Federal Judge Rules Against Intelligent Design

evil agent writes "CNN is reporting that U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III has ruled that Intelligent Design cannot be discussed in Dover, Pennsylvania biology classes. Dover Area School Board members had previously mandated that Intelligent Design be included in the biology curriculum. According to the judge, 'our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom.'" Update: 12/20 23:40 GMT by J : eSkeptic has a look back at the trial and what led to it. And the Discovery Institute has issued a press release.

Comments

Well good

[butters the odd]

Intelligent design isn't science, therefore it doesn't belong in a science room.

Re:Well good

[hfolkers]

Evolution isn't science, therefore it doesn't belong in a science room.

Re:Well good

[andyukguy]

fact.

Re:Well good

[grub]

The Dover school board need just introduce a new course "Mysticism, Superstition and Things That Go Bump in the Night". Then they could teach ID.

Re:Well good

[Cstryon]

I agree. I am Christian, and there are many ways I can tie ID to Science. But that's not what ID is. Forget proving it's real, that's what faith is for. Science is what we know, and what theorys we have. ID is for YOU, to learn and study on your own accord. Take your children to church to show them what you believe, and than let them discover their own faith. Send them to school to learn what is KNOWN and what other Possibilties there are.

Re:Well good

[Kelson]

If high schools had philosophy classes, though, it would be a perfect subject there.

Re:Well good

[jandrese]

If Evolution isn't science (a body of observations backed up by theories that have not been disproven), then nothing is a science. While I'm sure plenty of the ID folks would be happy if science was dropped entirely from schools (it keeps contradicting them, they hate that!), that is plainly not in the best interests of society as a whole.

Re:Well good

[grub]

and than let them discover their own faith.

Kids don't "discover their own faith", they're indoctrinated into whatever supertition their parents force-feed them.
Raising kids to believe in mythology is child abuse.

Re:Well good

[Anonymous Coward]

Clearly this "federal judge" has been sent by God to test our faith. Don't be fooled people!

Re:Well good

[bestiarosa]

If ID was taught in Biology classes, also Pastafarianism would have to be taught.

Re:Well good

[Cstryon]

That's not true. That's a Generalization. I love Science. And I think over and over it helps ID.

Re:Well good

[sickofthisshit]

Intelligent design makes claims that are extremely sloppy in logic, if not utterly fallacious. Feel free to be stupid on your own time, or to teach your children to be stupid, but realize that is what you are doing.

Generally, it boils down to finding examples of complicated structures or systems in biology, and saying "see, this is complex enough that I don't think it could arise by evolution." It is a strawman---no biologist says that evolution has to result in structures that obviously arose from simpler precursors.

It is one step above young Earth creationists, who seek "geological evidence" to "support" their preconceived interpretation of the Genesis chronology. ID proponents are almost all seeking "flaws" in evolution to avoid threatening their preconceived notion that God played a crucial role in biological development.

Pardon me if I don't have much sympathy or respect for people who choose to support such stupidity.

Re: Well good

[Black Parrot]

> If high schools had philosophy classes, though, it would be a perfect subject there.

I don't think ID has enough substance to rate being treated as a philosophy.

Better would be a class on critical thinking vs. pseudoscience.

Re:Well good

[errxn]

Great, one junk science theory down in flames. Now, if we can just continue on and get rid of this "Global Warming" crap...

Re:Well good

[Anonymous Coward]

And this assertion is based on what grounds?

Re:Well good

[Anonymous Coward]

Raising kids to believe in mythology is child abuse.

Raising children with so few social skills that they express their anti-religious bigotry on public fora at every opportunity is child abuse

Re:Well good

[Austerity Empowers]

The disturbing part is that a COURT ruled that such and such could not be taught in a classroom.

I'm not really sure if this is a win.

Re:Well good

[keraneuology]

Holy freaking smokes are you ever wrong.

Intelligent design is exactly what belongs in a classroom. But it has nothing to do with religion.

There isn't a biological engineer on the planet who wouldn't love to create life from raw elements and watch them evolve into something more complex. If you want to have a real education then it should be along the lines of:

Let's say you wanted to create a world as complicated as earth - what knowledge and technology would this require?

Can an intelligence construct a world? Absolutely. Can we? No. Why not? That's what physicists and geological engineers and biologists and a whole bunch of other people are trying to answer.

The people who are rabidly against the concept of intelligent design are nothing more than arrogant freaks who declare that man may be able to build evolving life in the lab but nobody else in the universe has ever been able to do so, nor ever will

It doesn't matter if ID is real or, if it is, who did the design. It really doesn't matter. What does matter is the question of "how could it be done".

Re: Well good

[Black Parrot]

> If ID was taught in Biology classes, also Pastafarianism would have to be taught.

During the trial Michael Behe argued that a new definition of science is needed, but had to admit under cross-examination that his proposed definition would relable astrology as science.

Re:Well good

[nick_davison]

The notion that:

"By definition, most theories cannot be proved, they can only be disproved. The validity of a theory is perceived to increase the longer it goes without being disproved." ...is a part of science - and a pretty important one. Blindly accepting theories without questioning them, if anything, is even closer to religion.

Granted, singling out one alternative to be taught, despite minimal to no proof of it, is poor science. You can inform students as to what makes a theory and what gives it validity and strength without citing alternatives - or, if you want to teach alternatives in a science classroom, explain the alternatives in terms of their scientific validity - which, sadly, places Christian creationism (which, let's face it, is the real purpose of this) on a par with his noodly appendages, Narnia, Middle Earth and giants that fall asleep to form mountains.

It's in this way that the ID argument undermined itself. If they just wanted the notion of theories and validity of theories discussed - that would be science but it would also question creationism even more than it does Darwinism. Instead, they took a reasonable scientific concept and then tried using that to weaken only one perspective and then promote a specific alternative for religious gain - and that's what the judge rightly identified as a failure of separation of church and state.

Had they stopped with "Theories should be questioned" though, whether it's uncomfortable for firm believers in Darwin or not, it was still science at that point and had a place in science classrooms.

Re:Well good

[Cstryon]

You are pardoned I suppose.

Re: Well good

[hunterx11]

Intelligent Design really is a modern religious movement to get Creationism taught in schools, but the concept of teleology is certain appropriate material for a philosophy class; in fact, I did take philosophy in high school, and we did hear about Paley's watchmaker argument.

Re:Well good

[Cstryon]

I like to believe the Choices I make and the feelings I have towards something are of my OWN make-up. I am not Controlled nor Force-fed by anyone. By you saying this, do you believe you also can't make decisions on your own?

Re:Well good

[RailGunner]

I'm not really sure if this is a win.

It's not. Why should a local school district curriculum ever be a federal issue?

If the locals in Dover PA want to teach their kids ID, then let them. If doesn't affect anyone else.

Re:Well good

[SpaceLifeForm]

PP is not a troll. Religious indoctrination is a form of brainwashing, and any brainwashing can be consided abuse of a human mind.

It's a good thing that there are still judges around that have a clue.

Re:Well good

[TeaQuaffer]

"Well good"?

I'm not a big fan of ID. But I don't have a problem with someone pointing out flaws in a model.

I think students should be told that our model of reality is not perfect. I think they should be told that Evolution has problems, that F does not really equal MA, and that we don't know what dark matter is.

I am not about to argue ID. But I am ready to say that when the government starts setting a "Federal List Of Theories Approved For Discussion" we are in serious trouble.

Re:Well good

[ATeamMrT]

ID is for YOU, to learn and study on your own accord. Take your children to church to show them what you believe, and than let them discover their own faith. Send them to school to learn what is KNOWN and what other Possibilties there are.

You post is the rantings of a bigot who hates Christians.

Schools should teach what the majority of people in the district want taught. If one parent does not like what 1000 other parents want in the curriculum, than the 1 parent should educate their child on their own. The rights of the majority are being attacked.

There should be freedom to discuss anything in the classroom. I find it absurd that liberal groups want to give academic freedom to ideas they believe in, but will deprive others of the right to speak their mind.

Prove to me there is no God. Prove to me that everything science measures and describes was not created by God.

People have believed in God since the start of time. What makes scientists today so much more certain than scientists of 100 years ago?

Re:Well good

[numbski]

Just so we're clear here....

The desktop computer I have today has evolved over the last 30+ years. Heck, we could go back decades or even centuries beyond that depending upon what you call a "computer". What one might consider a computer 100 years ago most certainly bears no resembelence to what we have today. This process of evolving was more or less self-contained.

Now, I could go either way in the argument from here that Charles Babbage didn't create the computer knowing that things would evolve and change and grow, and didn't write a big elaborate story explaining how things would change and grow, but at the same time those evolutions required intelligent design.

I believe the point that the gp was trying to make was that we're teaching science, or rather the fact that things HAVE changed, discuss why they have changed, and perhaps even what dictated those changes. When we tech computer science, we may go into a brief history lesson, but we generally wouldn't dwell on the life and times of Charles Babbage. We also wouldn't start rambling on about how Mr. Babbage is still watching today and shaping the computer industry. A seperation of church and state here is appropriate. That still doesn't mean that intelligent design and evolution are mutually exclusive, but rather it's the wrong material in the wrong classroom.

Oh, and Mr. Troll, indoctrination is not so. Once you hit 18, you should begin to think for yourself. Long before that in fact. The fact that society as a whole tends to be one large flock of sheep that is herded around as such does not mean that your or I should be so. Sure, I was raised christian. I strayed away. I learned to think for myself, had the very foundations of what I believed torn apart due to the fact that science contradicts the story-book biblical teaching of my childhood.

I came back to it as a personal choice and a matter of faith. If you are insinuating that we as adults are not capable of making choices beyond what we have force-fed to us as children, well I would suggest you're posting on the wrong boards.

Or maybe not, this IS slashdot after all. :\

Re:Well good

[richieb]

Raising children with so few social skills that they express their anti-religious bigotry on public fora at every opportunity is child abuse

Would you be so fast to say this if the religion in question was Scientology? How about Cult of the Dead Carrot?

Re:Well good

[Rei]

They should tail and film him when he gets off work so that they can find out where in the ground he's going to hide the next dinosaur fossils and how he's mixing them up to fake their radioisotope dates.

Re:Well good

[Cstryon]

No, you have a good point. But I am not a ranting Bigot.

Re:Well good

[DrFrob]

Why? The key word here is "public," and public schools should be governed under the democracy in which they exist. You're welcome to be disturbed by the actual decision, but it's entirely fair game for a court to decide the matter.

Re:Well good

[Vaughn Anderson]

Intelligent design isn't science, therefore it doesn't belong in a science room.

You cannot base one unproven theory on a plethora of other unproven theories and call that science.

Belief in evolution is a form of religion,(definition #4) as it cannot be proved through any scientific methods on how life began and must be taken on faith, as we don't even know the conditions in which the first life came to be, as these are theories too.

Since ID is no different, then neither should be taught in schools...

Re:Well good

[pomo monster]

Parent makes a good point, I think, and is no more trollish than grandparent. That it was modded down while grandparent stands at +1 Insightful is a clear reflection on the (in)ability of certain Slashdotters to get along with other people.

Re:Well good

[xarak]

Congratulations!
Views like yours would fuel a lot more _true_ faith, instead of the blind following of obscurantist dogma that these ID preachers try to impose.
To me, science is my faith: I cannot prove anything in science, I cannot say it is the absolute Truth, but it's my way of describing and understanding the world.

At least science has the humility of calling its teachings theory. Can you imagine this the other way around? Imposing that preachers spend 5 minutes after each sermon giving an 'alternate' darwinian view on evolution?

I'd love to see the debate then..

Re:Well good

[supabeast!]

"The people who are rabidly against the concept of intelligent design are nothing more than arrogant freaks who declare that man may be able to build evolving life in the lab but nobody else in the universe has ever been able to do so, nor ever will"

Opponents of intelligent design oppose it because intelligent design is nothing but a bunch of Christian extremists posing as scientists trying to slowly bring the book of Genesis into science classrooms, and throw out the entire idea of evolution in the process. Right now there's not a single shred of evidence that the world was designed, only fairy tales about invisible men who live in the sky and speak things into existence. A true science class about the possibilities of world building would probably welcomed on many college campuses - but it's definately too advanced for middle or high school students.

Re:Well good

[Anonymous Coward]

As per your comments (please refer to this link as reference http://www.venganza.org/,

Prove to me there is no Flying Spaghetti Monster. Prove to me that everything science measures and describes was not created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Prove to me that your god was not created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster!

Re:Well good

[geeber]

there are many ways I can tie ID to Science

I am not quite sure what you mean by this phrase, but in general one cannot tie ID to science unless one completely distorts what science is. The ID approach is to say origins are outside the bounds of testability because the observed complexity in the natural world can only come from a creator. Invoking a creator means that one inherently believes in supernatural origins, which is everyone's right, but not part scientific process, and goes against the idea of reproducible experiments.

Which is why the phrase you used, "tie ID to science" is so loaded.

Re:Well good

[krygny]

That may be (and I agree). But UNCONSTITUTIONAL?!! Teaching it, learning it, believing it is protected by the constitution. This will give Bill O'reilly a whole show's worth of material.

Re: Well good

[Black Parrot]

> The people who are rabidly against the concept of intelligent design are nothing more than arrogant freaks who declare that man may be able to build evolving life in the lab but nobody else in the universe has ever been able to do so, nor ever will

Uh, no. We're rabidly against Intelligent Design (notice the capitals) because it's a blatant political attempt to wedge pseudoscience into the public school classrooms to provide cover for creationist voters who don't want their children to learn about evolution.

Re:Well good

[Jayjay75]

"Schools should teach what the majority of people in the district want taught."

And if the majority of people in the district are illiterate peasants who only want their children to learn to grow crops, what then?

Schools should teach what best practices dictate that they should teach, and also what colleges and universities expect that incoming students should know. If educators merely pander to the masses, the level of education will never rise. Any parents that don't like the curriculum can, as you say, home-school their kids.

Re:Well good

[Dan Ost]

It would be hard to understand our nation's first 150 years of existance if a teacher couldn't talk about religion in history class. In fact, any US History class that doesn't mention the religious influences that shapped our country would be skipping very important material.

However, religion has no place in a science class.

Re:Well good

[Gulthek]

Intelligent design isn't science because it isn't provable. It's an interesting interpretation of the state of the universe, but it answers exactly zero questions about it.

The people who are rabidly against the concept of intelligent design are nothing more than arrogant freaks who declare that man may be able to build evolving life in the lab but nobody else in the universe has ever been able to do so, nor ever will

Well since we and everything else in the universe are all incarnations of the dreaming god mind, obviously no one else in the universe will be able to create the universe because there is no one else in the universe!

Re:Well good

[alnjmshntr]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds to me like you're saying - "Gee I can't understand how evolution could possibly work, therefore evolution can't be the answer... but I can understand how some all-powerful entity could do this, so therefore that must be the answer"

Re:Well good

[COMON$]

Being a Christian myself, I dont believe that my religion should be taught in the science classroom, maybe a philosophy course but not a science course.

That being said, there is nothing wrong with teaching that we are genetically engineered, or that an advanced civilaization might have put us here. Laugh it up but just because it is off of Star Trek or out of a Sci-Fi novel doesnt mean it cant be done or wasnt done

We are still pretty infantile in our understanding of our own makup and understanding of the world around us. But we are already working on ways to terraform mars, clone ourselves, and having a whole lot of fun with Bioengineering. Many of these articles have been on slashdot already and seriously discussed by many of us here. But once intelligent design is slapped on it it is ludicrous.

Re:Well good

[Canadian_Daemon]

Raising children with so few social skills that they express their anti-religious bigotry on public fora at every opportunity is child abuse
It is called a debate. In debates people take opposing sides and are allowed to express their opinions about the topic being discussed ( in this case, religion). Children are not abused when their parents teach them beliefs. As anecdotal evidence, I was raised religious, but I believe in the scientific method and evolution. I have grown away from my religious roots, and can argue for or against religion, yet I prefer against. Claiming that teaching religion is child abuse is childish and extremely bias. Do the community a favour and learn how to debate without sinking to name calling.

