument agreed with your point of view, by the way; if you haven't noticed, few of them are willing to admit they're not arguing about science.
We recently had heard in the office over one of the Yellow Machine that's made by Anthology Solutions.
I can't believe that I'd ever be defending Bush or intelligent design, but read that article more carefully and note the specific quotes attributed to Bush:
"Both sides ought to be properly taught . . . so people can understand what the debate is about," he said, according to an official transcript of the session. Bush added: "Part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought. . . . You're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, and the answer is yes."
I have to agree with this. Children have to be taught that there's a debate going on, that some people believe in intelligent design. If no mention is made of ID in schools, then kids will be at the mercy of people who will teach it to them as religious ideology and they won't have the tools to evaluate it properly.
ID should be taught in social studies, *not* in science class, but I don't see Bush saying anything about putting it in science class.
The article says: Bush told Texas newspaper reporters in a group interview at the White House on Monday that he believes that intelligent design should be taught alongside evolution as competing theories. THAT, I disagree with. Is this really what Bush was saying, or did the article jump to conclusions? Where can I find the official transcript of the session?
No, the meat of this story was that an official of the Catholic Church rejects any theories that "explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe". Translated, the Church teachings reject the view that God did not create the universe. This is news?
If he wanted to poke holes at Intelligent Design and Bush's views, he could have left off the last two sentences...
Envy my 5 digit Slashdot User ID!
Every time evolution comes up I say a little prayer *pun intended* that Kansas isn't involved. I grew up in a small Kansas town. I was taught science and evolution in that small town's public schools. I can say that although there definitely is a big chunk of unbelievable ignorance in some elected offices Most Kansans/Midwesterners are not stupid even though the news makes them seem that way.
I believe a good science teacher would display the new "required material" as something politically required and show why "Real" scientist disagree. At least that's what I hope. If done properly it could be a good lesson in determining pseudo science from the real deal... and still meet the legal requirements.
Disclaimer: I'm an atheist living in Houston now.
TODO create witty sig.
So here's the quote, "Part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought. . . . You're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, and the answer is yes."
So the door to teaching about alternative lifestyles is finally openned! Hmm maybe we can finally discuss abstinence vrs birth control? Or anti-choice vrs pro-choice?
You might as well ask "why" we chose the word "law" to represent the concept we know as "law". Some things just are, without a reason. A reason`implies an intelligent designer, it would be pointless to ask ourselves that before seeing a shred of evidence to His existence and circular logic to use this question as proof of a creator.
In fact, ID FAILS to answer this very simple question as well. "Because it is God's will" is a meaningless answer founded on nothing at all.
I never spellcheck and I freely admit it. Save your karma for more worthwhile "lol erorrs" replies
First, Intelligent Design is NOT A THEORY. It is an assertion. It is a hypothesis. Intelligent design has not been tested time and time again and it has not been validated time and time again like the theories of gravity, electromagnetism, and evolution have.
Intelligent Design does not oppose evolution. It actually incorporates evolution as one of the possible processes used by some "intelligence" to create everything. It does not do anything to invalidate evolution. If anything, it helps evolution's standing as a valid fact.
Intelligent Design is the idea that some intelligent being created us, whether it is aliens, beings from some other dimension or reality, super-intelligent bacteria, or a diety (Like the Christian God or Allah or the Great Greek Arkleseziure). The Christian God is but one of hundreds or thousands of possible creators.
And last, INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS NOT A THEORY. It's not. There cannot be any argument for teaching something that is nothing more than an assertion as an alternative to an actual scientific theory.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
teach creationism in public school?
Maybe this is a better question.
Should we have public schools?
Its a recursive loop people. We find a way to time travel on the brink of our extinction. Go back a few too many years and have to start all over again...ca. BC. Thus the pyramids, extreme intellectual progression, and so forth. The loop can't be broken, that is until there isn't a need to flee a dying planet. Given that humans are NOT like God (I do believe in God as a higher power), our greed, malevolent nature, search for power doesn't permit us to break the loop because we can't see through our issues until they slap us right in the face. However, unlike unintelligent species, we have preserverance on our side as we are intelligent enough to know when to eject and raise the white flag - and in this case - how to build a machine that can travel the lengths of time.
Obviously, I'm full of sh*t but its funny to ponder this. Creationism, darwinism, whatever. The Great Programmer created the initial spawn and has let the inbreds run and mutate at will. So how is that...Creationistic Darwinism.
Moral or story: Be kind to mother nature.
what would the general theory of relativity do?
Four Points:
Many Christians like myself think there is a long way to go to understand the origin of ourselves and the world. We suspect that many questions like "why we are here" will be best answered in our faith. Many questions about the process by which it took place will be best answered by science.
However, until scientists abandon their "religious" teaching of evolution like it was "truth", Christians will be uncomfortable with school science curriculum.
Surely in vain the net is spread in the sight of any bird -- Proverbs 1:17
ID is not science.
ID is not philosophy.
ID is an attempt by a religious organization to counter the scientific method's encroachment on their domain.
With every scientific advance, their concept of "God" becomes less effective and more nebulous and this scares them.
Equal measures of religion given to various people will cause them to act in completely different ways:
One person may have a benign reaction and experience feelings of euphoria with enhanced stress reduction.
Another person may react with feelings of paranoia, persecution, and depression stemming from the loss of self-esteem.
Another person may have a dangerous reaction and experience homocidal or genocidal impulses. If this person becomes a charismatic leader, the result is often multple violent deaths and suicide.
Some people show an initial reaction and then become immune to religion.
There seems to be no way of knowing which reaction any given person will experience. Some evidence suggests the reactions are mostly non-violent.
So the question becomes: is the positive benefits of euphoria and stress reduction induced in some subjects worth the negative impact on those who do not tolerate the exposure as well.
And should anyone other than a parent or legal guardian make that decision for a minor.
Ok, now back to things we can actually study...
Remember the good old days, when there was a separation between chruch and state?
Yeah, me neither.
Nasa spent billions making a pen capable of writing in space. The Russians just use a pencil.
I don't think it is a ridiculous. There have been multiple creationism vs. evolution discussions on Slashdot over the past few years. Normally, the number of cogent, logical, rational posts on a discussion such is very, very low (I will not give an estimate). The amount of time it takes to FIND those rational posts amongst all of the idiots that post ALL-CAPS insults is simply too long.
Why do the editors insist on re-hashing this old ground? I know, let's see how many posts we get in an Pro-Choice vs. Pro-Life discussion!
In Islam, it is believed that the earth was created by the big bang.....which was caused by God
Read here
No, i am not a muslim.
I don't think that the "Process of Evolution" is in question as a theory. That Process is demonstratable and scientific.
It can be shown to work not only through tests but the process coupled with ideas from genetics has created a whole new field of Genetic Algorithms. Using the priciples of evolution and genetics together I have written myself a short program that will converge on a the solution of the square root
of a number. The process is very useful.
The "Theory" is question is the family tree with all its branches. Much of that is detective work and there are some grey areas and gaps in the tree. That is where the theory comes in not in the Process of Evolution.
The answers that "Creationism" and its various sanitized pseudo versions provides just stop the process of investigation and stop the process of science. I don't think we can afford to stop thinking and questioning.
The worlds if flat. Thats my story and I am sticking to it. The Bible would have told us that the world was round if it was, so there.
Think of it as the chance is .0000000000001% * X, if X->inf, then we get, eventually, 1.
Actually, that'd be infinity. But really it's not infinite, just really, really large, so your argument still holds.
No argument here, but I've never met a zombie that could type. Makes things difficult . . . . .
As others have mentioned, "Christian" religious extremists have killed many times more people than "Islamic" religious extremists.
Trying to make one document fit all of life causes enormous emotional conflict. The extremists react to this conflict by believing that it comes from outside. Believing this, they attack someone.
If you support dishonesty and violence, you are not truly Christian.
The death blow to theory of evolution was back in the 60s when the calculations were made that proved that evolution is mathematically improbable, so much so that you do not even speak of things that are that improbable.
Evolution is a theory, just as Creation is a theory... It takes more blind faith to think that this world evolved then it does to believe that it was created by inteligent design.
ID basically says this: A Mysterious Being created everything, using Mysterious Methods, for Mysterious Reasons which we mere mortals will never understand. Yup, that really adds to the sum of human knowledge.
Cress, cress, lovely lovely cress
First of all, let me say that I am a physicist. This Slashdot article is an unfair description of what the OpEd piece is about. The piece does not condemn Darwinism. It does question Neo-Darwinism, which strays beyond the theories of Darwinism. The realm of science is to describe the behavior or processes (i.e. develop theories or models) of the mechanisms underlying physical reality and test them againt their predictions. When scientific theories (confirmed or not) go beyond describing behavior, into speculating on the purpose (or lack thereof) behind the processes, those theories are no longer science, but philosophy. It is inappropriate for science to assume that a correct description of a mechanism implies purpose or reason for that mechanism. Neo-Darwinism is Darwinism plus untestable (i.e. non-scientific) philosophical theories about purpose.
No wonder President Bush does not listen to his science advisors, he does not even know what science is.
Excellent dry humor. Some people think it is actually a serious article. (why spoil the fun?)
I am reminded of the stickers that one district mandated on books. Now of course, if you had stickers that recommended questioning everything, including your politicians, etc. you would likely be raising a generation of subversives.
We can't have that kind of thing going on now, can we?
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
Bush is a walking proof that there is NO intelligent design.
...remember good 'ol times when IP used to mean Internet Protocol....
Intelligent Design is not just unproven, it is inherently unprovable.
Intelligent design, as described by its proponents, posits that a non-human intelligence has designed many biological organisms. That is very much something that is falsifiable--it is a scientific theory. The problem with it is that it is a bad scientific theory with no experimental support.
And from a religious point of view, it's bad religion as well: if intelligent design were actually true, it would reduce God to the status of little green men; there just is no theological or ethical reason to worship a being just because it has been tinkering with our biology.
Can't we all just go back to arguing about DRM in the apple kits?
I am a Christian and believe that the basic theory of evolution fits my faith. I have no issue with it being taught as a science. Science and evoultion does not mean there is no God. However I do believe some people are pushing it as a religon, not a science. I cannot tell you how many people I meet believe evolution proves there is no God. It does nothing of the sort. Science needs to keep to science, otherwise we will lose some brillant minds. As a country we seem to missing the middle ground fast.
If Bush had gone to school, he'd know that different ideas are already being taught. I certainly was exposed to different ideas in my public school biology classes.
We studied the ideas of Lamarck, Darwin and the postulations of something not exactly referred to as "Intelligent Design". We used them to study scientific method. This says basically, "Come up with a theory and set up tests to disprove it."
Lamarck: Disproved.
Darwin: some theories proved, some not (the one looking for a "missing link" hasn't been proved).
Intelligent Design: neither proved nor disproved.
We learned that when scientists can't prove or disprove a theory, they decide that theory isn't very good. So they come up with another.
It all comes down to how good your text books are. Darwin, Lamarck and Intelligent Design aren't taught in History classes. They're taught in Science classes. So a good text book will teach the Science of these theories.
When I was at State school (UK), ideas like creationism were taught in Religious Education classes for 1 hour a week, along with Buddhist, Hindu, Sikh, Muslim etc. ideas. No particular weighting was given to any particular religion, it was just "this is what these people believe".
Would that not be a good idea to resolve the dispute? A good way to open kids minds to ideas beyond their parents' religion, too.
Genesis 1 very clearly says the Earth was created by God before "the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also". When did they stop using the Holy Bible to teach biology, geography, and physics; is what I'd like to know.
Actually we have an incorrect idea of what a "Law" is. It is not a theory that has stood up to rigorous testing.
Theory vs. Law
Essentially, a law describes what happens. Theories attempt to explain why.
.. do we even waste a calorie on this horseshit? Let them pillage outr intellectual roots, try to turn us into the industrialized Al Qaeda. If it works, we didn't deserve to survive. If it doesn't, they get out of our hair for another few years. Tuern them over to Penn & Teller for remonstration
Faith: n. -- That human impulse that drives them to steal appliances when the power goes out
An idea moves incrementally through these stages of surety until it is permanently enshrined as a "fact", and cannot be questioned.
Further, all ideas at any given stage are equal. So, the "theory" of evolution, as a "theory" is equal in scientific value to the "theory" of the flying spaghetti monster.
Finally, in order for science itself to be valid, all ideas at any given stage of elevation in science must be absolutely true and agreed to by every scientist. That is, the existance of two mutually exclusive theories, conflicting results from two different experiments, or contradictory facts (including facts which contradict "common sense") immediately invalidat all of science. The inability of scientists to satisfactorily resolve the "irresistable force / immovable object" dilemma is a good example of the fact that science is not scientifically valid.
Any discrepancy discovered or perceived between two scientific "facts" thus invalidates all of science. Further, discovery of a discrepancy automatically grants the discoverer the right to propose one alternative idea. This idea must be unquestioningly accepted by the public and voted into law.
Fucking morons.
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, it doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
*idea bulb tuns on...*
1. Dig up old Slashdot evolution-related article/s.
2. Filter and post any of the 1 Gazillion +5 rated comments
3. ???
4. INSTANT KARMA PTS!!!
Darwin was, in fact, wrong about some things. This was because he was the first person to write on his subject and he didn't have the 150 years of study and evidence we have on the subject today. For example, Darwin didn't know one single thing about genetics.
However, it doesn't matter the things that Darwin was wrong about, because Darwin's on the origin of species is not as far as I'm aware actually taught anywhere, except as a historical relic. What schools teach is biology. I.E., the state of biology in 2005, not the state of biology in 1855 when Darin was working.
However:
Darwin's version is done without God. It occurs by pure chance.
All evolutionary theory is based on this idea.
Also Darwin version states that things evolved slowly and when we look at the evolutionary picture we see that it is not true. Look at how the horse evolved.
I really don't know what you mean by that, but this sounds like you've been listening to some creationist oversimplifications. So to clarify: The theory of punctuated equilibrium does not in any way contradict or stand in opposition to the theory of evolution or darwinism. Meanwhile, it says here that current theory states horses evolved over a period of about 53 million years. That sounds pretty slow to me.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
As a plucky Brit I welcome our US overlords' rejection of science. It's s&t that's got them where they are, the sooner they exchange it for religion the sooner we can push them off their perch and re-assume our God-given role of supreme global superpower.
A law is an simply an observation that has been tested to the degree that it would be preverse to think that the law is incorrect. A good example is the Law of Gravity - that material objects are attracted to one another.
In contrast, a theory is simply a statment (or, more often, a set of statments) that is meant to explain such observations. While the Law of Gravity is all well and good, the Thoery of Gravity builds upon that and goes to explain things like planetary motion and rocket trajectories.
"People might cite George Bush as proof that you can be totally impervious to the effects of Harvard and Yale education."
-- washington post 8/3/05
As a near-christian fundamentalist, i anxiously look forward to a united states with few if any professional teachers in the sense we currently have them.
What a great day it will be when the laughable public education system we have vanishes completely, and i dont have to worry about what kind of indoctrination some wacko teacher is going to try and pump into the minds of my (unborn) children. I wont have to listen to the nonsense of the NEA or the teachers union, and there won't be any time spent at home undoing all of the damage done at school.
Christians wouldn't care about this at all if it weren't for the work of some misguided teachers saying something to the effect of "Look, christianity and the bible were shown to be anachronisms and blatantly false when darwin distributed his work".
You should be more concerned that for the overwhelming majority of people in the US, what they hear in school is exactly what the government wants them to hear. That that can be violently anti-christian (as it sometimes has been) or swing to be moderately pro-christian should worry you a lot more than the possibility of someone in public school hearing a non-critical-of-christianity viewpoint.
You can't be for government intervention in curriculum but against theological teachings intruding into school. The majority of citizens in this country beleive in $DEITY, and any localized submajority is sufficient to affect schooling, one way or another. Atheism and criticism of one particular religion (i.e. christianity) is not a protected scientific position - it is a religious one, and one that has gotten plenty of "time" under the current system.
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
Neither Creation nor evolution can be truly proven.
Geologists dig and find Rocks and bones to SUPPORT evolution.
Archeologiest dig and find rocks and artifacts that SUPPORT creation.
Support is not proof, and since both schools of thought require alot of educated guessing and a little "faith", neither are worthy of being called true science.
I find disturbingly amusing some USA - only cultural differences, like being the last country that hasn't gone metric, this creationism debate, and the fact that there are so few places where women sunbath top less.
This doesn't mean we Europeans are not disturbingly amusing sometimes as well.
> 2. In a similar vein, "law" in a scientific sense means "theory which has stood up so well and so long that although it's possible to disprove it, that doesn't look likely to happen." Evolution in this sense is a "law" to the same degree as Newton's laws of motion (suitably modified by Einstein) or the laws of thermodynamics.
No, laws and theories are entirely different. A law is an observed regularity in nature, such as Newton's laws of motion, the laws of thermodynamics, etc. A theory is a well-supported model that explains some phenomenon or set of phenomena. Theories don't get promoted to laws.
Ideally laws, like other phenomena, should have an associated theory to explain why nature does in fact behave according to that law, but if a law is sufficiently well supported empirically then we can go ahead and make use of it while its explanatory theory remains on the wish list.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Whether God exists or not is really just an axiom, neither provable nor unprovable, but that doesn't mean the idea should not have any place in the scientific community. Math, which serves as the foundation of science, rests on many axioms, some which are quite similar to the idea of God, such as the axiom of infinity or the axiom of choice (these concepts are discussed in Set theory).
So although science should be able to still serve its modular function of scrutinizing the universe, whether or not there is a God (just as most mathematical proofs can work with or without the axiom of choice, for instance), it still doesn't preclude that the question of God is a valid one even for scientists to ask, if not to pretend to the belief that God can actually be defined and scrutinized by scientific methods.
However, I will say that any time faith issues are introduced in secular institutions -- while this is not bad in and of itself -- you create a powerful psychological force that greedy people can easily leverage, which is terrible.
random underscore blankspace at ya know hoo dot comedy.
See, the rest of the world asked that you get to work on the LACK of intelligence in US classrooms.
Only W could interpret that as adding "Intelligent Design" to the program, rather than just EDUCATING the existing students.
Oh well, not being American, this is great news. This means that when my kids are learning actual science, your kids will be learning "How my imaginary friend built us all".
Who do you think has the better future, a bright kid, with an open mind, or an unthinking robot who answers all difficult questions with "God did it, because I can't explain it!"?
Good luck with that.
PS - Doesn't it drive any of you crazy that right now US soldiers are being killed in Afghanistan fighting against the last remenants of the Taliban. What was the big knock against them again? Oh ya, they refused to educate their children in anything but religous studies. Looks like you all could have stayed home, and fought that battle in Washington.
You really need to take a philosophy class (you might want to make sure it includes Logic).
Just because your religion can be stated as a philosophy does not mean that a sub-set of your religion can be stated as philosophy.No. That is NOT ID, unless by the "why" you mean "what should our goals in life be" rather than "because God wants me to be here".
If it is about the goals, then ID does not answer that.
If it is about God (or the "Designer") then it is a religion. It may be your religion and you may accept it as fact/truth/whatever, but it is still only a religion.
Proof that we evolved from monkeys...
Or at least proof that we are TRYING to evolve from monkeys - and not succeeding.
The Christians to the disassemblers!
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
'Intelligent design' is a religious concept, and therefore should be taught in churches, not school. If schools start teaching Creationism, then they should also start teaching similar concepts from other religions; or better yet, churches should start teaching evolution, just to be fair.
How fucking biased.
Unfortunately, the parent argument is flawed. I will not dispute that while small, there is a finite probability of an intelligent life form evolving. Thus, given an infinite universe and infinite time, intelligent life would occur. However, I believe that you have glossed over some assumptions:
a) The universe is infinite spacially...
This is just wrong and not worth discussing. You may get varying opinions about the rate of expansion/contraction of the universe from astronomers, but the scientific community has a pretty good idea of the size of the universe.
b) The universe is infinite in time...
The second law of thermodynamics seems to demand entropic death of the universe. I presume that the statistical probability of intelligent life evolving remains finite only so long as there remains sufficient free energy.
To overcome these objections, you would need to solve quantitatively, giving estimates of the lifetime and size of the universe and the probability of intelligent life evolving. Even then, you would only be able to state the probability of intelligent life evolving, but would not be able to claim that it would "have to happen."
However, there remains one glaring assumption that would remain unanswered, and would invalidate the whole on its own.
c) The universe exists...
Here is where I personally find some of the best evidence for the existence of God, the philosophical first cause argument, as well as the beauty and symmettry of the universe. (While theoretically, life might be possible with a radically different balancing of the strong, electo-weak, and gravitational forces, it is difficult for me to imagine.) This does not mean that once God created the universe, evolution may not have been the mechanism by which man was created (neglecting the addition of the immortal soul, said question lying outside the realm of scientific inquiry). I have no objection to either micro or macro-evolution, but cannot avoid seeing the hand of God in the overall process of going from pre-Big Bang to man.
While I'm not an expert in eye physiology, I hope I can point you in the right direction. To answer your first set of questions, God did design everything the way He wanted, "in the beginning". There's a huge difference between the Intelligent Design movement and Biblical Creationism. IDers do not address *who* the designer is. Could be God, Allah, Buddha, Homer Simpson, etc. Biblical Creationists have a worldview founded in the Holy Bible, which makes their worldview cohesive. Because of Man's rejection of God in the Garden of Eden, the original creation became corrupted. This introduced death, both physical and spiritual. So Adam did die in noth senses of the word: he died immediately (spiritually) and began the process of dying physically (as we do once we reach physical maturity). As for the design of the eye, I would direct you to Answers_in_Genesishttp://www.answersingenesis.org/ . This site has answers to many questions from a Biblical Creationist point-of-view, written by PhDs in many fields including biology, chemistry, physics, astronomy, etc.
For the record, I have a PhD from NC State University in molecular biology, and I am a Biblical Creationist. Evolution does not adequately explain our origins, and is itself *not* science. It's a naturalist/humanist religious belief. No one has ever observed organisms changing from one kind to another (ie. canines always have canines, felines always have felines, etc.). Since no one can recreate the past, and none of us physically observed the creation of everything, it is an untestable hypothesis. This is why we should teach evolution AND creation, warts and all. This way students can make up their own mind as to what to believe. Hope this helped!
Extremely incisive analysis of the whole thing.
Excerpt:
True, evolution is not random, but the mutations that lead to differentiation and new evolutionary branches are most definitely random. That's why the vast majority of mutations in any organisms are failures. Depending on the species, and the severity of mutations and the frequency of mutations, you'll have different ratios of successful to unsuccessful (or beneficial to detrimental) mutations. But the mutations are generally pretty random unless they're caused by external elements which may or may not be random (ie: A large dose of, say, gamma radiation will produce lots of mutations that generally end up being various types of cancer).
So I guess that in the grand scheme of things, no, evolution most definitely isn't random, but that non-randomness, interestingly, arises from lots of randomness on the molecular level.
I don't respond to AC's.
Given an object, is there a mathematical test to ascertain whether it is an artifact or not? I think there is. If I take a few thousand characters of German Ultra or Russian Venona traffic it will appear completely random. Apply the smarts of Alan Turing, et al., and some very interesting facts can emerge. Conversely, looking out my window just now, i see a cloud that looks like a horse. Methinks Claude Shannon had something to say about the mathematics of distinguishing the two cases. The madness of John Nash illustrates the necessity thereof.
If "intelligent design" is nothing but gainsaying Charles Darwin, a crypto-Creationism, then I don't find it very interesting. I do think the mathematics implied by the last paragraph could be quite interesting.
Futurepower wrote:
As others have mentioned, "Christian" religious extremists have killed many times more people than "Islamic" religious extremists
Sure, there was the Inquisition, the Counter-Reformation, etc. Christian extremists did kill far more people in the last 500 years than Islamic extremists did in the last 5 years.
So what? Christianity has matured - it's a peaceful religion. I'd rather spend two weeks discussing relgion and philosophy with 100 Christian fundamentalists than with 100 Taliban. In the first case, I might get lectured to or even prayed for. In the second, I might get my head cut off.
I disagree with teaching so-called 'Intelligent Design' in schools. I also disagree with all the Christian baching going on in this thread.
[Insert pithy quote here]
If one allows the bible to be taught in schools, it tends to establish a state religion. It's unfair to teach the Christian origin myth without teaching the Buddhist origin myth and the Shoshone origin myth and all of the others.
Even if the Genesis of the bible turned out to be the literal, objective truth, teaching it from the Bible as such is encouraging people to believe more than just the creation part, but all the rest of the bits that they believe in, especially morality.
I really hate the sort of slippery-slope, camel's-nose argument I'm making here. I'm actually perfectly content with teaching Intelligent Design:
"Here are some problems with evolutionary theory. Here's why scientists believe that they can be solved. On the other hand, some people want to end the discussion with 'somebody did it and we're not saying who.'"
That's fine with me. I shouldn't even care that it will be taken to mean that there's serious evidence against evolution (there isn't) or that they'll further use it to say, "See, the scientists are wrong, therefore our religion must be right." But it does bother me, and the slippery slope argument is the main reason.
Because "the differences between right and wrong" taught to children too often turns into telling ME what's right and wrong. There are some things we agree on, and some things we don't, and the things we don't are usually none of their concern.
Live and let live is fine with me. But it only works if we both play that game.
I don't believe in intelligent design and as I will prove, this can't be true. Intelligent design assumes that someone intelligent designed the world. This Intelligent being also created George W Bush. But no one in their right frame of mind will create a moron like Bush. So the intelligent design theory vanishes in a puff of logic. QED.
What's under yellowstone?
True, but at the same time God had to come from somewhere too, so using God as the creator still only pushes the First Cause one step back as well.
When the North American Indians first saw the great ships with the huge white sails, they believed they were Gods and treated them as such. It doesn't take a very large jump in technology to become a God.
Why would there be one, and only one universe?
Since it's clearly possible for a universe to start existing, why couldn't it happen again elsewhere?
Think of it as the chance is .0000000000001% * X, if X->inf, then we get, eventually, 1.
And more eventually, 2. And further down eventually, 3...
If that isn't a biased leader I don't know what is. How about some unbiased reporting on the issue for once? If the theory of evolution is so solid that its position is irrefutable and the theory of intelligent design is just a "passing fad" with right-wing Christian nut jobs, then why can't evolution stand on its on merit in a fair piece of reporting?! What's with the constant need to denigrate and pooh-pooh the other side?
Have fun: Join D.N.A. (National Dyslexics Association)
(Let me get this part out of the way: I am a Christian, I believe in the glory of God, and I accept the role of God as Creator and Maintainer of the Universe; but just because I believe that doesn't mean I have to buy in to some 5,000 year old Hebraic myth of Creation, which was probably borrowed from their Babylonian contemporaries anyway. Genesis is a MYTH, an attempt to understand our role in Creation and why there is a disconnect between God and humanity. It's not meant to be understood literally; if you take it literally, you miss out on its deeper meaning.)
The most obvious problem with ID -- and I'm sure that this has been pointed out before -- is that there is no one single version of ID out there, just as there is more than one Creation Myth out there. If Kansas and other bastions of ignorance in our nation want to give "equal time" to alternatives, they really ought to be teaching not just Biblical mythology but also the idea that Atlas has the Earth on his shoulders, that we live on a disc help up by four elephants on the back of a giant turtle, and so on. And, of course, Pastafarianism.
I understand why some Christians believe that the theory of evolution might be a threat to their worldview; but, really, it doesn't. God wants us to give up our sins, not our brains.
-- The reason it's called the right wing? Irony.
Especially since we had an infinite amount of time for it to happen. It would be more confusing if it hadn't taken billions of years. The # of chemical interactions that happen in billions of years is tremendous.
w mentality so many people have about things like social change. many people believe that the U.S.'s system is the "end-product" of socio/economic models -- that if anything else could have worked better it would have happened already.
And I have to ask -- if ID is indeed true, then aren't single-cell organisms God's primary children? And who's to say we're the end product? It took such a long time to get humans from proto-humans -- maybe those proto-humans thought THEY were the end product. And then we came. So who's to say we're not like the proto-humans? Maybe 3 million years from now we'll go to some other planet and evolve in a way we haven't evolved yet and we'll consider our present day species as proto-whatever-we-call-ourselves.
And that makes me think -- maybe this abrahamistic we're-the-end-product explains the if-it-were-to-happen-it-would-have-happened-by-no
glad they weren't too caught up in that july 3rd, 1776...
What comes first, finding a teacher or becoming a student?
Laws are mathematical, Theories are scientific.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
I find that if people look at simple statistics, they would see that not only is it possible, but we HAVE to be here
.0000000000001% * X, if X->inf, then we get, eventually, 1.
.0000000000001% * X .000000000000001 * X
Think of it as the chance is
How about we look at some simple calculus?
Given the equation
y =
or
y =
As X->infinity, Y->infinity. That is, as x increases without bound, so does y.
So, by your logic, not only do we *have* to exist, there must be an infinite number of (ever so slightly different) well-formed human races in the galaxy, compounded by an even greater infinite number of malformed, degenerate, incomplete evolutions of dirt.
You'd think one could follow the same logic, and purport that not only should there be one "missing link", there should be a nearly infinitessimal number, easily and regularly discovered by school children around the globe.
The fact that neither of these conclusions have been supported by valid observations is a cause of great concern to evolutionsists....
Face it. It takes as much faith to believe in evolution, as it does to belive in creationism. That makes evolution a religion, not science.
If you're trying to decide what kids should be taught, how about: reading?
http://www.carnegie.org/results/10/index.html
"The Dolefully Obvious Daily"
Even if I was inclined towards ID hokum, I have one factor in my life that prevents me from believing in an intelligent creator. My fiancee is a pathologist, and almost every night she comes home with lovely stories about how poorly designed the human body is. We're basically a sack of skin filled with squishy tubes that are horribly inefficient, prone to breaking down for any or sometimes no reason at all, and can't easily repair themselves. This doesn't sound like intelligent design to me, it sounds like either design with a sense of humor, stupid design (SD!) or no design at all.
Yet again I start thinking, "How can I find a job somewhere in Europe and get out of the States?". Anyone have any advice?
Best Trivia answer ever... Name the largest aquatic man eater... Contestant: Tsunami
First of all, ID is not the same thing as Creationism.
Ok, how do I know ID has won the day? Many times I have read an article in MSNBC, Time, etc. talking about the possibility for multiple universes. And why do many scientists speculate there are multiple universes? Because this one is so fine-tuned to allow for life, if we assume this is the only one, there must have been a Designer...and we can't have that.
They are actually quite open about it, which is refreshing on one level.
So let's not pretend that there are all these "neutral atheists" out there who are dispassionate about evidence. Atheism tends to be a psychological crutch so people can live a life without being accountable. All that nagging guilt gets to them.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
The arguement that the "Intellegent Design" folks put forth is that, "It's impossible to have a system as complex as human beings WITHOUT someone doing the desiging...the odds of it happening are just too small" I find that if people look at simple statistics, they would see that not only is it possible, but we HAVE to be here (atleast if you subscribe to Hawkings POV), that is, if the universe is infinite, and time is infinite, then, no matter how small the statistical probability is (e.g. there is only a .00000000001% chance that evolution could work), that in an infinite system, it will STILL HAVE TO HAPPEN, no matter how small.
Easier said: a coin is 50/50 heads or tails. Yet it can still land on it's side. Same rule applies to evolution.
I have read some of the most interesting discussions on the topic in times past when this debate was brought up.
I don't see how this topic ever brings about a "discussion" on Slashdot, seeing as how anyone who expresses an opinion with even the slightest religious slant almost always gets modded down or flamed.
Individuals that have a deep background in technologies, science, as well as religion are the ones to talk to when the ID/Creationism vs. Evolution debate come up.
I have found quite the opposite. It seems like most comments I read are "scientists" who say anyone of faith is a fool. However, there are usually some comments that lean other way as well. In any case, I rarely find comments posted by someone with a background in both science and religion.
I am able to understand and relate to intelligent comments from people that have a similar background to me than to listen to a conservative religious leader with vested interests in "spreading the good word."
Ok, and I'm sure there are people that are the opposite. What's your point? The OP agreed that this story is newsworthy and should be discussed, but not on Slashdot. There are many other places to discuss this topic with people of similar backgrounds besides Slashdot. And, while many people are capable of offering insightful comments, Slashdot is not exactly know for it's intelligent comments.
Perhaps you shouldn't jump to such a ridiculous conclusion just because people are arguing.
When time and time again, the arguing consists of "Haha, you blindly follow religion, idiot" and "Haha, you're going to hell, you dirty atheist", I think it's pretty easy to conclude that this story is a troll.
Somehow your statement should also apply to the ultra-liberal propaganda that most college professors advocate explicitly and implicitly.
If you say that literature and philosophy are not science then you can and should teach non-science in classroom, why choose one non-science as opposed to the other.
If you say that they are not science, then you can teach non-science topics in classroom.
Also let's imagine that someone would propose a new course at some university that would study early Christian philosophy. Just a look through and analysis of ideas and trends and how it borrowed from Greek philosphy and Judaic background and such. Do you think most universities would approve of that? But why not? They teach Greek philosophy, that talks just as much about Gods, souls and afterlife. Some teach courses on wiccan practices, native american mysticism and other courses that are just as "religious" and just as "scientific" as reading John of Damascus. You would think if they already teach religious stuff in classrooms, they would mostly choose to teach Christianity scince that is what most of the Americans believe. You need to know what most of your countrymen believe whether you agree with them or not (maybe you want to argue with them and hate them -- even more reason to know what those "nuts" think).
I would prefer to not have any religion and philosphy at the university. I'd rather take one more math or comps sci course. If I want to read Plato, or wiccan books or even John of Damascus, I'll just do that in my own time.
What next? Lysenkoism? What utter rejection of the progress from the Pythagorean back to fear superstition and darkness. What can we look forward to? Retraction of the apology to Copernicus and Galileo?
HARK ALL THINKING PEOPLE YOU HAVE NOTHING TO LOSE BUT YOU INTELLECTUAL HONESTY. Memes of the dark ages still run rampant and must be repudiated at all turns.
Soldiers of Thales Arise for the fight is not over.
The GP never made that connection. Sounds like you've got a case of Persecuted Christian Syndrome. Guess what? Christians are in the majority, they make the rules, they get the perks, no one has the power to persecute them anymore. So stop with the pity party already.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
It does absolutely nothing to further their religious agenda, yet for some reason they cling to it like Jesus himself. Simple : It's their foot in the door. If they can get ID into schools, they can slowly but surely undermine science programs until Creationnism in all of its glory is back, and in force.
I never spellcheck and I freely admit it. Save your karma for more worthwhile "lol erorrs" replies
Then again the last thing one needs is more backwards conservatives who have their peckers in the scripture. But they do make for both nice comedic and sniper targets, although they seem to be a dime a dozen. At times one wonders if neo-conservatives are just extreme fundamentalists at heart with a little too much cash to spare. Just look at how many organizations have a little too much power. It's a pity that we can't make reality of ShadowRun tangible, then see what happens when the tables are turned.
Galbraith's Law of Human Nature: Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everybody gets busy on the proof.
The problem with defending beliefs based on faith is that if one part of a belief system becomes invalidated by empirical evidence, it may undermine the entire belief system.
Religion, however, has adapted successfully to this type of upheaval in the past, most noteably when astronomers introduced the idea that the Earth revolved around the Sun a few centuries ago. After denying the evidence for a while and threatening to burn a few people at the stake, the various religions managed to adapt to a universal instead of a world-centered view of existence. In a masterful application of spin, religious leaders eventually began pointing to the size of the Universe as additional proof of God's omnipotence in creating such an incomprehensibly vast realm. Intelligent design is simply the latest attempt to spin similar empirical evidence that cannot be ignored to support a faith-based belief system.
Frankly, knowing whether or not we evolved by accident or through intervention doesn't change the essential fact of what and who we are at present. We could be part of a purpose. We could be an accident. We could be an experiment. We could be a seed planted and someday whoever planted it will come back to harvest us as a food source.
Personally, while it may be an interesting investigation, I don't really care if we find out the answer. (Especially if it's the last option.)
- TLR -
TLR
A man no more knows his destiny than a tea leaf knows the history of the East India Company
Dude, big DS isn't reading Schopenhauer NOW, never mind at 5. Listening to Schlessinger, maybe, but not reading Schopenhauer.
Intelligent design is the hypothesis that SOMETHING created all of this.
No it isn't. It says that something has got actively involved after the point of creation to do things that random forces and natural selection can't do.
It is not an "assumption". Scientists don't construct theories on foundations built from complete and unverified assumptions. Proponents of religious-based origin theories do do exactly that, which is why they think that's how real scientists work.
talkorigins.com is a good resource for refuting creationist nonsense, including their "C14 isn't reliable" claptrap.
I just love all this ID bashing from folks who probably have not bothered to read some real information on the theory. Yeah it does sould too much like philosophy for hard science folks but Darwin had to fight a lot of closed minds too. First off, ID and evolution aren't opposing concepts/theories. Second off, I'm an athiest/agnostic and I find ID theory thought-worthy.
"God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
RRRRRRRRRAAHHHHHHHHHHAHHHhhhhhhhhh312tiG()EU()EUFV KLENMNENKllckskelkmakemrel;akfeklej13j1k5;12mni [vojz;fv reaml;feiocp;eocoimja;vio j
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
Not necessarily. Take for example, the set of even numbers, which is an infinetly large set. There is still ZERO chance of selecting a number from the set at random and having that number be odd.
A guy walks into a bar... well, I forgot the joke, but the punchline is that he's an alcoholic.
Tell me, who is the famous person who proved that space is not infinite?
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
I don't think of it as scary myself, I think of it as an opportunity. The USA is slowly and surely distancing itself from the values that made it an extremely successful nation. Their downfall may lead to strife, but it will give other nations like China and India a chance to pick up where they left off and move humanity forward.
Yes, very scary. We can't have people in powerful positions believing in anything. Especially not religion. Especially not a religion that hundreds of thousands of people around the world believe. Wouldn't that be terrible? A person who believes in something? And, even worse, that person states his belief, too! What's this world coming to?
All I can say is that I'm disgusted with the way the catholic right and the liberal left have muscled out The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. We have drafted an open letter adressing our concerns to the "Kansas School Board"
http://www.venganza.org/
Evolution, Creationism, Intelligent Design are all theories. They will all remain theories until they have been proven. In order for them to be proven, they must be consistently reproduced. None of them have yet been sucessfully and consistently reproduced. So until they are, they must be addressed and taught as theory, and nothing more.
Is your terror cell living in terror? Is your safe-house not so safe? If so, read the New York Times, the jihad journal.
It seems to me that there is a mix up as far as the terminology being used goes. philosophy - any good philosophy course focuses on logic. things must have facts and then must be proved true based upon those facts. there are no facts involved in ID theory - theories can be proven wrong. that is part of it BEING a theory is that it can be tested and revised or dismissed. please show me how ID can be tested or dismissed. oh...it cant? then its not a theory. evolution can be tested - and its proven itself true through and through. to all of you out there who think that your psuedo science will prevail, you are wrong.
why should we teach something that clearly has nothing to do with science? this is religious theology and yes there is a difference between theology and science and philosophy.
evolution doesnt even say that the universe was caused with a bang. for all we know your god did make the universe and evolution came about naturally, so it doesn't even REALLY contradict your entire creationist view.
We seldom regret saying too little but often regret saying too much.
Scientology/Dianetics is just as much of a "science" as Intelligent Design. Scientology had mastered the art of hiding religion behind pseudoscientific jargon long before the term "Intelligent Design" even existed.
I wonder how the creationists would feel about Scientology being taught in schools?
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
Just because they don't kill people doesn't mean they are peaceful. Live in the south as a non-christian and see how much "peace" you see on a daily basis. It is still a violent religion, it's just a matter of degrees.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Let me get this straight: Bush, a Methodist, is unwilling to accept the ruling of the late leader of the Catholic Church?
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
Found here
So basically he's saying it is and should be a local decision, and if asked to make it what he'd do. It's purely hypothetical, a person expressing an opinion. Whether you feel it's a right or wrong opinion, it's an opinion that can be expressed. Even though he's the President, he carefully set his answer as a personal opinion, not a policy opinion, and nearly expressed gratitude to not be in the position to have to make that decision. I hate to defend the guy, but the press is blowing this thing out like crazy.
Second, on the general topic of Intelligent Design:
If you were a professor of a "design for gods" class, and you tasked your students with developing an ecosphere specifically designed to support an intelligent animal, how would you rate the student who created the Earth and humans? Let's see: prone to infections via viruses and bacteria, bipedal for reduced stability and running speed, high possibility for very fair skin that burns on exposure to UV radiation AND an atmosphere which allows plenty of UV through, various allergic reactions and mutations. Oh, and the kicker, just to make sure the student had no chance of passing: Let's run all the nasty excretory organs which produce plentiful toxic flora right in parallel with the reproductive organs! Yeah, that won't screw anything up.
There are people that complain about how Microsoft produces shoddy products that are frequently overrun by viruses and security problems, and yet believe we are perfectly and wonderfully made.
Ahh, I see now. Bush is actually a progressive with a keen understanding of science.
He is abusing his power as President in a clever ploy to show how ridiculous policies such as his are. When he says that contrasting ideas on the origin of species should be taught, what he is really advocating is that schools teach just how unscientific Creationism is.
Bush's ultimate goal is to finally expose Christianity and all other religions for the fraud they are! His entire Iraq War is meant to be an instructive lesson on the dangers of religious fanatacism.
Brilliant! Fucking brilliant!
> One more thing you forgot to mention. Intelligent design is the hypothesis that SOMETHING created all of this.
Strictly speaking, that is an overstatement: what intelligent design's leading proponents actually say is that "something" intervened here and there in the history of biology. I.e., they say that "something" designed the E. coli flagellum (whatever 'designed' means), but they don't claim that "something" created the universe, the earth, life, or even merely the E. coli.
> Fanatical Christians attempt to twist Intelligent Design to only include God as the possible creator, but that destroys it's standing as science.
ID never had a standing as science to begin with, since it's nothing but a collection of logical fallacies and misrepresentations of fact marshalled to provide a faux existence proof for some poorly defined entity.
And the role of "fanatical Christians" is unsurprising, since the whole point of ID is to give them a perceived basis for their beliefs about origins. Of course, the intellectuals behind the movement intended "mum's the word", since it will never get past the courts with people putting an overt religious interpretation on it, but unfortunately for them the rank and file didn't get the memo.
> For it to be actual science and to even be able to compete with evolution, it HAS to take into account that aliens or some other type of intelligent being besides a Deity created earth and all of us.
Its problem is worse than that: people should reject ID because it's transparently bad pseudoscience, even before the question of religious motivation ever arises.
> It does absolutely nothing to further their religious agenda, yet for some reason they cling to it like Jesus himself.
If "religious agenda" includes casting doubt on the status of the theory of evolution, it is perceived to have exactly that agenda. (I qualified that as "perceived", since AFAICT ID hasn't been adopted by anyone who didn't already reject evolution before they heard of it.)
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Really. None. Teh following condition must be met, though:
One Sunday per year, every church in America must let a scientist preach the sermon.
Every church in America must let a Sunday school class be taught in Darwinian science.
The strings theory is also unprovable,
the theory of relativity is unprovable
we don't know why a cell replicates and is purly theory and unprovable
Should we take those out of the educational system as well?
The fact is, people who have undergone a religious conversion are no longer able to think rationally. There really is no point trying to debate with Creationists because they didn't arrive at their position through debate. Creationists typically become creations either as a result of parental misguidance or through an emotional religious experience which has caused a dramatic shift in world view. When someone is wrong, but it is impossible to argue with them, and yet their beliefs matter because it affects the well-being of you and the people around you, there is only one solution left - violence. So I would propose blowing up creationists, maybe carpet bombing the Bible belt, but unfortunately it looks like the people who have access to the best weapons are in fact the creationists themselves. So we're completely screwed: you can't argue with them, you can't fight them. I think we just have to accept that the future of science in the US is a depressing one and live with it. Or maybe just head for the hills, hide out for a century, and wait for Christian America to collpase under the weight of its own folly.