Re:Well good

[MightyMartian]

It's a federal issue because the US Constitution forbids the state (and that means even a school board, BTW) from establishing or promoting any religious view. What's more, the ex-school board in Dover was filled with perjurers and thinly-veiled religious crusaders who weren't even bright enough to keep their mouths shut.

Re:Well good

[jtdubs]

And you are under the impression that that is what ID is?

Here's how this sounds to me:

OP: ID as commonly discussed and presented at trial is not science and shouldn't be taught in schools.
You: But if you make ID mean this entirely different thing, then you are wrong.
Me: And your point is?

Re:Well good

[laklare]

"Can an intelligence construct a world? Absolutely." What facts are you basing that statement on?

Re:Well good

[Fulcrum of Evil]

The desktop computer I have today has evolved over the last 30+ years.

You mean designed, right? Or did you really mean that some pdp-11s had sex and gave birth to a pdp-12?

What one might consider a computer 100 years ago most certainly bears no resembelence to what we have today.

That's right. 100 years ago, computer was a job title.

Re:Well good

[Dan Ost]

It's a public school receiving public funds. If religion is pushed in the school, then it's tax-payer money being used to advance a religious agenda. This is clearly a violation of the constitutional seperation of church and state.

I believe that's why this is a federal issue.

Re:Well good

[mrami]

Just a point.

You said:

The people who are rabidly against the concept of intelligent design are nothing more than arrogant freaks who declare that man may be able to build evolving life in the lab but nobody else in the universe has ever been able to do so, nor ever will

But before that, you said:

There isn't a biological engineer on the planet who wouldn't love to create life from raw elements and watch them evolve into something more complex.

That doesn't seem like intelligent design. That seems like it would be "intelligent watching of things unfold on their own." Unless you're arguing that the intelligent design is in the platonic laws of probability and mathematics that govern our universe and the evolutionary process itself. Which I could get behind... but that's just me. :)

Of course, intelligent mathematical design wouldn't be an argument against evolution, so that's probably not what the school board was talking about...

Re:Well good

[jc42]

Let's say you wanted to create a world as complicated as earth - what knowledge and technology would this require?

That's easy to find out. Just go ask the Malgratheans. They should know, since they've done it twice, including the fjords and fake fossils.

OK; you might have to wake them up first.

Re:Well good

[gardyloo]

Can an intelligence construct a world? Absolutely. Can we? No. Why not?

      I'm sorry. This is slashdot. I want no mention of intelligence on this website! The answer to your question is implicit in the context.

Re:Well good

[Anonymous Coward]

"Schools should teach what the majority of people in the district want taught. If one parent does not like what 1000 other parents want in the curriculum, than the 1 parent should educate their child on their own. The rights of the majority are being attacked."

From TFA:
The controversy divided the community and galvanized voters to oust eight incumbent school board members who supported the policy in the November 8 school board election. ... The board members were replaced by a slate of eight opponents who pledged to remove intelligent design from the science curriculum.

Gollee gee, that majority sure supported want they wanted taught, didnt they?

"There should be freedom to discuss anything in the classroom."

Should we be discussing US history in Phys.Ed. class? I'd think each has its own place.

Science gets discussion in Science class. ID gets discussion in Philosophy.

Re:Well good

[kk49]

The problem is that ID is a trick to get people to believe in God, because you ask who designed the designer and so on up the chain until you are left with a preexisting complex intelligent God instead of a preexisting simple unintelligent matter/enegy/spacetime/whatever blob.

Just because we can move matter around in a way that randomly occurred before and has been sustained by a positive feedback does not mean that ID is the way in which human beings appeared.

Re:Well good

[greythax]

That would be wonderful if that described ID at all. The problem is that ID is not a QUESTION, it is a STATEMENT.

ID doesn't ask "If evolution can't explain everything, can an intellegent being do it? How would that being do it?"

ID simply says "Evolution can't explain every change, so it MUST be an intelligent being. End of debate." And leaves us hanging without a rational question that we can ask, and no scientific tests to devise. How does one test an omnipotent god or space alien?

The problem with intelligent design is not the question, it is simply that when one starts to look at it rationally, it bares absolutely no resemblance to actual science.

Science will happily give up Evolution and start taking ID seriously just as soon as ID offers us one shred of actual evidence.

Re:Well good

[Ixne]

Schools should teach what the majority of people in the district want taught. If one parent does not like what 1000 other parents want in the curriculum, than the 1 parent should educate their child on their own. The rights of the majority are being attacked.

What is right is not always popular.

What is popular is not always right.

Re:Well good

[Pxtl]

This is exactly why I wish I was a teacher in such an "intelligent design" classroom. I would love to give it exactly the coverage it deserves.

Re:Well good

[BodhiCat]

ID supporters claim that the reason that humans and other animals share similar DNA was that they were "made" by the same designer, God. This view shows the fault in the creationist's argument. They claim to see His design in nature and in the functioning of organisms, and claim that this shows that the existence of a creator God can be inferred from nature. This is the fallacy called "begging the question." They use their conclusion as part of their argument. To say that His design is in nature, assumes that he exists before concluding that he exists. This is not science, but is based on faith in God. Science is based on observation. It seeks to explain these observations with hypotheses and then tests these hypotheses with further experiments. If a hypothesis stands up to experimentation then it becomes theory. You can not test for the existence of God. It is a matter of faith which is not science. Teaching children about faith belongs in the church, synagogue, or temple of their parent's choice not in a public school science class room attended by children of different religious beliefs and cultures.

Re:Well good

[Loki Giggling]

If the locals in Dover PA want to teach their kids ID, then let them. If doesn't affect anyone else.
Because the parents took the school board to court.

Re:Well good

[Ithika]

You post is the rantings of a bigot who hates Christians.

Come back and say that when Christianity has a monopoly on absurd creation stories.

Schools should teach what the majority of people in the district want taught.

No, schools should teach reality, that same reality which is the case in America, China and Mars. The phenomena of genetic mutation and speciation don't cease to exist because you stick your fingers in your ears and burble loudly.

There should be freedom to discuss anything in the classroom. I find it absurd that liberal groups want to give academic freedom to ideas they believe in, but will deprive others of the right to speak their mind.

"Liberal groups"? Who are these anonymous, ever-present, conspiratorial "liberal groups" that are hell-bent on destroying your fun^W^W^Wteaching science in science classrooms?

Prove to me there is no God.

I don't have to, any more than I have to prove to you there is no tooth fairy, no Grim Reaper, that Buffy isn't real and that Cthulhu isn't really dead but dreaming deep under the ocean. You assert that something exists, you come up with the proof.

People have believed in God since the start of time. What makes scientists today so much more certain than scientists of 100 years ago?

Cos, you know, science progresses. That's what it does; that's what it's meant to do. I'd be extremely troubled if scientists today knew less than 100 years ago.

Re:Well good

[RailGunner]

So whatever happened to just voting out the school board?

And still, why was this an issue for a federal court as opposed to a state court?

Re:Well good

[snoopyjd]

Our constitution guarantees a separation of church and state, and was written at a time when the country was much more Christian than it is today. Additionally, since 8 of the board members supporting ID were ousted to make room for people who stated they would not teach it I think it is fair to say that the majority did not want ID taught in public schools.

Also, it is impossible to disprove the existence of an existential belief. If you disagree disprove the existence of Zeus or Santa Clause for that matter. (And before you get started on Santa remember he only gives presents to truly good children, and I have met very few of these)

Re:Well good

[Jtheletter]

It doesn't matter if ID is real or, if it is, who did the design. It really doesn't matter. What does matter is the question of "how could it be done".

Except that ID doesn't attempt to answer "how". That might actually make it a theory, as in theories are used to make predictions and to explain. ID says life is so complex that something (someone, god, $diety, etc) must have done it. End of discussion. That doesn't belong in the classroom. Do dissenting views belong? Absolutley. Does the concept of questioning the establishment where it is weak in order to understand something better or replace current theory with a better one? Absolutely. Does attempting to do so by using a concept which "explains" something by saying essentially something else caused it but we don't know how or why? No, that adds nothing to education, knowledge, or the debate for that concept. We have to teach kids to reason and think and back up their positions with good arguments. Not to just intellectually pass the buck by attributing the cause to something unknown and leaving it at that.

Re:Well good

[MightyMartian]

Well, in fields of research like forensics, archaeology and anthropology, intelligent designers are the very foundation. But you will notice a key difference between Intelligent Design and these actual scientific areas of research. They ask questions like where, how and why. They are not satisfied simply with saying "this guy was murdered" or "that's an artifact". They concern themselves with the means by which the designers manipulated the environment and the purposes behind that manipulation.

ID, on the other hand, explicitely goes out of its way to say anything about the nature of the Designer or Designers, how it or they went about designing, what specifically it or they did or what forces were harnessed. An ID advocate will claim "bacterial flagellum are evidence of an Intelligent Designer" but they will not, nay they cannot tell you who the designer was, how the designer produced the flagellum and why the designer went to the bother. The reason is clear, because to answer those questions is to do precisely what the former school board in Dover did, to reveal that ID is nothing more than Creationism.

Re:Well good

[smooth wombat]

If doesn't affect anyone else.

Yes, it does affect others. By teaching kids that a religious precept has equal footing as a scientific theory you're short-circuiting the whole concept of what learning is about.

Religion deals with unquestioning, untestable, unknowable belief in a supernatural being. If you say that a supernatural being can do X then why bother experimenting to find out why Y happens? Why bother to keep developing new vaccines? Just let the being take care of it.

Besides, if we're going to say that this theory must be balanced (to use the words of some of the former Dover board members) then why not balance every theory with something else? The Theory of Gravity or General Relativity can be balanced with the Theory of Invisible Rubber Bands. Quantum Theory can be balanced with the Theory of Elves.

Yes, allowing this crap to be taught will affect others. We're the ones who are going to have to foot the higher tax bill to support these numnuts on welfare because they couldn't be bothered to be taught critical thinking and the scientific process.

Re:Well good

[jandrese]

I don't know, I think "Intelligence" without any sort of physical manipulation abilities would have a tough time constructing anything.

one thing I've always been curious about. If life is too irreversably complex to have happened by chance, then whoever build life must also be irreversably complex. Who designed the Intelligent Designer? Who designed that guy? Ad infinitum.

It does no good to fill kids heads with theories that don't make any sense and are of no use in the real world.

Re:Well good

[AlfredNilknarf]

You left out the part of science where the theory is tested by experimentation. I understand that testing evolution is hard considering the time expanse involved. So maybe we need a seperate category for theories that we are pretty sure are right, but darn it, we just can't test them.

Maybe call it a Guessory.

Re:Well good

[SpryGuy]

Why is the parent a troll? It's the truth. That's about the only place ID could or should be taught. I have no problems with ID being mentioned in mythology courses or even comparative religion classes. But it's not science (and in many ways is the opposite of science), and doesn't belong in ANY science classes.

Re:Well good

[jandrese]

It DOES affect you when you're teamed up with a lab partner in College (as if these kids will ever make it to college if this is what their School board is doing) and you end up failing the class because of it. It's also a loss for the country as a whole when these people leave the community and spread their misinformation to other communities.

Re:Well good

[TGK]

They'll tell you, very politely, to go away the first few times you try. Be persistant.

Re:Well good

[CFTM]

As a non-believing Catholic [baptized etc, haven't been to church in years] I'm very pleased to see when people of the book [Christian-Muslim-Jewish] are willing to seperate science and faith; so often the vocal minority make it difficult to discern the real intention and desire of the majority.

Faith is designed to operate outside of the realm of science. Let ID be taught, but let it be taught in a philosophy class and without the "Darwin is wrong". As an intellectual exercise and as an idea of faith ID has a place in our society; as a scientific theory it needs to be relegated to the trash heap (And this is why I was a philosophy major in college, we're allowed to make exceptions like this!).

Re:Well good

[adisakp]

It doesn't matter if ID is real or, if it is, who did the design. It really doesn't matter. What does matter is the question of "how could it be done".

Ironically, the people who believe MOST fervently that intelligent design created life as we know it also appear to be the LEAST likely to want to know "how it could be done."

They're quite strongly opposed to human beings developing ID capability ourselves: i.e. cloning, artificial reproduction, genetic modification, chimera research, stem cell manipulation, designer species, etc.

Re:Well good

[Lord Apathy]

Spoken like someone who isn't a parent. It's really amazing those that don't think they can tell those of us who do the best way to raise thier children.

Children raises with a good religious background can have strong moral teaching that will guide them for the rest of thier lives. I just hope that I teach my children right so they grow up to be good strong agnostics just like I am.

Re:Well good

[mph]

If the locals in Dover PA want to teach their kids ID, then let them.

It's worth pointing out that the locals in Dover voted out the pro-ID school board in the most recent election.

Re:Well good

[mj2k]

fine. ID isn't science... Neither is Darwinism, or any other _theory_ concerning the origin of the universe. Science is the study of what he can experience with our five senses, what we can _actively_ study. Origin of the universe is philosophy, not science. You weren't there to observe evolution, you weren't there to observe ID... Keep science classes to science... There's a wealth of topics you can discuss other than the question of origins. Quit inserting philosophy into science and this entire debate can be avoided...

Re:Well good

[c_forq]

What type of education couldn't be considered brainwashing? How is this any more detrimental or abusive then teaching "Core American Values" or other such lessons that our taught in homes and public schools?

Re:Well good

[flyguy79]

Intelligent design isn't science because it isn't provable.

By all means, please prove that the current state of our universe came about through macro-evolution.

Re:Well good

[Anonymous Coward]

Since the dawn of time people also believed the world was flat, up until a few hundred
years ago.

Re:Well good

[Viking Coder]

You've completely missed the point. ID doesn't ask "is it possible for someone to design a world filled with living diversity? (whether or not we have that technology)", ID insists "it's the only way a world with this kind of living diversity could arise."

Re:Well good

[Loki Giggling]

Belief in evolution is a form of religion,(definition #4) as it cannot be proved through any scientific methods on
It is a testable theory. And many tests have been devised and tried and non have disproven it yet. Remember a theory can generally not be tested as correct, but science can try and prove theories wrong with tests.
how life began and must be taken on faith, as we don't even know the conditions in which the first life came to be, as these are theories too.
Hold on. Evolution is not a theory about how life began. It is a theory about how things 'could have' evolved from simpler life forms into different more complex life forms.

Re:Well good

[jandrese]

"Theories should be questioned" is a foundation of science. I doubt you're going to find much objection to it. People only have problems when you try to lump ID into the "theory" category when it is obviously not a theory (ID fails in pretty much every way as a theory).

If you don't believe me about the foundation of science bit, just search for "peer reviewed" and "reproducable results".

Re: Well good

[Black Parrot]

> It's a public school receiving public funds.

What's really interesting is that nobody is peddling this crap to religious schools, or other private schools. They could teach it with complete impunity.

Of course, since they can teach whatever they please, they don't have any need of disguised creationism.

Re:Well good

[Anonymous Coward]

Why should a local school district curriculum ever be a federal issue?

Well, perhaps, just maybe because this particular element of the curriculum violates the First Amendment to the Constitution?

Or perhaps you are right and while 1st Amendment prevents Congress from instituting religion, it does not necessarily prevent a local government from doing so?

But wait, there's more! What if the Dover schools are receiving federal money? Then is it a federal case again?

Re: Well good

[dorkygeek]

Don't forget to mention that it also makes provably false claims, and stick to them, despite better knowledge!

Re:Well good

[Anonymous Coward]

"Schools should teach what the majority of people in the district want taught." THEY ARE! The ruling by the school board was completed by 8 indiviuals who, being Christian, wanted ID taught in school. After this ruling the town of Dover was in an uproar. In the last school board election there was a HUGE turnout and those 8 individuals were voted out and replaced with folks taking a stance to NOT teach ID in biology class. Get your facts straight THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN!

Re:Well good

[Nos.]

From reference.com:
A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

Evloution is not a cause, principle, or activity, though some may treat it that way. It is a theory, which for most of us, is the best explanation for the way we see things today. Things like the fossil record are evidence that this theory is true. Simply because it is an alternate explanation to creationism and ID does not make it a religon. By your logic, anything that is not absolute fact is religion.