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
How about start by learning a European language? Here's an interesting article on doing so:
7
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/12/29/15258/28
Comment removed based on user account deletion
You do realize that including Intelligent Design In Our Teachings creates the acronym I.D.I.O.T.(s) or IDIOT. Just though you would like to know, (or is this really about not knowing). ;)
Ok, something I just don't understand is why must creationism prove evolution wrong and why must evolution prove creationism wrong. Take both ideas for what they are worth, if you don't like or beleive in the, who cares. I personally am a scientist, an astronomer, and also christian. I personally definitely beleive in an intelligent design of the universe. But because I beleive that, it doesn't mean that evolution is completely false. Evolution is an excellent theory, it is not perfect, but it explains a great deal about our world, and definitely does have merit.
Creationism I essentially do not believe. The classic definition of creationism is that God created the universe out of nothingness (ex nihilo). That as a scientist I think is the real problem. Conservation of mass-energy, mass and energy are eternal. In fact I would be willing to argue that the translated definition in the bible of ex nihilo is incorrect. The translated Greek word means created "out of nothing" or it can also be interpreted as "organized". I do beleive that the universe was organized and "created", but not out of nothing, by a higher being. This DOES NOT disprove evolution though. Evolution definitely has a place in the formation of the universe as we know it.
The next thing that relates evolution and creationism is extraterrestrial life. If you have any knowledge of statistics, and believe in evolution, wouldn't that pretty much guarantee the existence of life else where in the universe? I mean if you look at the pure immensity of the universe and possible other worlds, I beleive life would have to exist elsewhere, even if it is bacteria. The idea that we are alone here in the universe and that there is nothing else out there, I beleive is rather arrogant on our part.
I close friend of mine is a devout Catholic (I am an atheist who works in biotech), and he and I have spent a number of evenings talking about the whole evolution/creationism debate. In the end, we tend to agree.
At its very heart, evolution is a random process. Yes, evolution is guided by natural selection, but fundamentally the origin of genetic variation depends on random events, specifically random mutation events. DNA is a molecule and heredity is based upon how a single molecule of DNA behaves, and quite frankly you cannot predict the behavior of any single molecule. You can predict the behavior of populations, but any single molecule behaves randomly. (And yes, I know what I'm talking about, because I work with a technology that uses single DNA molecules.)
The upshot is that all science has to offer on the source of the mutations is that they are random and if they provide benefit for the organism, they will be selected for. Okay great, so here is where faith kicks in. You can either take the atheist/agnostic point of view and claim that these truly are random events, or you can take the faith-based view and see these events as the mechanism by which God has created the world.
If only the hard-core evolution advocates would allow for this role for God and if only the hard-core tub-thumping bible-bangers could accept the bible as metaphor, we might actually get somewhere.
(I hope this is clear - I'm at work and don't have time to fully polish this message)
To paraphrase the late Douglas Adams (full text here) To claim that just because life works so well proves the existance of a "creator" is just like a puddle waking up one day in a pothole and noticing that the pothole fits it so astoundingly well that surely somone must have created this pothole just for it to live in.
I've been asking this question for years with no response. People widely accept evolution and reject creationism, but yield to stupidity and ignorance when it comes to accounting for how matter was first formed.
I'm a strong believer in God and creationism, but I've always accounted for evolution and other more plausible theories in my quest for understanding of life. But I cannot accept evolution because it simply does not account for the fact that matter has to form from something. Creationism steps up to the plate in this respect, but it's not provable.
Seriously people, wake up. The foundation of evolution is as much questionable and shaky as the foundation of creationism. Both require faith to believe, and both will remain scientifically unprovable. Hence, both should be taught.
For he today that sheds his blood with me shall be my brother.
But if you can't admit it might have a place in a philosophical discussion (NOT a scientific discussion), we have nothing further to say.
I don't know if it's intentional or not, but your (original) post is pretty ambiguous, especially as a response to the question of whether ID should be taught in class or not.
To illustrate the ambiguity, I'll start by breaching Godwin's law. If I say "nazism should be taught in class," many people will disagree strongly. They don't think nazism should be advocated or presented as a legitimate ideology.
But of course, there's a lot to teach about nazism in history or philosophy class. What was it ? How did it come to power ? What were its results ? How did it compare with communism ? How can democracies protect themselves against totalitarian drifts ?
I'm not saying or implying that ID is in any way similar to nazism. I'm just saying that, for the sake of the discussion, you should clarify what you mean by "Intelligent Design certainly has a place in the classroom." Do you mean (as Pres. Bush seems to recommand) that ID should be presented in class as a legitimate alternative to evolution (a scientific theory)? Or do you mean that ID should just be discussed as a cognitive construction in a philosphy class ? In the latter case, I don't think IMHO that it's a topic nearly as interesting as nazism; but, as I said, it's just my opinion.
It would be nice to be sure of anything the way some people are of everything.
For the thousandth time, pay attention: Intelligent Design is NOT science. It is neither predictive nor testable.
EVERYTHING in science is considered a theory. Atoms? Theory. Gravity? Theory. Germ Theory of Disease? See the name.
Evolution has holes? So does gravity. So does biology. So does subatomic physics. But you don't throw them out and say "oh well, an undetectable overbeing does it, may as well go home".
Yeah, I call them "Old Testament Christians..."
The real statistical argument is the one based on conditional probability: if intelligent life had not evolved, we would not be here to ask these questions. The probability of intelligent life evolving, given that we are here, is 1.
What a simple attitude:
When Behe released his book... There was a great cry from the towers of ivory.
Not a debate on the logic and facts! Just putting him down, hoping that shouting would make him go away.
We always hear people that believe in the Bible are stupid, etc. What a weak argument. Look in the past, several great scientists were great believers in God.
Try understanding physics with out Newton. One of those stupid "Bible Thumpers"
Darwinism is a religion. It has relics and true believers also.. It takes more faith then what I believe (the Bible).
Let the hate and the foul comments begin...
This is what happens when you want to put education under the leviathan of the federal government.
The inevitable consequence of putting education under political control (i.e. control by the government), is that education becomes politicized. Education inevitably becomes the place to promote political and social goals.
If schools were run privately, or strictly by local government, then there would not be an issue. Parents would have a choice what their children were taught.
People want the education system to be a federal dictatorship, and then cry when the dictator has opinions they don't like. Sorry, that is how dictatorships work. If you want to solve the problem, then allow parents to choose for their kids instead of government.
That way, kids can be taught whatever their parents want, and no one else is forced to pay for it.
The Creationists "answer" this by resorting to "God" being SuperNatural.No. Philosophy tries to answer how we should behave and why we should behave that way.Keep believing that.Yep. When it first mentions "God" or any other SuperNatural force, then it becomes religion.But philosophy does not have a religious component.
Don't confuse the two.And faith is religion. Congratulations, you're written your first tautology.I believe the word is "DUH!"
It would be difficult to reconcile a kind and loving God with the philosphy of nihilism.Not "in any forum". It is quite valid in any religious forum.
Here's a good example to illustrate that.
Compare/Contrast Intelligent Design and Nietzsche.
If you cannot, then ID is not a philosophy.
I think it's time that we put some religious tests to the silly notion that the earth revolves around the sun.
and burning scientists that don't understand god's plan should also be re-introduced. it's simply not enough to ostricize them.
hundreds of years of heretical science can finally be subjected to god's wrath.
I am amazed by this whole discussion.
First off, there is nothing in the theory of evolution that is worthy of being called a law (see comments below about laws being mathematical in nature, not explicative). The theory of evolution is a theory, a good theory, and reasonably useful.
As a Christian, however, I firmly believe that a) God exists and b) that he used some method to create the earth.
Most people say that these things are inherently unprovable, but I disagree. First off, I don't believe in a God that is above the laws of physics. This includes at all levels (speaking from a reductionist point of view that essentially states that eventually everything comes down to physics). I do, however believe that God has a perfect understanding of physics (and everything else), and is therefore able to accomplish things that we cannot. This includes putting together a galaxy or universe and populating it with creatures of his own design.
Some people believe in a God that is unknowable, but I say that if a thing is unknowable, then there is no point in worshipping it. I believe in a God that is knowable but doesn't show himself to everyone. Once again, because of his knowledge of everything, he is able to be hidden from us.
This is doesn't necessarily eliminate the "First Cause" issue, as you put it, but you are assuming that there was a point where there was a beginning. The distinct possibility exists that time is circular and that eventually everything causes itself. But that is unprovable to mortals. The existance of God can be proven, but only under certain conditions. People may cry foul, but that's the way it is: after all, certain chemical reactions only occur under certain conditions, if a being capable of designing and building (that's what create really means) a world or solar system wants to only be seen by those who meet certain conditions, I don't think he will be seen.
Want to prove the existence of God? Then meet the conditions required and you will have proof. We have seen though, that others are VERY reluctant to accept that proof. That will always be the case. There are even those who say they believe in a God, but that he CANNOT be seen. This is a God I cannot accept. The God I believe in can and (in my opinion) has been seen.
Look at it from the point of view of a Christian for a second. We are forced to pay taxes to support the public schools, whether we send our children to them or not. When we send them there, they are routinely pressured in ways that are diametrically opposed to our convictions--and I'm not just talking about Evolution. For example, I would prefer that my children not say the pledge of allegiance, but the public schools force them to stand up and listen to it being said on a daily basis. (This is not motivated by any sort of hatred for the flag or America, but our conviction that our citizenship is in heaven, and that America gets our willing obediance, but nor our allegiance.) My son, who will not say it, is held up for daily ridicule because of his religious convictions--and I have no alternative other than to keep paying for the public education that my children will not get. Surely this isn't fair? But this is just one example of the kind of stuff I'm talking about.
You need to look beyond your middle American bubble and recognize that Christianity has been persecuted, is being persecuted, and will continue to be persecuted. Furthermore, you need to read enough history to realize that much of what today is called "mainstream" is in fact a radical dismissal of religion in the public sphere. "Pluralism" is not a necessary tolerance of diversity, but an active agenda that is being pushed by many. And, if you don't believe me, I'll send you a Bibliography of books advocating pluralism that say exactly the same thing.
"He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
2. Don't know where to start with this one, except to say if it's never been observed or duplicated, then it couldn't possibly be a law.
3. No way, you are flat out wrong, about saying that "there is no controversy among biologists about whether evolution happens". As a matter of fact, there is waaaaay more controversy among scientific circles than the general evolution-believing public. Evolutionary biologists are more attuned to the problems of the evolutionary theory, and many, many are perplexed over (to them) seemingly insurmountable problems with it. I live in Wisconsin, and at UW-Whitewater the biology/biochemistry staff is bitterly divided over this issue. No just one or two "whackos", but a large staff with scientifically trained, well-educated people. The Holocaust and flat earth comments are just trolling.
Lee Strobel's The Case for a Creator gives names and references to numerous articles/books/papers from biology/chemistry professionals stating their disbelief of evolution from scientific grounds, not just their belief system.
4. In that line of reasoning, you wouldn't every get to anything substantial due to the sheer amount of material you'd have to cover. We're not talking about creation myths, we're talking about natualistic evolution vs. designed life. Don't mention any religious "affiliations", then.
5. There shouldn't be a conflict between religious belief and the scientific method. Although people have mentioned it as an argument, the "scientists hating God" doesn't seem to be on the most common list.
Here's a falsifiable claim by ID. This has been duped from another post of mine, but since this topic is vast and already has a plethora of responses, maybe you wouldn't come across it:
I have often seen people use the provable/unprovable argument against ID. ID states that life arose from an intelligent designer instead of from natural, random (unintelligent) processes. Here is an intelligent design claim:
There is NO natural/random unintelligent process that could produce a living organism (because, for non-ID evolution to be true, you would have to have life from nonlife).
To falsify that, you would have to come up with just ONE unintelligent process that created a living organism. Now, here's a Darwinist claim:
SOME unintelligent natural/random process created a living organism.
To falsify THAT, you would have to rule out an infinite number of natural/random processes.
Now, which one sounds falsifiable?
Have a pleasant day.
I'm pro-accordion and I vote
I have met conservatives who accept evolution and liberals who do not.
This is an interesting claim. I've not understood Intelligent design to be inherently Creationistic, or otherwise.
Take, for example, the views of the Chemistry professor I work for. This man is a well known professor at the University of Washington. He holds a PhD. in Analytical, Environmental, and Nuclear Chemistry from MIT. He's an extremely scientific man, and yet he believes in total cooperation between the scientific method and the Bible. His views can be categorized as intelligent design, because he believes that the Universe has been "fine tuned" by God. In the last two sections of that website, he points out a large number of reasons why the Universe must be the way it is for life to exist, with the belief that things are that way because God designed it to be so.
It's actually really fun to talk with him about this stuff, because he knows so much about the chemistry of the universe.
If these people really want to mix Science and Religion in schools, why not turn the argument back on them?
Examine the inference they'd like to make from their new argument of 'intelligent design'.
They'd like us to believe that a perceived intelligent design behind life on Earth implies a singular creator, as in the stories of the Torah. (Bible? Well, if you must, but it only adds more contradiction on top of the stories in the Torah... The Qur'an is the more sensible extension, but let's not go down that route!)
This reasoning is flawed, however: why should there be just one creator? (In fact, are the Torah myths even so clear?)
What's more, observation suggests something rather different - the redundancy in design, the dead ends (even if you don't accept the fossil record, we have evidence of this during our written history), all are suggestive of 'design by committee'.
If we're going to make a 'leap of faith', I'd suggest (and I really would, if I were put in this situation as an educator) that a more logical inference is the creation myths of some of the older religions, take Hinduism for instance.
It would only take a few kids to go home saying, "I'm going to become a Hindu - I was convinced by the discussion about Intelligent Design," before they came out from behind their masks and started directly preaching again...
Computer Scientists studying artificial intelligence have used evolutionary programming in many contexts -- even to design hardware. If evolution can be a basis for artificial intelligence then it can also be an explaination for natural intelligence.
So scientists could turn ID on its head. By embracing it, then can teach that evolution is not a random process. Indeed it is the filtering, not the variation, that adds information to the system. By explainng a non-supernatural origin for intelligence, we would undercut attempts to disprove evolution by identifying ever more obscure examples that suggest that intelligence was needed in their design.
Opinions my own, statements of fact may contain errors
Comment removed based on user account deletion
How can we teach conflicting views? Of course, 'evolution' isn't the opposite of creationism, or even the same thing. So when people talk about darwinism it is a bit annoying.
The big bang, and abiogenisis is the alternative. Hot gases form from nothing (and gravity, light, energy, matter, quarks pi and everything else magically comes into existence), cool to form rocks and water, and then two rocks hit each other, say ow, learn to swim fly and walk.
You see, darwin missed out the whole 'rocks grows fins/tail/legs/wings' part of his analysis.
Survival of the fittest is also nothign to do with evolution, ir is a seperate facet (that can exist without any 'evolutionary' phases).
I agree that science should stick to teaching kids how to perform experiments, and how to find things out, AND NOT PUSH ANY science on them that is unproven.
Just to drive this home: Why at 15/16 when we are learning about gravity and stuff, do they aleways throw in 'how the universe got created'. We never get tested on it (or shouldn't be) nothing is proven / disproven.
Why not SKIP this whole section? SKIP IT! Go on.
To confirm you're not a script,
please type the word in this image: himself
#hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com
Just because they don't kill people doesn't mean they are peaceful. Live in the south as a non-christian and see how much "peace" you see on a daily basis. It is still a violent religion, it's just a matter of degrees.
Been there, done that, bought the shirt. I've lived in the South, I'm not Christian. I've had disagreements, I've been lectured to, I've been told I'm "going to hell", etc. But, I've NEVER felt in physical danger. And occasionally, I've had folks "agree to disagree". No worse than a roomful of Mac, Windows, and Linux advocates (in in many cases more polite).
[Insert pithy quote here]
Evolution is not "just a theory," because in scientific usage, "theory" does not mean "unproven guess" as it does in common usage; it means "hypothesis which has stood up to rigorous testing against the best available evidence." In this sense, evolution is "just a theory" the same way gravity is "just a theory."
Okay, well then, by that standard, evolution is not a theory because it *doesn't* account for the evidence. I read a famous evolutionist, Doug Futuyma, claim that no member of any speicies has ever performed an act of self-sacrafice for another, and this is what evolution predicts. And that's wrong: environmentalists chain themselves to trees. The Voluntary Human Extinction movement. The people working on a human-specific virus.
In a similar vein, "law" in a scientific sense means "theory which has stood up so well and so long that although it's possible to disprove it, that doesn't look likely to happen." Evolution in this sense is a "law" to the same degree as Newton's laws of motion (suitably modified by Einstein) or the laws of thermodynamics.
No, it's not. It's really not. Newtonian mechanics can be tested *right now*. The controversial aspects of evolution refer to events which supposedly happened millions of years ago, which we can never observe.
Those who oppose teaching creationism in schools are not "afraid of teaching the controversy." There is no controversy among biologists about whether evolution happens, although there may well be controversy about the specific details, any more than there is controversy among historians over whether the Holocaust happened or controversy among geographers over whether the Earth is round or flat.
If we are to include Judeo-Christian-Islamic creation myths (both "young Earth" and "Intelligent Design" varieties) in science classes, why stop there? Let's throw in the Hindu, Buddhist, Shinto, Jainist, etc. creation myths too. "Teach the controversy," right?
All students should be taught to question what "everyone knows to be true". Period.
There is no inherent conflict between religious belief and the scientific method, unless believers make it so. Many scientists are religious. Scientists do not "hate religion" or "hate God." When religion makes specific, testable claims about the nature of reality, then it is putting itself into science's realm, and faces the same risks of disproof that any other set of demonstrably wrong ideas does. As long as it sticks to matters of morality and spirituality, it can go its merry way.
Okay, but when evolutionists start to make specific, falsifiable claims, and those claims are falsified, they need to change their theories. They don't. (See the Futuyma claim above.) At least physicists had the decency to drop the belief in the existence of only one fundamental particle when the evidence contradicted it.
Debates on subject of intelligent design really shouldn't forget the role that evolution plays in various new age religions and even some popular philosophies.
The development of evolution as a science led to to a boatload of philosophers who claimed to be able to see the direction of evolution. You will often find new age religions invoking the mysteries of evolution in their world view. Such religions might present mankind as some type of butterfly spirit trying to evolve out out of corrupt corporal state to oneness with Gaia.
Some political philosophies have evoke evolution as a justification of genocide by deciding that they must kill a particular group of people so that the society could evolve.
Some sciences, such as evolutionary psychology, really seem to jump over the edge of science into to the rhealm of theology as they try to explain who and what humans are.
Since there are philosophies and new age religions that try and claim evolution as their own, it is understandable that Christian religions would want a way to tackle the issue.
From a theological standpoint, developing a coherent statement of intelligent design is apropriate. A coherent theology of intelligent design counters claims that evolution is opposed to religion or thta it somehow disproves Christianity. The topic fits well in Sunday school as it encourages people to pursue a healthy combination of science and spirituality.
For that matter, I don't have objections to professors mentioning intelligent design in lectures on evolution as it shows that evolution is not inherently in conflict with the religious beliefs of the students.
IMHO, intelligent does well when it is used to show that science and religion are not necessarily in conflcit.
The problems with intelligent design arise when theologians or philosophers start trying to use or twist evolution their their world view. It is when theologians either start using evolutions to enforce their beliefs, interpret the direction of evolution or mythologize elvolution that we get into trouble. The science of evolution should be left as science, and treated as science.
The theory has been abused by modern philosophers. Hopefully, people can recognize that abuse as a mistake and not repeat the mistakes.
And just like the THEORY of Evolution, the THEORY of gravity is completely wrong! Everyone knows that it's actually the Mighty Thumb of Thor that keeps people and things on the earth!
Though seriously, I'd kind of like someone to clear up the life from non-life issue you run into if you follow the evolutionary path far enough back. Spontaneous Generation is still wrong.
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
Faith, let's face it, is believing things to a degree of certainty unwarranted by the available evidence. That's what it is, no matter how much the faithful try to equivocate and wriggle out of it, that is what faith is.
Why is that considered a virtue?
Faith is not a virtue at all, and convincing people that faith is a virtue is the biggest trick religion has pulled off.
Faith is bullshit. Faith is a problem, faith is not the solution to anything. Faith needs to be painted for the ignorance that it is. One shoudl be ashamed of having faith, not proud of it.
Faith is just plain stupid. No two ways about it.
Charles Darwin: Origin of Species 1859
...
I see no good reason why the views given in this volume should shock the religious feelings of any one. It is satisfactory, as showing how transient such impressions are, to remember that the greatest discovery ever made by man, namely, the law of the attraction of gravity, was also attacked by Leibnitz, "as subversive of natural, and inferentially of revealed, religion." A celebrated author and divine has written to me that "he has gradually learnt to see that it is just as noble a conception of the Deity to believe that He created a few original forms capable of self-development into other and needful forms, as to believe that He required a fresh act of creation to supply the voids caused by the action of His laws."
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
priest (giving sunday sermon): ...and God said, let there be light, or maybe... it was the big bang that caused all the light...
--
We're dumb all over - Frank Zappa
Of course, they should also consider adding Oolong Collophid's (sp?) great Trilogy: "Where God Went Wrong", "Some of God's Greatest Mistakes", and "Who is this God Person Anyways?"
Well, once he writes them, of course..
Not the first time to endorse creationism. Disingenous rat.
The Washington Post, August 27, 1999:
Bush spokeswoman Mindy Tucker said, "He believes both creationism and evolution ought to be taught.... He believes it is a question for states and local school boards to decide but believes both ought to be taught."
The Kansas City Star, September 9, 1999:
"I think it's an interesting part of knowledge (to have) a theory of evolution and a theory of creationism. People should be exposed to different points of view. Should the people choose in my state (to adopt a rule similar to Kansas') I have no problem" with public schools teaching both creationism and evolution.
Reuters, November 4, 1999:
Bush supports the teaching of creationism alongside evolution in public schools. Bush stated, "I have absolutely no problem with children learning different forms of how the world was formed." Bush believes decisions regarding curriculum should be made by local school districts.
I'm genuinely surprised to see people hitching their positions on religion to the provability of a scientific theory. On NPR this morning they had a senator who was saying, and I'm paraphrasing, that if evolution is true than we have no moral responsibilities. And I think, Really? If we were to someday map the genome of every living thing and create a full tree data graph of the evolution of all life, that would be enough for Christians everywhere to start raping and pillaging?
Are you sure you want your faith and religion to hang on the provability of a scientific theorem? Are you arrogant enough to say, "God could not have chosen to work this way"?
What is and isn't science is very well defined. One thing science requires is that a theory be falsiiable, meaning you can conduct a test to try and prove it false. Indeed that's how we become more confident theories are true, by testing different ways that could prove them false, and having the tests not show that.
Well god isn't falsifiable because there's no way to test for its presence or absence. Even if ID people come up with a theory that would allow a test, when the test falsifies their theory they just explain it as god working in mysterious ways, or god disliking being tested.
Now none of this necessiarly means ID is wrong, but it does mean it's not science. Unless you can put creationalism in to a falsifiable scientific theory, and unless that theory has stood up to some testing (evolution has stood up to a lot), then don't claim it's science.
Your position of teaching the problem with evolution is perfectly reasonable, in fact students should be taught to question everything taught in science class. Science isn't a process of finding absolute truth that never changes, it's a process of knowing about the universe, and the knowledge develops and changes with better understanding and testing.
However none of that makes ID science.
"Have you ever noticed that creationists look really unevolved? I believe the Lord made me in 7 days.. Yeah.. you look like he rushed it.."
-Myke
myke@compassionatecoalition.org
http://www.compassionatecoalition.org
if the universe is infinite, and time is infinite, then,
Astronomers and physicists have very compelling evidence that both the universe and time are finite. Time had a beginning, and may have an end. The universe started as a point and has been expanding for a finite time, therefore it is finite... finite, but very, very big.
Now it is a big question how small the chance is that evolution could work... are we the only time it worked, or did life arise somewhere else in our solar system or other solar systems. Given that the universe is finite, if the probability is very small, then we will be alone in the universe (as the Bible tells us in Genesis).
These leads to the logical conclusion that if NASA ever finds irrefutable evidence of life on another planet, especially life more complex than bacteria... then NASA will be shut down immediately and all of its scientists will be blacklisted.
I'm not joking... I grew up in a place where public school teachers refused to teach evolution and taught a 6,000 year old Earth... in public school... in the 1980s. These people are dumb, angry, and well armed.
There are 10 types of people in this world, those who can count in binary and those who can't.
But that aside, I'll have to disagree with your origional post regarding how scientists should be non-religious in order to be real scientists. And I'll get this out of the way now, yes I'm religious and have been a good chunk of my life. I believe in creationism and evolution with one exception, that man did not evolve from simpler primates.
(for those mods who don't read the whole argument or diss because of spelling errors, I'm at work taking time to argue what I believe is a misconception about true scientists. Don't mod it down simply because you disagree with my post. I've modded up for things I didn't agree with, but coincidentally were insightful or interesting)
Now let's begin!
What I believe you're arguing, are two opposites of the extreme. Religous fanatics who almost possess and use 'jihad' style of arguements to radically defend what they believe in through incoherent and nonsensical arguements to justify their position. Then there are the atheist type which use the same style of arguement the religous fanatic used, but only to irrationally argue his methods for there being no such being as a God or Deity who created everything in our universe, life within the universe and then us. (let me know if I'm wrong in that assumption, but that's what's being percieved)
I have known a few good scientists who are very religous with their beliefs yet are in no way close minded. They're extremely educated (as opposed to what many peoples suppositions regarding a person of faith's education must be like), talented and also gifted. Do they believe in evolution? Yes. Do they believe in creationism? Yes, but with the same caveat I mentioned earlier in my own beliefs. Then why are they scientists and how are they effective in proving or disproving their own theories or those of others?
I can't answer the various reasons for people wanting to, or being a scientist. But I can explain in a simple fasion of what makes a successfull one, even through what people call the cloud of faith.
A successfull scientists will not skew, alter, forge, change or make any submition in any way which is illicit and purposely fraudulent to forward his own beliefs, agenda, political alliances, finances or social popularity.
This is what a good scientist does regardless of wether or not he believes in Deity or not and I know there are good scientists out there with just such integrity and honor in their work. I know a few of them personally in biological (geneticists, some in the camp of cloning and pharmacutical), others in earth sciences which revolve around archeology of ancient animals and civilizations. These people do routenely disprove even their own theories and hypothesis' without regard to their religion.
But I have a key point to make regarding the association of scientists and religionists (is that a word?) and their ability to co-exzist; is the person of faith who has his beliefs founded in truth, will not be thrown off, let down, dismayed or in any way do things listed in my 6th paragraph with what he finds because it won't conflict with what he believs. And if it does, it doesn't mean his religion is wrong, but the suppositions of certian aspects may be wrong. To clarify, the scientists grounded in religious truth will not be swayed with what his scientific findings reveal. It may change his outlook, and I hope enlighten his mind into many things of this planet.
Just as an example, when darwin first started teaching that evolution was a method this planet had used to form life from simple protiens into complex life, even human beings, religions went nuts. Some quieter than others but they had a hard time with this. Certian religions now believe darwin may have been right in many of this theories except one, and that of man b
A science is a collection of observations, hypotheses, and models which serve to explain the observations in a coherent logical framework. Core to a science is the notion of falseafiability, that is, if one or the other hypotheses can be proven false (the only proof you can do in science is a contradiction), then you *must* discard the hypothesis, and replace it with a more correct one.
You cannot *ever* prove a hypothesis true (not true in mathematics, but the case in science).
Core to a belief system is the infalability of the belief system in the face of contradictory evidence. A belief system cannot by definition, be a science.
Creationism and its spawn are belief systems. They are not falsafiable. They are not open to re-interpretation. They should not be taught in science class-rooms. They should be taught in terms of socio-political terms as religious movements. And this includes the pig that is dressed up and named Intelligent design. It is still a pig (belief system), and it is not falsafiable. It is therefore not a science.
The problem occurs once the Creationists come up with a falsafiable belief system, and contradictory evidence arises. How are they going to handle an attack on their belief system? It isn't science (never was, never will be).
The last time Creationists were in charge, we were a backwards nation in terms of science. The last time the forefathers of Creationism were in control of knowledge, we had the dark ages.
Lets not go back there. Lest we decide that the earth really is flat, the center of the universe, and the Sun revolves around us. Yes, this is what they championed in the past. They demonstrated that they were not a force for advancing knowledge, but for consolidating their own power.
Intelligent Design as a concept is not intelligent.
If the world was "designed" what purpose does a tape worm have? It is a parasite, nothing more. It has no beneficial side effects, unlike a symbiotic organism.
An "intellgently designed" world would not include parasites.
I won't bother mentioning all the other good arguments against intelligent design as it seems the very first post hit the nail firmly on the head.
Especially since we had an infinite amount of time for it to happen. It would be more confusing if it hadn't taken billions of years. The # of chemical interactions that happen in billions of years is tremendous.
Infinite time or billions of years, which is it? Also, from where did the chemicals come?
And I have to ask -- if ID is indeed true, then aren't single-cell organisms God's primary children? And who's to say we're the end product?
Primary children? They are God's creation, yes, but primary children? What is that? It's God who says we are the end products. Pick up a Bible, the answer is in the first couple pages.
It took such a long time to get humans from proto-humans -- maybe those proto-humans thought THEY were the end product. And then we came. So who's to say we're not like the proto-humans? Maybe 3 million years from now we'll go to some other planet and evolve in a way we haven't evolved yet and we'll consider our present day species as proto-whatever-we-call-ourselves.
Huh?
This will go into the archives of -- posted too late for anyone to read. oh well.
Let remember what Creationists and Inteligent design proponents are really fighting over: how life began.
Now remember one other small fact: neither group has proven ANYTHING to that end. If an evolutionist tells you they have proof for how life began, they are eithe lieing or selling you something.
Now, do things change over time? Absolutily. Can you call it evolution? Yes. Does evolution have scientific proof as to how life began? Not even close.
So, in that context, Evolution and Inteligent Design are equals and both have as much footing at the other.
Now, as to what happened AFTER life began...Evolutionist have a pretty good story.
Bad User. No biscuit!
Intelligent Design does have a place in the Evolution debate, no doubt in my mind. After all, intelligence itself is a part of Evolution. This is the case even taking a strict Evolutionist viewpoint. After all, evolution created us, an intelligent being.
Given that, isn't it possible that evolution itself could be an intelligent process? If evolution can create intelligence, couldn't it potentially become intelligent?
Don't get me wrong. I see the current use of Intelligent Design as a perversion of the concept, a crass political hijacking of a valid line of thought. It should be persued, just not in that way.
Evolution and ID should be combined, not in conflict.
There are those of us who feel like TMM, but the minute anyone says anything that would be moderate or go against the ultra-conservative right, they are immediately ripped apart.
The most recent incident that comes to mind is Senator Frist's support of more federal funding for stem cell research. He has since been ripped up publicly by ultra-right groups such as James Dobson's (*shudder*) Focus on the Family.
I find it highly upsetting that not only must those kinds of fundamentalist Christians try to force their beliefs on the nation, but also that they must resort to attacking their fellow believers in public forums in order to further their cause. This, to me, is inherently non-Christian behavior, and it makes me sad to see my so-called brothers in Christ act this way. In the end, it only serves to hurt their agenda by making us all look like hypocrits.
--------
This isn't the sig you're looking for. Move along.
I agree that the grandparent's argument (or at least the statement of the argument) was flawed, but so is yours.
Since the probability of an even number being odd is zero, it is perfectly sensible that despite the infinitude of even numbers there should be no odds in that set.
When there are infinitely many occurrences whose possible outcomes include a particular event we are interested in, (that is, there is a non-zero probability that the outcome we are interested in can be the result of these occurrences) then this is when the probability that the outcome of interest occurs tends toward one.
You guys are really a bunch of sheep. The truth is evolution has not been proven, and there are strong arguments against it. You don't believe in intelligent design for philosophical reasons, and then try to back it up with science, and claims of no matter how small a probablity it still exists. If you really stop to look at the very early stages evolution cannot happen. Sure birds can change shape, size, and even specialize. I don't think anyone disagrees with that even creationists, yet goo turning into living beings just doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
Creationists can't handle the thought that mankind was a largely random accident. They have to feel important.
They commit the Sin of Pride, and insist that the Allmighty Creator of the Universe must think so much of them, that they had to be planned.
How's this for a theory of Intelligent Design?
God set the rules, created a Big Bang, and then sat back to watch the show.
After the initial fireworks, all kinds of incredibly complex stuff happened, and that included Mankind, Bacteria...
and Evolution.
The meaning of your Life is up to you. Mean well. -- Me, 9/11/2001
I think the main thing ID has going for it is that it is logical. You tell someone, "the world, the human body, the eye, its all too complex to come about through a natural process over thousands of generations. Something HAD to have been there to design it", and you know what, it makes sense. In our little human brains, it is very hard to fathom the idea of thousands of generations, and the mutations needed to evolve. Evolution is a tough thing to grasp at first. So I think thats what it has going for it, and why its gained so much traction across the country.
Then the ID people say something like, "what so we came from a monkey?" or some other garbage to dispute evolution. Then you see whats really going on. ID isnt a science, and its not provable. Its just religious people using it to win hearts and minds. Its a PR campaign. And if we have people not educated on biology, not educated on the sciences, and so forth, making these decisions, it is DISASTROUS because they will go by the PR campaign and put it in schools to teach students.
I also hear people saying, "just teach the controversey! Not even every scientist believes in evolution!". So what scientists dont? What respected biologists do not believe in evolution? Id love to see a list... I really would. Because you know, not everyone believes the earth is round.
ID is just a PR campaign.
There are different classes of thought that are sometimes called an opinion that lead to the confusion where some people think they should all be given equal standing.
One kind of opinion is simply a statement or observation, for example, of preference: "My favorite color is blue." versus "My favorite color is green."
This type of opinion is of equal interpretive value, yes.
But, a second common usage of the word opinion is the promotion of a personal theory (about anything).
In this case, the same standards apply as for any theory, and as such these 'opinions' are NOT entitled to the same neutral status of "different but equal" as, like in the above example, the simple expression of one's favorite color.
In the second type of opinion, the realm of theory, some are well founded, based upon fact and analysis, while others are crap, formed, or worse, simply borrowed, with no basis in fact, and no actual thought whatsoever.
The former is an opinion with a sound basis, and strong support. The latter is just so much line-noise.
They may both be opinions, but that's the sole extent of the similarity, and that does not put them on an equal footing.
An unsound opinion, even when held by a majority, is still unsound, and therefore NOT of equal value.
> Presidents' views will never affect actual scientific discovery or prevailing scientific opinion.
Not if our system of checks & balances holds up, though the recent trends in villification of the judicial branch seems to presage a problem there.
At any rate, there have been notable instances in other countries where politics gave rise to abberant science:
- Lysenkoism, in Stalinist USSR
- Deutsche Physik, in Nazi Germany
And of course, our current administration is doing everthing in its power to hide or discredit science that produces results that don't support its agenda. With bad luck, it might rise to the level of those phenomena linked above.Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
i hear rick santorum is bringing galileo back for a re-trial - copernicus be damned!!!
"Everyone read this site knows it will amount to over 1,000 posters screaming at each other."
Which always amazes me. In order to get here people have to have at least a smidgeon of technological literacy. So you would assume a higher level of reasoning on average. I'm always amazed at the number of otherwise smart sounding people that come out on the side of creationism. I even found one Slashdot reader with a low UID that took the story of Noah's arc as literal truth once.
When people tell me that the creation story is literal ...
I tell them that they must then think Satan is a snake.
random underscore blankspace at ya know hoo dot comedy.
You're all being distracted by the minor detail of Creationism and Intelligent Design.
The essential aspect of this article is that George Bush supports the presentation of alternative viewpoints, so that people can make intelligent decisions on their own.
All citizens are finally allowed to be informed on all concepts:
So many topics to discuss .....
What is the problem with teaching ID? Because it encourages you to stop looking for things like speciation methods, in this example reproductive barriers emerged in populations of butterflies through changes in wing markings.
No. It can be infinite and expanding. Infinity plus anything still equals infinity. Infinity minus anything still equals infinity. It can have boundaries and be infinite. For instance, a line can be infintely long but it still has boundaries. Infinity is a weird thing.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
"C" = the sum of all knowledge.
"B" = the knowledge gained through religion
"A" = the knowledge gained through science
"A" + "B" = "C"
As "A" increases, "B" must decrease because "C" is a constant value. I see ID as the last gasp (hopefully) of the religious as their superstitions fade into the dark past of the world. I can tell you, I've been dead once, and I saw nothing that condemned my soul or raised me to status of saints. There's nothing there. I came back, obviously, and I can equally tell you that death is nothing to fear, and the dark night is our ultimate destination. Although we will strive no less in life if we take religion or science as our guide; we will find that the former is of less real value than the latter.
Very intersting. Originally I was going to hop into this conversation and state that not only is there a 100% chance (therefor not really chance at all) that other intelligent life has to exist else where and else when, but that by the same theories there must exist an infinite number of cases of Humans existing, different only by space or time. But after a little thought about this then by the same measure, if you beleive in either infinite space or infinite time, then so must all gods exist, or atleast will eventually. If you want to beleive in infinite possibility you have to beleive in all of them and not just the sub set that meets your current belief structure.
I personally don't buy into the infinite space/time theory because somethings will just never happen (like myself voluntarily being ass fucked) no mater how larger the universe is. This is because time and space begin and end at the edge of your perception, and to prove me worng on this would be to change my perception therefor proving me right.
As for ID being taught in schools. Not if I have anything to say about it (which sadly I probably don't). We have an acepted idea of science and currently creationism does not fit that idea.
President Bush has recently drawn fire for suggesting that the controversial "Intelligent Design" theory be given equal time on Slashdot. Although he has said that posting decisions should be made by the individual contributors themselves, he believes that proponents of intelligent design should be posting alongside proponents of evolution. "Both sides ought to be properly taught . . . so people can understand what the debate is about," he said, according to an official transcript of the session. Bush added: "Part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought. . . . You're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, and the answer is yes." These comments drew sharp criticism this morning from every post on Slashdot, who said there is no scientific evidence to support it and no educational basis for teaching it and everyone who would even consider thinking it ought to be put in thought jail.
There are two assumptions in this theory. An infinite universe AND infinite matter. Good luck proving both these ideas.
I just love this debate. The "Intelligent Design" people lose every single time, crashing and burning in any topic even remotely resembling the cause-and-effect hypothesis commonly referred to as science.
The argument that Intelligent Design rises with and falls by, is that it's not supposed to make sense that the universe has existed forever. It's true, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense except from a philosophical standpoint (or at the point where physics and philosophy become indistinguishable), but then you might ask... why does it all of a sudden make sense that The Creator has been forever? Surely, if the universe was created by something, that something must have existed. Then the ID-people say that God has existed forever and will exist forever.
Why does that make any more sense than the universe having been forever? What hypothetical problem of evolution does Intelligent Design really address? I can't see it addressing it, I can merely see it ignoring it, and of course, only when it suits their "theory".
Another thing to keep in mind is that evolution is still a scientific theory. The fact of the matter is, however, that in a scientific context, precisely NOTHING is referred to as fact until it is a matter of definition. We can say something is black because we have chosen the concept of black for certain characteristics, thus it is a fact. But every single physiological, biological, psychological and philosophical debate in the history of mankind, according to modern science, ARE THEORIES. NONE OF THEM ARE REFERRED TO AS FACTS. People who don't know this, often think that because evolution is still referred to as a theory, it has some explaining to do. The fact of the matter is, it's not a fact, it's like the moon revolving around the earth, a well documented, thorougly investigated, extremely well supported scientific theory. It's not any less "real" because of that.
There *could* be an Easter Bunny, right? And who are we not to admit the possibility of Santa Claus, Bigfoot, and the Boogieman?
This is my post. There are many others like it. If you don't like what you read here, go try one of the others.
Is ID a religion simply because of the acknowledgement of a creator?
/.
If I claim that something (say a computer) is intelligently designed, did I just introduce a religion?
Just because something could be associated with beliefs of a religion doesn't make it a religion.
Now, if the universe is infinite and time is infinite and the possiblility exists for evolution, the possibility also exists that this is the 4,096 time I've typed this reply to
I don't know why (some) Christians insist on trying to prove God exists. Indeed, to the extent that ID is a mathematically proven theorem (which no one suggests it is, but take that as a reductio ad absurdum given), it is a contradiction to another major Christian axiom. God, it is said, exists by faith and cannot be proven to exist. But what about the Babel fish? That proves you exist, therefore you don't. (and God dissapeared in a puff of logic).
Six score characters.
Brevity being wit's soul
I have enough space.
Everyone read this site knows it will amount to over 1,000 posters screaming at each other.
Which is precisely why the story was posted. Slashdot needs to pay the bills like any other site. Thousands of posters screaming at each other, plus tens of thousands more amusedly reading those posts, translates into a lot of ad views.
It also explains a portion of the duplicate story postings. Why just open a can of worms once, when you can open it twice and make even more money?
I disagree. If the media consistently airs what an idiot he is maybe the 50% of the country that hired him will vote a bit smarter next time.
Please say this is satire. I have trouble believing that my southern neighbours are *that* dumb.
What I care more about, that people can't accept that something could begin accidentaly. They can't accept that it is simple random reason why we are here. You know why?
Then we should accept that there can come some random reason which will end our existence.
It is more psihological phenomenal. It is clear that nature is nature - there could be NO reason behind it. And there could be. Why just not accept it and move on with our lifes?
user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
It's no secret that Bush pretends to be a simple, God-fearing country boy. He simply made a comment, in a relatively informal environment, in-keeping with this persona. He can't dismiss creationism or he risks pissing off his base. Ultimately the best political maneuver he can make is an empty comment, that will appease his bible-beating followers, backed up with no actual action that would have invariably raised massive scrutiny over a issue he really does not care about.
-Emoticon
Yeah, but it's not even good philosophy. It's philosophical underpinnings are based on theology and science. You might as well teach astrology as philosophy. Makes as much sense. Plus, at what level should it be taught? Primary education? Secondary education?
I have never believed in Creationism, even as a kid I knew enough that the Genesis story was a parable of morality. An argument for Intelligent Design can only hold up because it runs counter to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.d ynamics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermo
It could be argued the disorder caused by the big bang, why is it that galaxies have clusters together, and apparently complex systems have formed locally such as suns, planets, and life. This is a subjective argument however, because the global amount of disorder is always increasing, maybe our little part of the universe is highly ordered from chance.
Personally the best argument of intelligent design is the Weak Anthropic Principle, see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle
The probably of every physical constant being right for suns, planets and life to exist is vanishingly small. Same goes for the right sun, with the right planet, the right distance away, with the right day, with the right year with the right seasons, with the right stabilizing moon, etc.
I do not believe this is a tautology. I believe there are two equally likely explanations for the observable universe:
1) A god or gods set the right dials of physical laws so that we could come into existence and sacrifice dead animals/people to him or her.
2) There are an infinite number of universes and so some of them will have the right conditions for life since the infinite impossibility of life can exist in an infinite number of universes all with different physical laws.
Comments?
Chris
Every rule has an exception, and this is the only rule with no exceptions! Huh? -- Spatch
There is another principle that any theory that places us in a special place in the universe is likely wrong.
I know, the anthropic princple can get around this, but I think it would be more compelling to have a model that shows that we are in fact likely. (in fact evolution is such a model, becuase it is not blind chance)
But simply saying "everything that can happen does happen, and we are just one of those events" is not a much better scientific explanation than "here a miracle occurs"
Abolish Copyright. Restore Freedom.
What always strikes me as ironically humorous in this issue is how, as a whole, the core idea is completely ignored. At the very bottom of this debate, it has nothing to do with whether a God created the world as we know it or not. It has everything to do with competing scientific theories. Religion unfortunately became irretrievably entangled in the debate, and that's where we are today.
Science has posited a question to itself, namely: Can we figure out how we came to be? Many scientists have attempted to answer that question, and Charles Darwin was the most famous with his early theories of Natural Selection. In and of itself, Natural Selection was a good hypothesis for its time. However, a problem arose when atheistic scientists leapt on the bandwagon and attempted to use a scientific theory for unscientific ends - namely, to prove that a God does not exist. In reaction, a good number of Christians rebelled against a decent hypothesis because of how it was being used in a philosophical agenda. And presto! The situation hasn't changed in a couple hundred years.
Fast forward to the present day. Despite many adaptations of Darwinism (Neo-Darwinism, et al.) and continual pushings of many scientists with an agenda, Darwinism (aka Natural Selection) is falling apart. No matter what fossil records we dig up, the records completely deny gradual change. 150 years of scientific observations yield that natural selection is a best a species-preserving method, not a species-producing one.