Re:Well good

[gnasher719]

'' It is one step above young Earth creationists, who seek "geological evidence" to "support" their preconceived interpretation of the Genesis chronology. ''

Isn't that a really stupid attitude? I mean it is just about conceivable that god created the earth 6000 years ago and hid dinosaur bones that look as if they are 200 million years old, to test the faith of people or for whatever reason. But why would god have created the earth 6000 years ago, and then hidden dinosaur bones that look as if they are 200 million years old, but can be identified as fakes that are only 6000 years old on closer inspection? That doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

Re:Well good

[Ryan Amos]

ID is not even necessarily incompatible with evolution. The only part that many ID proponents (well, not the hardcore evangelicals who believe the bible as the literal truth) really disagree with is the "life sprang from a random soup of amino acids and evolved into what it is today." If you change that to "God created microorganisms which, through his grand design, evolved into life today." The biological processes can be exactly the same, as God would have created them as well.

Most Christians who believe in ID are willing to accept that God did not *poof* humans and animals as they are today into existance. Only a few hardcore nutballs argue otherwise (mainstream Christianity considers most of Genesis to be a metaphor.) Once you get down to this level of theory, I'm about as willing to accept modern science's explanation as I am religion's, because they're guessing either way. Neither can be proven and they're just theories. IMO schools would be better off saying "We don't actually know how life started. We do know quite a lot about what happened afterward though."

Re:Well good

[adrenaline_junky]

Holy freaking smokes are you ever wrong.

And we're glad that someone came along and pointed it out! You must be right because you speak with such fervor. And we all know that truth is determined by the intensity with which an idea is believed.

Intelligent design is exactly what belongs in a classroom. But it has nothing to do with religion.

Which classroom are you talking about? Are you seriously suggesting that this is a topic that gradeschool through highschool kids should be studying? What classes should be dropped so that this particular pet subject of yours can be studied?

There isn't a biological engineer on the planet who wouldn't love to create life from raw elements and watch them evolve into something more complex.

Even if this is true... so? Why does this suddenly become a topic that MUST BE TAUGHT IN SCHOOL?

If you want to have a real education then it should be along the lines of:

        Let's say you wanted to create a world as complicated as earth - what knowledge and technology would this require?

I always suspected that I never had a real education. You know, actually, this sounds vaguely like some of the stuff that was discussed in a science-fiction literature course I once took. So maybe I did have a real education. I agree, science-fiction literature should be a required course for ALL students. No graduation until you can recite Isaac Asimov's laws of robotics from memory!! Moo-haha!!

Can an intelligence construct a world? Absolutely.

Oh? Really? Have you met these aliens? I've read plenty of science-fiction that makes the same assertion, but I never knew it was an established fact. But you speak with such authority that it MUST be.

Can we? No. Why not? That's what physicists and geological engineers and biologists and a whole bunch of other people are trying to answer.

Honestly, this is an interesting question. But this is hardly what physicists and geological engineers and biologists are spending their time studying. Their studies may tengentially relate to this subject, but I suspect that the number of scientists that are specifically working on this goal could fit in a small room.

The people who are rabidly against the concept of intelligent design are nothing more than arrogant freaks who declare that man may be able to build evolving life in the lab but nobody else in the universe has ever been able to do so, nor ever will

Sorry, but you sir, are the arrogant freak. We are not necessarily against discussion of this "intelligent design" concept. Indeed, it has been the subject of many science-fiction books that a whole lot of us here on Slashdot have certainly read. What we are against is teaching ID in a classroom in a way to undermine the extremely solid theory of evolution.

It doesn't matter if ID is real or, if it is, who did the design. It really doesn't matter. What does matter is the question of "how could it be done".

Sure. Its an interesting question. There are lots of other interesting questions that people can ask as well. This is just one of many. Take your self-righteous frothy mouthed zealotry and find a more useful outlet for your overly abundant enthusiasm for this particular concept.

Re:Well good

[m50d]

Prove to me there is no God. Prove to me that everything science measures and describes was not created by God.

Occam's fucking razor. If you want me to prove to you there is no god, you prove to me that you're not being controlled by an invisible pink unicorn.

Re:Well good

[Bazzalisk]

Kids don't "discover their own faith", they're indoctrinated into whatever supertition their parents force-feed them. Raising kids to believe in mythology is child abuse.

This needn't always be the case - my Father is a devout Bhuddist, yet raised me with no religion whatsoever.

Re:Well good

[saider]

Any set of beliefs is "brainwashing"?

Here's my take on things. When you raise a child you must acclimate them to the expectations of the society in which they live. You need to give them a framework to work with. This is not brainwashing, it is normal child rearing.

Brainwashing is taking an adult who has already been given a framework and attempting to alter that framework. You are washing the brain so that you can establish whatever values and customs you want. Childern are not brainwashed, because there is no existing framework to erase.

As far as the merits of one framework over another, the only common theme I see among many of them is intolerance for other ideas.

Re: Well good

[GlamdringLFO]

It shouldn't be a matter of discussing the philosophy of ID. Rather, it should a matter of discussing the philosophy of science, and the logic of evolution, FSMism, or ID and how they should inform the study of science. The point is, you've got to believe in something, because you can't prove science all the way down any more than you can prove ID or FSMism all the way down. I think the real problem with teaching evolution as science, which many ID advocates fail to grasp, is that the theory of evolution is not falsifiable (just as FSMism and ID aren't, ultimately, either). If you're serious about science, you should require falsifiability to admit proof.

The theory of science, unfortunately, probably shouldn't be taught in the elementary school classroom. So how do you explain the origin of humankind? You shouldn't teach non-falsifiable conjecture as science, just as you should not teach religious beliefs as science (ID, while it may be true, does not qualify as science no matter what they say).

I do, fwiw, believe that, however we humans came about, God had a big hand in it. But I'm hardly ready to commit to either explanation. And how we got here isn't really the point, because it's clear to me that we are here, and what we're like. I don't really understand the big deal about this debate.

AMS

Re:Well good

[Gulthek]

Why? I can explain the current state of our universe with micro-evolution, and explain it in such a way that I would provide *useful* *testable* theories about the universe and its makeup.

If I were to wave my hands and say, "God did it." I would come up with no theories, nothing testable, nothing useful.

God gave me a brain and gave me one commandment, "Understand." Saying that he designed the universe is pointless.

If I want to analyze and study a building, I wouldn't declare "C. H. Smith was the architect." and be done with it.

Re:Well good

[Seraphim_72]

OK, you are wrong. What he is trying to say, and do is take the conversation up a notch. He fully knows that evolution works but posits a larger question. If you had enough technology and knowledge isn't intelligent design possible? It is a slight variation on the old "Any sufficient technology is indistinguishable from magic." saying. And of course he is correct, one only has to look for one of those self contained ecoballs (some small critter, water, nutrients, a plant of some kind - leave out in weak sunlight) to see an intelligently designed 'world'. Given enough power, knowledge, and technology people see that terraforming a planet is not so hard perhaps. There is a group that has concieved plans for Mars I think. Next would be building them from scratch. Has it happened? I don't know, nor is there any scientific proof.

As a religeous person, and a scientist I find myself equally intrested and disgusted with each side. ID (w/caps) is tripe, but from a more philosophical bent id(small) is interesting to think about. I heartily agree keep it out of the science classroom as a set of "facts" but muse about it in a senior in college eco-design class.

Seraphim

Re:Well good

[Weedlekin]

"People have believed in God since the start of time"

People haven't been around "since the start of time".

Re:Well good

[errxn]

Exactly *how* is this a troll? Moderator activism at its finest...

Re:Well good

[h4rm0ny]

The judge has made a legal ruling on what is and isn't science. You may agree with this one, but a few years down the line when the next scientific heresy (as Evolution once was) is ruled illegal and banned from being taught? It's the same principle after all.

Re:Well good

[SpinyNorman]

Huh?

Biology is in it's infancy, and in some sense only really started a few decades ago with the discovery of DNA (which effectively turned Darwin'w theory into an established fact).

If you look at what we are cabable today, since that discovery, we are able to feed raw chemicals into a machine and spit out a semi-living entity (it's being done for the Polio virus) at the other end. Our knowledge of genetics is sufficient to genetically modify things to suit our purpose (many of which are alredy on your grocery shelf), as well as to proove tenets of evolution such as breeding a stork with teeth (it's been done). We'll soon be able to fabricate from scratch DNA of not only existing or modified but truly designer species (it's being worked on).

So you're statement of "we don't know how to do it" it ill-informed at best.

Anticipating your reply of "well, OK, but we're intelligent!", don't forget that research is also progressing into the precurors of DNA, origins of celllar structures, etc. It's not as if we've discovered DNA and hit a brick wall of "how the heck did THAT come about?!!". Note also that even dumb-as-a-rock nature can manipulate DNA and create new species via mutation, and survival-of-the-fittest "selection".. specices at all points of divergence are all around us (forest/plains elephants pre-diverge, lions/tigers diverged but not yet past the incapable-of-interbreeding point of no-return (aka speciation), humans and apes recently diverged species, etc, etc, etc).

Re:Well good

[Morpeth]

"Schools should teach what the majority of people in the district want taught"

Great, another "majority rules, period!" type. You need to read the Constitution closely and pay attention to the provisions in there to protect rights of people from tyranny of the majority, esp. when the majority are wrong. If we only went with majority rules, blacks and women wouldn't have ever gotten to vote, every group that's in or been in the minority would be persecuted, etc. Man... I don't even have the time to explain how basic a concept this is.

"There should be freedom to discuss anything in the classroom"

Um, if you're teaching SCIENCE, then things need to pass the mustard when it comes to scientific method, again -- I hope you understand at least understand what that is. Creationism is not a scientific concept; it defies the laws of physics, chemistry, biology, even plain ol' common sense.

"Prove to me there is no God"

You can't prove a negative. How about you prove there IS a god -- show me a quantified, repeatable test, b/c there isn't one. What you have is the personal, subjective interpretation of phenomena that you label 'god'. Period.

Prove to me there isn't a little red dragon sitting on my shoulder talking to me and telling me what to do. Oh, by the way, he's invisible and only I can see him, he has no mass, no weight, and only talks to me. You can't disprove that, so I guess my dragon-god must exist then? Woot!

"People have believed in God since the start of time"

SOME people have believed in gods for some time, but there's been a lot of gods -- can you tell me for sure Odin isn't the THE god, or Osiris, or Vishnu, of course you can't. People also believed the earth was flat, or only a few thousand years old, they thought the sun resolved around us, etc -- science has showed that to be incorrect. As people continue to evolve and learn, more and more people are giving up theistic illusions.

I couldn't help but reply to this post, I'm kind of hoping it's just a troll -- because if this is real post then I'm seriously embarrassed for you.

Re: Well good

[Anonymous Coward]

You're assuming they don't. Many do.

Re:Well good

[hb253]

So, using a telescope (optical, microwave, radio, etc) to observer the far reaches of the universe doesn't qualify as active study?

Re:Well good

[vertinox]

Children raises with a good religious background can have strong moral teaching that will guide them for the rest of thier lives.

May I suggest Buddhism... The other 4 major religions have pretty shoddy track records when it comes to moral behavior of its members.

Re:Well good

[StupidHelpDeskGuy]

You said "Forget proving it's real, that's what faith is for." - no, faith does not equal proof of anything.

Re:Well good

[ekwhite]

It seems that your prejudices are showing, sir. I am NOT a Christian, but I am uncomfortable with all the Christian bashing that goes on in these boards. To me, this is as bad as Christians bashing other religions.

Re: Well good

[xikzantric]

That's just not true. I studied philosophy at the University of Michigan (our program is #1 in the country), and ID, as well as other God-related topics, came up in almost every class as legitimate arguments. You can't get into philosophy and avoid the subject. In fact, if you avoid talking about ID because you dismiss it right off the bat, you will be laughed at for having no knowledge of such an important subject. Don't speak with authority of things you know nothing about.

Re:Well good

[c_forq]

And if the majority of people in the district are illiterate peasants who only want their children to learn to grow crops, what then?

Then teach them how to better grow crops. If such a community exists all the kids will be pulled out of the school as soon as possible to grow crops, unless the parents see school as making life more beneficial for their kids (which in many cases they didn't, most times rightfully so). This used to an issue in my area with many kids dropping out of school at 16 (state law required attendance until then) then working at the family farm. The school's answer to this was to make a vocational technology school, once kids had the option of machine repair and agricultural science classes they stayed in school longer and picked up skills that could improve their life, while at the same time the school requirements ensured they had a fairly well rounded liberal arts education. Educators can both "pander to the masses" and raise the level of education, infact that is what they should do.

Re:Well good

[Asic Eng]

What's commonly refered to as "Intelligent Design" is not a scientific theory. What you describe has absolutely nothing to do with the common usage of the term.

The people who are rabidly against the concept of intelligent design are nothing more than arrogant freaks who declare that man may be able to build evolving life in the lab but nobody else in the universe has ever been able to do so, nor ever will

Actually, calling someone "rabid arrogant freaks" sounds pretty arrogant to me. Opponents of ID, of course, usually make no claims to the effect you describe. The main objection is that ID is not a scientific theory, and if it's not science it shouldn't be taught in a science class. There is no problem with anyone teaching ID in a church, or indeed with someone working on a scientific theory which would incorporate some of the ideas of ID.

Re:Well good

[Cstryon]

maybe they are 200 million years old. Maybe the Bible was misinterpreted\incomplete. Maybe it all boils down to NIETHER Side having the answers. Whether one side is more logical than the other or not, there is going to be opposition to everything. We can keep proving each other wrong, but you could never convince a Christian if the Christian doesn't want to try to understand. And I could never convince an Athiest if he doesn't want to believe. Either Side needs faith in their own Believes.

Re:Well good

[Seraphim_72]

How about this? and then we move on to this.. Sadly we do not have the energy, materials or knowledge to continue on to the next logical step. There is precious little in science that says we *can't* construct a world. Currently no. In the future? Why not?

Seraphim

Re:Well good

[tc]

Atheists are capable of being moral people. It's offensive to suggest that somehow religion is required for morality. Worse than that, it suggests that the reason to be moral is some kind of supernatural reward or punishment for "bad" or "good" behaviour, as opposed to an intrinsic sense of right and wrong.

Teaching kids morals is responsible parenting, but it's completely orthogonal to teaching kids religion.

If you need religion to tell you what is right and wrong, then you're a pretty sorry excuse for a human being.

Re:Well good

[bigpat]

I don't think you can leave it at that. Maybe it is good enough for grade school where all sorts of half truths are taught, but at some point you have to address ID at its heart. Either something can be explained in terms of evolution or it can't. ID puts forth the idea of irreducible biological complexity as proof of Intelligent Design. It is not good enough to say that both have their merits and call it a day. There is a real conflict over our understanding of reality. ID is patently false. It has no place in a classroom not because it is a religious belief as the judge said, but because it is a false and demonstrably so. Its premise is based upon citing arbitrary examples of biological features and merely saying that they are too complex to ever be explained through biological process. That even with thousands of examples of analogous features in other organisms that we should look at the example that we have defined as "the most complex" and simply throw up our hands and say that it is unexplainable and that we should simply study its unexplainability. That we look at a flatworm shrinking from the light and a fully formed human eye and say 'you can't get there from here' is to ignore Intelligence not an embrace of Intelligence. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. There are certainly gaps in the fossil record, but is reasonable to expect there would be. It is not reasonable to explain those gaps in ways that ignore the simplest explanations.

The word "ignorant" is used pejoratively to apply to ideas like Intelligent Design, as it should be.

Re:Well good

[Anonymous Coward]

It's another unfortunate victim of the public taking a grander idea, then trying to shorten it's name/description in an attempt to make it easier to understand and communicate to people (sometimes misunderstanding the concept themselves even, causing the confusion and butchering of terms). Unfortunately there's a lot lost in this translation. So what was once Intelligent Design, is now solely associated with the entire "god created everything" idea. It's similar to GNU/Linux being called Linux these days, people decide on a name, people spread that name, people know that name. Undoing that would be quite the job.

People aren't doing much to deal with the problem either. If you go through a lot of old text books , the number of errors and misconceptions is rather high. Not suprisingly, these text books and the information from them is still in wide use (a lot of new textbooks are rehashes of old ones). Take a computer geek to an "Introduction to Computers" class and ask him to take a look at the textbook and listen to the lectures. Those textbooks are often filled with information that is either flat out wrong, or outdated by a good 20 to 25 years. The information that is correct is mostly reference information refering to historical events, protocol names, or simple common senses. According to one teacher I once had "HTTP uses FTP to transfer pages to you when you click a link", and "Telnet is a remote desktop tool". These definitions come from his notes he took from the book, while they're not as bad as a lot i've seen, they're definitely not close enough to be considered helpful.

I may have strayed off topic a bit (okay, i'm comparing intelligent design to intro computer classes, i'm sorry. =(), but my point is that the parent is right when he says that Intelligent Design shouldn't be tied directly to religion. It can relate to a large number of things, but the name over time has been horribly misused.

Parent, I apologize if I misunderstood you, please correct me if I did, i'm no writer. =(

(P.S. Another good example of misuse of terms would be the usage of the word "gay" by most children of today as some kind of derogatory term, or the use of "geek" to refer to only computer geeks (I don't mind this one as much as others.))

Re:Well good

[TheSunborn]

It's not banned from beeing tought. it is beeing banned from beeing tought in biology classes.

Re:Well good

[vertinox]

Raising kids to believe in mythology is child abuse.

I'm still bitter about the whole Santa Claus thing...

Re:Well good

[FatAlb3rt]

I would. Child abuse is a pretty serious accusation. "Raising kids to believe in mythology is child abuse." Sounds like if you bring your kid to church, that's equivalent to starving them, beating them, or maybe just locking them in a closet for weeks at a time.

Godwin's law should have a cousin that could be invoked here.

Re:Well good

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't that a really stupid attitude? I mean it is just about conceivable that god created the earth 6000 years ago and hid dinosaur bones that look as if they are 200 million years old, to test the faith of people or for whatever reason. But why would god have created the earth 6000 years ago, and then hidden dinosaur bones that look as if they are 200 million years old, but can be identified as fakes that are only 6000 years old on closer inspection? That doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

It makes sence if you believe God is a total jerk. Of course that's why most christians have no problems with the earth being older that 6000 years.

Re:Well good

[SeattleGameboy]

Really? Do you seriously think that Slashdot readers are children?

Spouting useless and inaccurate statements is child abuse!!!

Re:Well good

[giorgiofr]

We're the ones who are going to have to foot the higher tax bill to support these numnuts on welfare

But then your real problem is with welfare, not with ID, am I right?

Re:Well good

[nojomofo]

Have you raised a child? They don't magically learn things. You want your 9-month old to stop throwing food on the floor? You teach her not to. Is it brainwashing to tell her that people don't throw food on the floor? I mean, it's not a universal truth, so I must be brainwashing her to behave as I would like her to. Is conditioning her to have a "lovey" (a blanket/stuffed animal or such) that she loves and immediately calms her down no matter what the situation brainwashing (and thus child abuse according to you)? You make it out to be black-and-white. It's not. I'm an atheist. Yet I believe that it's okay for parents to teach their kids about their religion. Which is an entirely different issue from teaching about religion in school.

Re:Well good

[badmammajamma]

The difference between brainwashing and child rearing is simply brain washing is associated with the teaching of anti-social or what society deems as negative ideas. In today's society it's not considered brainwashing to raise a kid under a specific religious doctrine only because people don't generally have a negative connotation of it. This is unfortunate.

The religious groups will argue that it's simple child rearing and that they want their children to have values but the truth is that religion has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with values. Your child can be an atheist and act like a "saint". Their premise is flawed and what they are doing is simply another form of indoctrination, much like what fascists and communists do to their children.

Religion was created as a way to explain things we simply didn't understand and later it became something that was used simply for power and control (even of our own children). It's sad that it's still used in the same way.

Re:Well good

[mozumder]

Raising kids to believe in mythology is child abuse.
--
In the same vein, forcing kids to recite the "Pledge of Allegiance" is ALSO child abuse. What a HORRIBLE thing to do to a kid, to force them to swear loyalty to a capitalist politcal organization originally founded by racist slaveowners!

Loyalty should be earned, not assumed. Let's not assume that I, as an American, have anything in common with some red-state racist bible-thumper, or would do anything to support their aspirations through support of this militant sytem. Like I want to invade Iraq to establish Christianity and open up their oil fields for ExxonMobil to profit from.

We need to make government weaker, and not stronger. A strong government is dangerous, and is more likely to be controlled by special interests, instead of supporting public interests.

Re:Well good

[l3prador]

Right. Not all religions are equivalent. Just like not all scientific theories are equally valid. Each religion should be evaluated on its own merits. You can't just lump them all under one category, because really, atheism and agnosticism are also beliefs about things one cannot know. It's not the fact that someone believes in something that should be judged, it's what that something is.

Re: Well good

[c_forq]

How did this get modded +5 insightful? How does ID have any less substance then Plato's unmoved mover? I don't know what philosophy class you had, but barely any of the philosopher's I looked at had any "substance" to them.

Re:Well good

[penguinoid]

I think students should be told that our model of reality is not perfect. I think they should be told that Evolution has problems, that F does not really equal MA, and that we don't know what dark matter is.

Minor point: F=M*a is a definition, and so must be true (tautologies are always true, even if they make for bad arguments). On the rest I agree. Always questing the most widely accepted theories: then you can laugh 100 years down the road. As for Intelligent Design, it is currently an argument from ignorance, and will remain so untill we can intelligently design life, or study differences in DNA at a level to say that they are clearly (not?) created by nature. The latter I suspect will be possible within 20 years.

Re:Well good

[AdmiralWeirdbeard]

"Raising kids to believe in mythology is child abuse"

well, thats taking things a little too far.
If faith is a large part of your moral life, then it would be seem like neglect not to expose your children to faith.
Kids do discover their own faith. In my case, I was raised very christian, but very liberally christian. the focus was always on living a good life and being a good person, not on believing in an invisible man in a particular fashion. I have since pretty much abandoned christianity, and stopped going to my parents church.
because I realized that I wasnt into it anymore.
what you mean to say, is that indoctrinating children in a particular brand of mythology at the expense of allowing the child to form his/her own particular brand of faith is child abuse.
religion is a perfectly reasonable part of a freely chosen life, and whatever your feelings about the ways in which the larger branches of organized faith conduct themselves, if you reject the notion that people can have faith and not be retards, then you are every bit the closed-minded ass that the ID folks are.

that said, I dont understand why the ID folks have such trouble with evolution. so it sortof contradicts genesis. like you can be a devout christian and not deal with the internal contradictions of the bible? pick a topic, and the bible says at least 3 different things in different places. Even the pope says that there is nothing in genesis to say that evolution is untrue. the point of genesis is to establish that there is a god and he created us and everything else. doesnt necessarily have to be word for word about how he/she did it.
I mean, think about it. so we take science back as far as it can go - to the big bang. what sparked the big bang, tho? we dont know, because we CANT know, there is, as yet, no scientific explanation for the cause of the initial genesis of the universe. we can kind of explain how, but not why.
perhaps the ID folks should just back the fuck up and realize that science answers HOW questions, and religion answers WHY questions, and there is no reason that they should be incompatible unless they're trying to poach on the other's territory.

Re:Well good

[Anonymous Coward]

Your first line reminds me of a joke I heard the other day. It seems squirels were infesting the three churches in a small town. The Lutheran Pastor, Prespaterian Pastor and Catholic Priest got together to discuss the problems and try to find a solution. They agreed that they would each try something and come back a week later to discuss their results. The next week, the Lutheran reported that he used traps and took the squirels 10 miles out of town, but that they have reappeared. The Prespaterian had similar results, but the priest reported success. It seems he baptized the squirels and haven't seen one since....

Re:Well good

[BewireNomali]

There is some evidence to indicate that religion promotes stability in society across the board.

-Kids who go to religiously affiliated schools tend to do better than children who go to public schools, despite public schools often spending as much as twice more per child.

-Married couples who regularly attend church are less likely to divorce.

-children who regularly attend church are less likely to be truants and juvenile offenders.

I'm not going to cite sources. I don't want to get into a rigorous discussion. My point is that there are social benefits to religious institutions, as there are serious drawbacks and detriments.

Most people don't function well if they don't know what they're working for. Religion functions to serve as an end goal, even if it is imaginary.

To that end, I don't think that raising kids to believe mythology is child abuse. I look at myths as training wheels that the child chooses to remove at his own discretion when he matures.

Society engages in all sort of mythologies that organize the world in an orderly way. Money is merely paper (increasingly bits) but people kill for it, sell their honor and integrity for it, give up their lives one minute at a time for an hourly wage and convince themselves somehow that there is virtue in it. It's all arbitrary.

Finally, being so vehemently anti-religion is no different from being vehemently pro-religion. The only difference is that a religious world since the dawn of civilization has resulted in a population of 6 billion and growing. I don't see a convincing model of an atheistic system yielding similar results, and I'm an atheist. A smart man doesn't break a thing that works on such a large scale.

Re:Well good

[sickofthisshit]

The point is that NOTHING in geology points to "6000 years" as the magic number. You can't point to a single observation in the field that says anything out of the ordinary happened at that point in time to distinguish Moment Genesis from anything in the last 100,000 years, or million years, or billion years. (Although, of course, we can see that climate changes have happened, etc., which make one period generally differ from another, and there *are* huge events such as the K-T boundary, or whatever, which seem to correlate with significant shifts in biological diversity.)

So where do you pull that number from? Genesis? Exactly my point: a preconceived notion that is driving your theorizing.

Just like people trying to come up with archaeolgical evidence to support, say, the Book of Mormon's chronology of Latin America are not generally acting scientifically.

Re: Well good

[Black Parrot]

> In fact, if you avoid talking about ID because you dismiss it right off the bat, you will be laughed at for having no knowledge of such an important subject.

I don't dismiss it right of the bat. Over the past several years I have repeatedly offered very specific arguments for what's wrong with it - and a lot is wrong with it. If philosophers need to have bad logic explained to them, so be it, but ID is not a philosophy, and doesn't belong in philosophy class or any other, unless the curriculum covers the deconstruction of pseudoscience, propaganda, or uncritical thinking.

ID is simply vacuous.

Re:Well good

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't that a really stupid attitude? I mean it is just about conceivable that god created the earth 6000 years ago and hid dinosaur bones that look as if they are 200 million years old, to test the faith of people or for whatever reason.

As a Christian - definatly not. This is what's known as lying, and isn't a behaviour of the God I know.

Re:Well good

[FatherOfONe]

"It's a good thing that there are still judges around that have a clue."

So you agree with this decision, and by that you say this Judge has a clue?

Over 90% of the world believes in a higher power. Science has no explanation for how everthing began, and yet a teacher can't say "A large number of people believe that a higher power had a role in the overall design of everthing, this is not to say that they don't believe in evolution, but that a higher power had a role in the overall design".

Wow! Those teachers now can't decide on their own, or even use their own freedom of speech to teach even though a vast majority of the people in that area believe what would be tought.

Now, I would love to have someone in class start asking things like
"Eplain how the universe began and what started it all." Then when a typical answer of "science doesn't have the answer to those types of questions, I would then like a question like "what are most people hypothosis on this subject?"

The answer now will have to be "Well, it is illegal for me to tell you that". Granted we use to have freedom of speech in America, but we loose it whenever a small part number of Americans that are progressive secularist get involved.

Re:Well good

[IllForgetMyNickSoonA]

"Troll", as it seems, is probably the single most abused rating on the! It would be worth considering a removal of it from the list of possible ratings.

Just because you disagree with a post, does NOT mean the poster is a troll. The parent, although provocative, is definitely not a troll.

Re:Well good

[An Onerous Coward]

To answer your question, look at the fourteenth amendment:

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States...

My interpretation is that state and local laws cannot infringe on the rights outlined in the first ten amendments. Therefore, the citizens of Dover, PA are also citizens of the U.S., and if the federal government believes that teaching ID is a violation of the establishment clause, it has the authority to order the government of Dover, PA to stop teaching ID in public schools.

In summary, you will respect their authorit-ah.

Re:Well good

[Vaughn Anderson]

Things like the fossil record are evidence that this theory is true.

No they aren't, it's not falsifiable.

Simply because it is an alternate explanation to creationism and ID does not make it a religon.

Aetheists keep Christmas, is it religious or not? Why do you believe in evolution? You have no real proof it happend, you have to take it on faith that it did.

By your logic, anything that is not absolute fact is religion.

I believe evolution is religion because it is the only scientific theory in the mass public's mind that has been trying to be prooved scientifically for last hundred+ years, with _no_ credible results, and tons of lies and deceit to prove that which is unproveable.

I am sure there is a big list online somewhere of all the fradulent "proofs" of evolution. (I even saw some in my own 6th grade science book, remember the faked fetus drawings?)

I am not saying ID is science, but I sure am certainly saying evolution is wild goose chase.

Re:Well good

[Eli Gottlieb]

If someone wants to practice Scientology outside the official church (there is a group which doesn't charge exhorbitant fees for moving up in the religion) or worship a dead carrot, then raising their children to believe so isn't child abuse. Children aren't idiots, you know.

Re:Well good

[HTL2001]

parts of the bible say things about God's time, and how it can be different from our view of time. Remember, before he created night & day there was not even a definition of what a day was, or how long it was.

Re:Well good

[numbski]

asexual, sexual, biological, binary....

methinks we all tear this apart a bit too much. We're all made up of something, action, reaction, etc. Life, objects, surroundings, react, adapt, adjust and change based on what it is subjected to. Nitpicking my wording doesnt change the point.

Re:Well good

[Anonymous Coward]

Thus a new Slashdot meme is born.

X is child abuse!!!11!1!!1oneoneone

Re:Well good

[varith]

I take it then you are in favor of releasing all criminals who's crimes were not actively witnessed by a human being but inferred only from forensic evidence.

Re:Well good

[IllForgetMyNickSoonA]

Grrrrr... "on the SLASHDOT!", of course. No Idea how and why "SLASHDOT" got lost.

Re: Well good

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know what philosophy class you had, but barely any of the philosopher's I looked at had any "substance" to them.

*laughs*

Philosophy lacking substance as opposed to?

Re:Well good

[Dave_bsr]

according to dictionary.com, science is:

The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.

I hate to go against the ignorant horde of slashdotters, falling over each other to bash ID because they think it's just the idiot Religious Right's excuse to talk about God in public school...

But Intelligent Design is science. A bunch of scientists looked at the world, and had the thought that maybe, a lot of things about our universe are wayyy to complicated to just happen by chance. The odds on things just falling together as they do are a little long. They believe that a reasonable explanation for the universe is that there is some other intelligence somewhere that set it all up.

It's just a theory, to explain the way things are. It doesn't advocate a particular god or intelligence.

Just because you think it's a dumb idea, doesn't mean it's mythology. It's definately not ignorant of facts - it's a current theory, that a lot of PhDs follow. Ahh, forget it. There are too many slashbots following the same line to ever have a reasonable discussion.

Re:Well good

[sardiskan]

Why is it that all /.ers will fill up a thousand comments on something concerning ID or Evolution (which most have a vague concept of anyway). But they have nothing to say when a new discovery is made in robotics, or the new PERL 6, or hydrogen powered vehicles. People don't care about it unless there is flame behind it. People love conflict. If you didn't have conflict over one thing it would be another. People that make the assumption that ID or Evolution are mindless, moronic concepts are in grave error. Chritian ID advocates BELIEVE that evolution is a dumb and mindless concept. It is not so. Alot of thought went into it. Evolutionist BELIEVE that ID is a dumb and mindless concept. Again, it isn't dumb and mindless. Alot of thought went into it. Both of these extreams have very intellegent (more so than us /.ers) people that believe in them. And both concepts are a BELIEF. If you look at the whole picture, evolution is unprovable and ID is unprovable, which means that to whichever wing you choose, you choose so on a BELIEF. ID vs Evolution is not about proving the origin of man anyway, its about TRYING to prove that there is or is not a God. And that battle rages on, just as it always has in the past, and just as it will continue to in the future. For those that think that ID is a dumb idea, why not do a little research instead of being so left winged. http://www.drdino.com/ But again, this whole battle is about a belief so there will never be a resolution. Flame On!