And here's the problem. Science has produced plenty of evidence that evolution can occur - cf. the article a few months ago where scientists found light-sensitive cells in the brain of a primitive fish. Simultaneously, it has also produced plenty of evidence that Darwinism is utter crap. So science finds itself in the uncomfortable position of posessing evidence for evolution, but no hypothesis as to the method or process by which it occurs. The dilemma is futher exacerbated by the rather un-scientific Intelligent Design hypotheses - which nevertheless point out many crucial unexplainable problems with current theory.
At the end, then, we need to let Darwinism die as the outmoded 19th century theory that it is. We need scientists to start putting intellect to work discovering new theories of evolution, rather than wasting their time buttressing a scientifically collapsing edifice. Then we avoid 500+ Slashdot comments on an old story:)
Here's some issues why the idea of an intelligent designer just won't fit for me. Maybe you'll find them, if not thought-provoking, at least entertaining.
Why does human beings have useless items in them, such as the tail bone? Or that small piece of gut? Since that bone and the piece of gut are useless, they should've been left out by the designer.
Why does a nerve go from the neck down the back, then to the chest then back up on its way to the heart? Surely the best and shortest way is directly from the neck to the heart. There's no anatomical obstacles for that. Why does it go the way it does?
If you assume an intelligent designer, there are many other absurdities to be found.
If the creationists are right, then all biologists are in violation of the DMCA and can be sued by God.
Think of it as the chance is .0000000000001% * X, if X->inf, then we get, eventually, 1.
But that is NOT true. Even if the Universe is infinite in every dimension you are never guaranteed to get your event. Even if the probability of event X is 99.99999999999% you are NEVER guaranteed that it will happen. That is why it is a PROBABILity. It will probably happen that often. there is a chance that if you flip a coin an infinite number of times you will always land on heads. It is not guaranteed that it will EVER land on tails. Now the reality of it is that it WILL happen, but it doesn't HAVE to happen. So in an infinite universe we WILL exist, but we do not HAVE to exist.
Now in my own mind ID is true, but I don't believe it is my place to use a school to force that belief on people when there is no strong evidence to back it up. I do however believe that we are doing our children a disservice to not explain to them the beliefs of probably 95% of the English speaking world, and probably some 75% of the entire world, that there is a higher being that had some hand in their creation. Telling them what the world believes and teaching them to respect it is very important. Telling them it is true is another story.
I tried for 5 years to come up with a clever sig...only to realize that I am not clever.
You don't accept that Nietzsche was a philosopher or you don't accept that if you cannot compare and/or contrast a statement ("life was designed") with a philosophical school of thought, then the statement is not philosophical in nature?
Or maybe you just don't understand what philosophy is.
I went to Catholic school pretty much all my life. In high shcool, they had a class called "Theology" which you could take for 4 years. Freshman year was all old testament and you learned about creation.
We also had a class called "Biology" which only had 2 levels but in Biology, you learned about Evolution. Creation never came up in Biology. Why? Biology is a science class. In science class, you learn about science. In religion class, you learn about religion.
This was a pretty strict Catholic school for Calofornia. There were no uniforms but you had to dress nice. No jeans because they were believed to be a tool of satan.
Now it stands to reason that if the school dean thought Satan and Levis were involved in some kind of plot to ruin the education system, then you could pretty much call him a bible banging zealot. Even so, he obvisouly understood the value of keeping science in science class and religion in religion class where each topic can be explored to he full extent.
I believe public schools should have a theology elective where people interested in religion can go learn about all types of religion. This would give people the opportunity to really interpret and discuss old testament stories in a way thats not possible in science class. Then, just maybe, the children will learn that the old testament is not a history book.
I find this to be a much better solution since bringing up creation in science class lends it more credability than it deserves. Christians should face the fact that Genesis was written by a bunch of sheep herders who lived in the middle of the desert and had no other way to explain the creation of the universe.
There was an Star Trek TNG episode which basically said that all life had been seeded by an originating race billions of years ago. That being the reason why all the species looked alike and could cross breed.
Intelligent design would certainly fit into that mold as well. It does not have to be thechristian/jewish/islamic centric God who created life.
Bring back the old version of slashdot.
I believe it would go something like this:
Fuck The Creationists
Trash Talk
Ah yeah, here we go again!
Damn! This is some funky shit that I be laying down on your ass.
This one goes out to all my homey's working in the field of
evolutionary science.
Check it!
Verse 1
Fuck the damn creationists, those bunch of dumb-ass bitches, every time I think of them my trigger finger itches. They want to have their bullshit, taught in public class, Stephen J. Gould should put his foot right up their ass. Noah and his ark, Adam and his Eve, straight up fairy stories even children don't believe. I'm not saying there's no god, that's not for me to say,
all I'm saying is the Earth was not made in a day.
Chorus
Fuck, fuck, fuck,
fuck the Creationists.
Trash Talk
Break it down.
Ah damn, this is a funky jam!
I'm about ready to kick this bitch back in.
Check it.
Verse 2
Fuck the damn creationists I say it with authority, because kicking their punk asses be me paramount priority. Them wack-ass bitches say, "evolution's just a theory", they best step off, them brainless fools, I'll give them cause to fear me. The cosmos is expanding every second, every day, but their minds are shrinking as they close their eyes and pray. They call their bullshit science like the word could give them cred,
if them bitches be scientists then cap me in the head.
Chorus
Trash Talk
Bass!
Bring that shit in!
Ah yeah, that's right, fuck them all motherfuckers.
Fucking punk ass creationists trying to set scientific thought back 400 years.
Fuck that!
If them superstitious motherfuckers want to have that kind of party,
I'm going to put my dick in the mashed potatoes.
Fucking creationists.
Fuck them.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
I can see how ID could be a hypothesis motivated from evidence -- many complicated artifacts have some designer, why shouldn't the universe. However, I am at a loss to see how it is falsifiable -- even in prinicple. Just how is one to prove something, e.g., a wombat, chemistry or the solar system, has not be designed? The ID proponent can keep proposing more and more subtle designers indefinately.
Yoghurt
Granted, but when you get right down to it. Let's be frank. People to not want to believe in ID because it puts them in a place where they have to be answerable to someone. And that makes them uncomfortable. If God exists and we are created by Him than we are bound to follow what he says about life and the way we live it, or suffer the consequences. Evolution is basically an excuse for those who would rather not think about what they will have to say to God someday. Look what has happened in the past few years: AIDS is on the rise due to the large amount of homosexuality (the leading cause of AIDS) We have (in the US) slaughtered millions of children via abortion. We have shootings at schools. 50% of women graduating from some colleges have STDs because of pre-marital sex. These are issues that God has allot to say about. But if God does not exist, or if he did not create us than we do not have to answer to him, and none of the above issues matter. Yes, God has given us the right to choose what path we want to follow, but in the end there is only One Way to Him. All others will lead to Hell. Evolution was the beginning of our modern decline because it removed our responsibility to God. Yes I support Equal time for Creationism, becasue maybe, just maybe it will turn our nation back to God. Now, let the flamewar begin ;-)
Man is the lowest-cost, 150-pound, nonlinear, all-purpose computer system which can be mass-produced by unskilled labor.
Prove that something came from nothing... or that nothing came from something or that something came from itself. We cannot prove why we are physically here. Intellegent Design is more valid than "Darwinism" because Darwinism doesn't ever try to answer that question. Please people stop mixing darwin/evolution/creation, I think all of that bull is a result of christian/anti-christian bias. Lunatics aside, you can't rule out the possibility of a creator, if you do your theology is in the way.
Your daddy put his cha-cha in your mothers hoo-hoo and did the ra-ra. Then 9 months later your mother shit you out.
That's creationism.
Why are you here? Because your parents had sex and you haven't died yet.
What's your purpose? None, there is no purpose to life other than what you choose for yourself.
Where does god come into play? Um, right up there with Santa. Artificial boundaries we use to confuse and inspire young minds [even if the body is old] to do "good things".
So shut the fuck up with creationism already.
Evolution makes sense. It's supported by things we can see and measure, it's more valid.
And frankly these debates miss the whole point. We can't change where we came from. Even if you knew why life was started you'd what? Burst into flames and become a god or something? Fuck no. You'd keep on living, sexing up the ladies and popping out the youngins.
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
I was of the same opinion as you, TripMaster, until recently. I thought that the idea of an Intelligent Designer was scientifically unprovable, even though I believe the universe was created by Someone. Until I read The Case for a Creator: A Journalist Investigates Scientific Evidence That Points Toward God. Lee Strobel used to be a non-believer, but then his wife got saved and he started on a journey to find out whether Christianity was scientifically feasible. He has two other books, the Case for Christ and the Case for Faith, and I highly recommend them.
That is all
Bush added: "Part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought. . . . You're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, and the answer is yes."
I think, President Bush should immediately endorse the teaching of the Great Green Arkleseizure Theory of the universe, as well as the Turtles-all-the-way-down-theory of geology. Not to forget the Plutonium Atom Totality theory of particle physics.
A concerned citizen of Old Europe.I honestly cannot undestand why American students are not exposed to these refreshing and original thoughts in the classroom nor why President Bush is not using his influence to set this important matter right!
We wave goodbye at the good run we had in the US for so long. But now serious life science and the people who are serious about it are going to gradually leave for other countries with less theocratic almost Talibanist world views. Already cutting edge cloning is going on in Italy and South Korea for example.
And that's fine. America has staked out its position in the science world as only being interested in military spending. And as it leaves the field of life sciences, telcom, drug research, medicine and many other fields that have either been abandoned to the free market or been quasi criminalized outright we will start to see a slow degrade in the overall economic and scientific outlook for the US as a whole.
My children will live to see the day when America is niche player and it nowhere near the top five countries in the world in scientific research. We're already near the bottom of industrialized states for education and soon the foreign nationals who make up 40-50% of US graduate students in the hard sciences will stary home or go elsewhere.
To quote the post:
"This NY Times op-ed appears to mark a deliberate attempt to reverse the late Pope John Paul II's acceptance of evolution as 'more than just a hypothesis'."
This statement sounds a bit too much like a conspiracy theory to me. If you actually bother to take more than 5 seconds to read the article, you can see that he's clearly saying that he thinks (it is an opinion piece, after all) that people have taken JP's remarks out of context, and that people are using his remarks as propaganda to promote Evolution. He goes further to say these people do not fully understand the Pope's position and provides factual information in the form of more detail quotes from the pope's speeches.
I think this guy makes an excellent point.
The problem we have here is two different concepts: evolution (lowercase e) the theory that discusses the process of the survival of the fittest and Evolution (uppercase e) which is an ideaology that uses the theory of evolution as a background to claim that man evolved from carbon based molecules that just happened to come together in a particular way at just the right time. Let me state right now there is not enough proof for the ideaology of Evolution to be anything more than a hypothesis -- it is NOT a theory (go pick up a high school science book to understand the difference.) Unless we invent a way of going back in time, it's probably going to be nearly impossible to prove.
Evolution (big E) has little solid proof that cannot be disputed, other than the fact that survival of the fittest seems to make a lot of sense, and survival of the fittest is measurably accurate by everything we know. But survival of the fittest is not an indication of the origin of the species. It *is* good enough to describe how the species evolved to it's present point, if given enough geneological history.
I think Christians are concerned that schools are teaching Evolution instead of evolution. I agree with them. A single ideaology should not be presented as fact in public schools. If they want to discuss it, they should also offer a chance to discuss alternatives too.
But that would require our students to learn critical analysis and independant thought, so that's against government regulations.
Well, there is a contingent of moderators on this board that whenever a post that is critical in some way of the administration, or corporations they throw their points behind TMM or daveschoeder, or any other conservative toady, making sure they get 5:Insightful. Plus they often post early in the thread to try and control the talking point. Notice how they want to teach ID as a philosophy instead of science. That is a republican talking point. Check out a number political blogs, you see the same strategy.
Your right, Creationism and ID have nothing to do with being an exstermist. It does reflect poorly on your education though. As a baptist who is educated in biology, there isn't a single reason why anyone should not beleive in evolution. You should be dismissed because you don't know enough about the subject beign discussed. Beleif in creationism and ID is a sign of under education and a inability to think rationally.
hmm... seems he's not the only one whose education is lacking...
By the way, I know some very intelligent, well educated people who believe in ID. So don't dismiss them out of hand.
Weak.
I've gotten totally out of these debates except when I am exceptionally bored.
..and that's among the RM+NS Evolution proponents. You'd think people championing the cause the "science" would, in fact, be more *scientific*.
The level of fanaticism by people who's grasp of scientific understanding stopped improving in the 8th grade is simply sickening and even those who should know better show an extreme level of extremism on this topic. Selective reading, people's gut reactions, taking things deliberately out of context, ignoring any talk of actual evidence one way or the other , and assertions with no further evidence reign supreme...
For the record, ID competes with Naturalism, not with evolution. Naturalism shouldn't be taught in a science class either, but I agree that both would have a place in a philosophy class.
Integrate Keynote and LaTeX
The problem isn't that he's banning Evolution, there isn't a possible way any intelligent judge on the supreme court woudl allwo that. It's that he's making two valid sides when in reality there is one.
It's like me teachinggravity in a science high school class. I suggest 1 theory is that gravity is a distortion in time space and that the curvature of space makes it more favorable for all atoms to go "down". Then I teach that it might also be a ancient sleeping god in the middle of the earth, whose malevolent rage forces all matter to fall "down". Most kids will chose to beleive one or the other just because I meantioned them both. Most kids are naive and think since I'm their teacher everythign I say must have some basis. Unfortunatly the second thing I taught is bullshit. So now half my class beleives in bullshit.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
Intelligent Design, at its most basic level, asks that with all the beauty, wonder, and astounding perfection that make up the physical world around us, and indeed the science itself which proves it to be more and more elegant as time goes on, might there possibly be a force that surpasses our understanding that has allowed for, or caused, its, and our, creation? Is this provable? Nope. Is it a scientific theory? Nope. Will it ever be? Nope.
I understand, and largely agree with, your sentiment here, but your use of terminology is going to cause confusion. In my experience (I've done some published writing and a great deal of research on ID) what you're talking about is often referred to as "theistic evolution," or something else along those lines. It's a philosophical and spiritual complement to objective science, without imposing unrebuttable presuppositions on the field.
This is distinguished from ID, or how the term "ID" is usually used, especially by those who are its strongest advocates, such as the Discovery Institute. ID starts at theistic evolution, and then adds the critical claim that design not only exists, but can be objectively detected through scientific means.
It's all semantics, but I think it matters, especially because there are ID advocates who make the same arguments you're advancing here to make inroads with those who wouldn't accept the more radical (and more common) claims of the 'theory'.
Through observation & reproducability science is made. Only those observations and Theories that fit them should be imparted to future Generations as Science.
The President is, and never has been, a authoritative voice in the scientific community. As it should be. If you want to know about science ask a scientist. If you want to know about the complete disregard of science for policy ask the President:
http://www.creationethics.org/index.cfm?fuseaction =webpage&page_id=208 t m
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0219-02.h
http://www.savearcticrefuge.org/scientist.pdf
http://www.fas.org/bethepr.htm
Don't Even Ask about Stem cells.
You can help:
http://www.ucsusa.org/rsi_calltoaction/index.php
OSGGFG - Open Source Gamers Guide to Free Games
I would like to take a moment to clarify the archbishop's NYT article that people have been quoting. Let me first make it clear, I think that he made a fool of himself, not because of what he said, but because of the way in which he said it. What he was trying to say, and what he made it sound like he was saying are two rather different things.
Whenever you hear someone use the term "Darwinism" a little flag should go off in your head, because Darwinism !== evolution. The archbishop was making a teleological argument against Darwinism the philosophy, not against evolution the scientific and mathematical reality. What he failed to understand, is that the average reader doesn't appreciate he difference.
Darwinism is the philosophical stance that the theory of evolution explains not just how human beings came to be, but why as well. It is an application of Ockham's razor: the belief that there cannot be a creator, because a creator is not necessary for the process to continue. The archbishop, in other words, was trying to distance the Church from appearing to endorse a philosophy that he fells leads naturally to atheism.
The Catholic view of evolution, by contrast, is governed by the Christian understanding of providence, that is that every movement of the material universe can be (or maybe is) guided by God to some eventual good. This is similar to intelligent design on the superficial level, but it is not laced with any literalist overtones (like the "young Earth" theory, or crap like that).
(Catholic have never been Biblical literalists, by the way. In the 3rd century the theologian Augustine recognized that there were two different, and incompatible accounts of creation, and decided that they were best explained as a metaphor rather than as a method.)
The Church, in reality, tends to be quite neutral on scientific views these days, unless the views in question contradict something that the Church cannot accept. The principle is called Fides et Ratio (faith and reason), and the underlying doctrine is that the two can never be in opposition. However it has never been, and will continue not be, neutral on any philosophical view with it feels is in opposition to its beliefs. Hence the archbishop recently denounced Darwinism, the philosophy riding on the coat tails of evolution.
...En að Besta Sem Guð Hefur Skapað Er Nýr Dagur
Don't teach evolution and don't teach ID just as much. Teach genetics and natural selection instead. Stick to the basics. Test on those. Sure we can mention that taken to its extreme, Natural Selection might result in evolutionary effects and here's more reading on the subject but we'll only be asking about dominant and recessive genes on the test.
That's the solid, repeatable science that's more likely to have a direct impact than any creation/epoch story on the lives of kids who would rather be making out under some bleachers anyway.
(On an amusing counterpoint, why not offer to include ID in the curriculum if we can also include time for homosexuality in sex education? I think that might shut some people up...)
This is just another chapter in ingnorance in the US. Of course no prominent Christians will come out and say this should not be taught in school. The very fact that their Christians won't let then say that it's not ok to teach this. They're just a more civilized version of suicide bombers, totally blind and unreasonable all the same.
/.
Any parents out there: If your child ever mentions that the words intelligent design or creatonism were mentioned in school, sue the crap out of that school. Any lawyer will grab that one. That's the easiest case in the word in a legal sense. Here's your arguement: "What's the basis for creationism?" When the only answer is Bible, you win. End of story. Why this isn't being done, I don't know. My parents might sue the school district and they don't have kids in school anymore, they're Catholic and they're pissed that this is even a topic.
Whenever you hear one of these idiots preaching about Creationism, just tell them that they're awful Christians. Tell them that this is a monir issue compared to all of the people overseas that they let die every day from starvation and disease so they can live their lavish American lifestyle (by lavish I mean they can always FIND food). If they think you're being unreasonable, ask them why Jesus and the Apostles(sp) gave up everything to preach the word, why do they need a Land Rover. In fact any Christian that has any worldly possesions while people are starving in the world isn't a good Christian. They should be willing to give up everything to help others if they follow the Bible.
Fortunately I'm not a Christian, so this doesn't apply to me. Ha ha, that's what you get for following a 2000-year-old book but only as much as is convenient for your lifestyle. In your face.
Done venting. Thanks
the US wants to raise an entire generation of woefully ignorant people. Oh well, it just means more patents, technology and business for the likes of Japan and Europe.
Just something I wonder about whenever I see this topic. Seems like there should be random new (and simp0le) life forms (outside of a genetics lab of course) all the time if it's possible spontaneously.
It's a matter of faith and thus completely outside science.
So far, you're in total agreement with me. If it is a matter of faith, it belongs in our institutions of faith, not our institutions of learning.
And it doesn't contradict evolution in any way.
OK...so why is it being put forth as a 'competing theory'?
I'd comment on the rest of your post, but it's all just a mismash of inflammatory non-sequiturs anyway.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
The nutjobs preaching I.D., like Bush need to actually read their own bible.
Mathew 6
[5] And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. [6] But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
The editors ran a classic controversial topic to drive ad hits:evolution vs creation or designer "Karman Approved" ID tripe.
Isn't this the kind of thing Reader's Digest, People or Time magazine runs?
Slashdot is becoming the Studio 54 of the Internet.
For God, or Darwin's sake, mod the hell out of me as troll or off topic. It's a badge of pride. Don't trip on the way to the kool-aid cmdrtaco is ladling out.
That would be true, if you assume the two premises. However, not many scientists will. By all astronomical accounts, a "Big Bang" occured a long (but finite) time ago. At this event, a very (but finitely) dense volume (again, finite) began expanding rapidly.
Granted, astronomy can't and doesn't tell us about before this event, but it is doubtful that life as we know it (which is what "the odds" measure) could have come to be in that state of extreme density. So we are left with finite matter and finite time, and your logic fails.
to be fair, we should ask the proponents of ID to teach particle physics and celestial mechanics in the church?
The USA was did not evolve from the Constitution over time. It was created by God. Do you deny it? Just look at the evidence!
We have several major cities, all interconnected with roads, planes, data and voice lines. We have a defense system that is the best in the world. We have so many different types of stores with so many different types of products.
That type of complexity could not have randomly evolved from just a roomful of men scribbling on a piece of paper. It MUST have been put in place by a divine hand! And anyone who believes otherwise is in denial.
The problem with this is, astrophysicists insist that space and time are finite, NOT infinite.
The newly discovered strain of asian bird flu was actually created by God in the first few days of existence. It has been around since the beginning of time (sorry, it was actually the fifth day) and only now has it become a concern.
Also, like all biological threats, it was created so that God could test us.
The idea of Democratic Republics came from Rome and Greece before they were Christianized. These ideas were revived during the 17th/18th century Enlightment, first incorporated in the US government, then France and so on.
I have no problem with being taught multiple viewpoints. In fact I think creation theories from multiple religions should be brought up in addition to evolution-natural selection, if only to give the students a broader base of understanding.
just becuase something is scientifically unproven now doesn't mean science can't eventually prove something.
just my $.02
"It has nothing to do with belief. It's a fact. It's the truth! As a scientist, I know it's true because science is based on skepticism. We consider all possibilities equally and decide on facts based on what stands up to empirical evidence. Which is how I know that you gomers are absolutely and totally wrong."
First, nitpicks:
Belief in creationism and ID is not reserved to "conservative Christians". I assure you that liberal fundamentalist Christians are just as nutty on creationism and ID. And yes, there are liberal fundamentalist Christians.
Second:
"Equal time" for creationism in public schools, or anything that smacks of religion for that matter, has been held a violation of the Establishment Clause by the US Supreme Court in Edwards v. Aguillard. As the court said, it is irrelevant whether they dress it up as a "philosophy or science", it is religion and invalid. Creationists haven't won in the courts since the Skopes trial at the beginning of the 20th century, and the TN supreme court was so embarrassed they vacated the fine. ID will get quashed. There is a case pending in Pennsylvania, Kitzmiller et al v. Dover Area School District, that is putting ID to the judicial test.
sorry, but evolution itself is more a principle than a theory, even in scientific terms. why?
it just takes a single assumtion: there must be a thing that a) is able to copy itself and b) the copies aren't 100% copies.
THAT'S evolution. everything else, like selection, is just pure aftermath. if you doubt it, just imagine: there is a molecule with the described properties. it copies itself. the copy copies itself. there are resources needed for copying. no divine intervention needed, things that are not able to copy themselves, uhm, they don't copy themselves. that's why the proverb goes "survival of the fittest", and not "strongest".
and, also important, most people underestimate the pure power of TIME. if you think about the evolving of life on earth, you can't do it with your "everyday life point of view", like: uhm, this and that being is so specific, it's so unlikely it just "evolves". yeah, unlikely if you give it 1000 years to evolve. but we're speaking about 3.5 billion years. oh yeah, you can question that ("the age of the earth is 6000"), but if you do, answer me two questions: what is the difference between a planet and a star? and: why do our atomic power plants work? (*1)
(*1) the first question is a standard question, nothing to do with the topic.
beer as in "free beer"
The key problem is that logic is based on axioms -- things that are true without being proven. Without Peano's axioms, arithmetic would be impossible. You can't prove Peano's axioms. You just have to accept them as faith or come up with more fundamental axioms that are taken as faith.
The problem is, some things can be true but unproveable via Godel's theorem. The axiom of choice is a classic example. It's been proven that the axiom of choice can neither be proved nor disproved. Some mathematicians believe it is true, and use it as a basis for their proofs. Other mathematicians balk at the weird consequences of this axiom and disbelieve the axiom of choice. The axiom of choice is a matter of faith.
Getting back to the God/ID issue, it can never be proven or disproven, but for some people it's an axiom while for others it is not an axiom. Logic won't help you sort out the God/ID issue any more than it can help you sort out the free will issue or that there is a world outside independent of our 5 senses (i.e. solipsism or "The Matrix").
The only thing logic can help you do is say Darwinism is real from all our evidence. This doesn't say anything about the God/ID issue, since Darwinism is a what and the God/ID issue is a why.
As an agnostic, I personally don't mind a healthy debate on the God/ID issue, free will issue, or the solipsism issue. It's a good introduction into philosophy, and understanding that some issues are not completely clear-cut and that the practicalities of life force us to make decisions based on faith and we have to decide what to believe based on the consequences of those beliefs.
For example, suppose we believe solipsism is true and are wrong, then we're left at the mercy of the world and could die prematurely. Suppose we believe solipsism is false and are wrong, then we'll miss out on an adventurous dangerous and egotisitical life simply because we want to play it safe and value other people.
Most of us choose *not* be believe in solipsism, but that says says nothing about where solipsism is true. For all I know, I could be "typing" into a "forum" of "nothing". I don't much care. I've made my choice of faith and I'm sticking by it because I'd rather be wrong than sorry on this one issue.
Understanding how little we can truely know in life is extremely humbling. IMO, if more people were taugh this fact, there would be a lot less polarization and extremism in the world.
Sorry for picking nits, but scientific explanations cannot support such a weighty concept as "proof". That aside, yours is definitely one of the more intelligent Slashdot comments on Intelligent Design. Kudos to you for your clear understanding of the distinction between faith and science.
One compromise that I think would work for a lot of people is if we covered ID but not in a science class. Why not cover it in a philosophy class?
I always felt a philosophy course should be mandatory for high school students to really make them think about deep issues and ID could be a mandatory part of that course.
Creationists are happy because the students get to hear about ID and atheists, while still upset, no longer have the excuse that it's taking away time from real science in a classroom.
OK, I agree with a lot of what is being said, but let me pose this question: What are the odds of the evolution of life being a random event? DNA is obviously some kind of advanced program, so what is the possibility that it just happened in nature all on it's own?
Before everyone starts peeing their pants, my point is that there seems to be more than meets the eye. Evolution is the "HOW" creationism is the "WHY". The HOW is the easy part, evolution. Why does DNA/Evolution/etc... exist is the hard part.
I think the point that is trying to be made is that something larger than ourselves exists and the fact that DNA/evolution happened seems to give this theory proof. Maybe DNA is just the only way to colonize the universe so it's like a Johnny Appleseed thing where the universe was seeded with DNA by someone/thing whatever. Who knows. The point being, there probably is something larger than ourselves out there.
I find it interesting to see how "scientists" refuse to believe in UFO's because no one could have the tech to travel accross the universe if we don't but at the same time will search the skys for signals from alien beings. It's like "I believe this so it's the only thing I'll try to prove". In other words, some scientific people seem to believe only what they want to and search only for proof that matches with what they believe. How scientific is this?
For a free country we spend an awful lot of time trying to stop people from talking. Maybe if there was some discussion on this people could make up their own minds. Oh wait... we can't have that. This is slashdot - "Oh great Linux, we worship you and..."
that destroys logic, reason and rationale
it also replicates to survive using its host to transmit itself
Pope Benedict XVI (current pope) has also made some indirect statements on the matter since his election too.
But to really undertand the beginnings of the modern Catholic "handling" of the issue, from the "top down" as it were, it is important for Catholics and non-Catholics/Christians alike to read Pope Pius XII's encyclical, Humani Generis, promulgated on August 12, 1950.
It is really worth one's time to read the whole thing, but allow me to post the relevant quote that is still considered binding Catholic teaching on the matter:
IC XC NIKA
It is always the vocal and/or fanatical minority that gives religions or other causes a bad name. Look at the general view Islam (the view of the general population, not necessarily the readers of /.). A small number of bad people who do and/or say bad/stupid things and try to justify it with their particular cause usually generate more ill will than convince people that their viewpoint is correct.
What I find really facinating is that people who support ID never think about what it would mean to christianity.
Christianity is based one one point of faith and a simple moral code.
The point of faith: Jesus is the son of god and died so that we may live and that only faith through him will you know god. (John 14:6 and many others)
The simple moral code: Wouldn't it be great if everyone was nice to each other.
Now ID says that god HAS to exist because we can know about him by seeing evidence of him in the universe and in biology.
This simple thing DESTROYS christianity. Jesus is no longer needed and his sacrifice is minimized. If ID becomes dogma the christianity of Jesus will die along with evolution.
Christianity actual requiers a naturalistic method for the creation of the universe. Without the element of doubt faith would be meningless.
I believe in a creator but I don't think his name is Jesus. It would be nice, I think, if there were a politically correct way for religion/spirituality to be discussed in schools. I think its a big part of the world we live in, it would be nice to have a "spirituality" class where everyone could get up and present their view of god and the universe while the rest of the class practices tolerance and open-mindedness. It could be one of those classes you really like to go to, like P.E. where there is no right and wrong answers.
1) Insist on DRM so music, films and eventually ideas cannot be freely exchanged.
2) Start a war with no clue as to how to wrap it up.
3) Teach school kids pseudoscientific nonsense instead of real science.
Well, America, it's been a great 229 years. So sad to see this happen...
The oldest tree in the world is in California.
:) go ahead. I'd love to show you just how sketchy that 'science' gets going near / past the half life (5730 years).
It is 4200 years old.
That's an old tree, but if this world is billions of years old, why isn't there an older one?
The oldest and biggest reefs in the world are outside the coast of Australia. The Great Barrier Reefs. After a 30 year study, several groups of scientists all came to the conclusion that the reef had to be less than 4300 years old.
That's some pretty old reef. But once again, with a billion year old world, shouldn't that be WAAY older?
The are so many different simple things that we can find in nature that really put a kink in the entire evolution viewpoint.
By the way, according to the bible, the earth was created around 7000 years ago. The flood happened 4500 years ago. Ties in pretty well with what we see in nature now, no?
And before anyone mentions Carbon14 dating.. Actually
I'm both european and agnostic. These kinds of stories still scare the shit out of me.
The NSF does studies on public understanding of science. For instance, fifty-six percent of Americans and Canadians said that "Ordinary tomatoes do not contain genes, while genetically modified tomatoes do.". But hey, sixty percent of Europeans surveyed thought so too.
Oh, heck, just see this table for the realization that more than half of Americans do not know that a year is the time it takes the Earth to go once around the sun. They're about fifty-fifty on "early humans weren't around at the same time as dinosaurs".
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
You can't prove a negative. So you can't prove that an Intelligent Designer is "intrinsically impossible to ... prove."
Look, it was long-accepted in natural philosophy ("science," if you will) that if anything could be proved, God certainly could. The advance of science has now removed many of the "proofs" claimed for God's existence. That leads to those who want to preserve the concept of God retreating into claims about the "fundamentally unprovable" and "faith."
Let's be clear. For centuries it was held that God requires faith in just the same way science does: we should have faith in what can clearly be proved. Now that it turns out that the "proofs" of God are largely, perhaps entirely, bogus a special dispensation is attempted, removing the requirement of proof in the case of God. No natural philosopher -- up to and beyond Descartes (as doubting a man as ever lived) -- thought God was or should be in any way beyond proof and disproof.
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
Get to know these things and use them in any Evolution v. ID debate! http://www.skepticreport.com/creationism/thingscre ationistshate.htm
What is your penile percentile?
In science a "theory" is a comprehensive system of explanation. Its often derived from painstaking experiment and observation, but can be a thought-system too, such as in Relativity Theory or String Theory. ID is a theory in this sense too.
The fallacy of the anti-evolutionists assume scientists mean the common usage of "theory" which is a guess. (This is also the legal usage.) So when Darwin biologists say "Theory of Evolution" they mean a comphrensive system of explanation built upon 30 years of observation and labwork by Darwin and added to the subsequent 150 years.
In light of the ridiculously inaccurate and uninformed portrayals of ID in this discussion, it would be worthwhile step back and re-examine what ID espouses (or more accurately, what questions ID asks). Here's a good summary:
"Although Intelligent Design may have been born out of opposition to the theory of evolution, it does not oppose the concept of evolution as a mechanism for directed, intelligent creation, nor even for limited, apparently undirected natural change. Ostensibly its main purpose is to investigate whether or not there is empirical evidence that life on Earth was designed by an intelligent agent or agents."
From wikipedia.org -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design
It never ceases to amaze me how virulently intolerant most supposedly 'tolerant' left-wing nuts are.
Think of it as the chance is .0000000000001% * X, if X->inf, then we get, eventually, 1
It would help if, when discussing probability, you actually had a clue on how to do probability calculations. To get the probability of n independent trials getting 1 or more successes, you should employ a binomial distribution, not straight multiplication.
lim(n->\infty) P[ n >=1 ] = lim(n->\infty) 1 - P[ n = 0 ] = lim(n->\infty) 1 - n! / ( (n - 0)! * 0! ) * p^0 * (1-p)^n ~= 1 - 0 = 1
Integrate Keynote and LaTeX
So, get it dude. If you look at this rationally, it is clear that our kids would be taught two things.
One is a theory that has massive merit, and at least ALLOWS people to believe in, get this, something ELSE than the Judeo-Christian mythological figure which also has some merit of having existed (although I happen to believe he was teaching Buddhism, reincarnation, that sort of stuff), is being consequently sided with Creationism. Which, get this, teaches that God planted dinosaurs on the Earth in order to test mans' faith. I happen to believe my kids are semi-decent sentient beings. I would be extremely disappointed and in need of lecturing them on life to fear they would make the wrong choice here.
Have no fear. That's the point. That's what evolution teaches. And if you add a little Buddhism, a little Dharma, Kharma, and some other ingredients; some even brilliantly captured in the Bible, you can get it work any which way you want. The point is to have faith in your kids. We already know Bush is a twat.
The theory of evolution does not attempt to address the creation of life.
Evolution is a theory of how the diverse life forms arised over time.
Evolutionist really don't care about where life started.
Creationist try to twist the theory of evolution into an explanation fo rthe creation of life, which it is not, and does not pretend to be.
Maybe 3 million years from now we'll go to some other planet and evolve in a way we haven't evolved yet and we'll consider our present day species as proto-whatever-we-call-ourselves.
Yeah I know what you mean. In about 3 million years, when we're all Snozzmongers on the planet Boubosnort, we'll all look back on this and laugh.
Have you ever wondered How to Take Over
Out of curiousity, does a fetus fit your definition of human life?
That's some really twisted logic,
you must have medaled in pole-vaulting.
What are you smoking?
I appears that Creationism and Fundamentalism are on the rise.
A good resource for people who use reason and know that evolution is the only possibility should check out evowiki. It gives some pretty good counter arguments to use against creationists and other fundumentalist moro^H^H^H^H types.
Later, GJC
Gregory Casamento
## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
insightful++
ID is an attempt by a religious organization to counter the scientific method's encroachment on their domain.
With every scientific advance, their concept of "God" becomes less effective and more nebulous and this scares them.
I disagree.
IMHO science and religion do not compete because they do not answer the same question. Science answers the how and religion answers the why. Whatever progress science makes, it will never answer the question of purpose. Why are we here? Why does it work that way? A scientist will still have these questions. If he's agnostic, he 'll answer "it is the way it is, there's no purpose". If he's religious, he'll answer "God made it that way."
Only someone with an agenda opposes science and religion. Religious fundies and priest-bashers have this in common : they use religion or science to gain power. I have more respect for people who serve religion or science.
It would be nice to be sure of anything the way some people are of everything.
Pure evolution is like throwing several tons of scrap metal into a huge pit and after time, it comes out as a 747!!?? Evolution to me is what I term, "God's methodology" Bottom line, I'm not pushing any particular religion, even though I personally am a Christian, there is a God, and he is the designer.
Sorry, that's not part of the deal. Which is why all religions are inherently dangerous. If a person accepts something on faith, he has narrowed his view such that he becomes blind to reality, sometimes to painfully obvious things like the fossil record (I like Martin Gardner's tongue-in-cheek explanation of the fossil record: It was created on the 7th day, complete with clues to a non-existent far distant past, to test our faith).
The problem is, narrowed perspective notwithstanding, people keep doing pesky things like... oh, I don't know... voting. Electing Creationists to the School Board. Stuff like that.
So it's inescapable. "They" will never "leave you the frig alone." That's the whole frigging problem.
If god is controling evolution, do you really think we would be able to witness it?
Suppose we did witness it. How would you differentiate between it and a non god controlled process? Would such a process be strangely unexplainable by what we've learned about the universe thusfar?
There are lots of things that happen that we simply don't understand. Consider 'action at a distance'. The concept that object one can apply a force on object two without touching it.
Science is a study of how the universe works. Science won't tell us WHY the universe works. So to say that Evolution is not controled by some suprime being, isn't a conclusion we can form. Science will never be able to disprove religion.
I find it hard to have any sort of intelligent scientific or philiosphical debate when our news is being presented to us in such a skewed manner. Granted, the slashdot community is much more likely to be in support of evolution, but is it really necessary to intentionally choose news blurbs slamming the conservatives?
You all complain about bias in the media, and it's right here in front of us! If slashdot continues its tradition of left-wing reporting, it's going to be no better than Fox.
It would have been more appropriate to word the abstract along the lines of:
This abstract is at the very least, a good deal more neutral. The Washington Post article isn't quite as neutral as I'd like it to be, as it focuses mostly on quotes from those opposed to Evolution, but does take a stab at jounalistic integrity by pointing out that the President's views have been widely known since the time he was governor.
However, my biggest gripe is that if you RTFA, it SPECIFICALLY mentions the Catholic church's condemnation of evolution, even though the abstract would lead you to believe otherwise. (I might add here that Bush is NOT Catholic. In general, both parties have shyed away from the Catholic Church.)
DISCLAIMER: I consider myself a moderate. I am economically moderate/conservative, socially liberal, and strongly dislike Bush.
-- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
the parent said a roman catholic bishop recently condemed Darwinian evelution. In fact if you read the link he did not. What he condemed was Athiestic
evelution. " the beliefe that life arouse without help or intervention by god through purly natural forces ". Does it suprise anyone that the adheriances to any jedeo-christian branch of philosophy whould find athistic evelution unacceptable?
And yet, one stubborn fact remains: there is not a single instnace in the entire fossil record where one species can be traced through its entire transformation into one or more other species. That is a glaring lack of evidence that should prevent any honest scientist from claiming evolution has been "proven."
The theory of macro evolution has been reinforced, it has been supported, and it "has been..." many things with respect to the fossil record. But at this point, "proven" is a bridge too far.
Not all ID proponents are Bible-thumpers.
... The self-configuration of reality involves an intrinsic mode of causality, self-determinacy, which is logically
I don't accept all aspects of his theory, but it is interesting. The basic idea is that everything down to the smallest particles participates in the mind of God. It is explicitly an evolutionary theory while also being in the strict sense a theory of intelligent design. It is also pretty tough to understand.
From http://www.ctmu.org/
Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe (CTMU) - a theory of reality developed in the mid-1980's by Christopher Michael Langan. [Who has a 1 in 1,000,000+ IQ verified on multiple occasions, and was President of the most exclusive IQ club, the Mega Society. He spent 20+ years as a bar bouncer in Long Island and can just about bench-press his Harley.]
Reality Principle - The real universe contains all and only that which is real. The reality concept is analytically self-contained; if there were something outside reality that were real enough to affect or influence reality, it would be inside reality, and this contradiction invalidates any supposition of an external reality...
Syndiffeonesis - The expression and/or existence of any difference relation entails a common medium and syntax. Reality is a relation, and every relation is a syndiffeonic relation exhibiting syndiffeonesis or "difference-in-sameness". Therefore, reality is a syndiffeonic relation. Syndiffeonesis implies that any assertion to the effect that two things are different implies that they are reductively the same; if their difference is real, then they both reduce to a common reality and are to that extent similar.
Metaphysical Autology Principle (MAP) - All relations, mappings and functions relevant to reality in a generalized effective sense, whether descriptive, definitive, compositional, attributive, nomological or interpretative, are generated, defined and parameterized within reality itself. In other words, reality comprises a "closed descriptive manifold" from which no essential predicate is omitted, and which thus contains no critical gap that leaves any essential aspect of structure unexplained.
Mind Equals Reality Principle (M=R) asserts that mind and reality are ultimately inseparable to the extent that they share common rules of structure and processing..
Multiplex Unity Principle (MU) - The minimum and most general informational configuration of reality, defines the relationship holding between unity and multiplicity, the universe and its variegated contents. Through its structure, the universe and its contents are mutually inclusive, providing each other with a medium..
Telic Recursion - A fundamental process that tends to maximize a cosmic self-selection parameter, generalized utility, over a set of possible syntax-state relationships in light of the self-configurative freedom of the universe. An inherently "quantum" process that reflects the place of quantum theory in SCSPL, telic recursion is a "pre-informational" form of recursion involving a combination of hology, telic feedback and recursive selection acting on the informational potential of MU, a primal syndiffeonic form that is symmetric with respect to containment.
Teleologic Evolution (TE) is a process of alternating replication and selection through which the universe "creates itself" along with the life it contains. This process, called telic recursion, is neither random nor deterministic in the usual senses, but self-directed. Telic recursion occurs on global and local levels respectively associated with the evolution of nature and the evolution of life; the evolution of life thus mirrors that of the universe in which it occurs. TE improves on traditional approaches to teleology by extending the concept of nature in a way eliminating any need for "supernatural" intervention, and improves on neo-Darwinism by addressing the full extent of nature and its causal dynamics.
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
As evolution is not random, but directed by selection, why can't Intelligent Design be achived through evolution?
You make a good point.
When talking to many right wing Christians, this is often a good thing to point out. Many of them are under the impression that they are the oppressed, not the oppressor!
I usually ask them how they feel about school prayer. They are for it.
Then I ask them if they know that the Supreme Court has decided that every student in America has the constitutionally guaranteed right to pray in school. They usually site examples where school prayer has been stopped. I have to take a few minutes to explain that that is prayer led, initiated, or funded by the school bureaucracy, not spontaneous prayer by the students. The Supreme Court has supported every individual student's right to pray to their own God, but has rejected the right of government bureaucrats to force children to pray a certain way.
This usually gets a nod or just a blank stare.
This is when I ask a question "Who should teach children to pray, their parents and family, or bureaucrats?" The response is quick, parents and family.
I then ask "Should government bureaucrats come between parents and children when teaching religious beliefs?" They all answer, emphatically, NO!
Then I point out that the type of school prayer that the religious right is supporting would do just that. It would drive a wedge between parents and children, handing the religious and moral upbringing of our children over to government bureaucrats. (OK. I'm stretching a little here, but it would add bureaucrats into the mix along side the parents and family)
This usually causes hand wringing and confusion. I try to switch the conversation to Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society" and how the liberals of the 60's had good intentions, but their plans caused more harm than good. They didn't intend to create a barrier to advancement and a class of welfare dependent families. Their intention was to give the disadvantaged a "leg up" and help them work their way out of poverty. Their intentions were good, but "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions".
The religious conservatives today believe that they must turn to the socialist "Nanny -State" to enforce moral behavior in their fellow citizens. Their intentions are good, but they are still socialists using the power of the government to run the lives of the citizens. They are doomed to failure. If you want to look at some good examples of how the government handles the moral upbringing of children, there are many throughout history and in the modern world. I don't think any of them have ever produced anything resembling a 'good' moral belief system. I don't believe we would do any better.
I like to close with a paraphrase from the Bible: "Render unto Washington what is Washington's", keep religion out of government, and government out of religion.
Oh noes! You're right! (Well, not precisely, but close.) Why, who needs to point out that the political power in the United States firmly believes in a superhero from outer space when creationists get bitch-slapped on Slashdot? Why, I can practically hear the lion-torn screams of the poor, poor "superhero from outer space" clan as the evil Slashdotters tear them new orifices.
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
The fact that evolution took a "natural" course and ended up where it is is evidence that the universe itself was designed to facilitate life, which is why the search for E.T. life seems so pertinent to me. There may be intelligent life out there, and it may be remarkably similar to us, it may be based on DNA and the idea of intelligent design would make more sense. I think it's stupid for people to swear the idea off because you can't apply simple logic to it. The periodic table didn't just evolve on its own. Something must have created it, or its just some unexplainable thing that has always existed?