Re:Well good

[flosofl]

I can't tell if you are serious or making a joke... really.

Re:Well good

[bonkedproducer]

Ok, so now they teach the " Fact of Evolution" not the " Theory of Evolution" hmmm.... you know that humanism, atheism, and being agnostic are all religions too, just because you claim that you don't find science in ID, doesn't mean you are absolutely correct either, both Evolution and ID are Theories, and therefore perfectly legitimate to be discussed, also, if you are so sure ID is incorrect, where is the fear coming from that it cannot even be mentioned and discussed by rational thinking people.

I'm sorry but this is forcing religious belief on the students - the belief that those that believe in a creator are wrong is a religious belief. Prove beyond a doubt that Evolution is the way we got here and we can all call if fact - until you can do that, Evolution requires every bit as much faith as ID. This explains how someone could think that the parent poster is trolling for arguements by coming off as refusing to believe that anything that goes against his "faith" is invalid and "the children" should be protected by law from hearing or discussing anything different from the parent poster's personal beliefs.

Jacob Dylan said it best - "Every man, woman, and child on the planet is a religious zealot. The only difference is what their religion is."

Re:Well good

[bnenning]

But it's not science (and in many ways is the opposite of science), and doesn't belong in ANY science classes.

Actually I think it should be mentioned in science class, as an example of what science is *not*.

Re:Well good

[dakryx]

It's more like a bunch of philsophers looked at the world and thought it was way to complicated to have occurred by chance.

Re: Well good

[xikzantric]

I understand that you disagree with it and that you probably have good reasons and logic to support your stance, but if the philosophical community at large merits ID to be a system worthy of inclusion in a standard philosophical curriculum, then I will defer to their judgment instead of yours. You can say "I don't agree with this philosophy", but I don't think you have the authority to say "this doesn't deserve to be called a philosophy". Or maybe you can point me to some of your published works on the subject? Actually, in terms of the arguments and evidence available, this is a topic much more suited to a philosophy classroom than to a science classroom.

Re:Well good

[AragornSonOfArathorn]

There should be freedom to discuss anything in the classroom. I find it absurd that liberal groups want to give academic freedom to ideas they believe in, but will deprive others of the right to speak their mind.

You're absolutely right. That's what school is for. No one is trying to deprive kids of academic freedom.

Many people seem to be interpreting this ruling as banning discussion of Intelligent Design in schools. This is not the case; it is only banning the teaching of ID in a science class. I have no problem with ID being discussed in school. However, discussing Intelligent Design in a science class is off-topic, just as discussing Civil War-era military tactics is off-topic in a science class. Civil War discussions belong in a history class, and ID belongs in a religion or philosophy or "social studies" class. The idea of ID cannot be tested; therefore it is not a scientific theory and should not be taught in a science class.

Re:Well good

[Xaositecte]

You seem to have confused the Word Theory.

Evolution is a Theory in the Scientific Sense, "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."

This is why it counts as "Science"

Intelligent Design is a theory in the colloquial sense, which is what most of the definitions that include "Idle speculation" are referring to. There is no Scientific Backing for Intelligent Design, which is why, if it's taught in a classroom, it should be a theology class, not a Science Class.

Re:Well good

[Anonymous Coward]

other such lessons that our taught in homes and public schools?

Ugh.

Re:Well good

[lucky130]

Schools should teach what the majority of people in the district want taught.

The truth is not a democracy.

Re:Well good

[Anonymous Coward]

Intelligent design is exactly what belongs in a classroom. But it has nothing to do with religion.

Sorry, but you're wrong. Just because the religious have found a way to express their beliefs in non-religious language doesn't mean it isn't religion. It isn't coincidence that 99% of the people backing ID are evangelicals.

Can an intelligence construct a world? Absolutely. Can we? No. Why not? That's what physicists and geological engineers and biologists and a whole bunch of other people are trying to answer.

Those are good questions, but they have absolutely nothing to do with the current debate about ID. Proponents of ID are trying to replace the teaching of evolution in science classrooms, simple as that. They are trying to replace a well-researched and supported theory with a hypothesis that has nothing to back it up. No physical evidence, no mathematical models, nothing. Their whole argument rests on pointing out problems in the theory of evolution. That's fine as far as it goes, but you have to have some of your own evidence if you hope to replace an established theory. They don't and that's why they don't deserve to be taught in a science class.

The people who are rabidly against the concept of intelligent design are nothing more than arrogant freaks who declare that man may be able to build evolving life in the lab but nobody else in the universe has ever been able to do so, nor ever will

I'm sure that some of the anti-ID crowd are just kneejerking because of the religious affiliations of ID supporters, but a lot of us oppose the teaching of ID because we actually care about science standards. If we allow ID to be taught with evolution in the classroom as if they are equivalent theories then it weakens science standards. If a theory isn't required to have solid evidence supporting it then any fool with a strange idea can cry persecution in order to have that idea mentioned in the classroom. This isn't good no matter what you think about ID.

It doesn't matter if ID is real or, if it is, who did the design. It really doesn't matter. What does matter is the question of "how could it be done".

What matters in this case is whether we are going to fight to uphold established science standards. If we can't agree on this then the other questions really don't matter.

Re:Well good

[Dirtside]

The only part that many ID proponents (well, not the hardcore evangelicals who believe the bible as the literal truth) really disagree with is the "life sprang from a random soup of amino acids and evolved into what it is today."

The "life sprang from a random soup of amino acids" bit is not part of evolutionary theory. It's a different topic called abiogenesis, literally "life from nonlife." Evolution talks about how lifeforms change into other lifeforms; abiogenesis is about how life arose from nonlife.

Re:Well good

[QSYSMAN]

I think it's the whole "unfalsifiable, violation of parsimony, lack of submission to scientific experiment, etc." thing that makes it not science, despite what the ever-authoritative dictionary.com calls science.

Re:Well good

[flibuste]

I don't have to, any more than I have to prove to you there is no tooth fairy, no Grim Reaper, that Buffy isn't real and that Cthulhu isn't really dead but dreaming deep under the ocean.

Come on! Proofs...proofs...always proofs and more proofs... We all know for a FACT that Cthulhu is dreamind deep under the ocean, don't we? What proof do we need? My HP Lovecraft collection says he does, why having to have proofs?

Re:Well good

[MightyMartian]

You know, you can't simply redefine a word to win an argument. Science does not mean just that which we can observe with our five senses. By that logic, electrons and stars too faint to be observed without instruments don't exist. Science is based upon observation, and not all observations need be direct. In fact, the vast majority of sciences deal in indirect observations. I can't observe a black hole, but I can infer it's existence from its effects upon neighboring bodies. A forensic scientist isn't terribly likely to witness a murder, and yet through various techniques, can infer the identity of the murderer. Inference is perfectly legitimate in science, and science would be impossible without it. Too many phenomona cannot be directly seen by our five senses, but all that is required is that any phenomona leave evidence.

Thus we can infer from the observations of faunal succession, molecular data from various genomes and from observations of evolution seen in the lab and the field that we are all descended from a common ancestor. We cannot directly observe this common ancestor, and yet we can infer it from the evidence.

By the same token, we cannot directly observe the Big Bang, but key lines of evidence (red shift of distant galaxies, nucleosynthesis and the black body radiation) all show that the Universe was once very hot and very dense, and then began to expand and cool. What's more, by using particle accelerators and computer models, we can even learn what conditions were like in the primordial universe.

Re:Well good

[sickofthisshit]

OK, well thanks for the Bible study session, although you don't actually give much concrete backing for your vague assertions.

What does that have to do with geology?

More importantly, why should I give a hoot what is written in your book of choice, when I can go out in the field with a hammer and figure out what is really out there in the geological record?

Re:Well good

[Anonymous Coward]

"Children raises with a good religious background can have strong moral teaching that will guide them for the rest of thier lives."

What ignorant clap-trap. What does teaching a strong ethical value system have to do with "religion"? And it's as simple fact that most people in prisons, and most of the criminals, molesters, etc., out there ARE religious and have a religious background. Apparently having a "good religious background" is not only not all that effective, I seem to recall studies that show it actually can be harmful to societies, and instill values like "intolerance" rather than "acceptance" in people and institutions.

Maybe if parents spent less time on made-up mumbo-jumbo and mythical stories and claimes that as long as you ask god for forgiveness you can get away with pretty much everything, and instead taught a background of basic ethical behavior, rooted firmly in the reality of every day life, there would be a lot fewer f'd up kids running around.

Re:Well good

[zootm]

Prove to me there is no God. Prove to me that everything science measures and describes was not created by God.

Science can't do that, so far as we know. Which is just part of the reason that God is not taught about in Science class!

People have believed in God since the start of time. What makes scientists today so much more certain than scientists of 100 years ago?

More knowledge. The science of today is built upon the science of the past. We're more sure, but science doesn't strive for a "full" understanding, just a better and better one as time goes on.

Scientists are not sure that there is no God, which seems to be your assertion. They simply see no evidence to suggest strongly that there is a God, so it's not a part of scientific theory. Science is about interpreting the evidence, and to build up a better understanding through this process. Science will not give up on this approach and squeeze the beliefs of a single group into the parts it has not yet fully explained just because extremist members of that group thinks that's how science works.

I do agree, however, that your parent's post was overly harsh. Beliefs are acceptable. I do not agree that the majority of the district wanted ID to be taught, however, the immediate voting out of those who mandated its teaching and voting in of a board hostile to the movement is testament to that.

Re: Well good

[BlogPope]

You're assuming they don't. Many do.

Why teach ID? In my opinion, its downright blasphemous because it violates the principle of faith by claiming "This is proof god exists", whereas evolution just says this is how the world that god made works, God helps those who help themselves and understanding science and our world answers that. If "Young Earth" scientists find proof the Earth really is only 6,000 years old it means god screwed up and left behind proof he exists. I don't believe in a sloppy god, and I don't need proof he exists, and I don't think he'd waste time writing in Genesis that "one day" does not translate to a single rotation of the earth around the sun, considering the morning he started there was no sun, no earth, etc.

Re:Well good

[Temsi]

Dr Dino is certifiable. But then, if you'd actually done a little "independent thinking" instead of being so right winged (read: sheep), you'd know that.

Evolution is not an extreme. It's a scientific fact with billions of pieces of evidence that all, both individually and collectively, not only support the theory of evolution, but outright demand it.
ID is a sham, with no scientific or even logical basis, and no physical or even circumstantial evidence whatsoever. None. Nada. Zip. It has nothing to do with "belief" or "faith", it simply has to do with evidence. The evidence to support ID is about as solid as the evidence to support the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It's not a matter of what I believe, it's a matter of what we can prove. ID cannot be proven true or false, and therefore does not qualify as science (all science must be falsifiable).

You wanted a flame, right?
Well, burn baby burn.

Re:Well good

[Have Blue]

Evolution doesn't require sex. A given computer's characteristics make it successful or unsuccessful in its environment. If it is successful its design is copied and modified to produce future generations of computers (the 8086). If it is unsuccessful it is not copied and becomes extinct in favor of its competitors (like core or bubble memory gave way to DRAM). It's even common to combine aspects of computer designs the way genes are combined with sex, like the way the Athlon was made from an Alpha foundation with IA-32 on top.

"Evolution" in the current debate is just a shorthand for "evolution of biological systems through sex and nucleic acids"; the central idea of reproduction of the fittest is not tied to any specific physical process.

Re:Well good

[spxero]

But what happens when an assignment is given on how we(humans) came to be? I had one like this in high school. The purpose was to show what we've learned about evolution, and how it applies to how we 'evolved' from primates. But if someone doesn't believe that evolution is representative of how we came to be, how does that come into play?

In that class, one was marked down if they didn't regurgitate what the teacher said. Does ID belong in the classroom? Maybe not, but grades shouldn't suffer because I choose to answer the assignment how I believe.

Re:Well good

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree. I am Christian,

Man, Slashdot is so full of Christians. I feel alienated, being an atheist and all, by so many religious zealots and their ungrounded opinions and illogical beliefs. (/sarcasm).

Re:Well good

[Anonymous Coward]

Meh, seems I did misunderstand what the parents said. ~_~ Well at least i'm getting a separate point across even if it is horribly off topic. Sorry.

Re:Well good

[jc42]

Intelligent design isn't science because it isn't provable.

Actually, ID isn't science because it isn't disprovable. The usual scientific term is "falsifiable", actually, but "disprovable" is a good enough nearsynonym.

As explained by any number of theory-of-science texts, scientific methods rarely if ever actually prove anything. The usual approach is to come up with as many hypotheses as you can that seem to fit observations, and then you attempt to disprove all of them. Any theories left standing after thorough testing are tentatively accepted as true, pending future tests that find evidence against them.

This is why scientists still keep trying to find tests that will disprove General Relativity. There's general understanding that GR probably isn't the final theory, especially since it hasn't been thoroughly integrated with QM (Quantum Mechanics) yet. But GR has this long history of passing every bizarre test that physicists can dream up. If it had failed even one of them, the story would be different. But physicists generally accept that GR is "true" in the sense that it will be found to be a special case of the "Theory of Everything" that they're looking for.

The basic problem with ID is that we don't seem to have come up with a way to test it. It doesn't make predictions, which is the usual basis of tests. "What will happen if ...?" "Whatever God wants." That's not a testable prediction. It's not actually a prediction at all, in any scientifically useful sense. So we can't make any observations that might disprove it.

If someone could find an effective way to test for the existence of an intelligence behind the universe, you can be quite sure that scientists would be fascinated. They'd all be applying for funding to do the tests. But no such test seems to have been defined (yet).

There has been some good science fiction on the topic.

Re:Well good

[azuravian]

Not saying that I agree with ID or it being taught in our schools, but your argument doesn't hold water. Imposing this on preachers is not the same and here is why. You are not required by law in this country to go to church. However, my son is required by law to go to school. I am forced, due to not having the option of vouchers, to send him to a public school, since I can't afford to pay for both a public and private education. Therefore, I am forced to have my child learn evolution, whether I agree with it or not.

Re:Well good

[flibuste]

Prove to me there is no God. Prove to me that everything science measures and describes was not created by God. People have believed in God since the start of time. What makes scientists today so much more certain than scientists of 100 years ago?

It's funny to see how people who believe in God want a proof of its non-existence from others. Why not proving it exists and show the world that you are right in what you BELIEVE? As of now, it's never been the case. Actually, God has been dismissed many times in favor of more simple and logical arguments. Still, with the whole ID story, it's carry to see what religious zealots are ready to do to avoid proving their point and spread their belief, because that's all they have. Zealoting in schools though is a big no-no.

Re:Well good

[_anomaly_]

Very well put. If I currently had mod points, I'd mod you up.

(coming from someone who BELIEVES more in evolution than intelligent design)

Re: Well good

[Black Parrot]

> You're assuming they don't. Many do.

Would you be so kind as to list the first dozen or so that come to mind?

Re:Well good

[Anonymous Coward]

Darwinism says nothing concerning the origin of the universe. Darwinism doesn't even address the origins of life, only how simple life becomes more diverse and complex over time. This is a mistake ID nuts are making all the time.

Re:Well good

[spxero]

Why is there even teaching about evolution as a way that life started? If it's just a guess, it's only as good as the next guess. Why can't we show what we know has evolved since human history has been recorded? A lot of people have been saying 'If it isn't fact, don't teach it'. Well, evolution as a way of life isn't fact. It's just a guess, leave it out and teach more photosynthesis!

Re:Well good

[kgskgs]

I think they should allow teaching intelligent design in biology class on one condition. Condition that church teaches about alternatives to Christianity and Bible. We must make them read following paragraph in church sermon. "The Bible is just one way of looking at things. It's just a theory and not proven fact. There are many other alternative religions, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. and here is what these religions have to say about the things that cannot be explained using Bible. blah blah blah...." Then and only then intelligent design should be allwed in biology class.

Re:Well good

[Morky]

Buffy isn't real?... Well that's it. I'm going to kill myself.

Re:Well good

[thesandtiger]

It's sloppy on philosophical/logical grounds as well.