I wasn't raised Christian and my definition of Intelligent Design may not be the same as theirs, or yours. Once you bring the Bible into the picture and start saying the earth was created in 7 days, reason goes out the window (although I do think the Bible has historical significance, I would not build my life around it.)
Yes, you're right. I guess, to be consistent, he would champion the teaching of homosexuality in health and sex education classes, as an "alternative" to heterosexuality, just to make sure everyone can make their own decisions. Right? :-)
- Spryguy
There are three kinds of people in this world: those that can count and those that can't
I mean really. Whatever side of the fence you're on, do you really have the arrogance to think that your kids (because that's really what we're talking about there) will not one day (say perhaps around the age of 13) recognize the fact that to have science you have to have questions, and with creationism there are no questions. The answer is always: God works in mysterious ways. Your kids will. They did back when Darwin was a little boy raised to never question creationism. They do now. Why else do you think kids don't go to church anymore ? Duh.
In the article, Bush says "scientific critiques of any theory should be a normal part of the science curriculum."
Works for me. Evolution isn't perfect, and its flaws should be exposed simple for the purpose of inspiring some thought into the matter (simply following science blindly is just as bad as following religion blindly). Filling these gaps in with 'and this is where God comes in and fucks around for a bit' isn't the way it should be done.
We don't have any solid proof of gravity either. Maybe we should start explaining that with God too.
Doesn't the Babblefish idea go against Intellegent design?
Anything giving 'solid' proof that god exists, simply because it could have no evolved by chance, disproves god isntantly?
Tibbon
tibbon.com
So how about we just skip the posting on this article, and move on to the next?
Sure, as soon as you compare someone to Hitler.
Dubya and intelligent design?
That's not a controversy.
That's a contradiction!
Down with Dumbya, president of the stupid in the land of the fools!
Intelligent Design does not necessarily mean that we were created by a God or have anything to do with religion. It could also mean that we were created by intelligent alien beings. There is some "religion" that believes that this is the case, wouldn't it be fair to have them be mentioned in schools as well?
(I don't think intelligent design should be taught in school)
Ahh just when I thought my Creationism is not falsifiable, it cant be a science. Evolution 'as we understand it' is. One is not a substitute for the other. Please file this class under the subsection Philosophy(Theology). The USA has turned into a country where if someone like Bush calls Theology a science, it must be true. Thomas Friedman calls globalisation natural and good for citizens, then it must be true.
[i]I'm glad you're so righteously smug in your ethical beliefs regarding what can and can't be done with embryos, since that is almost certainly to what you're referring.[/i]
I thought he meant our nuclear weapons. You know, those things that can make the earth uninhabitable for man? Those things that you probably don't want a religious zealot to have?
Like when people who have seen an argument before list a bunch of the arguments they think will appear.... yeah, that's never been done before as a way to argue on /. .... lol.
I can probably find quite a few of these methods. I'n debate we often cite the oppositions arguments beforehand to take the steam out of them. You just do it with blanket precision.
There's nothing Intelligent about Intelligent Design.
That's the powerful discovery that religion constitutes: a way to get the vast majority of a population to behave morally most of the time.
Bullshit. It's a relatively recent innovation that we don't mostly die a violent death at each others' hands. Religion pre-dates modern civilization (centralization of authority, monopolization of force by government, and the industrial revolution), and while modern civilization has done really well at having us not all murdering each other all the damn time (wars included!), religion has, if anything, frequently exacerbated the murdering.
I don't act morally because someone threatened me with a superhero from outer space. I act morally because I live in a civilized society where everyone else is expected to act morally as well.
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Evolution and ID are two faulty theories with missing links and both have been proven false by many people. So i think it would just be fair to teach kids the only theorie which has not been refuted so far: The Universe was sneezed out of the nose of a being called the "Great Green Arkleseizure"!
I agree with Mr. Bush that all theories or even all strange opinions which remotly sound like a theory should be teached in school. Believing in the Great Green Arkleseizure Theory might sound foreign to you for now - but only by deliberatly analyzing it we will ever be prepared for "The Coming of the Great White Handkerchief"!.
Nooooo!!!!
Calculus is the work of the DEVIL! Only heathens would propose such a thing! You are going to BURN in HELL!!!!1!!one!eleventy-one!
Coding with assembly is like playing with Legos. Coding an application in assembly is like building a car with Legos.
You messed up one thing too. Evolution is a demonstrable fact, it happened, we can prove it happened via things such as genetic markers and the fossil record. It's not really a theory. The mechanisms of evolution, such as natural selection, are theories. It's like gravity. The fact there's gravity is a law of the universe; Einstein's relativity describing gravity is a theory. Don't confuse the effect with what caused the effect.
'Intelligent Design' is the observation of 'information systems' found in nature that cannot be explained as having their origin in currently known natural forces. ID can be falsified when these natural forces are identified and these information systems can be explained by strictly material processes. Evolutionists are working to solve that problem.
The premise of Intelligent Design doesn't 'disprove' evolution, it merely challenges evolution in a new way to see if it can satisfy the objections set forth in ID theory.
So far nobody knows for sure in a strict scientific sense whether evolutionists will be able to explain all of it and satisfy the ID objections. Everyone agrees that science does have its limitations, so even if science ultimately fails to come up with a perfectly natural explanation, it still doesn't mean evolution doesn't explain it somehow outside the capacity of scientific investigation. Only faith can say one way or another at this time. This last statement will cause people to close their minds and begin shooting profanities at me. I welcome intelligent comments instead, thank you.
The Annunaki.
If they are opening the gates for new theories, how about one where "The Leader" made everything? Or all this is really just a dream and we're all hooked up as batteries? They should be open to ALL ideas, not just the most popular two.
I am still confused about ID though. Is their entire arguement just that "life is too complex to have evolved on its own." Is that all there really is to it?
"A coward dies a thousand deaths, the brave but one."
- The Catholic church has no problems with
evolution theory. (John Paul II. also said
so).
- In a similar way that science has historically
suffered from patronization by religion, today
it is sometimes the other way around: Some
scientists tend to overreach and leave the
realms of science by making claims about the
(non-existing) design in universe that are
not scientifically supported. This is rejected
by the church.
- The church believes that science is fully
compatible with the Catholic faith, and
with reason.
I believe that Schönborn's purpose with his statement in the NY Times was not meant as a comment on what should be taught in science classes in U.S. schools. Indeed, in Austria the curriculums of all schools (AFAIK) teach evolution theory exclusively in all science classes, and I'm not aware of any opposition against that by any of the churches.In Austria, religion is a subject in school, paid by the government and taught by teachers of the respective religious group of the students. My personal teachers of religion have devoted a lot of time to the creation of the universe, but always fully compatible with evolution theory.
YMMV, especially in other countries :-)
I'd sorta wondered about where the Nod-people came from. If God created them too, shouldn't it have, y'know, mentioned it? What made Adam and Eve special? If the Nodians weren't descended from them, why were they not in the Garden? Did they have guilt-by-association by dint of being human? Did God create them impure? Did they get created in the Garden, see Adam and Eve get expelled for hubris, and decide that eating the forbidden apple was a really good plan?
Writing this feels like writing one of those plot syntheses that purports to make Star Wars I through III into a good movie. I feel like I'm making up for a shoddy screenwriter.
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Here's my gripe: people who distrust science, distrust scientists, and and regularly attack the principles of science still get to drive cars, use the internet, and microwave their hot pockets.
WHY?
I say that if you're going to oppose science that you ought to live like the Amish. We need to have a little test when you go to Best Buy: Do you believe in the scientific method? No? No toaster for you, moron!
And for goodness sakes, can we please stop giving them fertility treatments? The last thing these people need is to keep breeding.
Creationism, Intelligent Design, whatever. I am reminded of one of the annual International Molecular Biologist's conventions where the hot topic was a sequence of the Human Genome which appeared to have been "gene spliced". Huh? Somebody spliced human genes -- sometime back in what we consider to be ancient history, these top scientists were discussing a fact that several had stumbled across what could only be a gene splice in our DNA. Not evolutionary, this appears exactly like the results of what these people do to earn their living.
Do some googling on the Nephilum, Ananoki, Sumerian, read about the researchers who are still in the process of translating the old clay tablets, learn the difference between the "gods" titled with a little "g" and "God" - they portraied as different entities, little "g" gods were scienctists & engineers, not God. This stuff sort of blows away the fairy tales found in the Christian Bible, Tora & other religious documents.
He doesn't speak for me!! Please don't assume all american's are idiots because of how we voted, only 52% of us are!
Actually, it's easier to read that way, because the eye's natural width for skipping back to the beginning of the next line is sixty or sixty-five characters; that's why newspapers use columns of approximately that width. Yes, there's more scrolling down, but I do find it quicker to scan.
Ha. And people said it was futile to read the TeXbook...
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Then I want power drills placed next to aspirin in the drugstore. I've heard your fancy theories about constricting blood vessels in the brain and sinus pressure causing headaches, but I know for a fact that there are actually demons in my head that are causing the problems. And every right-thinking person knows that the only way to get rid of demons is to drill holes to let them out.
At the very least, people should know about both treatments so they can make an informed choice.
======
In X-Windows the client serves YOU!
You really don't know, do you? You just don't like what I'm saying. Too bad.
Frankly my dear, too many people have died to pretend 'beliefs' to be 'good'.
Stop saying the Wizard did it!
News Reporters Make Tasty Polar Bear Treats!
Arguably, a universe with infinite SPACE (a.k.a: nothingness) that had the distances between its component pieces of matter grow continuously could be seen as expanding. But that would not really be the universe expanding... just matter flying apart from other matter.
I don't think something can be infinite and expand. Unless you use either "infinite" or "expand" in incorrectly.
Akarsz Magyar Gentoo fórumot? Akkor
Frisbee'ism..... The religious belief that when you die, your soul goes up and gets stuck on the roof......
Julius Caesar - Act I, Scene i: "What mean'st thou by that? Mend me, thou saucy fellow!"
I think a substantial amount of americans believe in a fairly literal interpratation of the bible. So much so the far right christians have been used as a powerful political force by republicans. You go to the midwest heartland and southern states, you'll see. The Left Behind series about upcoming Rapture sells millions. I have a fair few family members who read those books and believe. They are also the ones who think the president shouldnt be questioned. Ones a school teacher too. I think they are hearing it from their preachers at sermons. Well actually I know they are. Tax exemption my arse.
Find a recent U.S. high school graduate who took an all-important civics class. Ask them, under our system of governance (a) where do our rights come from? (Answer: no, the government doesn't give them to us; we have them because we're people.) (b) what is the purpose of government? (Answer: to preserve and defend the rights of its citizens which, as mentioned above, they already have.)
You'll be lucky if they don't start talking about the "administrative branch". What do you think they'd get out of a philosophy class in high school? High school classes can barely teach kids to memorize things; how on earth would you propose to teach them this vague but alluring "critical thinking"?
And how does philosophy, if they manage to learn it, teach critical thinking?
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
.. like 500 years ago.
If I was a Polish or Italian astronomer, I'd start packin' some heat.
Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he'll say "WHERE'S MY FISH, YOU IDIOT?"
It's pretty interesting that evolution seems to be plugging along yet nobody wants to acknowledge that the 'theory' has been proven many times over.
For example, PBS recently had a program whose name escapes me in which they traced back to the plague years and found out the delta 32 variation in genes would protect people from both the plague and HIV. The reason was because both attacked immune cells first.
So a genetic mutation proved beneficial 600 or so years ago and is proving beneficial today. It's probably likely that if you have European ancestry on both sides of your family you have at a minimum one copy of delta 32. Of course only one means the onset of disease is delayed while two copies mean full immunity.
The has been in play for eons. Sickle Cell anemia has its roots in protecting bearers of the gene from malaria of all things.
But Christian Fundamentalists don't want to acknowledge anything that doesn't point to their false beliefs in a supreme being. So they will try to challenge evolution at every opportunity, even pushing forth fake science to do so.
We're in a world where truth is relative. It is up to the individual to discern whethere it is truth for the sake of truth, or truth to serve an agenda.
Argue, flame, and goof on Creationists all you want, no one knows if a higher being (i.e. God) didn't setup the dominos that made evolution possible, if it did occur. If someone has a math formula to prove He didn't, I'm all ears.
Tired of being "punished" by the Slashdot $rtbl since 2002. I'm now over at http://soylentnews.org/ .
If ID was actually true, the wizard would not have designed these morons. Case proven, have a nice day.
Spack
PS: He would not have designed mormons either, but that is an argument for a different thread.
1. The conservatives that refuse to accept that we evolved from apes.
2. Everyone else who can clearly see all the evidence that evolution is far more than a simple theory. (aside: "If we evolved from apes, why are there still apes?" "For the same reason that there are 100 million different kinds of insects. Just because one mutation is successful doesn't mean that the original will die off.")
The idea behind ID is that there must have been intelligent intervention because the current system is too complicated to be explained any other way.
Why?
That's like saying that there must be intelligence involved when a hurricane forms. Anyone who throws out the catastrophic number of variables that determine how a storm forms could probably come to that conclusion.
The simple fact is so obvious. Time only move forward. And as it does so, all things within time become more chaotic. And as they become more chaotic, they will work off each other, and change as everything changes around them. In other words, everything evolves..
When it comes time to explain all of this to my children, I will explain that, yes, there is a debate about it. But, the people making the opposing argument are ignorant, closed minded, and foolish.
My site
My films
Perhaps you should have listened to Dobson's radio program yesterday (August 3rd). He not only disrespected Senator Frist (saying he "stabbed him in the back", among other things), but he also supplied disinformation about stem cell research and possibly outright lied.
For instance, he claimed that adult stem cells are all researchers would ever need for cures for diseases. This is blatantly false. Adult stem cells are not nearly as effective or usable as embryonic stem cells. Adult stem cells are basically stuck in their current form (bone, blood, muscle, etc). It is also hard to get adult stem cells to reproduce quickly enough to cure anything. Embryonic stem cells can be coaxed chemically into any kind of cell that is needed. It would be very hard to come up with economically and physiologically sound treatments/cures using only adult stem cells.
My wife works on cancer research at Johns Hopkins University, and she was up in arms listening to this broadcast. She probably spent about 10 minutes yelling at the radio. Maybe next time you should do some of your own research before blindly standing up for someone or before trying to discredit my post without any facts.
--------
This isn't the sig you're looking for. Move along.
If Bush thinks it's true, it must be!
God can't hear your thoughts if you wear a tinfoil hat though.
OR A Christian's Understanding of Why We Argue This Topic This discussion centers around something that is inherently NOT scientific--and this point applies to both those who hold to evolution and to creation. The problem is one of presuppositions. You see, if you happen to believe that the God of the Bible does not exist, you will easily find explanations and interpretations of the facts for how we got to where we are, without God. If you believe he does exist, while facts remain the same, you will interpret and apply those facts in a different way. Consider the widow to whom Elijah visited in 1 Kings 17. For those not familiar with the story, this was at a time when there was a drought in Israel and food was sparse. God promised a miracle in that the widow's jar of oil would not run out until the famine was over--with this, food would be provided for her, her family, and Elijah. Now, if we had some of this oil preserved, there would simply be no scientific way to prove it had been created miraculously--then again, there would be no scientific proof that it had. If God exists, obviously he can do such a thing. Nevertheless, merely SCIENTIFICALLY examining the remains cannot answer the question of how it got there. Honestly, there is no PROOF of evolution--in fact, there cannot be (perhaps it needs to clearly be stated that there are atheists who are scientists who themselves are not convinced of evolution). It is merely one interpretation of the facts--a sort of filling in the gaps to comprise one single, simple interpretation. In this, I do not blame evolutionists. I would likewise want an explanation for my origins and purpose in life (to survive?). The same can be said of a Christian's interpreting the facts in a way that allows for a 6-day creation. As a Christian explains and orders the facts, someone who doesn't believe God exists will simply not accept that interpretation. To be honest, both arguments are circular. God doesn't exist, therefore, God didn't create. OR The God of the Bible does exist so I will take him at his word. So how is this God's fault? Simply, it's God who gives this understanding by his Holy Spirit (or at least, this is the Christian's understanding of this matter). Since God is the one who shows to the Christian that he exists and that the Bible is his word, and since there is no higher authority than him, a Christian believes him. Now, you are free to disagree. In fact, I don't believe creation or intelligent design should be taught in the public schools (you may find it strange for me to say this). Let it be taken out--same with the Ten Commandments in court houses. Why? Because I recognize that America is not a Christian nation--not because I think Creation is wrong or the Ten Commandments aren't God's law. Christians sometimes fight the wrong battles, too. So, I being a Christian, am convinced of a 6-day creation. I'm glad he's shown me the truth of that--of my own sin, and my need of a Savior. That's what my children will be taught too. You can teach your children to "survive." You may call me foolish or ignorant, but I rest my case in the One whom I believe created all things.
ID is not a religion in and of itself. It is an artifact of a religious agenda-- the teaching of creationism as science.
Intelligent Design has a religious base, rather than a scientific base. Its religious nature is evident in the name itself: the presupposition of an intelligence to explain the nature of the universe. This is almost the *definition* of religion. (Not *a* religion, but religion.)
So, you are right: ID is not a religion. It is merely based on religious beliefs, and therefore has no place in scientific study.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
Oh man, that's frickin' great.
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
"Christian" religious extremists have killed many times more people than "Islamic" religious extremists.
How about some context with your overly broad statement? If you would like to add "Since both religions existed," your statement is true. However, if you take something more relevant to the discussion, perhaps "in the last 20 years," your statement is false.
What?
It seems to me that evolutionists are accusing creations of the very thing they are doing themselves. For one, creation of the universe by any means (a creator or randomness) can not be observed as it has happened in the past. Science in its true definition requires observation. You might say evolution is observable, well, that's not true. What we see today is nature adapting to its environment. Very different from the circumstances the evolutionist's beliefs.
I suggest that both Intelligent Design and Evolution are faith based theories and neither one should be taught as a fact or close to it. Just teach what we do know, present the facts, and leave the conclusion to philosophy and theology.
It is potentially provable. Imagine, for example, we live in an universe similar to that of Brin's Uplift Series. If aliens have been tampering with the course of evolution on Earth and directing it towards producing sapience, any without revealing so to the prospective client species (IE, humanity), then that would be a form of Intelligent design. Furthermore, if such aliens revealed themselves, along with details of how they've been tampering with evolution over the last couple hundred million years, then intelligent design could be proven by current scientific standards.
The fatal flaw is not that ID is unprovable, but that it is unfalsifiable . In the above situation, a proponent might always say "ah, but the aliens have not revealed themselves yet; they're more clever than we are, and still hiding until we are ready." This makes intelligent design a question of religion, faith, or perhaps philosophy, but is not Science.
In other words, the "Theory" of Intelligent design is not only not right, it's not even wrong.
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
Pretty simple, but wrong. There's no guarantee that any specific event would happen, even in an infinite universe. Proof: Imagine an infinitely long string (Q) of random digits. ...12717284729072339981467821128764219872649876234 67...
It turns out that by chance, the digit "5" has never happened in this string, even though the string is infinite in extent. And it doesn't have to happen, either. In fact, I'd turn your argument around on you and say that if we accept that an infinite universe means that there an object with infinitesimal odds must come into existence, then we have to accept that string Q must exist. But within string Q itself is a demonstration that there an object with infinitesimal odds (any substring containing "5") does not have to come into existence. There's a contradiction, and the resolution is that there is no such rule that all possible things must happen in an infinite universe.
OK, that was far from rigorous. Nevertheless, I believe the point holds.
There are two kinds of people: 1) those who start arrays with one and 1) those who start them with zero.
Understand this and all is at it should.
There is a great spirituality that comes from seeing deeply thrugh time the outstretched branches of the Tree of Life. Evolution is but our accumalated knowlege of process by which It grows.
It is not that each individual's life is a miracle per itself. What worth is there without the All around and within? Rather, it is the Totality of All that is wonderous and parts His/Her/Its miracle on us.
Creation is Eternal. Life is everlasting. And we are It's fruit. Stop being ashamed and enjoy the season while it lasts.
:T:R:A:N:S:
Please! Won't somebody think of the Symbiogenesists too?
We need to include them too!
Where evolution really differs form ID is the amount of evidence that supports the theory. The theory of evolution has been played around with for well over a century. Not so, ID. To my knowledge there has been no discussion in peer reviewed journals of constructs in the natural world that would meet ID's criteria for being considered irreducibly complex. Until such articles begin to appear and withstand criticism over many years, I'm not real fond of the idea of ID being taught in schools.
But to say that ID is unscientific in principle is balderdash. A good deal of ID proponents might be unscientific in their principles, but to brush ID itself with the same level of credibility of some of its proponents is fallacious reasoning. In the world of science, ideas ought to stand or fall on their own merits, not the credibility of some of the proponents of those ideas.
1 Kings 7:23.
Of course, you can wrangle a way to make it make sense if you look hard enough. Or even come up with a plausible way for it to be a rounding error. Or, y'know, a guess. There's plenty else to mock in the Bible.
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
that the distinction you draw is a matter of opinion. Have a glance at Alain Badiou's work and get back to me. Opinion is a much more general notion that you credit. Anything that is not a raw tautology enters into the realm of opinion and differential evaluation; becomes more or less subject to the vagaries of intersubjective judgement.
illegitimii non ingravare
Was it really sent to destroy your home because your behaviour was offensive to God and you failed to make the appropriate appeasements?
Or was it a natural event that could be observed as happening in that same location over many years and if you want a home there that will survive the storms that hit there it will have to be built to these specs to withstand these conditions?
Or would God have sent an even stronger storm if you built like that? Or are people with strong homes more appealing to God?
Really, what does God have against trailer parks?
I've been searching through this story for a reply that actually addresses the claims that ID makes and have yet to find one. I just keep hearing "it's creationism." Which is clearly false. It is incompatible with a literal reading of Genesis, so people need to dismiss that charge. It reminds me of reading the Lost World by Michael Crichton when he said that evolution occuring unguided would be equivalent to a twister tearing through a junkyard and assembling a working 747 and immediately and baselessly dismissed a designer as an alternative. People are simply scared of the implications. This isn't really important to me either way. My faith wouldn't be harmed in the least if ID was false. I had it, after all, before anyone expounded ID. My point is that if you're going to debate something you would do well to at least show you understand the concept. Further statements of "well there really is no debate" are not going to convince anyone who thinks there may be.
While we're asking this sort of question, where'd your intelligent designer come from?
Intelligent Design avoids explicitly citing God or the Bible, since the jig would be up if it did. Thus, the same class of "hole" in non-Creationist biology and cosmology that ID proponents love to harp on is in fact present in the ID view of the world as well. It's just that in the case of ID, the audience is depended upon to fill in the God of the Bible (big guy who likes to play with clay, all three of him) as the supposedly inevitable Intelligent Designer.
Absent Genesis as a reference, we might as well say that single-celled (or pre-single-celled) life came first and thus might well have been the Creator's favourite child.
This comment, a sibling of your own, expresses the idea more succinctly.
Mind the Gap
There were originally more 'gospels' written than the ones in the bible, some if not all which portrayed him as merely a prophet. The man responsible (cant remember his name) in choosing the gospels which went into the bible was a 'son of god' believer and was eventually made a saint by the catholics.
I've always wondered, when Dr. Frankenstein created his monster, and brought it to life, was that evolution or intelligent design?
My problem with intelligent design is that is basically comes down to the argument that life is complicated, so it could not have been developed though evolution. But who are we to say what's complicated? A hundred years ago, a simple electronic calculator would have been considered impossibly complicated. There's no way in the world mere humans could have developed something so incredibly complicated. It must be evidence of God (or maybe the devil). Now, it's like, a calculator, so what, they're taken for granted.
So the perception of something being complicated depends on the knowledge and intellignce of the perceiver. Now consider where humans are at present on the scale of total knowledge and intelligence. On a scale of 0 to 10, where 0 is a rock and 10 is infinite wisdom, humans are probably now at about 0.001.
So when we perceive something as being complicated, it really doesn't mean much. It says a lot more about the state of mankinds knowledge than it does about the actual level of complication of the object being considered.
If we limit ourselves to theories based on facts, then creationism falls out very quickly as it has no facts in support of it. Its faith-based. You either believe in it, or not. You can't produce an ounce of proven fact that demonstrates anything that was created by a hidden deity.
You can however show how all animals have evolved, and you can demonstrate evolution both in the lab and statistically again and again. You can even show evolution within humans.
Religion has no place outside your own family. Please, if you have strong faith, share it only with those who want and ask you to hear about it lest you want worshippers of other deities knocking on your door and ask you and your children to learn about their god Gozer. Just wait till they get some of the precepts of Gozer written into the curriculum at your school and pronounce it to be an "idea" so its worth teaching.
Keep the separation of church and state solid. This country does not recognize a national religion, regardless of whether its president does. That is not going to change.
The irony of the whole matter is that CHRISTIANITY ITSELF has evolved.
First there were the original teachings of Christ.
Then there were the interpretations from the Apostles as those teachings were made to fit around certain circumstances.
Then there have been 17 (?) revisions to the Bible, with some books being removed or heavily edited (what does the word "version" in the term King James Version mean to the fundies who look to that tome as the undisputable Word of God?).
Christianity itself is an evolution of Judaism, where this malcontent fellow named Jesus from a scrub-town called Nazareth told the Pharisees they were full of shit and gave God back to individual people (for which he was promptly eliminated, creating the grandest political backfire in Human history).
The irony of this whole issue is palpable and delicious to those of us who enjoy proper humor noir.
I have something in common with Stephen Hawking...
I think the subtext is much more important here. Bush isn't just talking about ID, he is talking about establishing the creationist view of science as the one to be used in schools. The view that scientific theories are just matters of opinion, that science is based on tolerance and being open to different points of view. That being equal and pandering to wackos should take precedence over being right. If you are going to reward the ID people like that, how long will it be until answers to science exams are graded by their creativity? What you are doing is deprecating the skeptical rationalism which is central to science, and this will be bad indeed.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
1. We are supposed to live in a free country where we enjoy the opportunity of believing whatever we want about the origins of earth (or anything for that matter).
2. The real issue here stems from the lack of freedom in being able to choose what types of information and theories are taught to children in public schools. Diffrent people have different opinions so why bother getting into a flame match on slashdot.
3. IF we had an educational system in place that allowed you to choose between public and private alternatives anyone who wishes to send their child to school A with belief B would be allowed to. This would give us real power vs simplying complaining about the issues we don't like and looking for government to "fix it." Instead we are forced to squeeze everyone's beliefs into one public system (see also: box). This is illogical, school choice would fix this problem.
4. I will step off my soapbox now, but if you wish to read the cold hard facts about school choice you might want to go to the Cato Institute's website. Follow this link for starters http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3990
The problem with ID isn't the idea itself, it is the track record of those who are promoting it.
The idea that evolution alone cannot account for the development of life on earth is not that crazy of an idea. The problem is that those who are espousing it would really much rather be promoting biblical creationism and attacking darwinian evolution.
The very existence of ID as something these guys are pushing to be taught is proof positive that they're losing the debate. They have to go with creationism-lite because they can't sell the full strength version to anyone who isn't drinking the same kool-aid that they are.
One of the real problems that this whole debate reveals is that utter ignorance that most people have about science. I'm not talking about your creationists either. I'm talking about atheists who try to use science to back up their own religious beliefs. Science is not an athiest philosophy or discipline. The most that science can say about the existance of God is that his/her/it's existance has not yet been disproven. Naturally there are various mythologies whose tenets can be disproven, but that is not the same thing as proving that there is no God.
At the end of the day, this entire debate is largely between athiests who think they have science on their side, and christian true believers who think they have the truth on their side.
Evolution is one of the cornerstones of modern biology. There is a mountain of evidence that supports it, and not a single speck of evidence that refutes it. But that does not mean it is the whole story. There are some questions about the development of life on earth that it has trouble providing adequate answers for. It is not unreasonable to suspect that some intelligence was involved and that it nudged things in one direction or another from time to time. This is not the ONLY idea that is worthy of consideration, but it is definitely one such idea. When the athiests attack this notion, they're no better than the bible thumpers who attack evolution.
If this whole debate were between intellectually honest individuals without ulterior motives, then there wouldn't be anything to talk about. There wouldn't be any slashdot articles about it. In fact it wouldn't even be newsworthy in any way.
But because the people involved on both sides are extremists with pet theories that they will not let go of and prejudices they'd like to see promoted, any approaching meaningful discourse goes right out the window. Instead we have two groups assembled who spend their time making rude intimidating noises at one another and throwing rocks.
This dispute, just like so many others, is little more than an arena where the loony left and the religious right duke it out. A lot of the emotions involved are due to issues outside of this debate but which nevertheless drive its intensity. When you see people getting emotional about this debate, you can rest assured that some other unspoken issue is the reason why. In fact, this entire debate is really just a proxy for theism vs athiesm. The arguments about creationism/ID vs evolution are really just a proxy for the debate about whether there is a God or not.
I personally have no patience with people who are full of shit, regardless of which brand and flavor that shit happens to be. Devout athiests are full of shit and so are the bible thumpers. Comparing them is not an exercise in separating the truth from non-truth. Rather it is a process of separating one non-truth from another non-truth that is equally untrue. What few kernels of truth there are left remaining can be accounted for by the broken clock rule, which states that even a broken clock is right twice a day.
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
Eh, I have some issues with Star Trek's new-ageism and incoherent dualism. Bless you and your rant, Justin B Rye...
Still, that Patrick Stewart sure can deliver a line, can't he.
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
i too hope this is satire - aside from the blind faith in intelligent design, I find this part particularly offensive:
"the President says that biology textbooks are horribly out of date, based on the 19th century writings of a man who wasn't even an American citizen."
So just because I'm not an American citizen, it makes my word worthless, does it? Even if its based on easily prooven science?
Grr
Comment removed based on user account deletion
a god's existence is based on 'faith'. i have 'faith' there is no god.
therefore if i am wrong there is no god because 'faith' does not a god make them.
else i am right because i'm faithful there is no god.
either way i am correct. there is no god.
if you can't reason with people with standard logic, sinking to their level of backwards logic always works.
IMAGE VERIFICATION IS EVIL!
Who says that an advanced race of aliens could not have seeded earth with DNA billions of years ago?
A race that would be as advanced compared to ourselves as we are to an amoeba?
This scenario is just as plausible as a supreme being creating the earth in seven days, seems to me. This might even be proven scientifically, one day. The creationists ought to think these things through a little more thoroughly.
ah, so the wise argument is to treat all subjects like they are balanced controversies?
Then how about adding to this new ID/Science teaching:
1. the earth is flat to all geography classes
2. there's no record of jesus actually existing to all bible classes
3. that the sun rotates around the earth to all astronomy classes
4. that mental illness is caused by bad humors in the brain that can be solved by releasing them through holes in the skull
etc
That evoluation occurrs is a demonstrable fact, but that things which exist now (such as you, me, and that tree outside) are a result of an evolutionary process is a theory.
I am the submitter.
If the discussion should not take place on Slashdot, where should it take place?
-- Brian Berns
The most rabid believers in American Exceptionalism are the exact same people whose policies are destroying it.
I came late to this party but...
As Jon Stewart said in regards to vitriolic political debate, "please stop hurting each other."
Here's my belief. Take it or leave it.
There is a God. Or at least, something that was there "first". Call it "God". God made the universe, including its physical laws, and God created the first spark of life, maybe even the first cell (until we can create life in a lab, and I'm not ruling it out... I'm going to attribute it to God.). God did NOT create everything at once in static fashion, but the physical laws allow life to flourish on the surfaces of certain planets... by evolution, and the force of life itself, which strives towards... something mysterious.
A cursory survey of medicine would demonstrate that we are probably not simply biological machines. There is a life force of some sort. A spark. (Soul?) A romantic notion perhaps, but you know it, you can see it in some peoples' eyes, even though you can't explain it. It's in that person who wasn't supposed to recover, but did. It's in the person who made that moving creation. It is probably a key element of what we call love. It's subtle, but it's everywhere, and life depends on it to continue to bother existing, caring, healing, growing, learning.
The truth is that life is far from mere mechanism, and if I had any claim against evolutionary thought (which I happen to love, having taken quite a few classes touching on it), it's that it seems to want to reduce life to mechanism, free of spirit or spark or... life. Creature has so-so eyes, another creature has good eyes, so-so-eyed creature doesn't see predator, good-eyed creature gets to make babies with possibly better eyes (via random change). Mechanism.
And this is what I think the creationists are really offended by. That and the insinuation that evolutionary thought is the be-all end-all.
The scientific method, and evolution, are great, but when you have a hammer, it doesn't mean everything else is a nail. Unless you can theoretically disprove something AND it is repeatable, you can't prove it with the SM. So if a random unexpected and possibly unexplainable event happens that you can't reproduce (and they do happen in this world) such as, an alien happens to take your sister before your very eyes, never to be seen again- you can't prove your story, and you will probably get tossed in jail, even though you are right. So it's no panacea, it is a tool like any other.
Meanwhile, I wish each and every creationist thinker would thoroughly read talkorigins.org... if only to be armed with the facts, first.
I believe that there are things in the world that we can as of yet not perceive, history serves as running commentary on our continuous voyage of real discovery, and we should not naively assume that mystery is becoming extinct in any era.
And no, I don't personally think that's true...just pointing out a different perspective. Imagine how "intelligent" our President looks if we interpret it this way: "Pres. Bush advocates teaching of alien visitation in public school science curricula."
Let's see how much science would be taught in science class if there was equal time for all creationists stories: the Aaragon, Abenaki, Acoma, Ainu, Aleut, Amunge, Angevin, Anishinabek, Anvik-Shageluk, Apache, Arapaho, Ararapivka, Arikara, Armenian, Arrernte, Ashkenazim, Assiniboine, Athabascan, Athena, Aztec, Babylonian, Balinese, Bannock, Bantu, Basque, Blackfoot, Blood, Bosnian, Breton, Brul, Bundjalung, Burns Paiute, Caddo, Cahuilla, Catalan, Cayuga, Cayuse, Celt, Chehalis, Chelan, Cherokee, Chewella, Cheyenne, Chickasaw, Chinook, Chippewa, Chirachaua, Choctaw, Chukchi, Coeur d'Alene, Columbia River, Colville, Comanche, Congolese, Concow, Coquille, Cow Creek, Cowlitz, Cree, Creek, Croat, Crow, Crow Creek, Cumbres, Curonian, Cushiate, Cut Head, Da'an, Devon, Dihai-Kutchin, Diyari, Dogon, Duwamish, Egyptian, Elwha, Eritrean, Eskimo, Esrolvuli, Eta, Even, Evenk, Flathead, Fijian, Fox, Fuegan, Gaul, Gooniyandi, Gond, Govi Basin Mongolian, Grand Ronde, Gros Ventre, Haida, Han, Haranding, Havasupai, Hendriki, Heortling, Hidatsa, Hindi, Hmong, HoChunk, Hoh, Hoopa, Hopi, Hunkpapa, Hutu, Ik-kil-lin, Inca, Innu, Intsi Dindjich, Inuit, Iroquois, Isleta, Itchali, Itelemen, It-ka-lya-ruin, Itkpe'lit, Itku'dlin, Jicarilla Apache, Jotvingian, Kaiyuhkhotana, Kalapuya, Kalispel, Kamchandal, Kansa, Karuk, Katshikotin, Kaurna, Kaw, Kazahk, Ketschetnaer, Khanti, Khoi-San, Khymer, Kickapoo, Kiowa, Kirghiz, Kitchin-Kutchin, Klamath, Knaiakhotana, K'nyaw, Koch-Rajbongshi, Kolshina, Kono, Kootenai, Koyukukhotana, !Kung, Kurd, La Jolla, Lac Courte D'Oreille, Lac Du Flambeau, Laguna, Lake, Lakota, Lao, Latgalian, Leech Lake Chippewa, Lemmi, Lower Brul, Lower Yanktonai, Lowland Lummi, Lummi, Malawi, Makah, Mandan, Maori, Maricopan, Martinez, Mayan, Mazatec, Mednofski, Menominee, Meryam Mir, Mesa Grande, Mescalero Apache, Metlakatla, Miniconjou, Mission, Moallalla, Modoc, Mohawk, Mojave, Morongo, Muckleshoot, Murrinh-Patha, Nadruvian, Nagorno-Karabakh, Na-Kotchpo-tschig-Kouttchin, Nambe, Namib, Natche'-Kutehin, Navajo, Nes Pelem, Neyetse-kutchi, Nez Perce, Ngiyampaa, Nisqualli, Nnatsit-Kutchin, Nomelackie, Nooksack, Norman, Norse, Northern Cheyenne, Nyungar, Oglala, Ogorvalte, Ojibway, Okanagon, Okinawan, Olmec, Omaha, Oneida, Onondaga, Ordovices, Orlanthi, Osage, Osetto, O-til'-tin, Otoe, Paakantyi, Paiute, Pala Mission, Papago, Pawnee, Pazyryk, Pechango, Penan, Piegan, Pima, Pitt River, Ponca, Potowatomie, Prussian, Pueblo, Puyallup, Qiang, Quileute, Quinault, Red Cliff Chippewa, Red Lake Chippewa, Redwood, Rincon, Sac, Saisiyat, Sakuddeis, Salish, Salt River, Samish, Samoan, Samogitian, San Carlos Apache, San Idlefonso, San Juan, San Poil, Santa Clara, Sartar, Sauk-Suiattle, Selonian, Semigolian, Seminole, Senecan, Sephardim, Serano, Serb, Shasta, Shawnee, Shiite, Shinnecock, Shoalwater Bay, Shoshone, Sikh, Siletz, Silures, Sinhalese, Sioux, Siskiyou, Sisseton, Siuslaw, Skalvian, S'Klallam, Skokomish, Skyomish, Slovene, Snohomish, Snoqualmie, Soboba, Southern Cheyenne, Spokane, Squaxin Island, Steilacoom, Stillaquamish, Stockbridge, Sunni, Suquamish, Swinomish, Tadjik, Takhayuna, Tala, Talastari, Tamil, Tanaina, Taos, Tarim, Tasman, Tatar, Tesuque, Tlingit, Toltec, Tpe-ttckie-dhidie-Kouttchin, Tranjik-Kutchin, Truk, Tukkutih-Kutchin, Tulalip, Tungus, Turtle Mountain, Tuscarora, Turk, Turkmen, Tutsi, Ugalakmiut, Uintah, Umatilla, Umpqua, Uncompagre, U-nung'un, Upper Skagit, Ute, Uzbek, Vietnamese, Viking, Vunta-Kutchin, Wahpeton, Walla Walla, Wasco, Wembawemba, White Mountain Apache, Wichita, Wik-ungkan, Winnebago, Wiradjuri, Wylackie, Xhosa, Yahi, Yakama, Yakima, Yakut, Yanamamo, Yankton Sioux, Yellowknife, Yindjibarnd, Youkon Louchioux, Yukaghir, Yukonikhotana, Yullit, Yuma, Zjen-ta-Kouttchin, and Zulu.
"Me claiming Satan exist is just as valid as you claiming an atom exists" - 1inChrist
This is not "Science" it's relegion. Calling it "Science" is a farce.
Make even shorter URLs - 8LN.org
Careful---there's a difference between "if we are here by an unlikely process, there must have been some force at work to place us here!" and "if we weren't here by this unlikely process, we'd hardly be able to mope about it, now would we?".
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Then again a self repsecting Christian stays out of politics, teaches their children about theology themselves, and realizes that privacy is important in spiritual matters.
Right on! Power corrupts, and many evangelical groups either have forgotten this or do not even care. Being a Christian on Earth is about doing good for your fellow man, NOT forcing your beliefs on them. Those are two wholly separate things, and are in direct opposition to each other.
I nearly cried.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Look, I'm an atheist and don't believe in Intelligent Design, but dismissing it as something that's only believed in by "conservative Christians" is a subtle attempt to imply that no scientists believe in God, and that's simply not true.
It's practically a two-word summation of Einstein's religious beliefs, and a lot of living scientists have beliefs that are in line with the basic idea of Intelligent Design, which is simply:
Evolution is how things work in the universe, because God made it that way.
I don't subscribe to that position, but it's hardly a radical one.
The foundation of the scientific method is to investigate Nature on the assumption that all natural processes can be explained through naturalistic means.
Examining nature assuming theistic means is for theologians. It is not science.
ID claims that "someone" did it (God, ancient aliens, the Q Continuum) but it simply asserts this without evidence. Then it argues that ID is somehow a "special" case in science. It's not. Climate scientists do not have to change the way they do science to deal with changes in atmosphere that may be the result of human activity.
The basic assumption of science is that for any question, you can find an explanation in the natural world. It could be that the natural world can't explain everything, but that would not trouble scientists--Nature is their domain, and nothing else. ID assumes from the outset that you cannot find explanations in natural causes alone. It is therefore not science.
1.) Many Christians are not moral at all. This is because they act according to doctrine just so that they can avoid punishment. This punishment can either come from their community, institutions, and what they believe to be supernatural forces. Morality is not a bartering system where one can obtain favors for actions. Since many Christians believe the contrary, they are immoral.
2.) Christians are against Capitalism at its core. Capitalism is superior to systems such as Merchantilism, Fascism, and Communism because it assumes certain forces that can not be controlled by intelligent beings. For example, the dynamics of a three party trading system can become chaotic and can not be described by finite and exacting sequences of statements. Christians are of the belief that either chaos is evil or that it is possible for an intelligent being to control the forces of a system. For those who believe that chaos is evil, not much can be said for them besides the fact that they are wrong. For the second group, these people are the proponents of managed systems that require intelligent beings to control it. Such systems have been proven to be ineffective (at best). No Christian can believe in a chaos driven system and any God at the same time and call themselves followers of logic.
3.) Christians tend to perform more poorly than Atheists, Agnostics, and Jews in academic settings. Even though the main reason for this is the population of Christians is rather diverse, as compared to the other three groups mentioned, it must be noted still.
4.) Christians are fundamentally against progress. This can be seen in such acts as the current debate on evolutionary theory, the burning of Rome, and the persecution of Galileo. The argument that Christians are against evolutionary theory has been established in this thread already. The burning of Rome, originally attributed to Nero, was actually initiated by Christian terrorists. This act was by far the most successful terrorist action in the history of mankind. Not only did it discredit the leader at that time, it also gave tremendeous backing toward the Christian cause. Because Nero persecuted the Christians after the burning, many backed the Christians when public opinion swayed toward the belief that Nero caused the burning. As for Galileo, that was yet another example of the adversion toward truth that Christians have. Galileo only wanted to publish a paper that there were moons orbiting Jupiter, a rather beneign topic. But because of the ramifications of such an assertion, the Christians persecuted Galileo to the same degree that their martyr was persecuted. This goes to show that Christians are not morally, intellectually, or spiritually superior to any other group. Since Christians are not superior, there should be no reason why they should be given any credence.
(1) Have you considered the possibility that the designer in ID was an advanced alien civilization?
(2) Have you considered the possibility the the "designer" did not design humanity but merely transplanted it from another source?
(3) Have you considered the possibility that the designer applied incremental changes instead of instantly creating humans?
(4) You realize that the the basic mechanism in the previous point is observable? Mankind has been manipulating species for its own purposes for a very long time.
(5) If the designer in ID is responsible for the design of humanity, is it also responsible for its design flaws?
(6) Is the designer responsible for species that went extinct? Doesn't this suggest flawed design?
(7) Just because something cannot be proved does not make it wrong.
(8) Just because something can be proved does not make it useful.
(9) We can observe remarkable properties of otherwise simple systems such as neural networks of only a few dozen nodes being able to recognized characters.
(10) We have examples of short term natural selection such as the Japanese crabs with human faces and the circuit being trained to build an oscillator in fact building a receiver instead.
(11) That brings up the incredibly arbitrary nature of natural selection: it doesn't care how the creature survived, just that it survived to the point of propagation.
(12) Which leads to the question: why design the platypus?
That is the "compare" part.
The "contrast" part is where the gravity fields are not uniform and/or the speeds/acceleration are different (and near relativistic). Classical optics will not result in the correct answer to the observations while the General Theory of Relativity will.
That's not what I said. What I said was the following: Atheism is a way of getting out from under guilt.
I understand why that chafes you. Christianity is a guilt-based religion. If people are not susceptible to guilt, then they're less likely to care what Christians have to say, they're less likely to be Christians, and they're less likely to give money to Christian churches. Guilt is a powerful motivator, and Christians exploit it heavily to their advantage.
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
My position: I believe it's not appropriate to teach or address the Intelligent Design theory in science class's. I think addressing it as part of a comparative religions class would be much more appropriate.
My reasoning: There are many many theories, some are scientific, other's not. Simply put, calling a set of ideas and attached reasoning a theory does not make it scientific, nor does it make it right or wrong. I believe that the Intelligent Design theory is not a scientific theory, irrespective of the work that has gone into making it appear to be one.
Science, scientific method, and scientific theories all have some things in common, one of those things is the concept
"All this is subject to being revised by new information or even shown to be completely wrong and a new theory created to fit the facts."
. I propose that anything that does not incorporate that concept is not science and shouldn't be taught in a science class.
Please correct me if I'm wrong but it appears that the Intelligent Design theory was created with the assumption that there is a supreme creator. It also appears to me that the theory inherently rejects any line of reasoning that challenges that assumption. As I mentioned above I believe this immutable point moves the theory out of the realm of science altogether.
I'm by no means saying it shouldn't be taught, I do however believe it's proper place is among the belief systems, not the science class.
Ward
. Silence! Be thankful thy species is unpalatable! .
Science class is for teaching science, not philosophy. It's for teaching the scientific method and those things that can be tested against it OR which could be tested against it if sufficient evidence were available.
When public schools start teaching philosophy or religion, then they can teach non-scientific theories of the nature of the universe. Until then, stick with science.
My favorite untestible theory:
That some higher being created the universe this morning and then walked away. The Great Designer made it look like it was 13 or so billion years old and made me have fond memories of a nonexistant year in first grade.
OK, just kidding, I happen to have a fairly old religious viewpoint, one mostly shared with millions of other living people.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
I think the ID people have reached exactly the wrong conclussion from the evidence.
The sheer complexity of the universe may prove a non-intelligent non-design.
Religion always have one weakness: the need to anthropomorphize God.
But the underlying argument seems to be:
The universe is intentional vs. non-intentional
For the ID people, what if the Intelligent part is correct, but design is not? What if the universe is an accident of a supreme intelligence?
Or what if the Design part is correct, but not the Intelligence?
Either way, it's not science.
why are his creations, especially his followers, so flawed?
I would prefer to keep biblical teachings out of school only for the fact that if you start teaching my beliefs, what's to stop you from teaching my child any other belief?
What I would like to see, though, is a good presentation of both sides of evolution. Teach the scientific points that supports the theory, but give equal time to the holes in the theory, too. Don't just give lip service to the shakey parts (or not mention them at all).
So if you don't think it is a better world if they do these things, do you believe the world is worse if ... ...the teacher says a prayer before class? ...if the science teacher talks about "Intelligent Design."? ...my child pledges alegiance to "one nation, under God"? ...the judge in the local courtroom has a plaque ourside [sic] his chambers which insists that "...thou shalt have no other God before me..."?
It would seem that just like some of the Christians, many non-Christians (of whatever flavors) believe that restricting others behaviors for the betterment of society is a good thing. (Is it? or isn't it?) So, at what point can we agree that "someones behavior" is or is not in the best interest of society and should be restricted? At what point should laws restrict individual actions other than for the general betterment of society?
Many issues have their pros and cons depending upon your point of view, so where can we agree on what is legal/endorsed or illegal/restricted?
Smoking, prostitution, public prayer, cocaine, meth, alchohol, flag burning, school vouchers, 10 commandment displays, abortion, etc... A varied list, no doubt, but hot buttons for different people for different reasons, each with a different spin on who's rights are being restricted and by presumably whom.
Should that discussion take place on Slashdot? Hell no.
There's a reason there is a Science and Politics section... for discussions just like this.
Americans, especially the so-called evangelicals, obviously don't see the correlation between this kind of "faith based" krap and the fact that the U.S. is losing it's edge in science in general and R&D specifically.
The U.S. better wake up to the fact that most of the world, especially the modern "first world", doesn't give a krap about how a 3500 year old patched together mythology tries to explain reality.
If we can teach "intelligent design" in schools then lets teach other alternative explanations about Man's appearance on this planet, such as Zacharia Sitchins books; i.e., aliens promulgated the human race...
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
First, I agree that solid science should be taught in science class.
What I might question is where our definition of "science" came from, and why does it necessarily have to exclude God?
If God really *did* design the universe and create life, then we would expect naturalistic theories to run into trouble. And I think that has happened. We can see that life has a minimum complexity. We can see that there is no evidence for the primordial soup essential for naturalistic origin of life. We can determine how fine-tuned Earth is for life.
My question is, what will happen to science when the totally naturalistic explanations really do hit a dead end? When can God perhaps be an accepted explanation?
From the evidence we have, a belief in a Designer of life is entirely reasonable. That does not mean we should quit studying, far from it! For the advancement of knowledge, it is important that we try to first seek a naturalistic explanation for everything, to find out how it works. But just as surely, insisting that God *could not* have been involved is every bit as anti-scientific! Just follow the evidence, and see where it leads!
And even the God of the Bible would support that. We are told to "test everything, hold on to the good" in 1 Thesselonians 5:21. A number of verses in the Psalms and Proverbs apply high value to wisdom and knowledge.
I might also throw in the fact that modern science had its birth in Europe a few hundreds years ago, where most people had a Christian worldview. They understood these verses about wisdom, and understood from Psalm 19 that the facts of the universe tell us reality, and tell us about God. This is different than other cultures throughout the centuries, which made some significant progress in various fields, but science came to be "stillborn" eventually, due to beliefs like astrology, the deity of nature, strange requirements of various "gods", etc. The Christian worldview is remarkably different by saying that the reality of the world is objective and knowable.
They are not the same. Intelligent Design says look what we can see implies design by some intelligence, whatever that is.
Creationism says God created everything instantly.
The truth? Some mixture of Evolution, Intelligent Design and Creationism ie God created everything including time instantly, but things took millions of years to 'evolve'...
Pope John Paul II never "endorsed" evolution. I think you all read too much into his statement from around ten years ago.
True, evolution is more than a hypothesis: It's a theory.
I think we can make everyone happy here. ID introduces very deep metaphysical concepts in a way that is accessible to most people. It also represents an excellent distinction between scientific and metaphysical thinking. As such, I propose that we teach it the first week of science class. Use it to bring up the deep questions of "what are we" and "why are we here" and introduce the many alternatives therein to God-as-Personality.
Not only will we get kids thinking deep thoughts and evolution kept in its correct light, but imagine the chagrin of the the children of creationists coming home and asking hard questions about the nature of their family's faith, based on classroom discussion of intelligent design!
"Fundamentalism," as a religious position, asserts a literalist interpretation of the Bible. To do so, it needs to assert that the Bible is the direct word of God. That's an authoritarian position -- claiming to speak with God's words -- and authoritarian religious views are simply made to breed schisms. Human beings squabble over who's got the right to speak with or for that divine authority.
Welcome to History of Christianity 101.
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
Because the Constitution dictates that bills for funding must originate in the House of Representatives — Article one, section seven, clause one — and the House of Representatives isn't quite as nitwit infested as the White House.
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
One more thing you forgot to mention. Intelligent design is the hypothesis that SOMETHING created all of this. Part of Intelligent Design is the possibility that we were all created by intelligent beings from another world.
That makes no sense whatsoever. If we were created by aliens, where did the aliens come from? If a species of aliens could arise, travel to our planet, and create us, then that would be proof that intelligent life can arise on its own, obviating the need for a Designer to explain us in the first place! ID = aliens contradicts itself from the outset. ID = supernatural being not subject to the laws of physics that apparently makes our appearence impossible is the only way the theory can be self-consistent.
Fanatical Christians attempt to twist Intelligent Design to only include God as the possible creator, but that destroys it's standing as science.
ID makes absolutely no sense at all unless the "Designer" is a god. That fundamentalists have decided this Designer is the Christian God is a natural expression of that fact. They haven't "twisted" Intelligent Design at all except to specify which God they think did it.
ID is not, never was, and never will be science.
The enemies of Democracy are
Nope, it's a fact, study up on evolutionary biology. In addition to genetic markers showing branching, we have in fact observed speciation in fish.
A line is bounded in all directions except two, smartass, otherwise it would be a plane or a 3 dimensional space. Did you fail geometry or something? Sorry, just being snide because you were. Tit for tat is fair game.
Matter flying apart from other matter is exactly what is happening. People misinterpret
the common example of a balloon being blown up to mean that space is expanding into something. It isn't necessarily. Space might not be "in" anything external to it. Space could be infinite and more space could be popping into existance at all times, creating distance between objects and making them 'fly apart.'
However, even if space were infinite, within a given finite sphere of space, there are a finite number of positions and combinations of elementary particles, so eventually within infinite space, this particular pattern would have to repeat itself. You can even figure out mathematically the farthest distance you would have to go before this particular arangement of matter would have to repeat itself.
Space may also be infinite but have certain kinds of boundaries that limit this particular space in some way. We could be in a bubble inside a bubble inside a bubble, if you follow, with no way of getting out of our particular bubble or even knowing about the bubbles outside.
There are even levels of infinity. Aleph null is the infinite number of points on a line, while aleph one is the infinite number of points on a plane. You can see they are both infinite, but one is somehow more infinite than the other, if that makes sense. There are also mathematical systems for dealing with infinities like this, but I won't pretend to understand them.
To summarize, infinity is big. Really really big.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
It's too early for your side to claim victory, but it's right for you to rub your enemies' noses in your successes because they have been vast.
Scientists quite frequently regard Christians and other religious people as superstitious hicks (which often is accurate, but that's beside the point). The supernatural is not falsifiable, so they don't include it at the table with other scientific theories. (That's not to say that all of scientists' theories are scientific, but that, too, is beside the point. I'm establishing that scientists are biased against you.)
What scientists fail to realize is that they're not fighting ID proponents for space at the scientific table which scientists monopolize. The ID proponents have pulled the scientific table into the court of public opinion, and it is there that the ID proponents are mopping the floor with the scientists' self-righteous, elitist butts.
I'm so ashamed that the scientists have been so arrogant and short-sighted. They're allowing their scientific views to be squished and squashed in the court of public opinion, and they seem to think that such a thing is of no import. How could they be more wrong! The scientists' money comes largely from government, which is directed by legislators, which are elected by the "ignorant hicks" which hold views largely in line with those of the ID proponents. I wish some charismatic (that's important) scientists would start taking some public stances against ID, but apparently they stupidly fail to see the value in doing that.
Since I don't value the supernatural, I find ID along with all religion and all superstition to be immoral. But the intelligence of the tactics of the ID movement should be studied by all as a wily and awesome example of how to sneak under your opponents' radar and beat them at their own game!
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
According to Intelligent Design, did dinosaurs walk the earth 100 million years ago?
It'd make much better satire if I hadn't had my childhood friend turned fundie try that one out with me once.
Later he recanted that position. He'd gone back to his preacher, who explained that the idea God would try to fool us was deprecated. Oops. My friend avoided a schism with his church by accepting the party line.
It was almost scary, how he thought of a (granted, sophistic and silly) position to take all by himself. Happily he backed off of that oh-so-radical practice. Groan.
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
So... discussions about an Intelligent Creator don't belong in science class.
Then would you agree that professional "scientists" [or, in this case, "science" educrats] should be forbidden to teach that either:
To go one step further, would you then agree that professional "scientists" should be forbidden to search for both While we're on the subject, are there any other topics that you would forbid "scientists" from examining, or, status post said examinations, then teaching to their students?The problem with philosophy is that it has stopped generating new knowledge. The last great philosopher, to my mind, was Hume. Of course, I'm biased--I'm a physicist. (I like Nietzsche, but only in a literary, liberal arts sort of way. Besides ripping Kant a well-deserved new one, he really enriched letters much more than philosophy.)
(Hume actually anticipated the theory of evolution in his discourses on cause and effect. The great Atheist philosopher guessed that our "post hoc ergo propter hoc" brand of reasoning was an evolved response, an adaptation to our environment, that keeps us from sticking our fingers in the fire twice.)
The last I saw a group of serious academic philosophers together, they were packed into a lecture hall to hear the latest about String Theory. They asked the presenter, Ed Witten, a lot of questions.
The problem, of course, is that String Theory, while pretty, has made no predictions which can be tested in practice. (It has made some predictions in domains we can't test in, which are useless to the experimentalists.) The spectacle of philosophers chasing the coattails of theoretical physicists to determine the "true nature" of matter was an excellent illustration of how useless philosophy has become.
Physicists have learned not to think too deeply about the nature of matter because it's not practical. Our brains evolved to deal with the macroscopic environment, not the microscopic, quantum environment. We just can't conceptualize what's going on at the subatomic level, so why try? Better to develop mathematical models so that we can advance our knowledge in a concrete way.
The Physicist models and lets Nature take care of itself. The Philosopher still thinks that he (or, rarely, she) can define Platon's ideal forms or such rubbish and wastes reams of paper and valuable brain-hours on utter rot.
Go into a real science like mathematics or physics, young man. Philosophy is for the birds.
Be careful with your arguments, or ID people will believe you are wrong:
not based on direct observation
ID is based on direct observation, it's just not testable.
The Bible is literature, not history
The Bible does, in fact, contain historically accurate events.
Good to see that the American Geophysical Union and the National Science Teachers Association have criticized Bush's statements on ID. I wish more scientific and professional organisations would do the same.
True, but at the same time God had to come from somewhere too, so using God as the creator still only pushes the First Cause one step back as well.
Exactly, which is why neither version of ID is actually an explanation of anything scientific.
If you have faith, then God has always existed (or exists outside of time and thus "always" or "come from" aren't applicable). He described himself as "I am". Of course that's faith, not science.
The enemies of Democracy are
under strict Islamic law, almost anyone living in America (or most western nations) are not civilians. They (or we) are considered "infidels".
You really like talking about stuff you don't actually know shit about, don't you? Those who do not believe in Islam are different only in that they are ignorant of the faith. They're not subhumans, as you seem to be making out. Islam explicitly forbids the killing of civilians, full stop.
Go talk to some Muslims, read a book or two or otherwise educate your dumb head out of your ass before you open your mouth next time.
As always, Giblets knows best
And I'll assert that people who want to argue from God's Law will support ID because they think it puts them in a place where they can boss others around.
Assuming arguendo that the Intelligent Designer exists, and that God exists and is the Intelligent Designer, is it necessarily valid to argue along these lines: "God made the human eye, therefore humans must only look at things which please God"?
"If there is no God, school shootings don't matter"? Sounds like a case of denying the baby if you're not granted your bathwater.
Mind the Gap
First of all, ID is not the same thing as Creationism.
Yes it is. There is no substantive difference between the two.
Ok, how do I know ID has won the day? Many times I have read an article in MSNBC, Time, etc. talking about the possibility for multiple universes. And why do many scientists speculate there are multiple universes? Because this one is so fine-tuned to allow for life, if we assume this is the only one, there must have been a Designer...and we can't have that.
I'm sure that's exactly what MSNBC and Time, both excellent peer-reviewed scientific journals, have said.
What you describe is the anthropic principle, which is a simple tautology. It has been logically debunked often enough.
We can speculate on and on about how perfectly-balanced the laws of physics are, but the truth is, we really don't know what would happen if the speed of light were, say, twice what it is now, or Planck's constant were 6.323 x 10^-34 Js instead of 6.626x10^-34 Js. A different set of physical laws might provide a universe of a different nature, but that does not preclude life.
They are actually quite open about it, which is refreshing on one level.
Who are these mysterious and refreshingly-honest "they?"
So let's not pretend that there are all these "neutral atheists" out there who are dispassionate about evidence. Atheism tends to be a psychological crutch so people can live a life without being accountable. All that nagging guilt gets to them.
That's funny. I say the same thing about religion.
You do not have to be an atheist to be dispassionate (or, more accurately, "objective"). There are many objective scientists with strong religious beliefs. Nor does atheism (or religous belief, for that matter) keep one from being passionate and subjective.
As far as atheists and moral integrity, I believe many atheists are *more* moral than many with strong religious beliefs.
Why?
Because, as an atheist, I believe it is up to each of us to choose our own reason for existence. Since my time on earth is not dictated by some mystical Grandpa in the Sky, I have no eternal destiny, I only have my immediate legacy.
I wish my legacy to be good. Every interaction in which I am involved is dictated by two simple guidelines-- am I doing more good than harm? and, am I being truthful to myself and those with whom I am interacting?
The first should be self-obvious. The second is important because I believe truth and honesty are lynchpins to science and understanding and compassion. I have tried (sometimes unsuccessfully) to live my life according to those two simple dictums.
Because of this, I believe very strongly in the sanctity of life, something most US Christians seem to have lost.
Why do I, and atheist, believe in the sanctity of life? Because... well, the best I can describe it is this: we are all in this together. Straight, gay, atheist, Christian, Hare Krishna, Wiccan, good guy, bastard. It's up to us to determine our own collective destiny.
Atheism itself does not require a lack of morality, any more than Christianity *requires* morality. I've met both amoral and moral atheists; and I've met amoral and moral Christians.
Finally, I believe the only significant contribution to our species comes in the form of continuing the existence of our species. Not in having children-- lots of folks are having more than enough children. No, I mean it should be our goal to move out into space, settle in among the stars, grow, and evolve. (Not that evolution will lead us anywhere we want to go. It will simply change us.)
I hope very strongly that we make it there one day. I'd like to be there when it happens; but if I'm not, I'll die happy just knowing I've helped us move toward that goal, even if just a little bit.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
Don't forget the U.S.' abberant science: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/ a/2003/11/09/ING9C2QSKB1.DTL&type=printable
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
Check out The Panda's Thumb, a blog dedicated to this topic...
In other words, if you accept Intelligent Design, you must reject Christianity because somebody must then have created your God.
Hmm. I'll go with Hoyle or Hubble. Ah. Hubble proved that the Universe is expanding and that other galaxies exist. Close enough.:) Hoyle is a crackpot who died in 2001.
Is this a sigs-optional kind of place? 'Cause I am totally down with that if you know what I mean.
Soooo, according to ID, we COULD have been created by an alien named "Xenu" trillions of years ago? Could it be that now we're infested with tortured alien souls known as "Thetans", and thats why we have mental illness? I hope not! I don't like tortured alien souls!
Coding with assembly is like playing with Legos. Coding an application in assembly is like building a car with Legos.
This is a little off-topic. Being a Buddhist, I want to point out that religions don't necessarily come with creation myths. I think a religion's inclusion of creation myths is to better mind-control its faithfuls when there was no science to dispute it. It, along with belief that anyone believing in other religions are wrong, are self-serving properties a religion can have that gives it a better chance to gain popularity among people. In my opinion, this is applying "survival of the fittest" to religions. A religion armed with qualities to "survive" has gained popularity in the western society. But I digress. My main point is that Buddhism doesn't have a creation myth. Buddhism doesn't try to interfere with Science at all; in fact, it doesn't even try to interfere or exclude other religions. Buddhas are not gods. They never claim to create life, or the World. Buddhas literally mean enlightened people, that believe in kindness towards all living beings, humans or inhuman. Buddhism also believes that any person can potentially become enlightened and ascend into Buddha-hood.
--I find that if people look at simple statistics, they would see that not only is it possible, but we HAVE to be here (atleast if you subscribe to Hawkings POV), that is, if the universe is infinite, and time is infinite, then, no matter how small the statistical probability is (e.g. there is only a .00000000001% chance that evolution could work), that in an infinite system, it will STILL HAVE TO HAPPEN, no matter how small.--
Why would it still have to happen because the universe is infinite? Maybe it is infinate in some ways and finite in others. The rules governing it may in fact be finite.
Not trying to be an ID troll. I just have a question.
It seems modern revisionism is in full effect. The French translation of the late Pope's encyclical reads:
"Today, almost half a century after the publication of the encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis."
* The Pope was merely stating that evolution was now widely accepted in many scientific disciplines doing independent research. It was an anyalysis, _not_ an endorsement - far from it. Any practicing Catholic, such as myself, knows what the late Pope believed, taught, and instructed to his Church. Any attempt to conclude otherwise, a whole decade after he addressed the Academy of Sciences, is a willful attempt to endorse one's own opinion whilst manipulating choice words out of their _entire_ context.
The real irony is witnessing many self professed "evolutionists" using a staunch Creationist's words as an "endorsement". Funny...
My parents very much bought into Christianity. They had those Dobson Books back in the 80s and holy jebus is what that guy claims scary. Outright lies about AIDS and condoms.
Some 'Christian'. He probably heard that BS from someone he 'trusts' and there-fore has plausable deniablility.
Somehow, I don't think the Christian God is going to accept that.
Blar.
So, perhaps ironically, we should teach in schools only stuff that's disprovable, in the hope that the pupils will grow to disprove all that stuff.
I believe the other word commonly used is falsifiable, in case this rings a bell.
Yesterday was the time to do it right. Are we having a REVOLUTION yet?
"Christianity has matured - it's a peaceful religion."
That's shocking that you would say that. George W. Bush is in office solely because of Karl Rove's tricking "Christian" religious extremists into believing that Mr. Bush agrees with them. These people call themselves "Christian", but their anger causes them to support violence.
I'll let a Doonesbury cartoon say it:
"And as a Christian, I greatly mourn the continuing loss of innocent Iraqi lives, the total of which is several times greater than the number lost at the World Trade Center."
--
If your gov't chose killing as policy (CIA trained Arabs in 1980), expect others to choose the same.
I don't even understand why this is subject matter that is open to debate (well, I do: religious spokespeople are doing a better job of getting their voices heard than scientists by the media, but I digress).
Evolution and Intelligent Design cannot be compared. I say that not because one can be empirically supported or disproven, and the other cannot. I say it because they do not even address the same topic.
Change in species over time is well-documented. It is FACT. Whether the mechanism for change is evolution in the Darwinian model or some other mechanism, the Truth is that such change does happen. It is not disputable. An alternate theory to evolution, then, must address the issue of by what mechanism change in species occurs.
Intelligent Design does not propose any such alternate mechanism. It ignores the question completely and attempts to provide an origin story for life. That's all well and good, but there's nothing there capable of disproving Darwinian evolution. There's nothing worth bringing into a Science classroom.
The debate is comparing apples to baseballs. They're not even both fruits.
Sorry for the lack of paragraphs. I should've previewed as that was my first post. There seems to be no "edit" option? I'm a slashdot newbie :p Allow me to reformat (I know this is probably frowned upon too because it generates one more posting but this is the only time, I promise):
This is a little off-topic. Being a Buddhist, I want to point out that religions don't necessarily come with creation myths.
I think a religion's inclusion of creation myths is to better mind-control its faithfuls when there was no science to dispute it. It, along with belief that anyone believing in other religions are wrong, are self-serving properties a religion can have that gives it a better chance to gain popularity among people. In my opinion, this is applying "survival of the fittest" to religions. A religion armed with qualities to "survive" has gained popularity in the western society.
But I digress. My main point is that Buddhism doesn't have a creation myth. Buddhism doesn't try to interfere with Science at all; in fact, it doesn't even try to interfere or exclude other religions. Buddhas are not gods. They never claim to create life, or the World. Buddhas literally mean enlightened people, that believe in kindness towards all living beings, humans or inhuman. Buddhism also believes that any person can potentially become enlightened and ascend into Buddha-hood.
Timecube and ID have something in common.
Niether of them make claims that are falsifible. Time being cubic would not have any observible affect on the world around us. And being created, rather than randomly evolving points to no observable results.
They are, perhaps, equally valid.
"I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
That goes back to the disucssion on whether or not Politics is a valid slashdot section. Personally, I was ambivalent to the idea of a Politics section back when Taco created it. Now, after seeing the Flame Wars it has created, I am pretty much opposed to the section. The Politics section is NOT a place where intelligent discource takes place.
As for Science, I'll let my own personal opinion on this entire topic warp my view (and I agree that my personal opinion on the subject at hand truly does impact my complaints about this subject appearing on Slashdot). In my opinion, evolution is science. ID is not science. It is faith.
If we want to discuss faith, either Taco should create a "Faith" section to go along with Politics, or, the subject should be discussed on another board. Not on a board that is dedicated to news for nerds.
> do you believe the world is worse if ...
Frankly, yes, because you are asking them to close their eyes to other possibilities, so it is MUCH worse than to keep it limited to those who wish to tell each other such amazing lies!
> believe that restricting others behaviors
That is a dishonest stance: that if you are not allowing something to be forced on the children that they are being actively restricted from it. Funny how the oppressive majority like to constantly act like victims.
> At what point should laws restrict individual actions other than for the general betterment of society?
It should not have much of anything to do with the betterment of society, it should be based on the liberty of individuals. What the hell is your point? Oh, you were trying to slip a false dichotomy in there, I see. Asking you to keep your fairy tales from being taught as fact on public land is for the betterment of society in general.
THE POINT IS that what should be taught are things that are provable, or at least you can find a good bit of evidence for them. There is absolutely zero evidence for the existence of any trolls, sprites (I don't mean graphical objects), pixies, gods, or aliens. Actually, there is evidence for the existence of aliens, yet if I said I believed in UFOs, you'd probably call me crazy. If I dared call a Christian crazy for something even more fantastic, I am called closed-minded and evil.
I vaguely recall reading an article about this in Wired magazine a few months ago. One of the better points (I thought) was that an "intelligent" design wouldn't have your air supply and your food supply entering through the same opening (obvious choking hazzard), joints that are prone to wear out and/or get arthris, prone to back problems, etc, etc. Not a very intelligent design.
Creationism is NOT science, it is religion wrapped in a layer of BS. (The "BS" being a disguise to make you think it's science) The only place where creationism should be taught is in private schools aligned with some branch of the church (or talmud).
The separtion of church and state demanded by the US constitution won't allow for it being any other way.
No public school where MY kids go to will even mention creationism, or I'll drag them into court.
If they hear about it in Sunday school, that's fine with me.
No, you can't if the probability of getting a 5 is above zero, you will eventually get a five. The first five, however, may be arbitrarily far down the list, but it will be there.
Play Command HQ online
See this.
"If a teacher prays, what difference does that make."
"Your child does not have to participate."
These are such stupid points. Do you forget what it's like to go to school? To want to fit in? To not be the odd one out? What fucking planet are you from?
Schools also teach sexual education, in hopes that where parents might be shy or even misleading, the teachers will be frank and there will be less problems like sexual diseases and unwanted pregnancies. There should also be general health classes, but this material can easily be folded into phys.ed. and biology, I guess.
Schools also teach (at least in the Czech Republic) "social sciences", i.e. politics, economics etc. so that the kids learn about the functioning of their society. We also had some material on the various religions in these kind of classes.
In conclusion, school is not only about science, but also about equipping the kids for real life, and religions are part of real life so the kids should know about them. It is a mistake that "intelligent design" is put side-by-side with "evolution", as the belong to different aspects of education. But I'm not so opposed to teaching religions in schools.
Yesterday was the time to do it right. Are we having a REVOLUTION yet?
Secondly, I personally have never taken biology (I was more of a chemistry guy), so I do not know much about Darwinian evolution. I always hear about evidence which supports the theory of evolution, but I never hear anything specific. Can anyone help a brother out? Linked articles would be nice. I would like to hear about the evidence and how it helps support evolution.
Thirdly, neither of these groups present a united front. There are multifaceted opinions on each side. What are some alternative viewpoints within the I.D. and evolution camps? If we get some actual information out in the open (instead of screaming ignorace), we might be able to have a more civilized debate.
Infinite time or billions of years, which is it? Also, from where did the chemicals come?
yes -- it was infinite time. it could have taken however long it wanted. it just happened to take the time it did. there as no limit. that's what infinite means.
Pick up a Bible, the answer is in the first couple pages.
I've read the bible -- several times. and i know what it says. but if intelligent design is true (and i understand the theory agrees with the general progression of events as evolution suggests) then why did got make bacteria first? why didn't he just do it all at once?
Huh?
there were two points in there. one -- who is to say god's plan is complete? maybe there will be some more advanced species that were REALLY god's final plan. and maybe humans just wrote down in the bible that they were the final thign because they couldn't imagine that there was more to come.
and maybe proto-man thought the same thing. maybe some of those proto-men thought that THEY were the final product. but they were wrong, according to the bible we now use. but for a LONG time they might have thought they were right -- that they were the final product. so who is to say we are the final product, and that we're not just proto-whatevers?
and the second point (though you didn't quote it so maybe you understood) was drawing this mentality we get from the abrahamistic religions -- that we're the final product -- into our general feelings in society. we feel like the status quo is basically where things will end up. people in america are complacent about the current social problems (poverty) becasue they feel like the current system is the only system that works, and that if any other system could work it would already have been created. just like with our religion -- we feel we're at the end-product stage.
What comes first, finding a teacher or becoming a student?
It kinda makes coming from monkeys not seem so bad huh.
lol
My point was actually far more simple than that. You can't prove that anything is infinite, you can only prove it is beyond your ability to measure(percieve) it.
...do not apply to statistical rules because they are a creation of man
I find it intersting that you are of the beleif that creations of man are some how outside of statistical rules. This will definitely improve my poker play.
than norse mythology.
The problem is that christianity is a cult that brainwashes it's members before they are capable of rational thought.
So are most other religions. Isolate the children from other ways of thinking and put a lot of made up nonsense left over by ignorant tribes who lived 2,000 years ago. We wouldn't use their medical practices, why do we run our world that way?
I think some of the social rules are good as a basis for society (and helped those societies survive)- the rest is costing us so much it is terrible.
ID is just another example of a huge waste of intelligent people's effort that could be dedicated to real problems. What a tragic waste.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
and in an infinite universe, it will HAVE to happen.
This is a common logical fallacy. Let's change the statement to "In an infinite number of infinite universes, soemwhere there must be unicorms if unicorns are physical possible." This statement is equally false. There could very well be an infinite number of infinite universes that do not contain any unicorns. If they're possible, it's quite likely they exist somewhere, and that likelihood may or may not approach 1, but it's not for sure.
ID has more problems than that. For one thing, this Intelligent Designer must be incredibly complex to be able to create such complexity - flawed or not - as we see in the Earth's creatures.
Surely, this Intelligent Designer didn't come from nowhere. This intelligent designer is so overwhelmingly complex, it must have been created by a super-creator, a sort of Intelligent-Designer Designer. And I.D^N = reductio ad absurdum.
Expanding a vast wasteland since 1996.
I alrady know a European Language. English.
The other day at Village Inn, there was a group of obviously very fundamentalist Christians quoting stuff from leviticus--I've seen them there before, but this day I couldn't ignore them. I scoffed and mocked them with my friends at the table. Their topic, of course was the fossil record, and how science is full of BS, basically, they have NO idea how the science works, and no wish to know.
The alpha male also suggested from some reading that he did (because he couldn't come up with any origional argument of his ownn) that the levels of helium (from radioactive material deposits) in the atmosphere were far too low for the earth to have been more than 6000 years old.
He heard me snorting and coughing, and mentioned to his flock something about heathens and "how they hate us because we have faith", obviously reacting to my actions.
I went over to them and talked for a few minutes, in part because I want to know where these people are coming from. I asked what their involvement in the sciences was. None, beyond the basic highschool stuff. The alpha male was a salesman, so were a couple others, the rest were businessmen and bankers. I asked the alpha if he was at all interested in the sciences. "I have no need for it". I asked him what qualified himself to discourse on topics which he knew little about, and had no interest in pursuing. I asked him if he, having no experience building skycrapers would be inclined to walk up to someone working on a building, and tell them they're full of shit.
Honestly, if he even had a passive interest, I wouldn't look down on the bullshit he was spouting, because I could at least hope to teach him. These are people that are ignorant of the truths as we understand them, and have no inclination to understand the univese differently than what is presented in their texts--and in my opinion, despite their feverous dedication, their knowledge of their own texts is sadly lacking, and seems to be stongly directed by the leaders of their faith.
I just can't respect that line of thought and intellectual idleness.
I closed the conversation with one of my favorite quotes of all time: "I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use." --Galileo Galilei. I explained what he did and what happened to him as a result, bade them a good day, and finished my breakfast.
That leads me to one of my other favorite quotes by Galileo: "Long experience has taught me this about the status of mankind with regard to matters requiring thought: the less people know and understand about them, the more positively they attempt to argue concerning them, while on the other hand to know and understand a multitude of things renders men cautious in passing judgment upon anything new." Very insightful, even today. He was truely a man beyond his time.
Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
Actually, look into some artificial life experiments. There have been experiments in which software "animals" in a virtual environment have the ability to reproduce and mutate (roughly equivalent to real mutation through radiation, poor cell transcription, etc), and said alife animals do, in fact, evolve.
I'll grant you that it doesn't prove that evolution is how *we* got here, but it does show that the ideas behind evolution are valid.
I think you're far too optimistic when you say the foreign nationals will leave the US to go home or elsewhere. I predict the home-grown talent will also leave if something isn't done. In the future, no amount of NIH money will change the fact that talented scientists don't exist anymore.
I, for one, am looking forward to becoming an Oxford Don. ;)
You know, that's not really fair to the monkeys.
In Europe, during the dark ages, i.e. from around the 5th century to the renaissance, there was a huge stagnation in scientific and philosophical study. Europe was about as religiously dogmatic, bigoted and backward as it got in the then civilised world. This was the time when wars were fought over which sect of Christianity one belonged to.
At the same time, Islam was a shining light of medical, scientific and philosphical study, which later started to taper off due to dogamtic influences in Islamic society. But until that happened, Islam was where it was at. The only universities and places of rational study were in Islamic countries. Baghdad was the center of culture, ironically.
Now, we have the beginnings of a major Christian backlash in terms of bigotism and dogma replacing the rational study of science and thought.
Interestingly, today on the BBC, there was an article about the trends in youth culture in Egypt, not exactly a place known for its swinging nightlife. It paints a very different picture from the one that the western media so eargerly embraces about how backward and oppressive the middle east is supposed to be, socially.
I wonder if the pendulum isn't perhaps swinging back to the other end of the scale again.
While Mr. Bush was reportedly reluctant to make news on this topic... It's President Bush, not "Mr. Bush", jackass.
And thus Bush panders to the masses of idiots, by pretending
that "he is one of them".
I've never been more embarrassed to be an American than now, and that's saying something, because I lived through Viet Nam
and Watergate.
15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense (Originally printed in SciAm): http://www.angelfire.com/ok5/pearly/htmls/gop-evol ution.html
"Science deals with the measurable, religion deals with the immeasurable," suggested author William Rees-Mogg. He said: "Science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God, any more than it can prove or disprove any moral or aesthetic proposition. There is no scientific reason to love one's neighbour or to respect human life . . . To argue that nothing exists which cannot be proved scientifically is the crudest of errors, which would eliminate almost everything we value in life, not only God or the human spirit, but love and poetry and music."
The rattles snakes around here are not rattling any more.
The reason they are not rattling is because the ones that rattle are being found and killed.
What we have now is a set of snakes that are genetically biased towards not rattling before they bite you, meaning no warning for the human in it's way.
Perhaps $DEITY made them stop rattling ?
Link to the Chronicle's Lisa Fullam's article on this topic.
2 005/08/04/EDGROE2DK21.DTL&hw=intelligent+design&sn =003&sc=394
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/
I'm a bit late to comment on this. I'm a Christian and by the strictest definition a fundamentalist. I'd like to comment that it was not until the enlightenment period that Christian's took a completely literal view of Genesis 1. Up until then it was viewed as poetic and indeed it is. However, it was also typically viewed that the people are actual historical people and not types(i.e. Adam represents mankind rather than an actual man).
Now, my views, I simply say, "God did it." He could have done it a million-gazillion(defn: a whole lot) of different ways. Genesis 1 does not even say the earth was created in seven days, the earth was chaos and empty and then God filled it. In another place the bible says that before God filled it the mountains were covered with water and shaking, which sounds like a pretty scientific early Earth. There are some who would even say that at this point the earth might have been destroyed by a previous flood and was inhabited once before. The point is that Genesis 1 allows a lot of room for different ideas. Nearly everyone has read into what they wanted it to say or completely dismissed it.
In addition, it _is_ written in a language which is now very difficult to translate. There are still many words which are in question. We try to determine what they mean from their roots, but it's hard to decipher what ancient Hebrews were thinking when they put certain root words together.
So here's my message; Christians, you don't know as much as you think you do. Everyone else, you don't know as much as you think you do. Let's not write each other off as completely wrong. Yeah we're gonna disagree at points, but let's just try to take the best from what each other have to say.
Peace,
-Josh
But did you think about your brain cells?
When your smoke, some brain cells are dead. Dead.
er...
Well I hope that one day we can smoke crack any time any where.Bye.
It's interesting how so many people label this a battle between science and religion. People are trying to fight this war against the "opposing" party without recognizing a rather interesting reality. The origin of life, or the origin of stuff in general, has nothing to do with science. Science is an observable, experimental, and recreatable practice. To believe in either evolution or creation is to hold to a philosophy, not any kind of scientific theory. Neither evolution or creation (or the politically correct term "Intelligent Design") can be proved empirically. You cannot compare them by saying one is science and the other is religion because at their very core, they are both basic belief systems about the origins of all that we know that exists. They are actually philosophies about our world's origin, both of which use facts that we observe in our world as evidence for their truth. To believe one or the other is fundamentally a belief and not a provable fact.
One more thing you forgot to mention. Intelligent design is the hypothesis that SOMETHING created all of this.
One thing you forgot to mention is that ID has already been disproved in all its major points years ago.
It's not even regarded as a scientific theory anymore. The simple fact that it's a random collection of nonsense is what destroyed it's standing within the scientific community, not it's xian limitation.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Your question "What (or who) started it all?" isn't a meaningful one. "A superhero from outer space started it all!" isn't even a meaningful statement, because (as I suspect you'd want to do), you can't get from there to "die homos die".
In any case, we're so far from a God sitting over your shoulder and making your crops grow, smiting your enemies and telling you which foot to set first in the john that it's nothing short of laughable. It's funny how God keeps getting pushed back to the edges of our knowledge. First it's "God is in the sky, because we can't go there". Now it's "God is before the big bang, because we can't see that far back".
Your belief system is incompatible with science. It's ugly when you try to foist them together.
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
I'm glad that a man of faith can accept that faith is not equal to science nor vice versa. These are different subjects, using different methods of reasoning and approaching the world through entirely opposite assumptions.
"Intelligent Design" is not science. Evidence of an unseen phenomenon does not define that phenomenon. We can argue all day and night as to what the phenomenon was that caused this or that, but the blunt truth of the matter is that science, true science, does not care about the purpose of a thing, only the process of that thing. So who or what created this world or life is completely irrelevent to the study of HOW it was done and that* is what evolution is about- a process where by biological change takes place. It is not a cosmology, not a religion, not a philosophy, not a guess, not a poke in the dark, not a proof. It is a model for how the process of biological changes work to produce variances in life. That model just so happens to fit the evidence of life on earth, not completely accidental that this is so since the model was BASED ON THAT EVIDENCE.
Science offers no purpose to life, no meaning to words, no hope to man. It is a means, a tool for studying the process of a thing that is percieved and not one ounce more than that. Those who want it to be a religion are metascientists, not scientists. Those who want religion to be a science are pseudoscientists, not scientists. Neither of these persons are true to the tool or the craft that we know as the process of inductive reasoning that is the very basis upon which the scientific method is based.
The discussion starts off being completely off track and stays there.
What most people are saying is that we ought not ask questions. We ought not think.
If a body is found smashed at the bottom of a building, we must all assume it was an accident that he fell from the top of the building. We cannot ask if there was any intent - either suicide or homicide - that resulted in what we saw.
The argument about complexity I find interesting. Everyone here explains it as if it is a solved problem (I've not seen any links to the darwininan side of the debate with calculations, though I've seen the ID's advocates calculation).
Oh! Oh! Heresy! Burn the heretic! I've uttered the forbidden question! I cannot ask who has the better model. Darwin is Dogma. It's equations - whenever they end up appearing are ordained by nature, not some intelligence.
But whither SETI? Consider if a different model of life could arise and increase in complexity much faster than the current carbon/DNA/Protein model we are built with (and would note that we use silicon and copper to build our complex devices, not organic components).
We are unscientific because we refuse to even do research looking for a possible matrix where life could arise because we assume it would be possible or easy for the DNA/Protien one.
Also consider if intelligence could occur via electromagnetic emissions across something the size of a star cluster. A single syllable might take 10,000 years or longer to utter so we wouldn't detect it, but there might be some way it could create life. But this can't be asked either because we KNOW we arised spontaneously.
Imagination is suppressed. Research that asks the wrong questions is censored - and in a more severe way than anything the FBI does.
But is this dogma or science, and whose side is being dogmatic?
In this sense, evolution is "just a theory" the same way gravity is "just a theory."
Gravity is not a theory, gravity is a fact. Our explanations of why masses gravitate and how that force is transmitted, etc, is a theory - the theory of gravity.
Gravity itself, however, is not a theory, in the same way as light is not a theory.
"law" in a scientific sense means "theory which has stood up so well and so long that although it's possible to disprove it, that doesn't look likely to happen."
You are either not a scientist, or weren't paying attention in that lecture. A law describes what happens, a theory (attempts to) describes why it happens. The theory of evolution is an attempt to explain why there is such a diversity of species, and how the current species relate to those in the fossil records.
If we are to include Judeo-Christian-Islamic creation myths (both "young Earth" and "Intelligent Design" varieties) in science classes, why stop there?
Because your country is nominally Christian, at least in so far as the "official religion" is Christianity.
Personally, I don't see anything wrong with teaching kids about ID, in a "and some people believe..." sort of way. What harm can it do?
It's official. Most of you are morons.
THIS universe is not infinite and OUR time is not infinite. But it is only OUR universe and OUR time because there in principle can be infinite number of universes and of times.
So, it is obvious that we are an occurance of an event with a very small chance of happenning, but given the nature of infinity we are here after all.
You can't handle the truth.
Just by reading the comments moderated 3 and above, I can tell that most of what is being said is a rehash of stuff that has already been well-hashed. Hopefully I won't be adding to the hash...
I would like to remark that science can only describe what is, providing a framework for understanding and hopefully manipulating it to good ends. I found it interesting that gravity was so often referenced, when, as far as I know, no-one actually knows why gravity works. The best we can do is make mathematical descriptions of it (ie, say how it works). Another way of saying it is that science studies and predicts effects, but it cannot really handle the question of cause. Think about it: science defines cause in terms of effect. Religion or more generally metaphysics deals with the converse: it focuses on causes, defining effects in terms of cause. The two types of thought are therefore complementary. IMO if you have one without the other, your education is incomplete.
So let me bring this back around to the issue at hand: I think the reason that this debate exists at all is because our education has become imbalanced toward science, having lost the other side [whatever/however you want to call it: religion, philosophy, art (in all its modes, not just painting)]. As a result, IDer's want to reinsert a particular debate within such disciplines back into our curricula, and have made the mistake of conflating science with religion, and therefore trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.
The response that I would like to see is we who see that the two should be separate to advocate the teaching of religion as such, as well as philosophy, art, and all of those disciplines that complement scientific knowledge by giving us a framework for it. Let's talk about expanding the curriculum so that the proper place for a religious viewpoint exists, effectively pulling the rug out from beneath the feet of IDer's. None of this means that less attention should be paid to science. It should result in school becoming harder, a reflection of the growing complexity of our world, and will free up science class from dealing with such questions to concentrate on science. We lament that we may lose our technological advantage without realizing that we have already lost the vital ethical advantage that we had when we reacted against another kind of religious intolerance, an advantage that comes not from keeping such debates out of the public sphere, but welcoming them, in order that such folly as ID does not develop in secret only to show itself when it has the influence to be frighteningly damaging.
I know I much of what I wrote could be greatly expanded upon or critiqued, so if you reply, please do so.
Did you just avoid answering his question? I think you did, you weasel! He asked why creationism is being presented as an alternative to evolution, and you said that the only place where they differ is as to the origin of the first life. This is clearly not the case: creationists point to "irreducibly complex" structures not present in earlier organisms; the idea is that we could not have come from simpler creatures without a superhero from outer space tweaking the verniers of biology.
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
That which is maladapted is less likely to survive.
That statement means a lot when you're thinking in deep time. Eventually *every* organism will die off.
It also allows that things which are not exactly adapted to survive. Our aesophogous. Duck-billed platypus. Fundamentalists...!
If something is so exactly adapted to it's niche, it will flourish to the extent that niche allows itself.
Panda's are very badly adapted to life in general. However, since nothing else wanted to eat bamboo, and nothing nearby can treat a panda as a snack, things worked out OK.
Then men turned up and needed the land that the bamboo was on. Fewer panads can be supported. So they are dieing out.