How many times in the past have people - even smart ones, even brilliant ones - insisted that something could not be so, only to be shown, eventually, that it is true?

Heavier than air flight: Impossible! Oops...
Rockets in space: Impossible! Oops...
Sailing around the world: Impossible! Oops...
The Earth goes round the sun: Impossible! Oops...
Etc.

ID relies on the following argument:

"We cannot currently explain how X came about, therefore it must be the work of an Intelligent Designer."

That argument is pointless because of the word "currently" - a word that no proponent of ID will actually use, but a word that is indeed part of that particular belief system.

Disposing of the ID claims is as easy as adding the word "yet" to pretty much any of them.

We can not explain how pierced lungs evolved... yet.
We can not explain how protiens fold... yet.
We can not explain how various motive systems in small organisims evolved... yet.

100 years ago, it might have been said:

We can not explain how genetic information is passed on from parent to child.
We can not explain how the stars shine.
We can not explain any number of things that have since become not just explained, but grade-school level science.

Proponents of ID are not scientists, they are not philosophers, they are not any thing but sloppy thinkers who need to quit trying to tell everyone else what to think.

Re:Well good

[gumbright]

The critical point you are missing here is that the scientific method is used in the "observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena". ID does not, it is just a "hope" (can't remember who I heard term it this way, but I think it captures it well). ID is just bunch of guys effectively going "Nuh-uh". There are areas of evolution that we don't fully understand and there is the (uberultraslim) chance that as understanding increases that evolutionary theory will be abandoned in favor of some better theory. If that is where the evidence leads, so be it. But I think the more likely is the continued refinement of evolutionary theory is what he future holds. And that is where the difference lies. I, as an adherent to reason and science, am willing to change my belief based on evidence. The ID doofs cling tenaciously to their fantasy regardless.

Re:Well good

[sardiskan]

Ok, yet this "scientific fact" as you call it is still under heavy fire. If it were fact, why is there still a debate. If it were fact, it would be like someone debating against the Law of Gravity.

It's a belief man, admit it. Just as ID is a belief. And again I say, the whole ID vs Evolution debate isn't about the origin of man. It's about the existance of God.

Flame on.

Re:Well good

[demachina]

"Generally, it boils down to finding examples of complicated structures or systems in biology, and saying "see, this is complex enough that I don't think it could arise by evolution.""

Their is a conundrum here when ID proponents say these supposedly "enormously" complex structures couldn't possibly have spontaneously sprung in to existence on their own.

The entire framework of their philosophy is that God, the most complex entity imaginable, somehow spontaneously sprang in to existence from nothingness.

Randomly throwing together organic molecules over the course of billions of years to produce the basic building blocks and mechanics of life seems trivial by comparison to spontaneous creation of an all powerful, omnipotent being.

My inclination is that if it was impossible to for a bacteria to spring in to existence from pools of organic molecules over the course of billions of years, its even more unlikely that an omnipotent being could likewise spring in to existence from nothing.

Re: Well good

[Black Parrot]

> > Raising kids to believe in mythology is child abuse.

> I'm still bitter about the whole Santa Claus thing...

What Santa Claus thing?

Re:Well good

[Yewbert]

"Ok, so now they teach the " Fact of Evolution" not the " Theory of Evolution" hmmm.... you know that humanism, atheism, and being agnostic are all religions too,... "

I wish I knew whom to give credit to for this quotation:

"If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby."

Re:Well good

[numbski]

ID fills a gap of logic to me right now, aside from faith issues.

Going back to my computer example (it's not biological, I know, but work with me...)

Okay, we mutate, evolve, change, as our environment and general living coniditions demand it. Fine.

We have proof that this is occuring, but what we lack proof of is how it began. Did it start as a bunch of ooze with living cells? How did those cells come into being. Was there an intelligent maker of those cells, or just dumb luck? Also, I know we have a text-book definition of life, but if the major equations of our existence, the laws of conservation of matter/energy, where does the ability to be alive fall into it.

There's no proof of ID, but from where I stand, there's one VERY large proof of ID. Life. Take life out of the equation, and you're right, but until we hit a point where life can be defined, quantified, added, subtracted, etc, and not really sure I can agree with you. My gut on the matter is that life required intelligence. The sad part of it is, if I'm right on that count, the the origination argument starts all over. If it took intelligent design to create life itself, then how did the creator of life come into being?

Now where did I put that bottle of absynthe?

Re:Well good

[compro01]

just so long as they don't make it a required class.

and mythology is a perfectly respectable historical subject. 2 of the teachers at my school (computers and science) both have minors in Greek mythology.

Re:Well good

[evenprime]

Why is the parent a troll? It's the truth.

They were not trolling. They were engaging in the most blatant karma whoring I've seen in a while.

Re:Well good

[breckinshire]

if you are so sure ID is incorrect, where is the fear coming from that it cannot even be mentioned and discussed by rational thinking people.

Sure! Let's discuss anything and everything in a science classroom. How about the Flying Spaghetti Monster? No one is scared of ID. That's not the point. The point is that there is a limited amount of time to discuss the world in school. It's unfortunate, but true. There have been literally tens of thousands of words written about different conspiracy theories concerning who actually wrote the plays we attribute to Shaksespeare. Should we discuss every single one of these theories in English class? Good luck. I hope no one wanted to learn about anything else. Therefore, let's take the one idea that is closest to the truth as we know it - that Shakespeare wrote his own d**n plays. Then we move on. Biology is the same way. We don't focus on Hindi creation stories or even Christian ones. Just as you can poo-poo the idea of Shakespeare writing his own stuff, you can do the same with Evolution. Just do it on your own time.

Re:Well good

[bnenning]

No they aren't, it's not falsifiable.

It most certainly is. If somebody found a dinosaur fossil from 20,000 years ago, or a modern human from 500 million years ago, evolution would need to be rethought.

Why do you believe in evolution? You have no real proof it happend, you have to take it on faith that it did.

Do you believe the nation of Ethiopia exists? Ever been there, or do you just take it on "faith"?

I believe evolution is religion because it is the only scientific theory in the mass public's mind that has been trying to be prooved scientifically for last hundred+ years, with _no_ credible results

Ah, so you're just a liar. Thanks for clearing that up.

Re:Well good

[Izmir Stinger]

It's more like a bunch of philsophers looked at the world and thought it was way to complicated to have occurred by chance.

I wonder if these same philosophers look down at their Bridge hand (13 cards) and conclude that the odds of them being dealt that particular hand are less than 1 in 6 billion, so they couldn't possibly have been dealt that hand by chance. The dealer must have given them a seemingly random crappy hand on purpose.

Re:Well good

[SamSim]

Feel free to be stupid on your own time, or to teach your children to be stupid, but realize that is what you are doing. Generally, it boils down to finding examples of complicated structures or systems in biology, and saying "see, this is complex enough that I don't think it could arise by evolution."

You have confused "intelligent design" with "proving intelligent design", which the grandparent explicitly does not endorse.

Re:Well good

[orcrist]

Maybe not, but grades shouldn't suffer because I choose to answer the assignment how I believe.

And if you believe 2+2=5? Should you get straight A's in math and go on to become an engineer?

-chris

Re:Well good

[Alioth]

You clearly do not understand what a scientific theory is, nor what science is. You never hear real scientists saying "Evolution is fact!" because it isn't. The theory of evolution doesn't say "There is no supreme being". Teaching evolution theory does not say "A supreme being cannot exist". The theory of evolution doesn't even mention supreme beings.

Intelligent design, on the other hand, is not a scientific theory by any definition and therefore should not be taught in a science class because it simply isn't science. Whether you're Christian, Muslim or an atheist, it makes no difference - ID is *not* a scientific theory. If intelligent design is to be taught, then it should be taught either in a philosophy class or a religious studies class. It has no place in a science class because it simply is not science.

Scientific theories are NOT about faith - in fact, part of the scientific method is to *disprove* theories, wheras faith is exactly the opposite - simply believing it's true and not challenging it. Scientists are always looking at probing the theory of evolution, trying to find its weaknesses and trying to disprove evolution theory as it stands because *this is what science is about*. Intelligent design is not a scientific theory because it does not set out anything that's falsifiable. Things that must be taken on faith are by definition not falsifiable.

Finally, saying "Evolution is only a theory" also grossly misses the point about what a scientific theory is. People who don't know what a scientific theory is often equate it with a "hunch" (sort of like how detectives have theories in TV shows, which are actually hunches). This is not what a scientific theory is.

For a broader understanding of what a scientific theory is and is not (it is NOT 'fact' as you state, and no scientist worth their salt would claim theory to be a fact), start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

Re:Well good

[TheRaven64]

Children raises with a good religious background can have strong moral teaching that will guide them for the rest of thier lives.

Since Christianity seems popular, let's consider it as an ethical framework. The fundamental rules for a Christian are the Ten Commandments. Of these, the first 3-4 (depending on whether you are a Protestant or a Catholic) have to do with you relationship with your creator - something rather private, which shouldn't really affect your interaction with other humans.

The next one is about honouring one's father and mother. I take issue with this personally - my parents have earned my respect through their actions, they didn't get it free because it was somehow the 'right' thing to do to honour them.

Eventually, we get to 'Thou shalt not kill.' Note that this is about half way down the list - not killing people is apparently more important than not worshipping false gods. Personally, I would rather live in a society where people worshipped turnips but didn't kill people, than one where they killed people but picked the correct god (something they won't even find out was correct until after someone has killed them).

The next few are fairly sensible - theft, adultery, lying and greed are banned. This gives about a 50% hit rate for ethics.

Elsewhere in the Bible we see some questionable ethical judgements. Consider the story of Lot. Apparently it is a great sin to rape strangers who are someone's guests - but it is fine to offer your daughters to a mob so that they can be raped instead. Elsewhere, it's fine to own slaves as long as they are from a different tribe (the justification used in early America for owning black slaves).

In the New Testament, things are a bit better. Jesus only gives two commandments (from memory, so the wording may be slightly different):

1. Love the lord God with all your heart, with all your mind, and with all your soul
2. Love thy neighbour as thy self.

Even here, I would argue he managed to get it wrong by delivering them in the wrong order. If you fail to fulfil the first, then you risk damaging your own immortal soul[1]. If you fail to fulfil the second, you damage both your own soul and the society in which you live.

Throughout history, people have committed atrocities in the names of various gods, because they felt that their relationship with their creator was more important than their relationship with their fellow humans. I contend that any ethical framework which places your god above your neighbour is faulty - an omnipotent being is far more capable of looking after itself than a human, and so the human deserves more of your attention and assistance.

Wow. That rant was a lot longer than I intended.

[1] Assuming that the Christian belief framework is correct.

Re:Well good

[siriuskase]

I agree on both points. Science is the study of the laws of nature. Whether anything or anyone exists outside of nature is outside of the bounds of scientific inquiry. However, educated people should know about ideas that are not scientific. That is why science classes are normally allocated only an hour a day.

Although religous indocrination doesn't belong in school, an education that ignores the significance of religion is incomplete. Understanding the role of the supernatural in human thought does not mean agreeing or passing judgement on ideas that cannot be confirmed scientifically. A person who does't understand the influence of religion on our nation's history or doesn't understand the beliefs of the major religions of the modern world cannot interact properly with those who do have different faiths.

In the interest of keeping religous doctrination out of schools, I fear that the public education system is leaving out stuff that should be a required part of history, philosopy, or social studies. Just not science.

Re:Well good

[bnenning]

Teaching it, learning it, believing it is protected by the constitution.

Sure. You can believe in whatever creation myths you want and teach them to your kids. But public schools (i.e. government institutions) cannot teach religion fraudulently masquerading as science.

This will give Bill O'reilly a whole show's worth of material.

No doubt several.

Re:Well good

[galego]

Hmm ... now if we take the summary and put in a synonym or two ...

Cos, you know, science progresses [evolves]. That's what it does; that's what it's meant [designed] to do. I'd be extremely troubled if scientists today knew less than 100 years ago.

And yeah ... I'd be troubled too.

Re:Well good

[Oktober Sunset]

Intelligent design is not science, thinking up a vauge untestable idea with no evidence as an explanation for something is not science. Science is not about explaining things, it's about understanding things. Inteligent design offers no understanding, no knowledge, nothing.

Re:Well good

[Alioth]

No - pdp-11s having sex would result in a VAX, not a pdp-12!

Re:Well good

[Weedlekin]

"Why do you believe in evolution? You have no real proof it happened, you have to take it on faith that it did."

No we do not, because we can see it happening today in fast-breeding organisms such as bacteria and rats. Both have evolved immunities to various methods used to control them within the life-span of a single human, leading to antibiotic-resistent pathogens and rats that we can't poison. And of course there are all those new flu viruses that appear each year, mutations of last year's crop that we need to be immunised against all over again.

As to faked evidence, yes, there has been more than a little. But there have been a hell of a lot more faked dollar bills, and this does not make people assume that every dollar bill is therefore fraudulent. Which of course they would be required to using your rather strange variety of what I shall reluctantly call logic, but only for want of a better term.

The rest of your post is a vapid mixture of ignorant ravings, balderdash, and straw men, none of which warrant the effort of typing a response.

Re:Well good

[LaCosaNostradamus]

How would you approach it? ... I mean, without revealing or asserting that ID is not a theory, and that the entire push to place it in science classes is theological politics.

I get the impression that many teachers would put their jobs at risk for "partisanship" if they addressed the so-called ID debate in the classroom. How many kids would run home to their fundie parents and complain that Teacher Smith in Biology just told them that ID is not a theory, and as such had no validity in science classrooms?

Re:Well good

[skaffen42]

you know that humanism, atheism, and being agnostic are all religions too

How the hell is atheism a religion? That's like saying that black is just another color. Or that not believing in a fat guy in a red suit delivering presents is just another way of believing in Santa Claus. Or that not screwing your sister is just another form of incest.

Re:Well good

[Lord Apathy]

Good lord what ignorant dumbasses have taken over. Once upon a time you could wrap a joke in complex humor and people could find it.

Whoosh, right over your head.

Re:Well good

[bani]

I am Christian, and there are many ways I can tie ID to Science.

Wrong, mainly because ID makes the claim that science is bunkum. This is exactly why the kansas school board redefined science to include supernatural explanations so that ID could be called "science".

The only way you can tie ID to science is if you redefine science the way the kansas school board did. But then it is no longer science, it is "science" (quotes for emphasis).

Re:Well good

[LeonGeeste]

You never hear real scientists saying "Evolution is fact!"

Stephen J. Gould isn't a real scientist? Reference

Re:Well good

[numbski]

I agree with you. I'm a christian, and the ID argument is about whether or not there's someone up the foodchain from us that created biological life as we know it. Be it God as we read and "understand" it, or something else entirely. This is something that unless God himself reveals himself to us (which, btw we would all refute immediately as fake...amazing that), will never be answered. As you say, flame on.

Re:Well good

[BrenBren]

I wish I knew whom to give credit to for this quotation:

"If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby."

When all else fails, attribute it to Oscar Wilde.

For the record, "not collecting stamps" is a hobby. It is one of several I have, actually.

Re:Well good

[compro01]

Kids don't "discover their own faith", they're indoctrinated into whatever supertition their parents force-feed them.
Raising kids to believe in mythology is child abuse.

well, to play the devil's advocate here, teaching of certain versions of mythology ("anyone who does not believe as you do is evil and must die", for example) could be constituted as "corruption of children" (which is believe is an offence under the Criminal Code of Canada), and i personally wouldn't put it past some (not all, some) of the religious wingnuts out there to be teaching something similar to this.

Re:Well good

[OreoCookie]

What if I think that evolution is a fairy tale? You cannot possibly prove the theory of evolution unless you can take one species into lab and walk out with a totally different one. The "fossil record" is not proof of evolution. It is a bunch of fossils from which some people have posited a fairly absurd theory under which dogs can become cats and ameoba become whales in a ridiculously short number of generations. Evolution is no more "real" than any other creation myth. Evolution's followers however are some of the most extreme religious zealots in the world and are quite willing to force their belief down everyone's throats and to vigorously persecute those who disagree with them.