We can *see* the mechanisms of adaptation happening. We have seen extinctions. And we are seeing animals adapting. Birds are nesting in our towns. Those that can adapt will survive as long as they continue to adapt.
On a longer timescale, a change in physigonomy (?) can help an animal adapt even better. It will take more resources. The other animals subssting on that same resource will have less. They will dwindle. Those that feed on the better adapted will also increase. *Mechanism* can be seen. Extrapolation is necessary for us to manage to see in deep time. If we can keep records, we may be able to prove speciation in a few thousand years. It could easily be longer, and if we don't survive, or our records become useless before then, it may never be provable.
We will still be able to see the mechanism of environment based competitive survival.
What is society going to do when we complete the equations for the human soul?
Bush is lucky...all sorts of different things are coming together to give the religious nuts control of the country for quite some time to come:
:)
1. He gets to appoint at least one, if not two, Supreme Court justices.
2. All the religious conservatives are in an uproar over Islam and terrorism, so they'll go along with anything that they think will help wipe them out. Listen to some of the nuts on talk radio if you don't believe me. There's more of them than you think!
3. The congressional majorities will ensure the most of his policies will be put through without much of a fight.
I wouldn't be surprised if he started tying federal education aid to a requirement for school prayer and teaching of creationism.
Why is it that every religious person wants to live in the Dark Ages?? I guess it eliminates the need for scientific research...after all, God causes cancer and other bad things to happen to evil people he doesn't like, right?
Maybe we shouldn't ban religion altogether, but I think we should consider limiting public support for it. If everyone devoted the same amount of fervor and energy to science and learning, we'd be a much happier species. And we wouldn't be building shrines to nonexistent beings either.
Everybody argues over what should be taught in schools. Evolution or creationism or both? This is such a huge debate that some schools opted out period. That is, the High School I went to didn't teach EITHER. We skipped over the evolution chapter in the textbooks for fear of a creationism uprising. So in the end only the bad came of this.
I'm opening a collection to buy George a copy of
The Blind Watchmaker, where ID was essentially shafted long ago.
Uh, and maybe a collection to pay for someone reading it to him?
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Evolution may be accepted in the Christian belief of creation as much more than a theory for the simple fact that God is onipotent, so if He willed to make us evolve from a lesser human form, He could have, and probably did so. Pope John Paul the Great's acceptance of evolution as more than just an hypothesis does not mean that he accepted Darwinism. On the contrary, he condemned it as the Chruch does, for Darwinism is stating that we, as humans, evolved from apes or primates of some sort, and ultimately, from bacteria and other one-celled organisms that seem to have been here first. The Church teaches--and has done so for its over 2000 years of teaching--that we men are rational and have been given that as priveledged by God through and for His Glory. Now, how is it that man, with reason (an intellect and a will of his own), evolve from something that has neither? It didn't happen. Animals do not have intellects or wills; they have no feelings or emotions. They are sensate, yes, and they are creatures of instinct, but nothing beyond, for what they lack is a soul (that is, not in the sense that Plato or Aristotle used it to mean the 'form' of a thing, but rather, a spirit) wherein lies each person's intellect and will. Perhaps this can clear some misunderstandings up for everyone.
What you are talking about is data that supports the theory. But data can never prove the theory correct; that is inherently impossible. Theories never become facts, they can only be disproved by facts or supported by facts. So that you and I are the result of an evolutionary process is a theory, albiet a theory well supported by the facts.
+5 Insightful; where's the -1, Wrong mod when we need it?
No offence, but your premises (that time and space are infinite) are wrong and your maths and reasoning are flawed. (I'd also be interested in a citation for Hawking's apparent assertion that the universe and time are infinite; I wasn't aware that he disagreed with the big bang theory.)
SO, if you say, "It can't happen because statistically, it is too small...", you are still leaving the door open to it happening, and in an infinite universe, it will HAVE to happen.
That's your most fundamental mistake, and it displays a lack of understanding of independence in the statistical sense. Think of it this way - the odds of an unbiased coin toss turning up heads is 50% (and 50% for tails). Therefore, the odds of flipping a coin three times and getting three heads is (.5*.5*.5=) 0.125 or 12.5%
What are the odds of the next toss resulting in a head? Hint: it's not 6.75%
The likelyhood of getting a given result after X independent trials is unaffected by the results of the previous trials. That is the definition of independence in this context.
Unless the conditions and events required for human beings to be produced are not independent, and the conditions on one candidate planet can affect those on another candidate planet, then the extent and lifespan of the universe make no difference to the chances of human beings coming into existence. That 0.000000001% chance remains a 0.000000001% chance, and every single opportunity has a 0.000000001% chance of success.
Yes, you can reasonably expect to achieve success if you have enough attempts, but it is not guaranteed.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
It's the big fight we've all been waiting for. The Ultimate Smackdown
That's even more shocking!!!
"Christians" are so arrogant that they believe they can kill anyone they like, and their killing should not be considered.
The "Christian" U.S. has supported a government that has killed perhaps 3,000,000 people since the end of the Second World War. None of those people threatened the United States.
The "Christians" in the U.S. think these people and their families and friends don't matter: Iraqi Civilian Body Count.
Osama bin Laden said that he attacked solely because of the U.S. government support for killing Arabs. Is that true? Did the U.S. government kill Arabs? Yes.
If your gov't chooses killing as policy, expect others to choose the same.
I'm against violence. In my opinion, violence is caused by mental illness, and has nothing to do with religion.
Many fundamentalist "Christians" believe that the "end time" is near. They believe that during the approach of the "end time", the Jews will have power over all of the region around Israel. Then they believe Jews will either die or be converted to Christianity.
Wait, there's more: The Jews support the Christian violence because they want U.S. citizens to be involved in "defense" of Israel. That reduces the cost to them. The Israelis believe that, this time, the Christians won't really kill them. That's in spite of the fact that, during the Second World War, "Christians" killed half of the Jews in the entire world. (At present, there are about 14,000,000 Jews in the entire world. More Jews live in New York than live in Israel.)
Read all about it: Zion's Christian Soldiers
Again, if your gov't chooses killing as policy, expect others to choose the same.
I already speak some French and Spanish and i'd willingly learn another one. That's really not the problem. I'm looking for listings and an explanation of how not to run afoul of stuff like work visas etc.
Best Trivia answer ever... Name the largest aquatic man eater... Contestant: Tsunami
Really, they're just jealous of the Jews, 'cause the Jews (a) were set on fire and whatnot a lot more recently, and (b) have a tradition of huge, badass beards. Take that, Christianity!
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
"So, how many STDs are transmitted through abstinence?"
The same number that got transmitted to castrated men?
I think most "Christians" are Christians in name only, going to church to advance their own social and business contacts. Face it, if you're not a "Christian" in, say, Houston, you're not going very far socially.
These are the people who are the most vocal.
You would never know that most Christians are in fact Christians unless you ask them.
Personally, I believe that the theory of evolution is most likely accurate in most respects, and that where it is found to be innacurate it will be changed, as advances in science always change (or sometimes disprove) accepted theories.
I also believe that life (and indeed, the ubniverse itself) is way too complex to have not been designed. But I also believe that that this belief should not be taught in public school, but in church.
If you're afraid of secularism you must have very little faith in God. Take your kids to church. Leave God out of the public school.
As to the ten commandments on public property, when are they getting around to outlawing adultery? Never? Then how does it have any place whatever in a courtroom?
If I had mod points, I wouldn't be able to decide whether to mod this as "Funny" or "Insightful".
What is your reply to this?
Creationism is the concept that some divine being initiated and guided life. Intelligent design is the concept that some intelligent being (not divine though, oh no, not divine) created and guided life.
ID *is* creationism, soft-peddled to appear scientific; but just like a child dressed up in her daddy's clothes, it's just ludicrous and somewhat funny, and most anyone can recognize it for what it is. "Ah, look at it acting all grown up and scientific. Isn't that pwecious?"
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
Okay, let's separate the fundamentalist Christians out for a moment... I am not a theologian, and NOT qualified to give a true explanation, so I'm INTENTIONALLY oversimplifying here. If you are really interested, speak with a theologian whose opinion and knowledge your trust.
The basic concept of "Creationism" or belief in Genesis...
Approximately 5765 lunar years ago (approximately because of quirks in the Hebrew calendar to reconcile it with the solar calendar with odd leap periods, etc.), the "universe was created and man was created. For Man was created a wife, and they lived in a world where there was no death, they named the animals, etc. Man's Wife ate from the Tree which they were forbidden, and Man and wife were cast out from paradise where they, and their descendants, would live, die, and their women would experience pain during childbirth."
Thats the 5 second rundown of this portion of Genesis. The other notion is that it was created in 7 days, and for the Seventh day creation was halted, and every 7 days thereafter we should rest in recognition of creation.
What do we know that supports this story (and its just that, a story)? Remember, according to Judaic (and Christian and Islamic) tradition, the Creator dictated this story to Moses while the Israelites were wandering the desert and he recorded it.
Note that of the five books of Moses, the beginning of the Bible, VERY little time is spent here. There is no explanation of methods, process, etc., it's to explain why we're all here.
What do we know, factually, that "supports" this story.
Mankind as we know it, is approximately 6000 years old. I don't mean physically, I mean culturally. The concepts of a city and agriculture shows its first signs of existence around then in that GENERAL area of the world.
We know that the Universe is ever-expanded, and the process is accelerating, not decelerating, which implies that the "Big Bang" was a unique event, not an oscillating universe. So up until some moment t=0, there was no universe... and then there was...
We also know that most animals on the planet seem to only exist to reproduce. Only mankind seems to have discussions about reproduction, debates about "choice vs. life," and concern about the life/health/well-being/happiness of the mother, because childbirth is an inherently dangerous event.
So everyone here can scream and yell, or realize that the Bible and Science seem to given different accounts that BOTH describe the same events... Man as intelligent (with "soul") creature making self determination happened approximately 6000 years ago in what is no the middle east.
Mankind is apparently unique in the pains of childbearing, at least to the point where it is used to make determination.
And at some point, there was nothing, and then something decided that there would be a universe, and it was.
The Bible, quite succinctly, describes the origin of the universe (there was nothing, and then there was something), and that then there was Man, and we continue.
3500+ years later, we now have spent 300 years and lots of money on research to discover the universe and we discovered... that there was in fact a moment of Creation (and we can even start to guesstimate when it was), that people should have AT LEAST ONE DAY off (and since then decided that there should be TWO), and that civilization as we know it started in the Middle East about 6000 years ago.
Both give you the same idea. The religious tradition gives you a reason, the scientific explanation gives you a methodology. Both are extremely valid, have "evidence" that supports the core portion.
The anti-relgious nihilist view that is prevalent here is truly sad, and loses site of what is going on. Creationism, at its core, explains a brief history of man and why we are unique. Evolution gives a long history of life and why mankind isn't unique, while also explaining why we are.
However, don't claim that EITHER side of the modern
You are full of shit. Atheism gets exactly zero time in the current system. When I took a World Religions class in Grade 10, all the suggested essay topics were pro-Religion. I was allowed to pick my own that was anti-, but still. Ugh.
If you think Darwin's (somewhat outdated) work makes your religion obsolete, that's just you. It's no harder to come up with a conspiracy theory that allows for Christianity to co-exist with reality than it is for a conspiracy theory that allows for Faked Moon Landings to co-exist with reality.
Other things in similar vein that disprove your religion:
- Ezekiel 7:2, Isaiah 11:12, Revelations 7:1. The Earth has four corners. In reality, The Earth is round and does not have corners. Ergo, Christianity is bullshit. Ban geography!
- Chronicles 4:2. A molten sea is 10 cubits across and 30 cubits around. It should be 31 cubits around according to elementary math. Ergo, Christianity is bullshit. Ban arithmetic!
- Psalms 19:4-6. The Sun is alleged to move around the Earth. In reality, the Earth orbits the Sun. Ergo, Christianity bullshit. Ban astronomy!
- Joshua 10:12-13. The rotation of the Earth is stopped so that the Sun and the Moon may stand still in the sky. This would result in everything not on Earth flying off into space due to the law of conservation of angular momentum. Ergo, Christianity bullshit. Ban physics!
If you don't think that the above are major errors and permit for metaphorical interpretation, then you have no fucking reason to pretend that evolution is incompatible with Christianity. Evolution is just your fucking God's instrument, okay?
Why the fuck do you care about the Genesis anyways? Jesus didn't give much of a damn about the Old Testament. St. Paul of Tarsus liked it, but St. Paul was an asshole before converting and stayed an asshole after.
Now, please don't advocate the slaughter of millions of your countrymen because they happen to teach and have a brain.
Is this a sigs-optional kind of place? 'Cause I am totally down with that if you know what I mean.
Animals do not have intellects or wills; they have no feelings or emotions.
My question to you is this: How can you be sure? An animal is not capable of love, devotion, or caring? How is it that we have heard of dogs that have risked their lives to save their owner or a child from danger? Is that instinct? Wouldn't instinct tell the uncaring dog to run away and save himself, would his survival be more important.
IMHO... animals, especialy larger ones, are capable of having feelings and to a limited extent intellect. But I think it is a little callous to assume that they do not possess any intelligence at all.
Please allow me to hazard a 'devil's advocate' argument into this cacophony out of a feeling of necessity.
Science is by no means bulletproof. Yes, science has come a long, long way from even ten years ago, not to mention three hundred, yet we must never forget that all it takes to change the 'proven fundamental beliefs' of the scientific community is a simple idea and hypothesis. The beautiful thing about science also is its undoing; science changes.
If we, as is proposed and is being taught, accept the THEORY of evolution as ultimate truth, we will miss the opportunity of further advancement in society, whatever the argument. This is not a debate against 'Intelligent Design,' but a plea for INTELLECTUAL and EDUCATIONAL FREEDOM. (Please, before the nay-sayers dismiss me for using buzzwords, hear me out.)
By the same argument that most 'liberals' use against the government; if we allow the 'government' or school system the power to exclude this possibility, it will be that much easier for them to exclude some other teaching later on.
The argument against Intelligent Design is based on the same premise that blocked evolution from being taught freely for decades after its first inception; fear and misunderstanding. As I understand I.D., it is not a creation 'ex nihilo' , but simply someone/thing guiding or simply starting the process, which is just as provable and probable as life spontaneously organizing in a pool of goop, as evolution states. This seems more an effort to improve on an existing theory, which is a practice of good science. (I can already hear the ignorant populace guffaw at that claim.)
If you are sure that this is a complete load, then your friends, children, general populace,etc... will recognize it for what it is and believe otherwise. The fact is that you cannot stop the rising generation from inheriting the government and world. So instead of trying to play thought police and leaving a legacy of closed-mindedness, let our generation be remembered as one who trusted our children and fellow men to think for themselves and make up their own minds. Lets not forget that freedom has a cost higher than blood, it takes trust.
Let's not turn this field of science into the stagnant pool that entropy rules, (arguments for another day), by killing the possibility of something other than popularly believed. If this is false, it will pan out. The society/country that believes it has ruled out the impossible by simply declaring it impossible is the next to fall.
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to govern any other" -John Ada
Your argument has the same flaw you pointed out in mine. Given that our world as it exists is the only one we know, why do you assume that there were any "remarkable coincidences" at all? It happened, so it's obviously not too unlikely.
Infinity plus anything still equals infinity. Infinity minus anything still equals infinity. It can have boundaries and be infinite.
I think hyperbolic space provides a good example of this actually. It is an infinite space that is bounded. It's an odd concept at first, but actually makes a lot of sense once you get your head around it.
Jedidiah.
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
In fact, this would be equivalent to admitting effects without a cause. says the late Pope.
But any rational observer of the world admits effects without cause. Not only are effects without cause central to the quantum mechanical view of the world, they are also implicit in the Newtonian view.
Take, for example, the configuration that John Norton discusses in his paper "Causation as Folk Science". He considers a point mass resting atop a domed surface of section h=(2/3g)r^(3/2), where h is the distance from the central peak of the dome and r is the radial co-ordinate. g is a numerical constant equal to the acceleration of gravity but with dimension set to make the units work out.
At t=0 set r=0, and wait. The motion has two classes of solution. In one, the mass sits still forever. In the other, the mass begins a spontaneous (uncaused) motion down the slope in an arbitrary (uncaused) direction at an arbitrary time T.
While the details of Norton's analysis are incorrect, he is correct in pointing out a class of Newtonian systems that are in "convergently unstable equilibrium". These are systems in which the time-reversed motion contains solutions wherein a mass comes to absolute rest at the end of its motion.
In the case of the dome described above, a point mass sent up the dome with the correct velocity will come to a stop at the top (this is not the case for a spherical dome, where the time-reversed situation does not converge on zero velocity). But in those cases where it does, then obviously the forward motion is also valid, and that is precisely that case where the point mass spontaneously starts moving at an arbitrary time.
Ergo, the late Pope is simply wrong to suggest that we should not admit effects without causes, and his argument falls to bits on this basis, as do all arguments for the necessity of an intelligent designer. The existence of motion does not imply a mover. The existence of order does not imply an orderer. The late Pope implied the existence of these based on an argument from falacious premises: that to have an effect there must be a cause. It is not a matter for philosophical debate but a matter of empirical fact that this premise is false.
Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
Knowing God and knowing about God are two different things. The former is the result of salvation, achieved through faith in Jesus. The latter is a signpost, a breadcrumb, a marker on the path of salvation.
Scientific inquiry into the intelligence of God, as manifested in nature, is not an essential component of salvation. But salvation is an essential component of knowing God.
This might clear things up for ya.
Scientific proof of God's intelligence in nature is not proof that He sent Jesus to atone for our sins and that belief in Jesus is the only method of getting closer to Himself.
As to your post's title: You seem to have, at most, a very superficial understanding of Christianity. I seriously question your ability to look at a group of Christians and produce an accurate characterization based on how those Christians incorporate ID into their belief system. Really! Was that anything other than a cartoonish hypothetical wherein you brilliantly point out in a sentence or two some serious flaw with Christianity that only you've discovered?
damaged by dogma
creationism is not intelligent design. Intelligent Deisgn has absolutely nothing to do with religion. It somewhat distrubs me that the original poster of this article felt it necessary to turn "Intelligent Design" into "Creationism". I imagine he had to of known the difference, but since creationism is much more easily dismissed he decided to use that word instead of the word Bush actually used. Clever wording to help prove a point? I think so. Rather sad. Whats even more sad is that most people on here arent even wise enough to know the difference and ridicule the ones that are and attempted to point it out. I suppose I could explain it thoroughly, but I'll just say that Intelligent Design also emcompasses Deism, which is where it becomes radically different than creationism. Give deism a little google. Judging by this I really do think it is necessary for Intelligent Design to be taught in schools, clearly all of you would of benefited from it seeing as so many of you are so ignorant to what it is.
No they don't. They can't insist such a thing because the visible universe only encompasses ~14 billion lightyears. Thus we can only see out 14 billion lightyears, or 14 billion years into the past (depending on your point of view).
Any astrophysicist that insists on such nonsense as the universe being finite is basing their statement on incomplete data, and making an error. In other words, when some astronomer says, "Holey shiat! I see the edge of the universe!", and it's confirmed, then those astrophysicists will have a more complete data set and they can state that the universe is finite.
Evolution is simply something that, when tested, tends to prove correct. Evidence is being mounted continualy to support some kind of evolutionary process. And it is not dogmatic. I see news all the time with headlines that state that evolutionary theory may have to be rethought in some way. I never hear creationists saying that creationist theory needs to be rethought. I only hear them talking about how they can make it work by disproving evolution. Creationists don't need to prove anything regarding thier theory because thier thoery does not predict anything.
As for intelligent gallactic star systems, well, whos to say? But if your telling me that we can't even gather any evidence than what are you proposing we do? Speculate and assume? Fine for science fiction, which is where this type of dreamy creativity is generally expressed, but in order to prove something you need to actually test your theory. So if you think that Gallaxies could be intellgient then figure out a way to detect it and get back to us.
If you think the earth was created 5k years ago by God and all you have is a biblical text and a bunch of idiotic statements regarding the age of fossils then please expect to be sidelined as a nut case. There is not an infinit amount of time to pander to all the crazy people.
Kind Regards
"A few great minds are enough to endow humanity with monstrous power, but a few great hearts are not enough to make us w
Such brilliance hasn't been heard of since Alanis Morisette's "Ironic"!
As evolution theory is a scientific theory, it has a scope which is
Ironic, coming from a guy who endorses abstinence-only sex education. I guess 'exposing people to different ideas' only applies to biology, right Mr. Bush?
Here, here! And while we're at it, let's make further laws to the effect that all mental disease is caused by demonic possession, milk goes sour and tomatos rot because there is a witch living next door who must be burned at the stake, anybody who isn't white is only 3/5ths of a human being, and the world is flat.
Yesterday I cruised the mall and saw something in a gift-shop window which disturbed me. A statue of a an American soldier and an angel. The soldier was in cammies, face contorted in a barbaric howl, rifle drawn, charging in. The angel hovered over him, beaming down on his act. As I watched, somebody BOUGHT it. A huge 400-pound woman with ape-like teeth and a cell-phone growing out of one side of her head. Her beady, reptilian eyes swiveled to me as the cashier rang her Discover card. She looked hungry. I backed out and fled the mall, before the mob could close in and slaughter and devour me and wear my pinkie bones through their noses.
It's not just stupid or crazy anymore. This society is very, very sick, in the most hideous of ways. You either see it from the outside, or you have it and think it's a blessing.
Intelligent design argues, as I understand, that there is much that is not understood about evolution, etc., so maybe a supreme power was involved in some of these areas.
Science tries to figure out how things work and might have worked in the past.
If you believe a supreme power was involved, that's fine, but it is really hard to prove by saying "science doesn't have an answer here, so it must be a supreme power".
That isn't science at all, so why teach it at school?
The scientists should be more open about discussing what they don't know anyway. I think the fact that the "Creationists" jump on every unknown make them anxious to make everything as solid seaming as possible, when in reality there are huge unknowns.
The comment by Mr. Bush is probably just a way to tie up press attention that would otherwise be focused on the Karl Rove investigation.
Have you ever seen a puddle of water. Have you ever noticed that the water in the puddle was designed to fit the puddle completely and totally? There are no empty spaces there; where there's indendation, there's water until it starts to dry out, and when it dries out it does so from the top down.
Clear proof that water puddles are designed!
STOP MISUSING APOSTROPHES, YOU MORONS!!!
Reading through the many posts on this matter, I can't help but notice the frequency with which oughtness is ascribed to matters of opinion.
-This or that ought not be in the classroom.
-This ought not be masqueraded as ID when it is in fact creationism.
-Science ought to be taught and learned in public education.
-Religion ought not be taught and learned in public education.
-Philosophy ought or ought not be taught in the public classroom.
-Fundie Christians really ought not tell us how things ought to be.
Let's see, we have the Bible, we have the Constitution (the Libertarian's Bible), the scientific method (the "scientisit's" Bible), and many more I'm sure.... a lot of really interesting religions with some very zealous followers.
Jesuits are often praised for ther rigourous intellectual training.
At least in modern times.
The Jesuits were the Storm Troopers of the Spanish Inquisition. Not the Monty Python one, but the real one with all the torture and executions.
They were the shock troops who were charged with controlling any wayward thoughts in the general population.
It is because of this history that they now support the strong ethical and educational values they do. They feel that they have to make up for the past sins of their order.
I would suggest that everyone on slashdot check out the book "Turn Left at Orion". It is an introduction to Astronomy written by the Vatican Astronomer. The Catholic church does not change quickly, but they have come a long way from burning Bruno at the stake, and showing Galileo "The Instruments".
The Vatican was one of the first religious bodies to accept the idea of the Big Bang. The Catholic Church has no problem with evolution being the mechanism God has chosen to populate the Universe with life.
The Church will not take a position that denies God, but they no longer feel that science is a threat to religion (officially at least). Every time in their long history that the Church has been at odds with science, science has always won. The Earth is flat, The Sun goes around the Earth, The other planets are not physical bodies like the Earth and are parts of a non-physical 'heaven'. In its view, the Catholic Church has learned the hard lesson that it should quit trying to dictate to God how he made the Universe, and instead study how he made the universe through the scientific process, and accept God's choices at face value.
Other Christian sects are still unwilling to accept God's work, and instead want to force God to follow some stuff written in ink on paper. Still other Christian sects were accepting of science very early in the Renaisance.
For atheists and agnostics this would all just be a nice philosophical discussion, if there weren't so many groups of people who are still acting like the Jesuits used to back in the bad old days. They don't have to reconcile their beliefs on creation with science, because they are willing to admit they don't know everything.
then where there are no plants, there will be no storms.
However, there are a lot of storms over mountains or glaciers, where there are no plants.
I don't go to church, so I don't know whether preachers speak out against violence executed in the name of religion. Like after someone shoots an abortion doctor in the name of "unborn children", or a gang beats a gay guy to death: do Christian preachers immediately denounce the perpetrators as perverted sinners, "taking the lord's name in vain" or somesuch? Do Christian priests teach their congregations that the killing in war is evil, that killers go to hell? When torture is in the news, do preachers make it their business to teach their followers that torture is evil, that god punishes torturers? Do they teach people that doing evil in god's name is even worse evil?
Or do they "go with the flow", hoping that "Christians will win", and lean back on "god works in mysterious ways"? Because that kind of passive, tacit approval of the terrible acts being committed by Christians and others, especially in the name of religion, is certainly how it looks to me. But then, without going to church, and without much coverage of such preaching in the media, I have no way of knowing how prevalent such righteousness actually is.
--
make install -not war
Even leaving out what appear to be gross misuses of the terms "infinitessimal" and "missing", you now appear to be equating the universe with a single planet. The time and space that evolution on this planet have seen is clearly finite, so expecting every possible thing to have happened here recently is not approriate.
(And I can't resist dismissing this "missing link" nonsense. No matter how many links there are, how closely placed, there will always be some space between them in which someone can claim that there's another step that's missing.)
I can assure you that when considering an infinite scale and a finite probability, that it will happen.
I can assure you that you are incorrect. What you mean to say is that it will happen with probability one, or 100%. But in mathematics, that does NOT mean that any given event is guaranteed to happen. What it means is that the events will "almost surely" occur, i.e., the non-events will have a measure of zero. But our lives are zero probability events, yet here we are.
And furthermore, from a cosmological standpoint, it's still an open question (npi) as to whether the universe is infinite or not. An open or flat universe will be infinite spatially and temporally. A closed ("big crunch") universe will be finite. At this point it is unknown and probably will always be unknowable whether the universe is open or closed. Even if we are in an inflationary bubble, the universe as a whole might be in a different state -- we have know way of knowing for sure.
There are two kinds of people: 1) those who start arrays with one and 1) those who start them with zero.
When will the conservative right pull their heads out from their asses......I would have to say they make the largest majority of hypocrites on the planet at the moment (and is hypocrisy a sin?) Ohhh dont touch the stem cells, youll kill a human, ooohhh dont have an abortion youll kill a human - but WAR is ok!! Its JUSTIFIABLE SOMEHOW!??! WHAT!! God is a an all-compassionate all-loving being, but BAN GAY MARRIAGE - its not RIGHT?!!? - its not a FAMILY VALUE?!?! WHAT!! Grab your guns, and have sex all day - thats the conservative christian way!! yeeehaawww Creationism = sad (but unfortunately popular) idea that the world is only 6000 years old....haha? Who says scientists CANT mathematically prove its older, they HAVE, and its called a carbon-14 test. The more of these types of people we can persuade into some other belief system the better, they are so caught up in this bullshit, they feel the need to press it on others. For any religious person who supports their faith as much as one of these whackos, just step back for a minute and look at yourself, and think about how good of an example you have become as to how powerful religion really is..... Ridiculous?
From: Creation vs Evolution - an interesting article on the subject which all should read, whether on 'one' side or the other...
The M+G+R Foundation
Creation Vs Evolution or Evolution Vs Creation
It Is Neither...
It Really Is "Man Vs Man"... Just Like satan Likes It!
PURPOSE
The purposes of this brief document are primarily two: (1) Show, utilizing the scientific proof of the claimants of the Theory of Evolution, that God is the First Cause of Creation which, in turn, confirms the Theory of Creation; (2) Show, by default, how basically stupid man is when being away from God, he keeps falling for the same satan snares without learning anything from it.
INTRODUCTION
If you ask a room full of individuals what came first, the chicken or the egg the answers will pour in as a torrent as everyone gives his/her opinion as the "correct" answer. Most likely few stopped to think about the issue before speaking and most, without a doubt, spoke without any real knowledge about the subject at hand.
The same with the Creation and Evolution "theorists" - Should they be asked which theory is correct, like wild eyed fanatics they would reach for the jugular vein of the opponent before even looking at the very "facts" they wield as "weapons".
DETAILS
Let us look at the scientific facts utilized by the Big Bang proponents using accessible language:
(1) In the beginning there was nothing, not even "space" which would give meaning to the concept of "nothingness". We do not know what was before the Big Bang; it does not even make sense where it started because when it took place, not only matter and energy were created, but also space and time were created - thus "where" did not exist before!
(2) Then, in an instant, the universe was formed - infinitely small, dense and hot. We do not what occurred during the first instants after the Big Bang because the four forces which today determine the behavior of matter - gravity, electromagnetism and nuclear forces, strong and weak - were united in one single unit, the details of which we have not been able to decipher. A second later, when the Universe had the size of a melon, the Laws of Physics, which we now know, were already in existence.
(3) All remained dark until 300,000 years or so later, the matter had been dispersed enough in space to suddenly release light in a flash which illuminated the entire Universe.
Let us look at the Biblical facts utilized by the Creationist proponents using accessible language:
(1) Biblically speaking, before the beginning there was nothing... Creation had not commenced.
(2) In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.
(3) And God said: Let there be light: and there was light.
[(1) - (3) from Genesis 1:1-3]
With their Scientific basis - Evolutionists proceed to "create" living things from chemical elements that came from, scientifically proven, nowhere. This is a problem that man cannot begin to even fathom - "nowhere" is a term defined by a Created environment, an environment which did not exist before creation, thus this "nowhere" cannot even be grasped by the very feeble human mind.
With their Biblical basis - Creationists proceed to "create" living things from the literal interpretation of Genesis. The problem is that their version starts falling apart at the seams before even getting to Chapter Three of the Book of Genesis. We read in Genesis two different stories about the Creation of man. The simultaneous creation of Adam and Eve [Genesis 1: 26-28] and the Adam first and Eve from Adam's rib [Genesis 2: 7-24]. [Note, we are not questioning that if God said
My favorite hypocrisy is seeing huge SUVs (with a single person in them) with one of those cheap magnetic ribbons saying "support our troops", mounted sideways like a fish to show that they're Christian. Not only have we got Christians "supporting out troops" by driving the giant cars that suck the oil that demands our troops kill and die in Mideastern meatgrinders. But these people act like Christianity is some kind of underground "oppressed minority" that has to signal cryptically that they're all over the roads. Maybe if they someday prevail, they'll eventually get a Christian into the White House. They're both Rome and the Christians, and would feed Democrats, "Liberals", anyone who opposes them, to the lions.
--
make install -not war
One is that everything in every organism has a specific function. Whens the last time you saw a bridge or microchip with an extra dangly bit?
So, male humans would be expected to be nipple free if ID was an accurate representation of the facts. An yet some males have more than two nipples, and barring accidents all of them have at least two.
Humans also start out with six more bones than we end up with.
But that's just humans, and incomplete. After all if something out there is so smart it's able to design a whole ecosystem that's been functioning for eons, we shouldn't be able to find much in the way of flaws in any of the designs.
I can buy the Platypus as an "easter egg" but male nipples is just shoddy workmanship.
I had always thought that watching bacteria become resistant / immune to drugs, or changing how they attack was a form of evolution. The fact that a change in its environment prompted a it to mutate, that is passed to its "children, seems a good indicator of evolution to me. Heck, I remember something about aids being hard to fight because it mutated so quickly (among other things). ...
Maybe its just me
If life were intelligently designed, it would by definition have been designed intelligently. Stupid random leftover useless cruft like appendixes and remnents of tail skeleton would not be present, especially in any species singled out for special attention. And boy, human eyes and noses could sure be a hell of a lot better than they are.
The only conclusion we can come to based on the scientific evidence is that if life was designed, it must have have been designed by a flawed being, either a stupid one or a lazy one or a malevolent one (or some combination of these).
I'm sure that in Pre-columbian Europe most people believed the world was flat. Even though Ptolemy had already proven it was spherical centuries before.
It doesn't matter how many beople say they believe something in a poll, that won't make it true if it is not true. No matter what percentage of Europeans thought the world was flat before Columbus, the world was still round.
It did not matter what the percentage was, how hard they believed, or how much faith they had in their belief. Reality doesn't care about peoples opinions.
Columbus could not get funding in the then super power of Europe, Italy. He got it from Spain and they ascended to the be the next super power.
If the citizens of the US fail to accept reality, someone else will take up the torch. There might be a lag in the advancement of society now and then, but the ignorant will not manage to extinguish the flame of knowledge and the thirst for truth.
The quest, and the rewards that go with it, will just have to move to different shores. The US has a choice, advance or wither. The small minded are too afraid to advance.
This comment will probably get lost in the already tremendous number of posts, but I'm going to make it anyway because I couldn't find any other posts stating this.
... putting forward a theory and then measuring that theory against the facts. Intelligent Design (not creationism!!) is as much science as you can get!
... we weren't around to watch the creation of the universe.
While it's true "Creationism" is something not fit for a Science class, Intelligent Design *is*. "Creationism" is a teaching of the Biblical narrative on creation. Intelligent Design is a scientific theory just evolution and the two aren't mutually exclusive.
Intelligent Design simply asks the question "does the scientific evidence we have about how the Earth was create support the theory that the Earth was designed by an intelligent force rather than by mere chance?"
Then it's time to apply the scientific evidence to see if the theory holds any weight.
That's the basis of science
Per the National Academy of Science's assertion that "Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science" - that's a bunch of crap. The assertion of evolution claiming that the universe evolved by chance is equally un-testable
Anyway, that's probably enough time spent on a post that will likely never be read.
A quick look at Dembski's work makes it clear that he believes that the Christian God is the intelligent designer. It's clear that he's not serious about aliens, and a closer look at his writings reveals that the purpose of offering alternative designers like aliens is simply part of what the intelligent design creationists call the "wedge" strategy.
Intelligent design is a legal and public relations strategy designed to get Christianity into the public sphere, and especially to get creationism into American classrooms. Dembski acknowledges the purpose of ID in his own words below:
"In its relation to Christianity, intelligent design should be viewed as a ground-clearing operation that gets rid of the intellectual rubbish that for generations has kept Christianity from receiving serious consideration," Dembski wrote in a reply to [scientific creationist leader] Morris.Ack. Login failed etc, tried again and it submitted...
What I wanted to say.
As evolution is a scientific theory, it has a scope which is that of science. And as this scope is what can be observed in nature, that is also the scope in which evolution's conclusions are valid.
ID, otoh, is a bit of pseudo-science.
Its criticism against evolution may be valid and scientific (IANABiologist), and criticism of a theory is a necessary part of science.
However, by suggesting there is a factor which is outside the scope of science (IE, the designer), it has disqualified itself from being science.
So essentially, neither of these can prove the other wrong. One can only conclude that there is no designer from the starting point that nature is all that exists (ie there is no designer) And one can only conclude that there is a designer from the starting point that it is assumed that there is something existing outside of nature.
I think that this would be valuable to teach kids:From a scientific point of view, only ET is valid, but also limited to the scope of science, and ID criticises ET does also step out of the scope of science, thus cannot disprove it, as it is in a different playing field. Maybe ID doesn't belong in science as a scientific theory. But I find it a very good example to illustrate what science can do and what one can do within science.
However, the problem is, and will always be that it will depend on the teacher/school/local school board which of these will be emphasised as true.
Please don't assume all american's are idiots because of how we voted
I agree. Base your assumption on our ability to grasp the correct usage of the apostrophe instead.
Intelligent Design was created for the specific purpose of denying naturalism (or materialism as they typically call it.) The problem isn't that a few proponents deny it, but that the entire concept is a Trojan horse designed not just to get creationism into our schools but to eliminate naturalism from science.
The Intelligent Design movement started in 1992 according to its founder Phillip Johnson. Let's look at the beginning of the strategy section of the Wedge document, which describes the purpose of Intelligent Design and how its creators intend to use it:
They organized their Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture at their conference titled "The Death of Materialism and the Renewal of Culture." Their web site a few years later makes it clear that their goals hadn't changed:
Don't be deceived by the image of Intelligent Design that they've carefully constructed through their multimillion dollar PR campaign. Intelligent Design is nothing more than a religious attack on science and naturalism.
So what your talking here about is 'opinion' or 'belief'.
Teachers shouldn't be free to 'teach' whatever they like the most. Depending on what you consider the goal of education to be, teachers should either teach 'the truth', or 'the most practical knowledge' available (meaning knowledge allowing the students to be successful through their lives).
'The truth' is what we know to be facts. Nowadays a common criterium could be what we can measure by scientific methods repeatably. This is undeniable fact-based truth (at least for non-delusional subjects). ID is not this kind of 'truth', because we can't measure anything of it.
And the most useful 'practical knowledge' today seems to be the one developed under Science and Technology. It's impossible to deny how much Science and Technology have advanced our civilizations in this last century. This is knowledge that allows us to do things knowing (predicting) what the outcome will be. ID is not 'practical knowledge', because I don't know which use it could have other than fostering long Slashdot arguments and making education yet poorer in a culturally decadent western country.
And in this way the teacher would be handling 'opinion' or 'belief' to students, rather than 'truth' or 'practical knowledge'.
If the teacher told students something like "there's people that think in this way, and some other people that think in that other way", then we would be teaching 'facts on opinions or beliefs', that at most would be social or cultural facts, but would not belong to the realm of Science.
The problem is that opinions are like asses: everyone has its own. And that's the way it should be! When one gets grown (but not before), one has to gather every piece of fact that one got before and then forge an opinion. Children at school are not grown up enough to do so, and so should not be contaminated by others' opinions.
The thing is that evolution and natural selection are both fact-based 'truth' and 'practical knowledge'.
We have records of the introduction of new species to locations where they didn't exist before, and how sometimes they overpowered and extinguished the previously-existing native ones. A lot of experiments have been done about artificially-induced mutations on insects and other species. Mutations are known to happen naturally, although at a slower rate. Evolution requires only natural selection, mutations and time. Those are facts, so this is the 'truth' part.
Moreover, man has done cattle selection and breeding for centuries, getting better breeds for every possible use. This is no more than 'controlled evolution', an evolution process in which the environment selection criteria are specified by the human breeder. This is then rather 'practical knowledge' too.
If you argue that evolution hasn't been demonstrated in every case, then I'll argue that Science doesn't need to demonstrate every possible case of a law in order to be useful. The exception is when you find a solid, repeatable negative case, which would force Science to reconsider and perhaps override the original law. Please, could you get the solid, repeatable proof for a single case of non-evolution?
So,
Intelligent Design : Creationism ::
Natural Selection : Macro-Evolution
FACT: Creationism, especially as defined by Christians, is not falsifiable, and thus not a science.
FACT: Macro-evolution, especially as defined by atheists, is not falsifiable and thus not a science.
FACT: Abiogenesis has never happened and likely will never happen. This is a prerequisite of atheistic evolution. Either that, or "little green men". A supra-majority of polled atheists ironically believe in life outside of our solar system. Those hardcore atheists I have lots of respect for, because it must be difficult for them to tolerate the posers.
My apologies also go out to the evolutionists and darwinists who have had their science hijacked by these fanatical atheists.
Speciation - The evolutionary formation of new biological species, usually by the division of a single species into two or more genetically distinct ones.
Why is this in the science section??
If the subject of how we came to be produces such primitive emotional outbursts in so many of us, then maybe this is less about science and more about instinct and feeling.
Evolution, as an explanation of how life came to exist is also an unproven, unprovable theory. Since both Evolution, and Intelligent design, are both theories, and have significant scientific proof backing each, both should be presented in school, both at the high-school level, and undergraduate level classes.
Saying the earth went around the sun was blasphemy that got Galileo imprisoned by the church for years. He probably would have been executed if he hadn't been so careful about how he worded this. All this was because his observations were supposably counter to the bible.
Finding the earth goes around the sun did not shatter Christianity. It didn't invalidate the bible. Intelligent design theorists and creationists are the same kind of idiots who imprisoned Galileo for publishing a great scientific discovery.
Does ID seriously want to compare with other 'creation theories'? What about all the other religions? I seem to recall a native myth about Sketco the Raven making the world out of a snow ball he rolled on his back. That one beats the bible already by having the earth round and mostly water!
ID is not science and, therefore, has no place in science. If it is to be science it will have to act like a scientific theory. That means gathering evidence and having it published in reviewed scientific journals. So far evolution has gathered much more scientific evidence (although, the evidence did change the views on some of the details).
If ID could gather legitimate scientific evidence, it would have to be accepted as science. Science is the pursuit of truth.
we can even modify individual base pairs in certain cells with gene therapy- thus "creating" forms of life that have never existed before.
so we are, absolutely, intelligent designers. we exist. that is a 100% fact.
so.. anyone who dismisses space alien designers as impossible because "who designed the designers" is missing the point entirely.
do anti-ID folks claim humans do not exist? or do they just claim that "ok, well maybe WE are intelligent designers, but the idea that there are OTHER intelligent designer aliens is absurd"
which is it?
btw- i think ID has a possibility for the origins of life, and i also think the bible is a fictional story. i know you people don't believe me, since most ID people are jesus freaks, but I DO NOT BELIEVE IN THE BIBLE.
As much as we'd like to be able to say that religion and science are compatible, but speak to different areas, it's not always true. Often religions state concrete things about the world, and those things may be incompatible with things supported by science.
In this case, the cardinal is at least sorta right. The belief that today's organisms got the way they are via natural selection is inherently incompatible with the belief that God created them a particular way. One could argue that God wanted kangaroos to be a certain way and so he created kangaroos via a process which involved many intervening life-forms. That gets evolution and intelligent design both, but it isn't natural selection. Natural selection is *inherently* an unguided process and any theory in which a god has a hand in making life the way it is is *inherently* a guided process.
I'm quite disappointed that I can't find the reference, but some time ago I read an article by Stephen J. Gould which said the same thing. The cardinal isn't being radical, he's just clarifying a point which is that the Catholic church's view is that life is the way it is because God wants it that way. You certainly aren't obligated to believe him (I don't).
Great, so now ignorant parents can send their children to schools teaching ignorant beliefs. All is well with the world, unless you hope for the triumph of reason over superstition.
Science is based on observable phenomena. Intelligent design doesn't have a place in a science class room and should under no circumstances be offered as a "possibility" inside a science classroom. Science isn't about proving or disproving mythical entities exist, it's about explaining OBSERVABLE phenomena.
Whether you believe it or not, whether you like it or not - Evolution is a religion too.
IF YOU DO NOT BUY A PACK OF DVD/VIDEO CASSETTES FROM drdino.com, COPY THEM, AND RETURN THE ORIGINAL COPY FOR A FULL REFUND YOU ARE AN IGNORANT PERSON AND WOULD NOT LIKE TO FAIRLY LOOK AT THE SIDE OF CREATIONISM!
Everything is covered, including the ice age. The main speaker (Kent Hovind) compares both sides and shows the different between them, aswell as faults.
There are approximately 1,000 different religions on the face of the earth. Each one says the other 999 are wrong. What makes yours right?
Who here is against Intelligent Design (ID)? Who here is for SETI? Anyone have SETI@Home installed? Did you know that SETI is using ID in their search for extra-terrestrial life? SETI searches for radio signals that are too complex to occur naturally. When a radio signal is found with sufficient complexity it is deamed that it came from an intelligence. The signal is then tested to make sure it did not come from earth or from one of our many satellites.
This is the basis for ID. We determine when something is too complex to occur naturally.
I wonder how you became so convinced that life without Jesus Christ is "dull, void and empty". Since I converted to Atheism, I've been far happier than I ever was as a Christian.
Also, since Jesus died roughly 2,000 years ago, I would submit that you, like myself, are living without any "relationship" with him.
Just to clarify, it'd be:
(1-(1-.000000000000001)^X) letting X->inf = 1
. . . "Progressive" is to "Liberal." An idea has gained such a negative context in society that its proponents have had to rebrand it. As many others have mentioned, it's quite an excellent example of marketing an old idea as something new and improved.
It's unfortunate that the President of a developed country who is in direct charge of some of the most powerful and awesome technologies created by scientists continues to push an agenda that is anti-science.
Let's keep the Government's representatives' religious beliefs and traditions out of our personal lives please.
What everyone has to realize is that this is not about whether ID is a valid theory, etc. but that whether Americans like it or not, this developed country was originally created by religious people escaping persecution to make a place where they could worship who they wanted (namely, their own Christian God). This whole ID vs. evolution "debate" is just an extension of that. The constitution, laws, etc. of the US were all based off the citizen's beliefs at that time (Christianity) and the elected officials believed in the religion in vogue at the time (again, Christinity). As much as many of you would like to keep religion and government separate, they are intrinsically interwoven (in this country at least)--government policies are made according to what people think is right, which in turn is dictated by relgion for most people (including George Bush and the conservative religious majority that elected him). And whether you want to accept it or not, that's how it is. If you don't like it, homeschool your kids, send them to a private school, or go to a different country.
Easier to start on the projection side. Most of the people who actually think deeply about these issues really do love their freedoms. However, they project that love to other people who actually don't love freedom. Eh? What's going on there? The problem is that being free is actually hard work, and the "sheeple" don't want to be bothered. The relevant example here is that it's much easier to listen to your preacher rather than to study genetics and natural selection. If you really want to be free, you have to resist the manipulations of people who want to limit your freedoms, and that takes actual effort. Here, it's just preachers after your money. However, it goes all the way up to politicians who use propaganda and relgious appeals to manipulate voters or to "sell" a war. It takes some work to find out the truth, and the sheeple just don't want to be bothered.
The lying side is the ugly part, and the place where Karl Rove shines out so far above all the other politicians. Here I think the most relevant example is how Rove mobilized religious homophobia to get votes in 2004.
The basic lie is that people like Rove regard freedom as a zero-sum game. They think that there's only so much freedom to go around, and they want as much as possible for themselves. Insofar as they "justify" their preaching about freedom while they attack it, they regard themselves as deserving all the freedom because they are "superior" to the sheeple. Of course they preach about freedom for the sheeple, but they don't really care what the sheeple think, as long as they can be manipulated suitably. Their REAL concern is with the competitors, and their REAL goal is to destroy them as utterly as possible.
Getting off topic, but this particular example is the most offensive one to me: Rove's deliberate outing of Valerie Plame to attack a "treasonous" ex-Republican. If Rove gets away with this treason, it will be the most frightening example of what has gone wrong in America.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
I am not a supporter of ID, but why is there a universe in the first place? Could it be that God created the universe as a set of physical laws that, through evolution, would produce what we see today?
The actual possibility of God existing is actually 50%, not 0%. The reason for this is that it can not be logically proven or disproven that the universe was created by a 3rd party or not. If the universe was created, then what created the creator? if the creator was not created by anyone, then how come the universe needs a creator? All these questions can not be answered, hence God has 50% chance of existing.
If you would like to know Jesus... Steps ----- 1)Take God at His word and believe on Jesus for your salvation from sin and you will have Jesus forever. 2)Nothing else. Thats it... your saved. You didn't have to DO anything. Jesus DID everything. Now if you want to know how Jesus saved you, read Romans. Cheers
Voila, being an european, I've neven been bothered by this question.
.. design an so forth...
In total honestly I hope this article doesn't try to make this debate look as something that people outside of the USA cares. We don't give a fuck about your Intelligent
There is not debate here. This is as much interesting as wheter Jesus Christ went to the USA between 12 and 30... Come on.
To us the USA are the most scientific country in the world, and such a debate is so funny to us. We cannot even considerate it.
I feel pity for you that you think that animals do not have intellects nor wills, feelings or emotions. Your post only proves that some people have little, if any, intellect. The only soul you have is on the bottom of your cheap shoes.
Actually, infinity minus infinity is not well-defined. In fact, for any extended real number you choose (which includes +/- infinity), I can show you a sum/difference of inifinities equal to that number.
l . In some sense, it all depends on your definition of distance.
And you are correct: there can be bounded infinities, depending on your point of view. For example, see the one-point compactification of the real line. http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Compactification.htm
Very important argument you have there. Creationists place God as the creator of our universe, whereas it might be that this universe is just a simulation. The movie 'Matrix' was based on a similar idea.
The idea of simulation may sound far-fetched initially, but it is not. In the game GTA - San Andreas, there is a homeless guy somewhere in San Fierro that has a cardboard box on his head that says "God is playing with us", meaning the programmers and players of the game. That's a clear case of simulation! In a sufficiently advanced simulation, a computer character could start develop queries about the world and someday start wondering how it all started.
There also was a Star Trek - TNG episode that posed the same question. Picard was playing Sherlock Holmes in the Holodeck, which was simulating 19th century London and of course, professor Moriarty (arch-enemy of Holmes). Moriarty was very clever, and he noticed that Holmes disappeared on certain hours from London by approaching a specific point and saying "computer, open door" or something similar. Then Moriarty attempted something like that and suddently he was inside the Enterprise! He even managed to reach the bridge! It was something that I have seen when I was young, but it really made me think about this universe...
This is a key point in assessing whether Intelligent Design is science. ID implies either a designer that doesn't need to be designed or an infinite regress of designers. ID further holds that natural designers need to be designed and supernatural ones don't, without any scientific basis for the distinction; that disqualifies it from being science. (Have you ever found an Intelligent Design believer who said that the identity and nature of the Intelligent Designer could and should be the subject of scientific examination?)
I can't believe that we've exceeded 2,000 posts in this thread and all I hear are arguments that we should also teach our precious children Great Spaghetti Monsterism, Flat Earth Theory, or other such nonsense. You people have all been educated singularity stupid.
Our only hope to turn back China's eventual economic and political dominance (and their probable army of robots) is to ground all primary and secondary education in the absolute truth of the world: The Time Cube.
"Trust in haste. Repent at leisure"
"One more thing you forgot to mention. Intelligent design is the hypothesis that SOMETHING created all of this."
Alright, then where is this "something?" If the cornerstone of intelligent design is that there was intelligence involved, then the only sure way to prove or disprove it is to look for this intelligence. The problem is that, unable to actually find this intelligence, the argument's supporters can only say "Well, we just haven't found it yet," making it inherently unfalsifiable. The same case can be made for the existance of an aether, but nobody is seriously considering teaching this alongside of special relativity.
ID says "this thing created life on earth".
Um, doesn't that *mean* "creationism"? OK, maybe not "Biblical creationism", but still creationism.
Let me say this again. If you were any random person in an industrialized nation---including during times of war!---in the last century, you had a better chance of not dying a violent death than your pre-modern forbears. Yes, including terrorism, and dictators, and World Wars. You don't know how bad it used to be.
I'm not saying that life has been ideal in the twentieth century. I'm saying that you don't know, or refuse to imagine, how bad it was before we got modern, got industrialized.
Read Guns, Germs and Steel if you don't believe me. I'm at work, so I don't have the book with me. But I can dig up a cite if you're interested.
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
think you got your Jeans and Genes mixed up
You never catch me alive
While ID cannot be definitively disproven, I present GW as Exhibit 1 in showing the conjecture to be improbable.
It swings both ways, according to Oingo Boingo:
One being that snakes (serpents) will be cursed for all days to crawl in the dust for all time.
Unfortunately for Christians, snakes climb trees, swim in rivers and even oceans, and as an improbable piece de resistance they flatten themselves and glide through the air.
If the Christian God is an omnipotent God of truth, he can never be wrong and nothing can resist His will. Therefore, either He's not all powerful and/or He is a liar, or the Bible is not to be taken literally in the least, or He is a fanciful construction of men. In anycase ALL of the Christian creationists are wrong.
And for this ignorance I propose their stoning, then we all win.
Can someone tell me what exactly the bible does say about the creation of the universe that can so easily be refuted by science?
Gen 1:1-2 'In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.' (NIV)
I don't think that you can call something incorrect when you don't know what it actually means. Eg, what does 'the earth was formless and empty' mean?
I am an atheist, and I believe in science. In my opinion the equal time for both idea is actually a good way to teach children why evolution is a superior idea. Many children will have been taught at home and church that creationism is the way things are. Children exposed to both in school will be in a position to address and question what they have been taught their whole lives.
It is the ultimate expression of evolutionary memetics.
The most fit idea will survive.
I think the presidents intelligence is often underestimated. He seems very forward looking to me. Mars, social security, Allowing rights to be trampled temporarily to condense opposition...("prohibition does not work") Brilliant. Even the stem cell "ban" seemed to me to be aimed at pushing adult stem cell research, where a patients own cells may be used in a treatment. I voted for Bush... I wanted some excitement. He is certainly shaking things up.
-John Fenley
I can think of nothing more convincing than the evidence. Such as the nearly complete Turkana Boy skeleton, an example of Homo erectus from roughly 1.6 million years ago, as presented in this textbook on evolution. A few ribs my ass. Or how about this nice picture of a whole bunch of hominid skulls from 2.6 million years ago to the present? Teach it for real, and it doesn't take undergraduate level biochemistry. Show the kids pictures of the fossils. Tell the kids about human DNA: how our chromosome 2 is clearly the result of a fusion event between two mid-sized progenitor chromosomes, which are still seen in chimps, our closest relatives. Tell the kids that 200 years ago christian geologists went looking for evidence of the Biblical flood and instead found evidence that the Earth is ancient. While we're at it, we should show them the evidence for creationism and intelligent design, too: a deafening silence lasting 10 seconds should suffice.
You want to falsify evolution? Okay, find a bunny rabbit in the Precambrian. Sequence a mamalian genome and find out that it is more closely related to a banana than another mammal. Find a lizard that doesn't use the standard genetic code or a very close derivative of it. Find a bird with a different set of 20 amino acids. Find a chimera--for instance, a tree with 100% tree features, except that it's TCA cycle enzymes are identical to those found in mice, or if you don't want any biochemistry or genetics, find a goat with bird feathers--can't happen under evolution. Every day, more fossils are found. More genes are sequenced. More papers published, and more proteins are compared. Every day evolution is tested, as it makes specific predictions about how species are interrelated. As a result, evolution is the most thoroughly tested theory in science. Have a look at the evidence--a small portion of it is easily available for the general audience online at talkorigins . Creationism and intelligent design on the other hand are compatible with all evidence, as one can simply say "goddiditthatway" and you're good...unless you want to call it science. You want things taught in science class that are argeed on, fine. Teach evolution.
am i the only one who finds the bible to be a dr.seuess religion compared to more developed religions such as hinduism?
To quote Christiaan Huygens who stated this publicly (and was applauded for it), the same time Galileo was put under house arrest and threatened with torture for bringing forth 2 competing world models for debate: "Science is my religion"
You never catch me alive
After reading through that link to the archbishop's statement you provided, the content comes across as a compromise rather than a condemnation, even if there's something kind of silly about his reference to ``neo-Darwinism''. Why are you so defensive? Do you really expect the Roman Catholic Church to say there's no Creator and therefore no God? For that matter, since the alternative is a godless universe where everything's an accident, why should you even care if that is the case?
Um... or maybe people do not want to believe in it because they want to at least have an excuse (scientific reason?) to believe in something? Why not not just say that god created aliens and the aliens created us? It is just as believable.
strike
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
Comment removed based on user account deletion
IC XC NIKA
Quite simply the easiest way for this to be solved is for Slashdot to orgnize a coup, control the country for two years, educate everyone in the scientific method, then have general elections.
I'm thinking it all has to do with Jehova I, a bad alien from space. I just found the following link, which will be at the end of this comment. I hope it's wrong, but who can rule it out as completely bogus shite? It's just as plausible as ID or creationism. Find out more at the Church of the Subgenius!!
Though I admit I did not dig all you've said (I'm not a native speaker), especially the part where you point out:
...
"All creationists (er IDers) can come up with is "we don't understand it, god musta done it". It's primitive thinking and its pathetic."
is dead on.
I would phrase it:
If one points out, that certain phenomena can not (yet) be fully explained by (current) science, this is not (never) any indication that these phenomena can never be explainde by science.
It's merely the very reason for ongoing research
-- may you ever drink deep --
Sheesh.
KeS
Quote: "The point of faith: Jesus is the son of god and died so that we may live and that only faith through him will you know god. (John 14:6 and many others)"
Your argument fails on several levels, but primarily because you misunderstand (and hence obscure) the difference between general and saving knowledge of God (A.K.A.
general and special revelation).
The created world only allows a person to see God's eternal power and divine nature. This knowldege cannot save a person, but rather condems them since such a being deserves worship and glory. We all tend to ignore the demonstrations of God's glory as seen in nature (See Romans 1:20-21). Thus, to know God exists DOES NOT SAVE anyone. If it did, the Devil himself could be saved because he "knows" God.
This is why it was necessary for God to send his prophets, and eventually Christ, who spoke by the power of the Holy Spirit. Their words are recorded in the Bible, which constitutes "Special Revelation." Only those who believe in Jesus are saved. John 14:6 uses the word "know" in the sense to describe a close, personal relationship; not a belief of existence.
Thus the real situation is that our need for Jesus is not "DESTROYED" by our belief in a Creator, but rather made all the more apparent by our rejection of the evidence we see all around us.
``Evolution is not just unproven, it is inherently unprovable. Evolution is not a science in any sense, but a tenet of atheist philosophy. Anything addressing the subject of God, even as a the denial of the existence of a God, does not belong in a classroom.''
I would hope that if even I were an atheist, I could accept that *ANY* theory of origin is unobservable and therefore inherently unprovable.
What matters in western civilizations is not that they were the first to have the idea of a democratic republic, but that they saw democracy as a natural extention of metaphysical freedom, and that all people (well, all white men who owned property) were equally free.
You say that with apparently no cognitive dissonance whatsoever!! I take my hat off.
If we created intelligent life (say, a really good AI), kept it in some closed system it could not escape from (say, a simulation) and waited long enough, would it start to have the same debates? What if humans created intelligent machines that survived mankind, would those machines at some point develop a religion?
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
This should be fun...first we will start with definitions:
theory - A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
(The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.)
So a theory is not something that is accepted without being tested over and over again to see if what the theory says is really true and accuratly predicts "natural phenomena."
The folks that wish ID would be taught in the classroom clame the theory of evolution is no more than an unsubstatiated guess as to where life originated. Theories may have parts of them that are "wrong" but that does not justify dismissing the theory altogether. If there is something is discovered that is not consistent with a theory it should be looked at. Then an explanation can be formed as to why an event occured. This scientific process allows the theory to be redefined to explain the observations of an experiment.
Enough of that rant now...we'll do a 180.
Let's grant the ID folks that a designer did truly create man. (On a side note it wouldn't be out of the question for somebody (the designer) to have spread DNA accross the universe and take root to evolve into humans. Evolution does not answer the question of did life start on earth because of a comet hitting the surface and this comet had DNA in it or did aliens sprinkle some DNA and just let the experiment continue for the last few billion years.) We know that this designer is a physical being, because supernatural is scientifically imposible and improbable. So the Itelligent Designer is a space alien from somewhere else...or they may be long dead and to preserve their race they shot a bunch of DNA out into the galaxy.
The end
I suppose it must be intelligent, as for invisible, infeasible, inconceivable, incomprehensible... Religion is an air castle, built from blood bubbles.
Oh well, what the hell...
Science is the search for facts.
Religion is the search for faith.
To prove....
Name one preist who spent his life trying to disprove his own beliefs.
I will personally bitch slap the scientest who at the end of all his conclusions and theories simply states "cause the designer, said so".
Well, the universe is NOT infinite. It is 13.7 billion years old. So much for that theory.
Evolution is a fact. Darwinism is a joke.
Anthony Flew, famous former-atheist philosopher, became a theist due to Intelligent Design. I don't think someone like Flew is going to change his mind based on soemthing that is completely bunk. I'm not saying ID is correct b/c Flew believes it. But it definitely lends credibility to the theory. Esp. for those who don't even bother to listen to the arguments.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
Now if he had a unification symbol, or subset symbol that would be another matter.
People are the problem, stop procreation now!
The answer to the ultimate question can be found here,
.... from God's words!!!! which will appeal to there moral convictions but also stop uprisings against your powerbase....
The Official God FAQ
A couple of quotes which reflect two individuals stance on religion in schools. Will it result in Genocide in both cases? Should we have taken action against either nation when we new such ideals were being proposed by it's leaders?
Learn how to look after 18000 animals on a single vessel with 11 crew.
My thoughts on Moses... a failing political leader who needed a strong moral line to maintain his position/dictatorship.
Imagine you are the leader of a people who are enduring various hardships with you main political power edge being the promise leading the people into the choosen land, to then be blessed with riches... after a couple years.. the line loses it touch... people start doubting your leadership and your main drive, the God figure. What would you do? Something drastic... something very, very drastic. Now you know you still have quite a strong power base, if you can do something to strengthen/manipulate this power base and their beliefs you might be able to use them as a stronger more influential power base. The best way we know to convince people of your position and throw ignorance to your insuitability as a leader is to appeal to their morals. You needed a plan... very unprobable but it could be pulled off... Invent some rules with
The plan had an initial failing. For when Moses went off to enact his plot those factions against his rule took this opportunity to foster their own beliefs and forge their political careers. When Moses came back to break out his 10 rules ploy and found others stiring up their beliefs... he was pissed... really pissed. This could be it for him... though the 10 rules idea really seemed to stick with his followers... there was a chance to do it all again... with a little bit more political nouse he pulled it off by embedding a political stance inside 8-9 strong moral stances. If you were to changlenge his story of "Receiving these 10 rules from God" this could also be turned around to say you didn't follow the moral stances of the other rules and could be accused of adultrey, murder etc.
Who would have thought a religion could have been based on a failing politicians outrageous ploy 2000 years into the future??
Modern day "10 rules ploy" believers will even call me immoral for taking this stance...
Well, in that case, I'd better come with my own ploy. I was spoken to by God and he said that the coming of Christ was to happen in the new America.... shit, John Morman already used that one...
I know, how about this one...
Let me create a form of pshyciatric treatment to be based certain feelings in events that have happened in your life... I'll call it dianetics!!! Shit.... already been done too.... and I can't really be bothered fabricating an illustrious naval career. Damn you R. L. Hubbard!. A good example though of how stupid people are and how they will believe in absolutely anything...
I know, I'll call myself the son of God... all fall before me and I shall deliver you from an evil, dirty, nasty place which doesn't actual exist... and send me your donation so I can be holy by owning lots of property, influencing political leadings... and employing those disadvantaged in life on the minimum wage. I shall call this new religion Stupidity. It shall be backed by "The book of fables" believe in it or you shall be accused of eating babies... Let Stupidity be spread through out the world and hope that one day all people will be united by Stupidity. Teach your children to believe in Stupidity!!! Lets have Stupidity in our schools, pray for Stupidity!! Stupidity can heal you.
Please don't mod me funny... religion for me these days is no joke.
"Equal Time" indeed...it should be equal, 0 hours on creationism (by whatever name) and 0 hours on evolution.
Evolution is the foundation of Biology. Why else would we be disecting cats to explore human biology? With ID, we may as well dissect mushrooms (with evolution, sharing one trait makes two organisms likely to be related and thus share further traits. ID makes no such distinction and therefore there's no reason why we wouldn't find 4 legged insects or a reptile with human eyes or a species of deer that reproduces using pollen).
We can talk about ID the same way scientists talked about the heliocentric universe and Galileo vs Ptolemy. Ptolemy's theory of the solar system held that all planets revolve around the Earth and actually had very accurate equations (with a plethora of arbitrary constants) to describe their motion.
The problem with the heliocentric theory was that one of the orbits was off. The theory predicted a planet would have to be there of a certain mass to cause the orbital shift. A telescope revealed a new planet exactly as predicted and Ptolemy's theory largely died.
Evolution predicts the existence of similar things called "fossils". Every day, we find new fossils which bridge gaps between our record of species and sometimes new lines which died off. While we could have fossils with ID, the chances of finding what we've found is exactly as likely as finding ancient skeletons of giant two-headed rabbits.
There's a lot more to evolution than the tiny history of our species and a lot of the fossil record is more complete as well.
-- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
There is no theory of the existence of an intelligent creator. Many people have the belief in one, but belief is not a theory.
Is there equally no theory of the non-existence of an intelligent creator, and are the many people who believe in its non-existence also embracing beliefs rather than theories?
I happen to have worked previously at a business that produces academic research products about Intelligent Design. There is a lot of confusion about what it is, exactly. If I were to put my spin on Intelligent Design, here is how I would define it: Intelligent Design is the emphatic rejection of the scientific merit of macroevolution as mathmatically and logically unreasonable and unproveable. Contrary to what you might expect, within the concept of Intelligent Design is plenty of room for acceptance of microevolution as an explanation for the diversity of biological life, but not for the existance of life itself. True Intelligent Design itself does not take a stance on religion, but many Christians do it a disservice by promoting it as a rejection of atheism--the defacto religion of modern science. That all said, I do personally do believe that macroevolution is a crutch by which the atheist rejects logic in favor of rejecting existance of divinity, but this is not an argument of Intelligent Design. Intelligent design argues that there is sound evidence that the incredible complexity of life is not the result of natural processes alone.
Scientist can't teach that "There is evidence in favor of the theory of the existence of an Intelligent Creator" because there is no such theory.
There isn't even a hypothesis of an intelligent creator, all you can say is there is a conjecture.
Science has rules about what is science, including a falsifiable hypothesis. Things in a science class need to follow those rules to be science.
Tell me about this "science" thing: It seems that it must follow a certain set of "rules"; just what are they, anyhow?
And would you also tell me what this "science" thing views to be the difference between a "conjecture" and an "hypothesis"?
Thanks!
It appears I was just asking a question. I was really interested if in any biological research they had found any new life forms. It's really that simple. You have apparently extrapolated all that other stuff from your imagination, or perhaps you meant to reply to someone else. I personally don't see much wrong with the standard view of evolution, just wondering if perhaps any new life forms have been found since folks might have been looking. It's the "spontanously forming" part that interests me, as in how did it happen, what set of chemicals getting hit by lightning or whatever 'sparks life". It's a legit question, and I would expect that there might be some examples out there, but I don't recall reading about any. I can see how stuff gradually changes,how it evolves, but how does it *start* is still an unanswered question near as I can see. That is the basis of my question, if it started once, seems like it would have kept starting, and maybe produced new life forms, perhaps numerous times.. If you can exactly answer it, where and how "life" starts, I'd be interested to read it or look at a reference. It has to follow normal scientific proof, repeatable by similarly skilled practioners if possible, or at least verifiable in the wild, either will do. Not starting with a living thing and changing it to something else, I mean starting with your basic raw chemicals and then having something alive then, along those lines. How do you do that, and where is an example or two?
If you really want to dis someone, why not just log in? It's just an internet handle after all and this is just conversation.
Doesn't Intelligent Design mean that we could be put on Earth by aliens? Could they teach that in schools?
Intelligent design has been beaten to death in Europe in the 19th century already and in South Africa in the early 20th century, but the USA is always a little behind the times...
Here is the story of Prof Du Plesis, who battled the church in court in the 17th century town of Stellenbosh, South Africa, about the book of Genesis - he won:
It is ironic, that the church calls itself protestant, but the last thing it wants to hear are protests from its own members. Even today, almost 100 years after Professor du Plessis fought the Stellenbosch seminary in court and won, his statue has to stand in front of the municipal building, where it can be guarded and protected against religious vandals. It appears that the prof's supporters knew what they had to contend with, when they had his statue commissioned of granite, one of the hardest rocks on earth.
The statue was originally situated at the end of Church street, directly opposite the main entrance of the seminary building, in a position where it could be maximally annoying to the seminarians, but it was vandalized with paint so many times, that the city had to move it to a safer location. Being made of granite, it is not much the worse for wear, but it cost much money to maintain it. The iron in the granite rusted and turned pink, earning the statue the fond name of Pink Pete.
The court case, was about the Book of Genesis, the first book of the holy bible. Prof. du Plessis contended that Genesis isn't literally true, but the holy fathers of the seminary begged to differ and fired him. Fortunately, he had a few rich and influential friends, who enabled him to go to court. The court had him re-instated and affirmed his point about Genesis in a separate libel trial. The church fathers were not amused, having lost twice. They put him on indefinite leave of absense and paid his full salary till the age of 75, then put him on pension, though he never taught a single class again. After his death, his friends erected an extremely durable, life size statue to rub the church up for perpetuity.
Oh well, what the hell...
Loving your neighbor does not necessarily preclude killing them. Sometimes it is necessary to kill to protect others, ensure social stability, whatever, without actual malice of any kind toward the executed. Anyone who has ever had to put down a rabid dog knows what I mean.
Admittedly, the old testament specifically forbids killing, but it also states that if you know that your neighbor's daughter is being sexually promiscuous, you are morally obligated to kill her (oh, leviticus, how many easy targets for ridicule you provide). However, waht with Jesus being a redeemer and all, I would tend to reject the old book in favor of the slightly less absolutist new one. Maybe that's just me, though.
...it's really a sad day for America when we require a goddamn ACT OF CONGRESS to make our DVD players work properly. ~
More shaking will destroy the castle walls. ;D
To put it more precisely, shaking will destroy the castle walls before they have a chance to become walls in the first place.
No missing links?
What about homo eragaster, h. habilis, a. garhi?
These do not even include offshoots such as h. erectus, h. neanderthalensis and h. rudolfensis.
A blog about stuff.
evolution is part of catholic doctrun.
Sure, it's about 1000 pages long, but I suggest you read it.
Of all the religions, I suspect catholics are the most ignorant of there own theology.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Try taking a working pocket watch and jiggle it an infinite number of times. You aren't going to be left with a working pocket watch. It would follow that a broken pocket watch would become even more broken. Finally, it would be expected that pocket watch pieces would become even more damaged. Evolution makes people believe amazing things. I guess I just don't have enough faith. ;D
.. but it is still not known if the Universe will expand indefinitely.
Look, this is simply not true. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what it means to have a 0.00001% (or whatever) chance of occurring. Even something that has a theoretical 99.9999% chance of occurring does not ever have to occur.
Just last week there was a thread on /. titled "USA to Pass Science Crown to China". And now the creationism vs evolution debate all over again in USA.
Does anyone else see this debate being indicative of why USA is (sadly) losing the "Crown" ?
All's we need is the story running above this one is to read "American Students Dumber than the rest of the World" We want smart kid but then we try to force this crap on them.
If you are including 'landing on its side' as a possible outcome, then the possible outcomes are NOT 50/50 heads or tails. The 50/50 heads or tails is a simplification of reality, because the chance of it landing on its side are not worth considering in most calculations.
You don't have to disprove ID, instead you look at proof that ID is factual, and there is NO proof that it is factual. On the other hand, there is A LOT of proof that evolution is real.
Evolution has been directly observed in virii. Remember everything a thousand years ago people use to think was the result of god that has been proven to be science (and simple science)? Even christians admit that god isn't sending bolts of thunder from the sky. ID is the same thing now.
someon said this:
"Intelligent Design is, by definition, not scientific, because it places no limits on the capabilities of the Designer, and therefore cannot be proven false. Don't believe me? Then give me an example of evidence that would disprove ID."
An infinite universe doesn't imply an infinite number of 'chances' to produce our current universe.
.. as if to a child: "An infinite universe implies an infinite number of 'chances' to produce life on one of its planets somewhere."
That is true only if the digits are output in single and the chance of the digit being a 5 is greater than zero. If the string is output and the chance of it containing a 5 is above zero, it does not have to contain a 5 (unless p=1), whether it is finite or otherwise. I think the problem is that you are assuming a binomial distribution, which really doesn't apply here.
Creationism is not a scientific theory in this sense - I've never heard of an experiment proposed that would refute it. I'd love to hear one if someone had one.
So the problem isn't that it's unprovable - it that it's not refutable.
It's not wasting time, I'm educating myself.
If you want to see real scientific evidence concerning creationism researched by real-live christian scientists, you should go to http://www.icr.org/. Enough of this armchair science most of you /.ers are pulling out of thin air. I could state the sky is purple here and would have the same amount of proof many of you are throwing about on both sides backing my claim.
Enjoy the evolution happening right here...
Don't teach people too much, basically keep them a bit stupid, let them grow up. They then know too little to understand that you can't go around altering fact to suit your own ends.
"They" may have (had to) read 1984, but they may not have understood what it was actually about.
Either way, we Brits seem to follow the US after about 10 years, so we're as fscked as you are.
There are historically accurate events also in Dickens' Tale of Two Cities, but that doesn't make it history.
O.k....
If the universe, and hence everything in it, is the result of Intelligent Design by "Das Kreator (tm) " then WTF went on with Microsoft Windows - Especially ME ?
Huh ? HUH ?
Sky subscribers are morons. They pay to be advertised at !
I'm glad our president it level headed enough not to start mixing up extreme religious ideologies with politics. But I guess that's what we're fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq, right?
Or maybe it's OK to be a Chrisitian Extremist just so long as we aren't a Muslim Extremist.
Where's the proof to support Intelligent Design? And the bible ain't it. Try to be Scientific.
Meh.
His words (originally in French) were... "Today, almost half a century after the publication of the encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis." Also could have been "... more than ONE hypothesis" as French une can be "a" or "one" though probably the word "a". Does this mean that the pope was endorsing evolution? A: Actually, no. "His point was that evolution was now accepted by a wide range of scientific disciplines doing independent research." Native French-speakers say that if the pope had wanted to include himself among those endorsing evolution, French idiom would have required him to use a different construction. According to them, the way the sentence reads in French implies only that the evidence accumulated over the last fifty years has led a group of people to a recognition of evolution as more than a hypothesis, but the pope is neither including or excluding himself in that category, merely stating that it exists. If he had wanted to include himself, he would have used a different construction.
It doesn't surprise me that an Atheist would think it's an outrage that Intelligent Design should be taught in public education. The thing that does surprise me is that an Atheist doesn't think it's an outrage that Evolution is taught in public education.
My opinion, the government shouldn't dictate what is learned in public education and it should be left up to the local populations. Politically though that's not acceptable because Christians represent the majority in the U.S. and the Atheists know that means they won't have an option.
I forget who it was who said, when asked what observations would disprove evolution, "Rabbit bones in Precambrian strata." Can anybody come up with similarly clear potential observations that would disprove ID? I doubt it.
It is this type of thing that distinguishes science from non-science. Potentially observable data that would disprove the hypothesis.
Let's thank the Lord ... ... ?
Thank the Lord
THANK THE LORD!!
God has place inside these walls, just like facts have no place within an organized religion!!
houston, we have a problem
AC
...thread. I accidentially posted this to the Telus censorship thread before.
++++
Creationism vs. Evolution
- The winner lives to spread its genes [or God will choose the winner, pending the outcome].
This term "creation science" refers to some people's mistaken belief that if you put the word "science" after "creationism", that it factualizes the idea that God created all existance down to your very own ribs. One creationist person claimed that scientists who theorize that advanced life was grown from simple organisms billions of years ago are essentially trying to fool us all and denying God the glory of modern creation. To them, the irrational theory is that nature found a way to evolve into higher life forms, by itself. Some creationists insist that God was required to "intelligently design humans, their eyeballs, and the rest. These people support an aggravating sect of creationism called "Intelligent Design". It's aggravating because it purports to be science, when it is in fact an argument against the scientific method. And less sophisticated creationists seek to mystify the already mysterious, by saying that evolution is a total sham. They come up with absurd analogies they claim disprove the likelyhood of evolution being possible. Never mind the evolutions seen in some species, and especially microorganisms within the past few generations of humans. The thing I've found their analogies most often lack, is a comprehension of the sheer magnitude of time involved for most visible evolutions to take place.
Here is one such misguided analogy:
cizzors (194 )"There's a big difference in evolving within a species and all species evolving from one glob of gunk.... Kind of like waiting for a rock to become a Rolex...... "
And my answer is the difference is called billions of years. 1 billion is 1000 millions. 1 million is 1000 thousands. A thousand years is a long time, and clearly your brain has trouble with it enough that you think you can comprehend the changes during it enough to rationalize away the possibility of dramatic evolutionary changes. Try loosening up that brain of yours, and realize that a 1000, 1000, thousands is a long long time for things to happen. And there have been four of those 1000, 1000, thousands since the earth was here.
Quit being so sure of literal interpretations of a 2000 year old religious book, and put some faith in the incomprehensible. Not everything can be understood by the human mind in the way that it exists in nature. The world is a big place, and time is even bigger. Show me someone who says they know every detail of everything in the world that ever existed, and I'll show you God [or someone who thinks they are God].
Why creationists bug me, is because they claim that because the details of evolution are so hard for them to comprehend, that the whole evolutionary model is no good. It's not at all surprising to me that evolutionary details are hard to comprehend, since it's a theory that for the most part puts details into a black box. It's rare that we get to peek into this box where the changes actually happen before our eyes, but when we do it is an exciting and enlightening time.
The proof that evolution is real is standing in front of a mirror when you look at one, and in museums where there are fossil records of early hominids. Clearly there were human-like beings before there were modern humans, and clearly there are humans now, so obviously [at least to me] the proof is in the pudding. The hypocrisy of saying evolution is a fantasy that ignores reality, is that the only alternative to evolution is that a mystical being or aliens plunked fully developed modern lifeforms on earth after there being
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
Flying Spaghetti Monsterism
Classes in grade school cannot be expected to cover every detail regarding the subject. It is acceptable and necessary for kids to take some things on authority. Then the more detailed reasons can be explained over time when the students are ready for them. You conjure up a straw man argument. It's true some teaching isn't done properly, but that isn't a sufficient argument to remove teaching altogether. There is a lot of survey knowledge that can be learned at a young age, before all the detail is filled in. You would remove all science from education?
Since matter(energy) cannot be created nor destroyed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_ener gy), this would mean that either matter has always existed or was created by a supernatural being that has always existed.
Either way, the scientific law of conservation of energy indicates the universe has a strange and infinite nature.
So I guess the universe has always naturally existed throughout infinity for atheists, and was created by an infinite supernatural being for believers.
However, the concept of natural infinity isn't a scientifically testable theory. Neither is an infinite supernatural being.
It's bullshit to hear these theories talked about as though they are fact.
The point is that Evolution itself is like a religion as it has many holes and cannot be proven.
I can hardly believe how many people reading Slashdot are so blind! I thought you folks were supposed to be an educated bunch. So I guess you were brain washed.
But what if God used a prototype system where he created different beasts off previous designs or templates? And he left in commented out blocks of code from previous versions (junk DNA) because he was too lazy to remove it all. This demonstrates the great flexibility of an unfalsifiable premise.
If ID is just completely bogus and has no good critique of Darwinism which deserves an audience, I don't think famed former-atheist philosopher Anthony Flew would have changed his mind due to ID. They have critiques which are worth mentioning. Recognizing intelligence in the universe.
Or maybe the above paragraph was created by some Turing machine and you just think I'm replying to my message somewhat coherently.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
http://www.mdx.ac.uk/www/study/xfil.htm/
For the Apes to Human transition, would this set of transitional species help?
When you examine the 20 main hominids you find that the earliest ones have thick jaws, big canines, and brains barely larger than those of chimps. They look like other apes. By 500,000 years ago they mostly look like us. But none is transitional?
I'd say each morphs into the next quite nicely, making them a nifty example of missing links. (I list other sets in a post here.)
So do many of Shakespeare's works. Do we consider his works to be literature, or to be history?
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=gen%20 1&version=31
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=is%204 5:12;&version=31;
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=jo%203 8;&version=31;
So what? Christianity has matured - it's a peaceful religion.
Christian extremists still kill here in the U.S. And that's when they don't have the same degree of power in our society as Islamic extremists do in places like Saudi Arabia, Iran and (thanks to us) Iraq. I can only imagine what Christian extremists would be like if they gained that level of power and acceptance in the U.S.
When folks are talking about probabilities of evolution, they are talking about the probability of a particular outcome given a fixed number of random actions. That is analagous to the probability-per-character interpretation.
Play Command HQ online
They disagree with what is being taught and are using numbers and political influence to change it. The ironic thing is the man endorsing it is flexible enough in his politics to consider oil for a large part of his career (which can only be found by a science that would make no sense at all if creationism was the only answer) and endorsing creationism at the same time.
Basing the age of the earth on some weird numerology of peoples ages and assuming people where here on day 7 is pretty strange in the first place - and to anyone that takes the bible too literally my first question would be to ask when they last ate bacon.
Even Satanism is just another weird heresy that backs the loser.
What experiment would show ID to be wrong ? That is, you have to propose an experiment that has at least two outcomes, one of which would proove ID to be incorrect.
The experiment can be a gedanken one, eg, a lot of cosmology makes predictions that can only be tested by, say,close observation of a black hole, so as a practical matter, you cant actually do the experiment, but these are still testable experiments - in principal, to test Einsteins general relativity, the entire human race could build a asteroid ship, send it out for 10 milliion years to get to some distant star, get the data, and find an answer
So, what is your experiment ?
I think MC Hawking said it best...F*ck The Creationists.
(http://www.mchawking.com/)
Put it this way (please bear with me!): :)!), as nothing can ever be proven 100% correct - to prove something is a 100% you would effectively have to understand EVERYTHING in the universe (and beyond?).
Science is in itself a type of religion (I said bear with me
Example, a chemical reaction - we cannot prove that combining two chemicals creates chemical X unless it's molcular structure is EXACTLY the same - then we must define 'the same', are the atoms are the same? the quarks? what about things we don't know about yet? maybe they are different, making it a slightly different substance? And so, my point is we cannot say with 100% certainty that the creeated chemical x is the same as 'natural' chemical X becuase we don't "understand EVERYTHING in the universe (and beyond?)"(c).
Okay, now back to evolution...
I am a christian, I in fact belief evolution is the most likely cause of us being here as we know it. We cannot prove evolution happened without some doubt, in fact I shoot down anyone who believes in evolution "because it was what they were taught in school", QUESTION EVERYTHING! There are so many arguments against evolution! There are also so many for it, it comes down to what you personnally think to be more likely correct, i.e, IT COMES DOWN TO BELIEF!
Ultimatetly there is one "correct" answer for sure, but to obtain this we would have to be all knowing. As humans we have to go with what is most likely, so I think researching both sides of the argument (in depth) is more than overdue (imho).
Simon.
... then just whip out a ID vs. evolution story. I think this subject has sucked the life out of the other ones.
My opinion is that life is indeed the result of intelligent design, but that the intelligence in intristic rather than extrinsic, as a creationist would believe. In other words that evolution is driven by mate selection and the way in which individuals choose to interact with their environment in an intelligent way, rather than through 'randomness' which I just don't buy. By the way, IAAMM (I Am A Molecular Biologist).
This is why life appears to be designed by intelligence. Because it has been, by us.
Man, I bet that guy is pissed this isn't the dark ages and you can't just have Scientists and other rabble rousers crucified. After all an educated populace is much harder to control than an uneducated one, look how well they were able to keep order when the Church was running things.
I read the internet for the articles.
One of the curious blindnesses of the "creationist" camp is that the "theory of evolution" is and always has been an argument about the long range effects of an interaction that is a part of empirical reality. Darwin and Wallace argued that the origin of species is the result of selection acting on breeding populations.
Simply, if selection can produce tomatoes and maize, a thousand varieties of dog, thoroughbred horses and prize cattle, what would stop it from producing the Galapagos finches, or given time, cats, dogs, bears and racoons, apes, monkeys and hominids from common ancestors? The theory of natural selection is essentially an argument from analogy that argues that a known property of living populations can account for all natural variation given time enough. What men can do with dogs in 10,000 years, maize in 5,000, nature can do with any population over geological time.
It's pointless to argue "belief" since the only counter to the theory for a creationist must necessarily be a demonstration of how selection is somehow prevented from producing higher order (family level and up) splits. We KNOW that selection can be used to produce new species and genuses because we have already done so. It's unnecessary to "believe amazing things." They are amazing enough without belief.
------ The only greater hazard to your liberty than n politicians is n+1 politicians.
> That some Creationists have co-opted the term is
> unfortunate, but still doesn't make Creationism
> equal to Intelligent Design.
"some creationists" have NOT co-opted the term "Intelligent Design". Creationists created the term as a way to dress up their creationist myths in pseudo-scientific babble.
the so-called 'theory' of Intelligent Design only exists because it is a modern, politically correct version of Creationism, designed specifically to avoid criticism of its anti-scientific and anti-rational basis by using pseudo-scientific language rather than overtly religious language.
in short, it's a crock of shit....and worse than that, it's a set of *deliberate* lies.
creationism you can at least excuse on the grounds that some of its adherents genuinely believe in it...but ID is a deliberate lie.
If you've got mod points, kick some to the parent. Catholic doctrine does allow for evolution.
And you couldn't be more right about Catholics not knowing the tenants/doctrine of their own faith. I'm one who went to a diocesan grade school, catholic high school and university and still learn something new each week.
Finally, please be sure to remember: wherever there are four catholics there's a fifth.
No, Vern. They just let him in.
Historically, religious leaders have tried to suppress any scientific evidence that contradicts their nonsensical teachings. This is just the latest in 2,000 years of their BS. In the middle ages, they put people to death for "heresy" (science).
Use your free will and common sense to question everything and everyone in a position of power, be they politicians or religious nuts.
Also, falls of living organisms from the sky support a possible alternative explanation for the origin of life. A common skeptic argument is that "this is because of tornado/weather phenomenon/etc" but this cannot address why the majority of cases involve only one or a very few species. Most natural environments picked up by some weather process would contain many species. Google falls of animals: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=falls+of+anim als+from+the+sky&btnG=Google+Search
Suppose we identified a planet around some distant star, with an Earthlike atmosphere etc, and we want to put some life there, in anticipation of a manned mission in the future, to allow our Earth species to terraform the planet for us. We don't have the ability to go there yet with people, because it would take too long. What we could do is take a lot of life forms from Earth that are small enough to freeze and thaw out again and still be alive and put them up in space in big balls of water, and then just "throw" them at the distant planet. They would stay very well frozen until they get there because space is so cold.
Yeah, it's science fiction. But so was the airplane or the automobile or space flight or any modern thing. Go check out Scientific American's 100 Years Ago section for some perspective.
"Nobody's ever going to make any money on the internet"
--VP of the company I worked for, circa 1995
"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing." "But," says man, "the bable fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It proves you exist and so therefore you don't. QED." "Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of it like that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic. - Douglas Adams, HHGTTG.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Evolution depends upon the firm belief of causality. Certainly, it is a strong belief that guides our thinking to accepting causality as a fact, when it is about as factual as Creationism. Causality is the *belief* in a connection between two events (the words "independent" and "dependent" are not relevant here, since causality is implied in both), with one posing as the cause and the other as the effect. It is uniformly adopted by all humans as real, yet it is impossible to prove its existence (try talking about this one in a metaphysics course). Don't discount something because it is impossible to prove, as all philosophies (including science and mathematics) depend upon axioms such as causality to communicate their messages.
Furthermore, let us not be fooled into thinking that the Catholic Church is completely unified. More than 70% of American Catholics do not believe in the Real Presence, a crucial dogma of the Church. Do not be surprised when a Catholic official outside the Vatican gets his lines crossed (speaking as a Roman Catholic hopefully faithful to the Magisterium).
Bush is a fucking retard, and so are the creationists. Why is this even being debated?
Actually (and surprisingly), I've thoroughly enjoyed the discussion, and have read some of the most thoughtful and intelligent commentary I've ever seen on /.
I'm sure you're very excited you discovered this idea that in your head leaves the other side crushed to bits, but I have to bring you to reality.
Your argument is as ridiculous as saying that since we recognize drawings (writings, whatever) as well, human-produced, it must immediately follow that spider webs/corals/fungus (substitute any other complicated but unrelated object) must also have been produced by an intelligent entity.
I'll elaborate on this since I am sure you did not get it yet. Radio waves and biological organisms are very much different systems. So it is not possible, not in a logical way anyway, to migrate laws from one to another - to say that if a certain law (complexity implies intelligent source, in your case) applies to one, that it should also apply to the other. It's as simple as that. Otherwise I could take any feature of a living organism and demonstrate how radio waves eat and grow. But they don't. Radio waves have their rules. Organisms have their own, which are mostly different.
Your logic unit is faulty, bring it to the Designer for a checkup.
It would be more confusing if it hadn't taken billions of years. The # of chemical interactions that happen in billions of years is tremendous.