Re:Well good

[TheRaven64]

which effectively turned Darwin'w theory into an established fact

Careful. Darwin's theories are not facts. They are theories which currently are the closest we have to the truth. At some point in the future, they will almost certainly be superseded by other theories (or refinements of the same theories) that are closer to what we observe. Science doesn't give us facts, it allows us to asymptotically approach the truth. Part of the reason that religion is being successfully presented as science in places is that science is being raised to the status of religion.

Re:Well good

[lambadomy]

Please. There are tons of observed instances of speciation, listed here. Experiments involving fly populations, bacteria, antigen development, etc etc have all been used as experimental proof of various mechanisims of evolution (mutation, genetic drift, etc). To say that evolution is guessory because we can't see the past is like saying we couldn't know how a civil war cannonball would have flown because sure, all this physics seems to predict the future, but why assume it has anything to do with the past?

Re:Well good

[drinkypoo]

Theories can be disproven. If it's testable in some way that will allow you to disprove it if it's wrong, then it's a theory. Otherwise, it's something else. The duration and/or scope of the test are not involved, nor should they be.

Re:Well good

[Pxtl]

Treat it seriously. Consider it. Analyze it in class, with the particular hypothesis that the Earth was created exactly 10000 years ago.

Re:Well good

[numbski]

Just thought I'd point one last thing out before leaving /. for the day.

The above statement I just made, "unless God himself reveals himself to us", the uniquivacal end of the argument so to speak, which we would immediately refute...

The very basis of Christianity is that God himself DID reveal himself, and came to us as the form of man (presuming that God is NOT man, we have no idea what God is...), and we, as predicted, refuted the proof.

God, real or not, would never be accepted as proof and truth. This argument is as pointless as pointless gets. You can prove evolution, man will never be abl to prove intelligent design, regarless of the blatentness of hte evidence. Sad part is, men have died horrible deaths for centuries trying to prove one side of that argument. :(

Re:Well good

[Vaughn Anderson]

It most certainly is. If somebody found a dinosaur fossil from 20,000 years ago, or a modern human from 500 million years ago, evolution would need to be rethought.

You have not presented evidence, only a hopeful event that has not occured.

Do you believe the nation of Ethiopia exists?

First hand accounts, video, documentation, don't you have a better example? Evolution has none of this, just wishful thinking from people that want it to be true.

Ah, so you're just a liar. Thanks for clearing that up.

Ad hominem attacks are not scientific. This is the problem with this debate, since you have no proof you have resorted to non-scientific means of discrediting personality instead of offering facts.

Secondly, if you read my post (that you even copied and pasted), I clearly state my position as one of "belief" not fact, so I am not lying, I do actually believe what I have stated.

Re:Well good

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Life, objects, surroundings, react, adapt, adjust and change based on what it is subjected to.

Computers do no such thing. They just sit around running whatever program they were given. This is distinct from any living thing, which tends to do what it wants, supplying itself with food and shelter, and adaptiong over time.

Re:Well good

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, if any Christian tells you that God just spontaneously appeared, then they are ill-informed or not Christian. Think about infinity and enternity instead. You'll be much more effective if you study what they're (we're) saying before you try to represent it.

Re:Well good

[RManning]

...both Evolution and ID are Theories, and therefore perfectly legitimate to be discussed

In scientific terms, evolution is a theory, ID is not. You should read up on how the scientific community works before making such statements.

...also, if you are so sure ID is incorrect, where is the fear coming from that it cannot even be mentioned and discussed by rational thinking people.

The issue is not what rational people discuss, but what is taught as science in a school.

I'm sorry but this is forcing religious belief on the students - the belief that those that believe in a creator are wrong is a religious belief.

Evolution does not say that there is no creator. Again, you should read up on this stuff.

Prove beyond a doubt that Evolution is the way we got here and we can all call if fact - until you can do that, Evolution requires every bit as much faith as ID.

Again, science doesn't work that way. We have an explanation of how something works. It's been proven right again and again. This isn't a "truth", just an explanation of facts. It takes no faith to understand the theory of evolution.

Jacob Dylan said it best - "Every man, woman, and child on the planet is a religious zealot. The only difference is what their religion is."

Good quote, but off-topic.

Re:Well good

[Cstryon]

Ok you take your Hammer, and find out how it all got there. Because you don't give a hoot, your Arguments cannot be taken seriously, because you obviously will not consider what your Oposite force says.

Re: Well good

[Black Parrot]

> Ok, so now they teach the " Fact of Evolution" not the " Theory of Evolution" hmmm....

FYI, "evolution" is a fact of biology, and "the theory of evolution" is a theory that explains it.

> you know that humanism, atheism, and being agnostic are all religions too

I don't know any such thing. Humanism is a set of values, atheism is the lack of a religion, and agnosticism is not knowing whether any gods exist or not.

It seems that American fundamentalists and evangelicals have gone from "creationism" to "creation science" to "intelligent design" to "teach the controversy" and finally settled on "yeah, well science is just a religion too".

When I was a kid that kind of Postmodernist "everything is just an opinion" wouldn't have flown in the very fundamentalist church I was taken to. It seems that some people are so eager to win an argument that they'll disown their most basic principles for it.

> if you are so sure ID is incorrect

Since it ultimately boils down to "sometime, somewhere, somebody did something", it's really hard to be sure it's incorrect.

At any rate, I don't feel any urge - or ability - to prove that nobody, nowhere, at no time did anything. My beef is that ID is a tissue of faulty logic applied to misunderstandings (or misrepresentations) of what we know about evolution. And that it is being peddled for religious and political purposes. Perhaps somebody, somewhere, really did do something. The problem is that ID hasn't given us any reason to believe it.

It's incorrect as science. If it reached the right conclusion, it's pure luck, because the conclusion doesn't follow from the arguments.

> I'm sorry but this is forcing religious belief on the students - the belief that those that believe in a creator are wrong is a religious belief.

No one is forcing you not to believe in a creator. Unfortunately for some people - possibly including you - our study of the world has revealed that a few specific religious beliefs are wrong. If you want to continue believing them, that's your business, but your religious traditions aren't a reasonable - or legal - justification for censoring what we teach in science classes.

> Evolution requires every bit as much faith as ID.

No, evolution is based on copious evidence.

Also, notice that ID professes not to be faith at all. (But where does that leave it once all its arguments have been shown to be faulty?)

> Jacob Dylan said it best - "Every man, woman, and child on the planet is a religious zealot. The only difference is what their religion is."

Appeal to a minor rock star; I like that. It's a nice change from the appeals to novels and movies you always see creationists making over at talk.origins.

Re:Well good

[LaCosaNostradamus]

That doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

Neither does believing in a big White guy with a beard sitting in the sky somewhere and being enormously concerned about some dead Jew on Earth. THAT is the larger issue, and I'm getting fucking tired of tip-toeing around it to avoid hurting people's feelings. This ID thing is getting way out of hand, and we sensible and logical people (with the background in science) have only let it happen by our damned tip-toeing. It's time to go on the offensive. We need to start demanding that the fundies either produce evidence for their beliefs, or to shut the fuck up since they are being irrational twits.

"Either produce evidence for this 'god' of yours, or shut the fuck up."

We don't tolerate people raving about being abducted by UFOs, so why tolerate people who rave about some "god"?

Re:Well good

[deaddrunk]

The ridiculous thing is that there is plenty of room for evolution in the Christian faith. God made the world and everything on it and the theory of evolution is part of how he did it. How about intelligent guidance, where the creator made the first creatures and guided them via evolution to where they are now? That is pretty much how the theory of evolution (and many other things) were explained to me in my religious education. God may have created the universe in 6 days but Genesis fails to mention how long one of God's days actually is? A good theologian (like my teachers) can fit scientific advancement into the faith, bad theologians take everything literally. And yes there is no place in the teaching of science for unproven speculations, since by definition that isn't science.

Re:Well good

[the phantom]

You are incorrect when you define humanism and atheism as religions, unless you are using a definition of religion that is far beyond that used in everyday speech and in the social sciences. Religion implies belief in the supernatural, ritual, and a community of people that share the above mentioned beliefs and rituals. Atheists do not believe in the supernatural, do not practice any kind of ritual, and do not form a community of like minded people. It is blatantly incorrect to identify atheism and humanism as religions.

Re:Well good

[Anonymous Coward]

> Intelligent design isn't science, therefore it doesn't belong in a science room.

Evolution isn't science, or a theory. It's a conjecture at best and does not belong in the classroom.

Two words: Cambrian Explosion

Re:Well good

[tdelaney]

Agnosticism absolutely is *not* a religion. It is in many ways the antithesis of a religion - because it's basically "I don't know".

Religion requires belief. Anostics simply do not have that belief - as opposed to athiests, who *believe* that there is no god (gods, etc). I also don't feel that qualifies atheism as a religion, but some people argue that way.

For me, it's "I don't know - there could be a god, any number of gods, some primal force, etc. But it doesn't seem to impact me, so who cares?"

If you can find some way to make a religion out of that, I think you're a very scarey individual.

Re:Well good

[jav1231]

"You never hear real scientists saying "Evolution is fact!" because it isn't."
No, but you will hear them say, "You can't say evolution is just a theory or we'll sue." See previous Georgia court case where all that was asked was that a sticker be placed that said evolution was not fact, but was a theory.
Frankly, THAT court decision was shaky and probably could have been appealed.

Re:Well good

[saider]

...is simply another form of indoctrination, much like what fascists and communists do to their children.

It is not a "them" or "us". Everyone is indoctrinated into their beliefs. For Americans this manifests itself in the Pledge of Alliegence, national songs, holidays where we honor people that we feel embody the values that we as a society hold. Values like individual freedom are highly prized in our culture and we are taught that they are "right".

Different societies will hold different values. There is, of course, no universal arbitrator for the righteousness of our values. It is simply a case of the strongest surviving. Currently, the "Individual Freedom" model of western society produces the best balance of productivity, happiness and strength. Religion taints this (in my opinion) by discouraging people to seek answers to difficult problems and instead "leaving it up to God".

Re:Well good

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, so now they teach the " Fact of Evolution" not the " Theory of Evolution" hmmm....

Evolution is a fact and a theory.

For instance, we know for fact microevolution occurs; it has been observed. Even ID advocates don't even argue against microevolution.

We theorize that macroevolution occurs, but every bit of evidence collected so far suggests that it does.

you know that humanism, atheism, and being agnostic are all religions too,

Agnosticism is not a religious belief. Agnostics lack faith entirely, and want proof for or against the existence of God before they'll believe.

Humanism, atheism, naturalism, and materialism are all religious beliefs, but _none_ of those have anything to do with science. Science is not a religious belief, it is method and observation.

just because you claim that you don't find science in ID, doesn't mean you are absolutely correct either, both Evolution and ID are Theories, and therefore perfectly legitimate to be discussed,

ID is not science because there is no way to test for the existence of an intelligent designer. ID is not a science because it is a religiously/politically motivated attempt to game the system.

also, if you are so sure ID is incorrect, where is the fear coming from that it cannot even be mentioned and discussed by rational thinking people.

Religious zealotry running amok in government institutions is something to fear. ID itself is not.

Re:Well good

[lynx_user_abroad]

[B]oth Evolution and ID are Theories...

This is incorrect.

In order for something to qualify as a scientific theory, it must be predictive, must be testable, and (of course) must avoid falsification.

Intelligent Design, the belief that the creation of certain things was by intent, is not predictive. It does not allow us to predict anything. It is not testable, and therefore cannot be falsified.

This does not say anything about it's value as part of a system of belief. But it does clearly say that such a concept has no place in a science cirriculum.

I'm sorry but this is forcing religious belief on the students - the belief that those that believe in a creator are wrong is a religious belief.

If we take the contemporary Western definition of a Religion as only including those beliefs which include the worship of a diety, then atheism, or "the belief that those that believe in a creator are wrong" would not be considered a religious belief, and therefore would be considered acceptable in a public school system. But I don't think this definition of Religion would hold up to Supreme Court scrutiny. (Of couse my opinion ain't worth squat here...)

The more traditional definition of Religion relates to all beliefs which cannot be substantiated by science, which is (I think) the view the Supreme Court would take. In this case, a public school directive to teach athesim might well be found to violate the First Amendment prohibitions against the establishment of a religion.

Prove beyond a doubt that Evolution is the way we got here and we can all call if fact - until you can do that, Evolution requires every bit as much faith as ID.

Science is not about proving anything; perhaps you're thinking about mathematics? Everyone agrees that evolution is a theory, everyone expects the theory to be imperfect, but nonetheless useful. No one is requiring any public school student to believe (or, to have faith in) evolution, only that they be able to pass a standardized test on the subject.

Re:Well good

[grolschie]

However, religion has no place in a science class

Exactly. That is why the origin of life as explain by evolution (which is a belief system, not a fact) should not be taught either.

Re:Well good

[ckhorne]

"You never hear real scientists saying "Evolution is fact!" because it isn't." Even as a supporter of ID as an alternative idea, I understand 100% that it is not a theory- you are 100% correct. However, I was floored when I was listening to Richard Dawkins (a leader on evolution theory) on an NPR segment, who said several times in the interview - "No one can dispute this - evolution is FACT!" (paraphrased, although emphasis is not mind). I'm all for hearing all valid sides, but I certainly also want it to be said that evolution is simply a Theory - it may be strongly supported, but still a theory, and should be presented as one.

Re:Well good

[|/|/|||]

Modded up by other ignorant Slashdotters. How sad.

Are you new to this debate, or have you just not listened to anyone that you disagree with? Perhaps you've already stopped reading this -- that would explain your profound misunderstanding. Please, bear with me for just a minute, and in the future you'll be able to enter this debate a little bit better armed.

Science is not about belief. Science has nothing to do with belief. Honestly. The fact that ID requires belief is what makes it nonscientific. ID requires belief because it is untestable. You have to accept it as fact if you want to use it. The theory of evolution, on the other hand, requires no faith. It is *NOT* accepted as fact, because in science there are no absolute truths. The theory of evolution is a good explanation that we came up with, and we use it because we can't come up with a better one. It's not sacred, it's not "fact", and nobody takes it on faith.

"Every man, woman, and child on the planet is a religious zealot. The only difference is what their religion is."

I disagree. Using myself as an example, I can say that not everyone needs a religion. I have no faith -- only assumptions.

the belief that those that believe in a creator are wrong is a religious belief.

Science makes no claim about anyone's beliefs. The very idea of whether there is or isn't a creator is completely out of bounds. It would be like proposing that there's an invisible elephant in another, completely inaccessible dimension. Science can neither tell us that the proposition is true nor that it is false. It's not something that can be analyzed by science one way or the other. God is out of bounds for the same reason, as are all beliefs in the supernatural. We're not talking about teaching that God is not real, we're talking about not teaching that God is real. See the difference?

Re:Well good

[sroske]

Your bit about faith is partly right. ITYM, "belief". Belief is holding something true regardless of examination. Faith is a bedrock you stand on. It doesn't have to have anything to do with religion. I have faith in my 5 senses. I do not need to believe in them.

Re:Well good

[sardiskan]

Tis true. Even the Bible says "the fool has said in his heart, 'there is no God'" If you have said there is not God within yourself, then proof is not what you are looking for. You are not interested in truth, only your agenda at that point. The real search for truth is not in you. And so the flame burns on.

Re:Well good

[Vaughn Anderson]

fast-breeding organisms such as bacteria and rats. Both have evolved immunities to various methods used to control them within the life-span of a single human, leading to antibiotic-resistent pathogens and rats that we can't poison

Please explain to me how this happened with any human intervention or design by an outside force. Evolution is totally different, where it states that these changes happened by "accident". This being clarified to the point to exclude all possiblity of an external designer.

1. Your example has no value, as there is an external designer in your example, and these bacteria/rats have not evolved this ability accidently, naturally or by natural selection.

2. Your example is _very_ recent, please provide an example that is more than 100 years old that is even remotely credible, to support this idea lasting so long.

I believe this theory has only lasted so long simply by the hope and faith that some day it could be proved, not that it ever has. Can you say without a shred of doubt that you 100% believe in the theory of evolution?

The rest of your post is ad hominem.