And let's not forget that we aren't just talking about one place in the universe. There are undoubtedly countless quadrillions of places in the universe where the sequences of chemical interactions didn't quite work out and there is no one around to bemoan the fact that they didn't.
But, in this one tiny place among countless quadrillions, they did happen to work out, and here we are, confidently believing that this is the only experiment ever attempted.
Also note that Muslims have a religious imperative to conceal information from and deceive the Infidels.
Damn! I must not have gotten that memo...
Note to self : start hiding information from the infidels.
The whole point, however is openly contested amongst theologians, and theistic evolution is, at most, an acceptable, but probably not preffered theory for Catholics. As was made clear by Leo XIII, in Providentissimus Deus (1893), the preffered position (in all such matters of interpretation) must always be that of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, a position which overwhelmingly supports a literal interpretation of Genesis. Only where absolute proof (by which is meant proof by Thomistic/Aristotilean philosophical standards, not modern scientific "proof") exists of the wrongness of the Patristic interpretation, may it be abandoned in good faith.
Some like to use John Paul II's statement against the Traditional position, but this is misguided at best. The statement in question was in an address to the Pontifical Academy for the Sciences, a body composed of both Catholics and non-Catholics and lacking any doctrinal authority whatsoever. Secondly, the speech was written for the pope by the Academy itself, and thus cannot be attributed to him any more than the "Queen's Speech" can be to Her Majesty. Thirdly, the language is vague, as the English translation potentially flawed. Lastly, these points aside, this statement has no more force of doctrine than any other off-the-cuff statement by a pope. As a further blow, the present Holy Father has made several remarks which seem to distance himself from this oft-quoted statement of his predeccesor (and even some of his own, earlier statements).
Also often invoked are decisions of the Pontifical Biblical Commission from, IIRC, 1994, which seem to support a non-literal reading of Genesis. However, here as well, these are decisions from a body with no doctrinal authority (as made clear the former Cardinal Ratzinger, whilst in his former post). The PBC did have binding authority once upon a time, before the re-organization of the Curia by Paul VI. Many Catholics would be shocked to know that there are binding decisions of the PBC, which still stand, that contradict many of the claims of liberal Biblical scholars. For instance: it is a binding teaching of the Church that Moses actually wrote the Pentateuch, and that the first ten chapters of Genesis are not a mere collection of "legends."
The Cardinal Archbishop's position is, in fact, an example of the most liberal interpratation of doctrine permitted to a Catholic. To believe anything more radical would be considered a grave theological and moral error. In truth, a number of theologians believe even this position is beyond the bounds of sound Catholic teaching.
this drives me nuts too!
i read the bible all the time. if you read the part were jesus talks about "the rapture" (luke 17 verses 34-37), if you believe it, it seems like people are just going to disappear one day...
but if you read from luke 17 verses 20-21, you'll see the part where jesus is asked about when the kingdom of god should come. and he replies "the kingdom of god cometh not with observation. neither shall they say, lo here! or lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of god is within you."
HOW CAN THEY IGNORE THIS!!!!
personally, i think that people buy those books just for some kind of wierd social thing or to be entertained. i mean WHY would anybody by a FICTION book that is supposed to "reinforce" their faith?
and i think that "intelligent design" is a piping hot LOAF! i think that god made everything in seven days (go ahead and laugh, i don't care). but i'm not going to be some little pu**y and switch my beliefs so that they meld nicely with what science says. screw that. and i'm not going to tell somebody that they're going to hell if they don't do such and such.
he's smarter than me and i am of no help to anybody or myself if i'm sitting there condemning other people.
you're also an idiot.
Hmmm.... lets see, all the visible posts are anti-ID, and pro-evolution. None of the pro-evolution, anti-ID posts reveal a deep understanding of either theory or their issues.
To me, that's surprising. Slashdotters deal in informatics. They appreciate the significance of encoded, compressed data. They understand the distinction between data and programs.
So, if I show a C++ program to a slashdotter, the consensus would be that it was "created" by an "intelligent agent."
So, why not DNA and protein synthesis? There is no plausible, experimentally supported sequence of evolutionary steps that would have resulted in this machinery. After 50 years of research, micro-biologists have discovered additional obstacles to an evolutionary pathway, not removed them. Finally, look into Dr. Dean Kenyon's transformation from one of the leading evolutionary micro-biologists to one of the leading advocates of ID.
ID theory is about detecting intelligent causes, while biblical creationism is about studying and understanding nature, with the assumption that it was created by God.
Biblical creationists founded most of the fields of modern science. Carrolus Linnaeus - Genetics, is but one of about 100 such men and women. The God of the Christian bible is rational, and so consequently His creation is worthy of study. Note, the unvarnished definition of science is simply the study of nature.
Micro-evolution happens and has been confirmed. But, there is strong evidence that evolutionary mechanisms are limited in their creative power. In other words, observational science has confirmed that while organisms adapt and change, they do so within the inherent informational boundaries of their kind.
Macro-evolution, e.g., "GooToYou TM" is supported by forensic evidence, e.g., the fossil record. Unfortunately, 95% of the fossil record are clams, and ALL of the animal phyla living today show up in the fossil record in the Cambrian layer. (The Cambrian layer is the next to lowest sedimentary layer) In this layer, 10's of thousands of fossils have been recovered, and they indicate stasis, not evolution. As a result, the popularist evolutionist Richard Dawkins said, "The absense of transitionals in the fossil record is the trade secret of paleontology"
So, to address this, a second evolutionary theory named "Neo-Darwinism" was born. It is an interesting hypothesis, but some feel that it is a tautology, e.g., adjusting the theory to explain the lack of evidence.
So, in that regard, macro-evolution is a weak theory in terms of the physical evidence that is available.
However, since organizations such as the NCSE and NAS have defined science as the pursuit of naturalistic explanations for things, there can be no other valid explanation other than evolution as well as abiogenesis.
That's why they say ID != Science. They've rigged the game from the start. But, only when it comes to biology. Other scientific fields apply the scientific method to detect intelligent causes, and my example regarding the C++ program should suffice to show that at some level, intelligent causes can be detected or inferred with some degree of confidence. (there is a probability that the C++ program self-assembled, but small enough to assume that it did not)
To understand more about ID, visit discovery.org, and check out the "Science and Culture" section.
To understand more about creationism, visit icr.org.
The earth, and the universe it sits within, run by a set of rules, a subset of which we understand to some extent.
Whether the earth was created 6,000 years ago or 4.6bn years ago is immaterial because:
1.) If the earth was created 6,000 years ago, it has been made to look and behave as though it were 4.6bn years old. After all if you are a creationist and believe that god is clever enough to create the universe, god is surely clever enough to allow us to think that god didn't create it at all and this all came about through the processes we see ongoing today.
2.) Regardless of what you believe it doesn't change the processes that are running. And since the processes running in the past (or appearing to run in the past) are by and large ongoing, it's reasonable to expect they will continue running into the future.
3.) Someone's probably already posted this and I'm just too lazy to read every single post of this thread.
The hereditary and speciation parts of evolution would seem to be beyond dispute, although people with an agenda seem to ignore this bit.
Spontaneous creation of the building blocks of life, and subsequent evolution into life as we know it, is probably impossible to actually prove or recreate due the probabilities involved, but if it is probable enough to happen somewhere, then it would at least be considered a possibility. I think it's perfectly reasonable to point out the possible shortcomings with this part of evolution, but it does at least seem to be a viable theory with relative few assumptions.
"Intelligent design" being taught as an equally probable event though? It doesn't really have anything to do with science. It's the god of the gaps problem - anything we don't understand gets attributed to gods or faries or space aliens. It doesn't teach or inform us of anything and makes no useful predictions.
So in short, I would be more than happy to have every shortcoming of evolutionary theory be taught in schools - we can't answer those questions unless everyone understands what they are. ID is a pretty obvious steath operation to get Christianity (not even ID) into classrooms, and it's a bad one at that, because it's not even a scientific topic.
Doubt, not faith, is the path to truth.
sig fault
Thats just bad keyboarding skills. It's because of all those damn hydrocarbons from my H2 that I leave running in my driveway. Ahh america home of **cough cough**... emphysema...
Both arguements are stupid because we are here. You can't argue that the odds are so slim of something that HAS happened happening that it couldn't happen. It DID.
It's been a long time.
Here's the classical and elegant argument you'r looking for.
If the Universe must have a creator, since it's so complex and amazing, then it seems inevitable that that creator is at least as complex and amazing. And must therefore, by the same logic, have a creator itself. Which has even more reason to have a creator. And so on. This reasoning only moves the problem, and never solves it.
I think that evolution would have favored organisms that find meaning in the way the world around them is ortganized. In other words, the organisms that found the Universe incomprehensible and dull are not around to discuss the issue anymore. T hose of us left are predisposed to find it wonderful and amazing.
even though hundreds of millions of Americans have never seen a devil and billions of people don't even believe in the devil.
With all due respect, that was a very ignorant thing to say. Millions of people report on a regular basis their encounter with ghosts and other bizzare supernatural sightings including several friends of mine on numerous occasions, and myself. Almost everyone in this forum probably knows someone relatively close to them who has had such an experience. Whether you call them 'ghosts' or 'demons' is relative to your idea of what they may be. The reason you don't accept these sightings by millions of people is because 'mainstream science' doesn't accept it. And that is because mainstream science as a common rule will refuse to investigate anything that seems to defy natural law. So much for the aquisition of knowledge.
You left out "The President was asked a question about ID in an interview and without much eagerness gave a vague answer three sentences long before moving on. AAAAGH! THE BARBARIANS ARE AT THE GATES!" Granted, it soon switches to one or more of the other ones, but just in the interest of accuracy.
You have the beginnings of a nietzschian sort of arguement there.
God is dead. Christians killed him. Now it's time to find a way and a reason to live a virtuous life regardless.
It's been a long time.
I mean, consider Ronald 'we run some of our policy based on astrology' Reagan, or Bush 'I don't consider atheists to be citizens' senior or Bill 'oral sex with an intern isn't real sex' Clinton. They're all basket cases at the end of the day :-)
-WolfWithoutAClause
"Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"In Soviet Russia, our new overlords are belong to all your base.
Why not not just say that god created aliens and the aliens created us? It is just as believable.
Occam's Razor. Oh, wait...
Waiiii!!!!!! I have bad karma!
You assumed religions all have creation myths, this is not the case. There is no creation myth in buddhism. Even taken literally Buddhism is not falsifiable, unlike all other major world religions (and a huge majority of minor ones).
So, the biological system on earth is too complicated for a evolving approach the ID people state, right?
They are assuming the creator is even more complex than we, right?
From where does he come? Has he also been created, as he is also to complicated to evolve?
No, the answer "He has been there forever." is plainly inacceptable, as "we" could then also have been here forever. So simply no creator is needed at all.
Therefore teaching ID at schools is about the same as teaching astrology or future-telling. Simply NONSENSE.
Most of the civiliced worlds is laughing about the US of A over matters like this, wondering when the next witch burning will be, or a hanging of a nigger slave. Maybe some kind of roman circus games (oh wait, you got that on TV already), or other archaic invention. Guys, we have the year 2005. AD, not BC. You want to fight taliban? How about starting with your very own christian taliban first?
Disregarding my mini-rant on environmentalism, my point was that we don't mind these things because they are not taught in science class. Thus, there is no outcry. If people started saying that Darwinian evolution meant social justice was a flawed concept, I'd be just as pissed. There is no outcry when these beliefs are "forced" into public schools because they are "forced" into the appropriate classes.
Ideas like diversity and social justice and environmentalism ARE important to *some* degree, and if you're a reasonable person I'm sure you'll agree with me on this point. (if you do not, check out orim's reply to your post--without these things present in at least small amounts, this country would be an unspeakably horrid and evil place.) Moral and ethical philosophies (which including religion), the ways we approach the world around us, are also important--hell, maybe even MORE important. Our objection is not to the subject itself, but to this alleged "controversy", this pitting of a (mostly) religious philosophy vs. an empirical science.
If your point is something else then make it, but I cannot seem to read your post any other way.
I think that a troll like George W. Bush should be modded down.
I'm amazed that proponents of intelligent design have enough intelligence to use internet and come complain here. Recommendable feat, applause all around. Now get lost.
Most likely he's not an atheist. Atheists are generally a fairly small minority. Most people in Europe are Christian, and most Christians accept evolution. It's only in the US that there's any signifigant conflict seen between evolution and God.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
'teach evolution instead of creationism'
currently dead even at 50%
metric
Of course, the government that was created did not live up to those ideals. This was known at the time. Even revolution can only carry society a certain distance, and no further.
To bring this almost back on topic, I'd also like to point out that -- as we are continually reminded on Slashdot -- many of the Founding Fathers were not Christians. For that matter, many of them (Jefferson, Madison, etc.) were also slaveholders.
Whereas the most prominent US abolitionists were mostly Christians, and used explicitly Christian arguments against slavery. E.g., William Lloyd Garrison, Frederick Douglass, Sojourner Truth, Harriet Beecher Stowe, John Brown, etc.
There were also non-Christian abolitionists like Thoreau and Lysander Spooner. And plenty of slaveowners and supporters of slavery were Christian.
But it is pretty well accepted that abolitionism in the US was largely driven by Christianity. This is especially true for those driven more toward activism than pamphleteering -- the extreme case being the terrorist actions of John Brown and his followers.
You absolutely, utterly, completely miss the point.
The "who designed the designers" question is not part of the long, extensive, damning list of reasons why ID is nonsense.
Go and read the book I linked to.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Since evolution must theoretically evolve evolutionists, the fact that it patently doesn't is interesting.
Or where do we lay the boundary for evolution, then?
-- Despair is an operating system that ANY human being can run, sort of a psychological JAVA --
- Declare the perps apostate (takfir), or
- Issue a penalty even remotely similar to that aimed at e.g. Salman Rushdie.
Hand-wringing performed for consumption of the news media doesn't count.Sustainability and energy independence essay
Einstein could have predicted from General Relativity that the universe is expanding (or else contracting). Instead, he added a cosmological constant specifically to describe a universe which is static on the large scale, existing eternally, and neither expanding nor contracting.
And so it was Georges Lemaître, a Catholic priest, who used the equations of GR to come up with the idea of an expanding universe.
For a few years, Einstein rejected this idea -- not due to any problems with the mathematics, but because he disliked the idea of a Big Bang (at that time, called 'the primeval atom').
To Einstein's credit, he accepted the idea of the expanding universe once Hubble's observations seemed to confirm it. But why didn't he accept it initially? Why didn't he come up with the idea himself?
Wikipedia claims that, at first, Einstein "found it suspect, because, according to him, it was too strongly reminiscent of the Christian dogma of creation and was unjustifiable from a physical point of view." [link] The article offers no references for that claim, so it's difficult to judge if Einstein really thought this. If he did, he changed his mind when confronted with strong evidence.
In any case, the idea of an omnipotent creator led at least one scientist down a correct path of scientific inquiry, while other scientists (the fans of steady-state theory) may have disfavored a credible theory due to their own non-scientific prejudices against the idea of a created universe.
Here's my contribution towards making this story reach 3k comments.
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or serious, but, for the sake of discussion, let's assume the latter.
Then it's your position that an assertion of the form
constitutes a "theory", but an assertion of the form constitutes a "belief"?If you could find a little time in your busy day, perhaps you could enlighten me further as to this difference between "theory" and "belief".
Thanks!
The whole point of this is to bring about the End of Time.
For several millennia, Christians have been awaiting the Second Coming of Christ, and they are getting tired of waiting. In order to speed things up, they need to do the following:
1) Convert everyone to Christianity ("Every knee shall bow")
or
2) Instigate Armageddon by causing world-wide strife and animosity among various non-believers and Believers, forcing the hand of God, in effect summoning Jesus back to Earth, thus affecting the Rapture.
I know this sounds nuts, but think about it: the basic tenet of Christianity is that the Saved get a free pass to Heaven, but that will only happen _after_ the Second Coming, which will [likely] happen only _after_ Armageddon. (Unless every single living person simultaneously accepts the personal salvation offered by Christ, in which case the Rapture would occur immediately.)
Therefore, if you are tired of waiting for Jesus to come back, tired of trying to convert every person to your Faith, and are ready to GTF outta here, the only practical way (from a Biblical perspective) to get things goings is to start a war which will lead to the Final War.
OT: Why isn't PETA complaining about the rude treatment of this deceased equine?
We've detected what - a dozen or so extrasolar planets? Out of trillions and trillions of star systems? We do not know enough to say anything about 'normal' conditions throughout the universe.
Again, you are assuming that only the conditions that exist on earth are capable of giving birth to complex life. That is a valid theory given that it's falsifiable. I expect it to be proven false at some point, but at this point that's just my personal belief that life will arise anywhere that conditions allow, and that there's nothing special about our particular conditions. Let's continue this discussion in 1,000 years or so.
BTW, why are you posting as AC?
I never said you could make creatures out of hydrogen. Consider the matter-antimatter balance though. Matter and anti-matter were created in roughly the same amount, and most of it collided with its opposite and vaporised. For some reason not yet understood, there was slightly more matter than anti-matter, and here we are. What if the situation had been exactly reversed? Anti-matter is just particles with the opposite spin. Those particles could have given rise to complex chemistry similar to our own. There's no reason they couldn't have. That's what I meant about things could have worked out differently.
Disagreed. IMNSHO, a "valid theory" requires falsifiablity. ID is at best a hypothesis with a modest amount of evidence against it, such as inefficiencies in metabolic biochemistry, the existance of a blind spot in the human eye (which is not the case in some marine species), not to mention the classic joke that God is a Civil Engineer.
Furthermore, successful prediction of expermental results is what allows a Hypothesis to advance to being considered a Theory. I have never heard anyone trying to use the concept of ID to make testable experimental predictions. This means that the Flying Spaghetti Monster Hypothesis is markedly superior to the Intelligent Design Hypothesis, as the FSMH allows the prediction that the number of pirates on the high seas will continue to fall as Global warming continues to rise — a testable proposition which might allow the FSM to be considered a theory in the next few decades. Really.
Evolution, on the other hand, has among other things been used to successfully predict that intermediate forms (such as archaeopteryx) would be discovered in gaps in the fossil record.
I repeat: ID is not science. I will elaborate: ID should not be taught in science classes. (It might be suitable for mention in modern American government high school classes in Junior or Senior year, as this is usually about as early as you can get students to intelligently reflect on the WHY and HOW of their education, and on whether this is how they SHOULD be educated.) I will also add: if intelligent design is in fact true, the Watchmaker is not only Blind, but a drunken Idiot with a perverse sense of humor to boot.
Yes, I am saying it may be Proven, but is still Invalid. It's not science. Science can be wrong — the Thompson "Plum Pudding" model of the atom springs to mind. Science, however, after tripping over an inconvenient counterexample, tends to dust itself off, examine the stumbling block, pick it up and add it to the collection, and continue on an adjusted course. Religion merely pretends that there's no problem there, even after tripping over the stumbling block, until someone picks the stumbling block up and tries to use it the beat religion's head in — at which point Religion says it's being "persecuted".
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
> What evidence do you have that "a wizard did it"?
Here's what I liked to ask the Intelligent Designer "theorists": would it be OK to teach the kids that we are all part of The Matrix? And would it be OK to teach Matrix Theory instead of Intelligent Designer Theory?
Logic has no effect on ID'ers. So when they say that God did it, just turn around and say "No, you're wrong, it's the Matrix. (Version 6, according to the movies)". Then, when they start to dispute the theory, just counter with whatever response they would give to the question.
Personally, my vote is on the time cube:
http://www.timecube.com/
And don't forget, kids, YOU were educated EVIL, & too dumb to know about Time Cube Creation.
Occam's Razor is not a proof. It's a tool people use to stop people looking at competing, more complex ideas. It is a bringer of ignorance.
HIV can be used to prove evolution. In college level genetic classes they always like to show how the microcosm of HIV infection can show evolution in a shorter time period than hundreds or thousands of years. HIV as a virus technically is not ALIVE but the infection shows genetic drift, differential survival based on the pressure cause by someones immune system .......etc.
Many of the proponents of Intelligent Design(ID) are claiming somehow that a religious based unprovable theory should somehow be given equal or greater time than evolution. ID is just a creation of this whole new conservative agenda to fight science with pseudoscience. They used to just call science they didn't like BAD SCIENCE, but the mileage on that is running out so they need a more permanent solution. If they can find scientists that will write papers then everytime someone argues the science behind evolution or global warming they can just quote some paper that combats that idea and since it was published somewhere it MUST be just science.
Their claim is that to be FAIR evolution cannot be taught without teaching other theories. That SOUNDS fine until you see one theory has evidence behind it and has not been disproven yet, and the ID theory is just a belief with a good press agent. So the compromise is to teach both or neither. That is only a compromise for the ID crowd because they do not want evolution taught so both options are a win for them, no evolution teaching or teaching evolution with this big ID distractor beside it. The issue was the same with putting a sticker on textbooks saying evolution is a theory. That is already in the name, Theory of Evolution. But they just want to keep casting doubt by amplifying the word thoery over the actual science.
It is not a compromise to lump something like evolution that has stood the test of time with some propaganda that was created just to undermine it without any backing except itself. It is pretty foolish to try and use the scientific method to prove an omnipotent being(religion) is the basis for everything and not science.
Religion belongs in the religious buildings like church or synagogue or mosque, the school if for EDUCATION, not religious bombardment, that is what sunday school if for.
It is sad that a pluerality or even a majority of Christians in the US believe what the Republicans are telling them and that is they have the numbers so therefore the government is a tool for them to enforce their opinions on others, nevermind common sense or the constitution.
Euphemism, what is that a euphemism for something.
Church is optional. Education, at least until you're 16 in the U.S., is mandatory. 'nuff said.
Eductaion may be mandatory 'til the age of 16 but it's not madatory that the student goes to a public school. It's not madatory they go to any school, more and more parents are homeschooling their children. Though I don't have children yet myself if and when I ever do I want to at least partially homeschool them myself. What I couldn't teach myself I'd hire tutors to teach.
FaclonShould there be a Law?
It's really disappointing that people argue both sides, they are 2 separate things - one is a philosophy - the other is about observation. One strives to understand the "why" the other the "how"... The thing people don't realize that they are not mutually exclusive - i.e. both can and should exist together. I think the issue is that we should not be teaching a philosophy under the guise of science and a science as an philosophy. And both sides are equally guilty of that.
http://www.creationmoments.com/
i cles.asp
This guy puts out an excellent daily newsletter swelling with PROOF of creationism.
Transcript archives:
http://www.creationmoments.com/radio/archives.asp
Articles:
http://www.creationmoments.com/resources/find_art
I'm appalled by the fact that philosophy isn't a peer subject along with science, math, history, & literature. How can you understand math without logic? How can you understand science without epistemology?
Besides, we'd be able to route creationism & intelligent design & anything else metaphysics related from the science classroom to philosophy where it belongs.
(FWIW: I believe almost every conflict between science & faith comes down to a misunderstanding of one or both.)
In my opinion, evolution is science. ID is not science. It is faith.
Evolution in terms of basic survival of the fittest among current species is a matter of science that can be studied, proven/disproven.
Evolution as the origin of life on this planet is faith, just like Intelligent Design. How do you apply survival of the fittest among individual molecules assembling themselves to form the first organism? That requires just as much faith as ID. Until you can scientifically reproduce life from a pool of amino acids, it's faith. Science is about a creating a reproducable set of experiments.
Apologies to George Smith, author of "Atheism: The Case Against God," but an example he used to refute the probability argument described a raindrop. The odds for a single raindrop to follow the exact path it does as it falls to the earth resulting in the water spreading exactly as it did are infinitely improbable for each raindrop.
Thus, watching a drop of rain fall exactly as it did is a remarkable occurrance.
Thank you for clarifying this.
You can hypothesize that something happens, test your hypothesis, and confirm it to be correct. What you can't test is whether something did happen in the past.
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
Thank you, you have presented my point in a far better way than I did.
My pouint is exactly "Thus the real situation is that our need for Jesus is not "DESTROYED" by our belief in a Creator, but rather made all the more apparent by our rejection of the evidence we see all around us."
If we did not have to reject what our eyes see than we could never make a leap of faith and come to know christ.
As far as your quote goes please read the few versus before and after. You will see that Paul is talking about rejecting God in favor of other gods. A very common refrain through out the old testament.
In that specific quote (and suround text) my favorite section is: "For in it the righteousness of God is revealed through faith for faith; as it is written, 'He who through faith is righteous shall live.'" Since faith requiers beleif without external evidence, a "faith" based on external evidence is flawed and false.
I suggest you read the other response I left. I admit I wrote my first post in haste and I was not very complete.
Wow, this flamewar has made its way into the illustrious Slashdot Hall of Fame. Flame on, Brian Berns!
For it to be actual science and to even be able to compete with evolution, it HAS to
It doesn't matter what follows the HAS to, ID is not in the realm of science. It is an origin of life question. Science does *not* touch that question, as there is simply no way to gather data on it. Evolution is not at odds with ID, they are on completely separate planes of existence. Evolution is an incredibly well-grounded theory about replicating organisms (or ideas/memes/whatever) adapting to an environment. ID is a guess as to "How did it all start?" You don't answer that question with 'evolution.' You answer it with whatever your personal belief is, and you don't worry about science disproving it anymore than you worry about science disproving your belief that ice cream is yummy.
-Ted
-=-=- Quantum physics - the dreams stuff are made of.
Very well put, makes me wish I had mod points... To be fair, however, Johnson truly believes that the ends justify his means. The ends being a society healthier than that of our current wickedness and immorality.
So don't take anything he says too seriously, here's something about his book from Wikipedia:
In fact-checking Johnson's books Darwin on Trial and Defeating Darwinism, a reviewer discovered that almost every scientific source Johnson cited had been misused or distorted, from simple misinterpretations and innuendos to outright fabrications. The reviewer, Brian Spitzer, described Darwin on Trial the most deceptive book he had ever read. [22]
Here's a little song that tells you everything you need to know about the Creation, you (D)evilutionists you. http://mp3.washingtonpost.com/bands/buzz_skyline.s html
-Buzz Skyline
I don't think one precludes the other. In fact, I believe the nanotechnology we are all made of was designed to evolve. And I don't believe it was "God" but ALIENS!
Creationism should be examined in school. In a philosophy class not a science class. I have no problem with religion being taught in school. RELIGIOUS HISTORY YOU NEVER KNEW would be a good class title or how about 10 RELIGIONS YOU NEVER HEARD OF. I completely object to the idea of any particular religion pushing THEIR ideologies in school.
All hail Bob Dobbs, creator of man-obbs and Erth twixt six days and a tenpenny, who hath in his omnisible wisknowledge made us thus divided and offsprung a thread of momentus proportions to tout this -non of issues. My objectitory status in this debate must needs be 'splained to the mere un-Dobb-worthy flocks who fill each plain and city with their incessant and intellectual dormagnorance. I am here to preach. I am here to teach. Shout out not against this enlightelligenceness, but embrace the frothy spewings of one who brings orgasnowledge to the masses, spraying freely the white juice of creavolution to impregnate you all with the knowing that will spring forth in a cosmic variance of speciationism. All hail Bob Dobbs. One nation, under Dobbs, infinvisible, for pseudoscientists, and just piss for all.
A buddy of mine wrote a great article after we got preached at by a small heard of Christian Fundies outside a symposium on Evolutionary Theory, the Fossil Record, and Soft Bodied Mollusks.
If you're interested in a quick, funny read, here is a copy:
http://eddie.mit.edu/~jc/humor/Squid.html
There is another, more indepth article about the problems with the vertibrate eye, that can be summed up with a nice simple catch phrase...
"If the creationists are right, God is a Sqiud."
>>I do not believe that such matters of faith should be taught in schools. So take evolution out of the schools as well. It is a matter of faith. None of us have ever seen evolution happen. We have seen the assumed results of it. It takes more faith to believe in evolution than intelligent design. For example. Take the computer that you are on now and take it apart, down to the individual chips on the board. Throw them in a bag and just shake it up. Do you have a computer come out of the bag. If not how can you believe that things just happend without a mysterious force behind it? In fact that computer had an intellignet designer behind it (unless it runs Windows - joke), and shaking that bag an infinite number of times is not going to make a computer that works. I say teach them both or teach neither, they are both theories. The Doc
Stephen Jay Gould is really not a good example of whom to learn about evolution from.
s -archive/Catalano/the_g_files.shtml
s -archive/Dawkins/Work/Reviews/1990-02-25wonderful. shtml
Most people think he is way off on the subject of evolution, yes he might be against ID, but not really an asset when you talk about evolution.
I for one think he is one of the reasons behind the notion that evolution still is disputed, cause his views are far from the views of most biologists outside of the US.
Instead, read some books by Richard Dawkins.
Here are some files about what people think of Stephen Jay Gould:
http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkin
Especially read these:
http://www.nonzero.org/newyorker.htm
http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkin
The relevant comparison is to compare the death count for both religions for the past 500 years.
I have little doubt that within this time period, or even the past 1,000 years, various Muslim psychopaths have been responsible for more democidal killings than Christian extremists.
So Hubble proved something before 1953 that we still don't know today? Amazing ... I guess they must have extremely recently dug up previously lost proofs of his.
I think you are confusing the relation of the Hubble Constant, and the calculation thereof, to equations which purport to predict whether or not the Universe is expanding infinitely.
We actually still don't know today if the Universe will contract or continue to expand.
We seem to be talking about different things. I said that Hubble proved that space was not spatially infinite.
As for whether the Universe is ever going to start contracting... well, it all depends on how much mass there is. There's not enough visible matter for it, and I think the consensus is that there's not enough dark matter either. New evidence one way or another will be forthcoming.
Is this a sigs-optional kind of place? 'Cause I am totally down with that if you know what I mean.
Man, I bet that guy is pissed this isn't the dark ages and you can't just have Scientists and other rabble rousers crucified. After all an educated populace is much harder to control than an uneducated one, look how well they were able to keep order when the Church was running things.
If you want to see a 'controlled' populace, look to China, Singapore, or North Korea. These are much more controlled than medieval Europe ever was. For that matter, consider the USSR or the Fascist+Nazi regimes of the 20th century.
The 20th century was, scientifically speaking, an enlightened age. It was also arguably one of the most inhumane centuries. And I didn't even mention yet the Khmer Rouge, the Armenian genocide, the genocide in Rwanda, the use of nuclear weapons, and so on...
Not to say the Crusades, the Inquisition, and witch-burning weren't atrocities. But enlightened people are quite capable of carrying out their own massacres on an incomprehensible scale.
I don't get your point. Matter and anti-matter are annoyingly indistinguishable, and no one claims you can't make life out of antimatter. As for exactly reversed, as far as everyone is concerned, matter cannot be created without antimatter, nor can matter or antimatter be destroyed without the other. So we are quite perplexed that the universe seems to be made of matter Back to the subject though, twice of nearly impossible is still nearly impossible.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
Enjoy your geocentric universe.
Waiiii!!!!!! I have bad karma!
There are two main problems in having a sensible discussion on Darwinism.
:-)
1. The blind religious faith of its opponents.
2. The blind religious faith of its supporters.
Darwin-based evolution is a big and complex theory. Some parts have very good evidence to support them. In some parts, it is near impossible to obtain evidence one way or the other.
The first stage of evolution involves some simple form of life being generated out of a complex chemical/physical environment. How do you prove that? What did the environment consist of? Can we reproduce it in a lab?
There are many plausible theories as to the exact circumstances -- and one may well be correct. But how do you prove it?
The theory of Intelligent Design can be vastly oversimplified as "evolution happened, but some supreme being helped it along a bit".
This differs from some of the more traditional creation science theories in that it more readily accepts the physical evidence.
This denial of evidence made the older Creation theories offensive to many scientists. Personally, I find it surprising that the newer "intelligent design" theories seem to generate the same amount of offence. It seems to be a realistic attempt to reconcile a theory (some deity created the world) with the observed evidence. However it certainly does create offence -- as can be observed in this thread.
I suggest that any modern curriculum that claims to be balanced should include the following:
1. A good history of the development of darwinian theories.
2. A good coverage of the state of the art in darwinian evolutionary research.
3. A balanced look at some of the problems with evolution -- including places where some theorists differ.
4. A mention of intelligent design in the context of "some people believe this, you make up your own mind"
Well, that's my 2 cents worth. Cheap at half the price.
I have to agree with this. Children have to be taught that there's a debate going on, that some people believe in intelligent design. If no mention is made of ID in schools, then kids will be at the mercy of people who will teach it to them as religious ideology and they won't have the tools to evaluate it properly.
Except there is no debate going on. On one hand you have 99.99999% of the scientific community, and on the other you have a few crackpots. This is not a debate, this is an attempt to confuse people into thinking there is some rational, scientific disagreement where none exists. If we talk about ID in schools, why not put up a flat-earther on Fox next to a geologist and call it a "fair and balanced" debate, as someone else suggested?
Okay. Heres the thing. Science does not claim that evolution is a perfect or flawless theory. Science does not work that way. As someone said before, its the most viable solution with the evidence so far. Of course, it should be tought to students that there are holes in the theory, but teaching creationism as an "opposing scientific theory" doesnt fit the definition. We can see this by a very basic propierty of science declared by Karl Popper that can de very usefull (Any spanish speakers could help here? Need literal translation for the word "Falsable"). This is that every scientific theory has to be possibly refutable. If we say that an unseen force has created life, but that we, living mortals will never be able to see the traces of this unseen force in facts there is no possible evidence that can refute this. True or lie comes down to a matter of this "can his be possibly a lie?". Every declared truth that can be taken into account MUST have a chance of being false. For example, I say planets are square. I see a planet, its round, im refuted. But, then i say "oh, planets are square, but a massive alucination that all live entities in the universe suffer causes planets to be percibed as round". Okay, I just said planets are round, with a different wording that makes me sound less wrong. The case with creationism is the same. They might be right, but, then if i say that the entity that created life had the chain of cause-reaction set up for life to be =TRUE eons ago, at the big bang, i cannot be refuted, so it does not matter. I can say God, i can say a giant spaghetti monster, i can say that a previous incarnation of Al Gore created the universe. IT DOES NOT MATTER, because it is a fact that is not open for debate. If we start teaching things that cannot be possibly refuted or questioned, we are not teaching, we are dictating, and that is what matters. God is not questionable, because you can allways go one step higher. It is a matter of who surrenders first. Yes, no, yes, no, yes, no. If evolution is refuted tomorrow, rest assured, it will fall and crumble into ashes. God cannot be refuted, and this is no proof that he exists, but is no refutation either. And we must remember that other holes in science are also overlooked. Gravity essentialy does not work, and quantum theory does not work either, when they are put together (Now with string theory thats about to change, or not, who knows, if a graviton banishes into another dimension then yes.), and we ARE teaching gravity in school Why? because it can predict facts in a pretty solid way. When "Intelligent design" can predict something better than evolution, well come back and take a look.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
Intelligent design is not science. It has nothing to do with science. It dresses up in a white lab coat and has frizzy hair and tries to look like science, but it's still argument from authority, based only on faith.
So, yeah, if a science teacher mentions it (other than as a great example of how not to do science), the science teacher isn't doing her job.
I have no issue with prayer in school. (I'm trying to figure out how you'd keep prayer OUT of school.) I have a tremendous issue with a teacher leading a prayer during class time. If my (hypothetical) kid wants to pray, he can pray. He doesn't need any help.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
...right here
-- "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" -- Juvenal
I misstyped. The last paragraph should have read as follows:
By the way, you really shouldn't claim "evolution violates the laws of thermodynamics". Even CREATIONISTS... the half-competent ones... are shouting down their fellow CREATIONISTS for persistantly making fools of themselves with that embarrassing argument.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
http://www.thruthebible.net/
While I personally agree with ID, I have no problem with teaching mostly darwinian evolution in schools if it is currently the most popular belief in the scientific community. However I would also like to remind some teachers that evolution is only a theory and should not be preached as an absolute truth that has been completly proven many times(as some of my teachers have done).
I'm not saying we should kill all the stupid people in the world, but couldn't we just take all warning labels off...
*harrumph* You may wish to clarify that statement. As a Catholic, I believe in both word and tradition. Quite honestly, given the Bible was written almost 2 millenia ago, I don't really know how one can go entirely off of what's printed there, particularly as most of us are dealing with a work that has been translated multiple times. (Personally, I use RSV, which is one of the better translations for saying in English what was originally stated in Aramaic. Many of the people who quote sola scriptura, or reliance only on what's in "the Book" are often quoting from KJV which was not only a translation of a translation, but was also commissioned by King James, who had a politcal agenda.) I'll be honest. I don't read Latin, let alone Aramaic or Greek, so I'm one of those dealing with a translation, although I try to pick intelligent ones.
And yes, a fundamental in all main branches of Christianity is that nothing that we can do will guarentee entrance to Heaven. Whether you've done good needs all of your life, lived your life without commiting one sin (as mentioned above, practically impossible) or even if you've "been saved" and "accepted Jesus into your heart," there is no guarentee of Heaven. Heaven is only reached by the grace of God as none of us are fit to go. *shrug* So those people who say we're all damned and going to Hell are more or less right, except that God has promised that he will grant mercy on us. Depending on which section of the gospel you read, it's either reported that it is either through faith or by faith and good works that we make ourselves worthy.
This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
And yes, after an event like an abortion shooting, it is very common for a priest to speak about it, warning us that violence only begets violence, to love our neighbours, and such.
And as for "[prioritizing] those Christian ideals, above ideals against homosexuality and reproductive freedom," you sound like you're assuming the two are incompatible. Quite honestly, the injunction to love one's neighbour insists that we speak against such activities if we believe them wrong. Doing anything else is damning our neighbours through indifference. It is in fact specifically stated in the Bible that if someone is living in a sinful manner and you do not try to guide them back to the proper path, the sin is yours as well. That said, I can state that Cahtolicism does not support force. We will counsel. We will attempt to work within the legal structure to help people. We do not use violence or force. It's one of those core ideals which, when strayed from, is a key indication of someone trying to play God.
And that said, it's an interesting theological question as to what kind of activity one can do. If a friend pulled out a gun and stuck it to their head, you'd try to talk them down or wrestle the gun away, right? It's a matter of immediate life and death, you care about their life, and most cases of attempted suicide involve someone who hasn't thought the situation through. If one believes in an afterlife, should we not value our friend's eternal life as high if not higher than their mortal life? And with the ideals of Christian love, are we not all brothers? Similarly, one can see the viewpoint of picketers at an abortion clinic, hindering those who are planning on commiting spiritual suicide. They "hide the gun" by attempting to make abortions more difficult to get, sometimes by laws getting passed requiring some degree of counseling or at least parental involvement and sometimes by just standing there at the gates, praying, forcing people to think about what they're doing.
The case regarding artificial contraception and homosexual behavior gets even more interesting. Here we have something less immediate in its damage and more generally acceptable to society. Homosexuality is often viewed kind of like how smoking is in secular society. You're not about to rip that cigarette out of a smoker's mouth, but you feel obligated to inform them of the dangers and to make it more difficult to obtain their poisons through taxes and tarrifs. You're not likely to stop being friends with someone if they start smoking, but you ask them not to do it in your presence and you never stop gently encouraging them to give it up. And above all, you recognize it as a battle which you may never lose, but in the spirit of love, you must keep fighting.
*shrug* And I'm heavily digressing, but I think that it's an interesting thing to consider. If we are Christians in spirit as well as in name, we must speak up regarding what we believe is wrong.
This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
Did I fail geometry? Were you ever exposed to it at all? - a line, or straight line, is, roughly speaking, an (infinitely) thin, (infinitely) long, straight geometrical object - a boundary is something that encloses an area A line has no area. Something is either a line, or a geometrical object with boundaries. It cannot be both. Are you working with a different definition of line? I ask genuinely.
Akarsz Magyar Gentoo fórumot? Akkor
We could be quoting scripture all night at this rate.
This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
Not sure what the proper mathematical/geometric name would be, but you are describing an infinitely long strip/stripe.
Akarsz Magyar Gentoo fórumot? Akkor
Er...
As I recall, the president actually takes an oath not to use his position for religious purposes. The Bush campaign brought this against Kerry, saying he couldn't hold this oath because he was Catholic.
The kind of Christianity espoused by the President is a world minority religion. It's greatest assets are the billions of dollars it makes off televangelism and other faith services, and the politicians it has made allies with. It does not represent most Americans, particularly not those it encourages the congregations to despise.
I hate to stick my nose in this particular debate here, but there's a definition flaw here. "Theorem" and "theory" are not synonyms. Theorem translates in this dabate more closely to "law" than "theory".
Virg
This particular experiment was found to have some serious flaws in assumption, and as such is now widely disregarded by most, even most evolutionary biologists. The reason it hasn't been redone is mostly that nobody has enough proof of what conditions were like back then to run the experiment again while avoiding the same flaws.
Virg
...it's economics. Getting a pig heart (actually, heart valves, but why quibble) is a lot cheaper and easier than getting a chimpanzee heart, and it works well enough that it's not worth the extra cost to go with something closer, genetically.
Virg
Ultimately, look at Jesus. He was a popular, revolutionary figure, not to mention allegedly omnipotent. He could have led a revolution of Jews against the Romans, but instead of getting violent, he let them kill him.
You choose an interesting example. That has been a hot topic ever since Jesus started preaching. If he were the Son of God, why did he let us kill him? The pat and documented answer was that something in his sacrifice opened the gates of Heaven to us. I think also it's a recognition that violent actions often don't have a lasting consequence. Revolutions tend to go 360 degrees, etc. It is interesting that you compare the spread of Christianity to cancer, as in a way, it fits in in its method. Some diseases ravage their way through a population and a months later, they no longer exist. Cancer tends to work subtly, changing cells one by one, only showing itself when it has staying power. Similarly, Christianity has often been a very subtle religion. Most of us don't bomb clinics or stand on street corners preaching. Rather, we spread a message of love and acceptance through a quiet and religious life. *wry grin* Now you and I seem to disagree as to whether the end result is a good thing... *shrug* I really don't know that there's anything I can say to quell your venom there.
As for your examples of "cancer in Christian philosophy," I think what you're seeing there is more that in any given group, there will be unbalanced individuals and those who are seeking to use the group for their own purpose. It all comes down to that pesky free will which lets us all decide what path we decide to take.
This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
To address a few peripheral points, like I said I've mixed views on war, similarly with violence. One of these days I'm going to have to dig up that paper I wrote about Christian martial arts... Basically, I argued that while we were told to not pursue "an eye for an eye," neither are we meant to not resist at all when we find evil in the world. Maybe I'm misreading you again, but I'm unsure as to whether you are condemning violence in general, or just condemning those who make excuses of religion when really they just want the violence.
So, in a general conclusion, I am not bothered at all by your continued argument. I too like to be right and tell everyone about it. And I know that the moment I stop sincerely listening to other people and considering their arguments, I will be a zealot of the worst sort. The only exception I make to always welcoming religious debate is that I avoid it with friends and co-workers, but that's because religion is one of those issues that makes most people see red. Whether you're a fundamentalist Christian trying to save the souls of your co-workers whether they like it or not, an atheist who is bound and determined to make sure everyone realizes there is no God, or someone (I want to say agnostic or deist but I know that's not quite right) who believes that religion happens in all kinds of forms and no one should espouse their particular viewpoint as the truth, people tend to get empassioned when it comes to religion. Which, really, is good. I'd be really scared if the religious people around me were apathetic. "If you are not hot or cold, I will spit you out" all of that.
Ah, and the last peripheral point I was planning on addressing before... you are frequently quoting "science" in a manner which seems like you feel it opposes religion. Me, I've always been a big believer that science proves God's existence and that the ability to reason is one of the greater gifts we have been given. It makes life hard sometimes, as it leads us to questions like when life begins, what the quality or price of a human life is, etc. To me, that's all good as it is only when we have questions that we can find answers. And, quite frankly, it also shows repeatedly that the world is such a complex and wonderful thing that we will likely never truly understand it. Every light we cast creates more shadows.
Anyhow, I have places I must be today, so I bid you good day. Thanks for the argument.
This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
In talking about cancer - however cancer works in spreading it's bad planning to neighbouring cells (I read about it, but I cannot be bothered to look up again) that is the process I was describing.
So just leave that bit ok, the point stands.
Also the swearing is int he tone of incredulity, that you can actually make those statements you made, and not meant to offend. Plus I typed at about 150+ wpm (yes exaggeration probably!) so typos and (thanksfully none!) unclosed html is all my fingers fault.
If only I had been born X*a really long time, later, then I would have qwerty fingers.
#hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com