Re:Well good

[jav1231]

"Again, science doesn't work that way. We have an explanation of how something works. It's been proven right again and again. This isn't a "truth", just an explanation of facts. It takes no faith to understand the theory of evolution."
You have no understanding of cognicent reasoning. Regardless of which side you fall on, evolution takes faith. The problem is, the definition of faith is bastardized today. It's simply "belief." One does some examination and comes to a conclusion. I would argue that evolution has not been proven right time and again. That is very misleading. That evolution occurs say between various species within those species is largely fact and demonstrated. The theory is that this explains how all species have evolved. That, my friend, is far from proven right. You may believe it, it may have strong merit, 1000 scientists may have various pieces of evidence for it, but all in all that portion is theory.

Re:Well good

[silphium]

Maybe The Designer wasn't so bright after all.

Re:Well good

[Durinthal]

Kids don't "discover their own faith", they're indoctrinated into whatever supertition their parents force-feed them.

Actually, I pretty much did find my own faith (or lack thereof). My parents never took me to church, and never forced anything on me. I read a few different stories from the Bible (though they were simplified for children at the time) and thought about it for a few years.. now I'm agnostic.

Re:Well good

[smellsofbikes]

I'm not precisely disagreeing with what you've said. But a lot of scientists do indeed say that evolution is a fact, seeing as they watch it happen on a daily basis in microbiology laboratories and drug/chemical testing facilities all across the world. The theory of evolution posits HOW it happens. In a similar way, gravity is a fact. There is a theory of gravity that posits how IT happens, and that is, in my opinion, a much weaker theory than evolutionary theory. But it doesn't mean gravity's just a theory. It means our explanation for it is just a theory.

Evolution is a fact. We're just filling in the details, and that's the theory part.

Re:Well good

[sickofthisshit]

Sure, you hear scientists all the time saying evolution is a "fact."

Of course, if you press them, they will qualify it and say something like "the apparent descent of organisms with modification is observed in the fossil record so often in so many cases, that it strains credulity to worry that genetically similar organisms did NOT arise from common ancestors; furthermore, as a totally separate question, the adaptedness of organisms for their particular mode of existence does NOT require that they were 'designed' for that purpose, or arose from some mystical teleological drive, but rather is a forseeable consequence of the process of natural selection."

And if you continue to press them, they will admit that the particular facts of how natural selection led to a particular feature might be debatable or unclear, so that any particular piece of evidence in isolation is hardly ironclad "fact."

The point is, there are a huge number of practicing biologists who get up every day and go to work as honest scientists WITHOUT seriously doubting Darwin. They treat evolution and the theory of natural selection as facts, in the same way they treat the multiplication table as fact; not because they go out of their way to prove it, but because it is what they learned, it makes a huge amount of sense, and it is almost guaranteed to be fruitless to question it.

You might as well argue that "atoms" and "nuclei" and "protons" and "neutrons" are just a model put forth as part of "atomic theory." Nobody serious doubts anymore that they exist. Yes, in principle, the whole thing could be overturned by some immense revolution in particle physics, but almost nobody believes its going to happen.

The difference between ID and "evolution" (to use a vague general term to represent a huge amount of biology) is that evolution actually DOES have a tremendous amount of persuasive evidence on its side, while ID just has a bunch of "betcha can't explain to my satisfaction the evolution of the flagellum, HUH!"

Re:Well good

[j-tull]

You're welcome to think that evolution is a fairy tale. In fact, you're even free to try to make the claim that as such it should not be taught in science classes either. However, (and hold onto your hat for this one) even if you prove your point, it has no bearing on the original argument. It would be refreshing to see an ID supporter support teaching ID independent of their feelings on evolution. One has no bearing on the other as far as what is proper. (Now, as to what is fair, that is another argument. There again, who really cares about "fair" anyway?)

Re:Well good

[lynx_user_abroad]

i

The truth is not a democracy.

Agreed, but remember that science does not deal with truth; the truth is something only believers can possess.

But now we're getting way too deep into philosophy, even for Slashdot.

Re:Well good

[TheRaven64]

Kids who go to religiously affiliated schools tend to do better than children who go to public schools, despite public schools often spending as much as twice more per child.

I went to a school that was a Church of England Foundation. Pupils that attended it did better because they first had to sit an entrance exam designed to select the top 20% of the population by intelligence. Of my classmates, about 5% had any kind of strong religious belief. This leads me to believe that this statistic may be slightly skewed. The majority described themselves as either atheist or agnostic, and hated the weekly chapel service.

Married couples who regularly attend church are less likely to divorce.

Is divorce necessarily bad for society? I could argue that it increases the likelihood that an individual will have children with more than one partner, which increases the genetic diversity of the population, which is better for society from an evolutionary standpoint. My parents divorced when I was 17 and, while it was not much fun for me (or my mother), I don't believe it had much impact on society as a whole - they are both now happily re-married, and so now there are four happily married people where previously there were two not-so-happily married people.

children who regularly attend church are less likely to be truants and juvenile offenders.

I am not sure about this one. Many offences in modern civilisations are manufactured - they have no detrimental effect on society. If you limited these to violent crime, or theft, then I would concede the point. If the crimes are of the order of getting caught smoking pot, then I would contend that blunting the inquisitiveness of the children is not a worthwhile trade-off for a slightly more ordered society.

Re:Well good

[b4k3d b34nz]

...prove to me that you're not being controlled by an invisible pink unicorn.

Best. Argument. Ever. Well done.

Re:Well good

[freedom_surfer]

Yes...it must just be a coincedence that all mammals have the same body plan... or perhaps God was just feeling lazy that day and started with the same blueprints....

In may be comfortable up in your rectum, but its clearly affecting your ability to see clearly. Watch your step, you wouldn't want to fall off the earth by stepping to close to the edge...

FS

Re:Well good

[h4rm0ny]

A fair point, but it is still a judge making a decision about whether he agrees something is acceptable science or not, and this decision negatively impacts on that being taught.

Re:Well good

[KaiLoi]

Well I personally belive that 2 + 2 = 5, and when I answer as such on a maths test I shouldn't be penalised for regurgitating the answer that the maths teacher gave me!

My grades shouldn't suffer because I chose to answer the test as I belive.

Well played Mr Aristotle, well played.

Re:Well good

[dmadole]

I've got news for everyone... this isn't the biggest problem that we've got in science education. Not by a long shot.

If I had more time I could come up with a more comprehensive list, but off the top of my head, here are a few things my daughter has been taught by her middle school (grades 5 to 8) teachers:

1. Birds do not get electrocuted when they land on power lines because their feet are insulators (I kid you not).
2. On the equinox, you can stand an egg on it's end due to the balance of gravity from the sun and the moon.
3. Airplanes are able to fly because of the Bernoulli effect.

If more people simply talked with their children about what they are being taught, much of this discussion would be irrelevant. Many more people would be disillusioned with the education system, though.

Re:Well good

[numbski]

Oh for crying out loud. Read the rest of the thread. Again, you're hung up on the whole biological nature of the discussion. Computers continue to exist because they reproduce.

Granted, humans are reproducing them, but they do reproduce. They change and evolve based on the conditions under which they exist. We want faster cpus, so the next generation has faster cpus. Apple used USB, worked well there, so PC's starting equipping USB. Intel had MMX, so AMD was inclined to copy, etc.

I never said this was based on biology. The concept of natural selection and its ties into evolution do apply here.

Re:Well good

[spacecowboy420]

Ok, I'll bite. I understand your point about atheists, agnostics being religion-esqe, but evolution is devoid of any mention of God where as stating a position on God is essentially having a religion, like you said.

  Science requires empirical evidence - ID contains the empirical evidence only to get you to the point of faith and ignores the vastness of the possibilities available in the universe. This is why science has theories, it is unlikely that you can be aware of all inputs, so you don't just declare that since you don't know, it must be God-derived, you do more research.

Evolution is a "theory" because it is improvable without a time machine; the empirical evidence gives us this theory and is subject to change in the face of more EMPIRICAL evidence. It is a theory because it IS subject to change because it is impossible to prove definitively and scientists can be wrong. I know I like finding out when I am wrong, it means I have just learned something.

There is not empirical evidence of intelligent design. The "irreducible complexity" that is sited to suggest such a leap is flawed. To say evolution is flawed because it is a theory suggests that you can know something definitively. This is impossible in almost every situation. ID says, "Look here, don't know where that came from therefore it must've been God." To ID that may sound like a theory, to me it sounds like a hypothesis. You could have just as easily said it was the Easter Bunny and it would make just as much sense.

You may not agree, but if you are truly an objective agent and only conclude based on evidence demonstrated, you would see that currently evolution is the only valid theory, and that there currently are not any valid FACTS that describe life in its ENTIRITY, nor is it likely we'll find such a FACT in our lifetime, until we have a complete picture of the Universe. In that event, we will still only have a theory since it is impossible to prove since it is impossible to be an observer of the past.

I know I have left out a bunch of stuff, but this is what it boils down to. You ID guys love to argue by splitting hairs, don't bother here, and just know that it obvious that your religious bias is showing. The difference between those that try to use science to prove their bias and a real scientist is that a scientist could accept God if there is empirical evidence. The mere fact that ID exists shows that you will only accept one outcome. No matter how solid a theory is, ID guys will always try to make the "God tie-in" to justify their bias.

Re:Well good

[gammoth]

There is the scientific theory of electro-magnatism. Do you dispute that electricity is a fact? Isn't it a fact that electricity powers light bulbs?

Re:Well good

[richieb]

Right. Not all religions are equivalent.

Agreed. Take for example a popular religion that includes weekly canibalistic consumption of the body and drinking of the blood of the human/god savior. Is that better than believing that aliens are going to come and rescue us?

Just like not all scientific theories are equally valid

Not really. Scientific theories are based on observable evidence that anyone can observe. Scientific theories are also constructed so that that, at least in principle, they can be shown to be invalid. Not so for religions.

because really, atheism and agnosticism are also beliefs

Not really. Lack of belief is not a belief. I am an atheist. I don't believe in supernatural things.

Re:Well good

[Gogogoch]

There is a huge community of physicists that debate gravity. Last month's Scientific American ran a front page that asked whether gravity is a holographic effect of a higher-dimensional space. Sounds spooky, I know, but the point is that humans are trying to understand how things are, and why. Bit by bit a picture is emerging. The picture will never be complete, but that doesnt mean that the incomplete remainder is wrong or does not exist.

ID is no answer to the question of Life, but ID might the answer to the question of why our cosmos is here in the first place. Why be so parochial as to expect God to be involved with our spec of dirt, and our small existance? The real question is why our universe is here in the first place, and why it is like it is.

Re:Well good

[|/|/|||]

I don't know what the hell an "Oposite force" is, but I would say that his argument can be taken seriously because he doesn't give a hoot. He's acknowledging that the bible is not a reliable source of evidence when you want to learn about geology. I completely agree with that assessment. How could you possibly argue that it *is* reliable?

Re:Well good

[jedidiah]

Teaching "what biologists believe" is no more an imposition of relgion as would be teaching "what muslims belive". The key here is to realize that what is really going on is an attempt by one group of intolerant people to shout down everyone they might disagree with.

            PA fundies don't get to shout down biologists any more than they would muslims.

            Now as far as your "everything is a religion" nonsense goes...

            Evolution requires no faith. It only requires the acceptance of a few key axioms that are common to science in general. They are all very testable. You can choose to be an artillery target sometime and prove them wrong.

            Any particular conclusion can be accepted or not. You might even convince everyone else they are wrong. Except for Judiasm, you generally don't find this sort of attitude in religions. There is "the one true way, take it or leave it".

          This "you are with or against us" mentality is infact why this conflict exists at all. The relgious zealots can't tolerate any form of heresy. The biologists gladly will.

Re:Well good

[sickofthisshit]

Uh, you didn't answer my question.

I don't give a hoot about what *you* happened to read in some book your mommy or your priest, or somebody told you to believe in it or you'd go to hell, or whatever. My mommy and daddy and minister didn't teach me that, and I don't have any convincing reason to believe it, so I don't believe it. I suggested you might try to think about what kind of evidence would convince me to share your beliefs, compared with the idea that I could take you out on a geological field trip, and show you exactly the kind of thing that geologists believe in.

Instead, you didn't give me a single reason to do so, and made a nonsensical retort, based on an apparent total misreading of my post.

If I took you out in the field and tried to teach you geology, including hundreds of millions of years of history, how would you respond?

Re:Well good

[smellsofbikes]

Ya know, I'm going to agree with the GP: computers have evolved. If you sat down right now, on a desert island, and tried to build yourself a computer from sand, you, well, couldn't. No one person could. It's doubtful that 1000 of the brightest minds in the world, given their whole lives, could. While each individual computer part is the result of many intelligent design decisions, the sum total has evolved, with many side-avenues and dead-ends, to fit a market niche. Consider the Apple Lisa, the ZX-80, mainframes, the Newton -- those were all intelligently designed machines that have died or are losing marketshare. The free market is a type of ecosystem and our smartest minds can't seem to design intelligently enough to force a success -- consider Itanium -- onto a dynamic, evolving system. To put it another way, even *with* intelligent designers, many thousands of them, evolution is emergent and overpowers everything in its path. I think sometimes that even if there had been an Intelligent Designer, life would've outstripped anything s/he managed to create and buried it utterly.

Re:Well good

[gm0e]

The vast majority of the science community is appreciative of the beauty, majesty, and overwhelming complexity of nature - especially in the context of evolution but also in many other fields such as quantum physics. To speculate that there is some sort of "intelligent design" (not capitalized) or divine nature underlying everything is a philosophical/theological issue that doesn't necessarily go against the grain of modern science.

Intelligent Design (capitalized, proper noun), however, is nothing more than (crinkly, noisy, and almost transparent) wrapping paper for literal biblical creationism. This biblical story, literally interpreted, is a full frontal assault on almost the entire field of biology, hence the violent opposition from the science community.

The people trying to shove Intelligent Design down the throats of biology teachers are christian fundamentalists who believe in the literal account of creation detailed in the bible and reject evolution (and apparantly the other parts of science it compliments). By conjuring Intelligent Design - a broader principle which conveniently encompasses their creation beleif and many other beliefs - they have muddied the waters and gained partial support of people outside their religious circle who (like me and many other slashdotters) believe in some sort of "intelligent design" (not capitalized) or divine nature underlying everything.

Intelligent Design is a trojan horse. Read more about it here

Re: Well good

[zensufi]

Are you serious? What criteria are we to use to decide that a philosophy department is "#1 in the country." Paul Boghossian, chair of the heavily analytic NYU philosophy department, recently claimed on an episode of Democracy Now! that the NYU philosophy department is ranked #1 in the country. I know of a significant number of philosophy majors who find both departments laughable and consider a place like the New School to be excellent. You risk being dismissed "right off the bat" for not considering philosophical topics outside of the standard range of the University of Michigan classroom.

Second, intelligent design is clearly a poor argument. I briefly debated Dembski last year and ate him alive (yum). He has developed this bizaare concept of irreducible complexity (forgive me, now it is called "specified complexity") where he argues that certain systems contain too much information to have been developed by evolution. To do this, he must either grossly overestimate the amount of information in an organism or grossly underestimate the power of evolution. That math has already been covered by biologists - Game of Life, anyone? It's cute that with all his fancy degrees, he can't write a paper good enough to be published in a peer-reviewed journal. When I pressed him for a testable hypothesis, he just squirmed a little more and apologized for appearing to avoid my question.

I seriously question your credibility. You claim to be a philosophy major (or phd candidate, but I doubt that) but clearly have no idea what constitutes a rational argument. Are you familiar with intelligent design at all?

Re:Well good

[Schraegstrichpunkt]

Nice troll. (I hope.) :)

Re:Well good

[azuravian]

So Atheism does not conform to the following: religion -- 4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith I know many atheists who would say that is exactly what their belief/disbelief is.

Re:Well good

[RetroGeek]

I mean it is just about conceivable that god created the earth 6000 years ago and hid dinosaur bones that look as if they are 200 million years old, to test the faith of people or for whatever reason.

It is worse than that.

The speed of light has been established. Doppler shift is well understood.

We use telescopes and look deeply into space. From the observations we can tell that the light from stars has been travelling towards us for billions of years.

So 6,000 or so years ago, not only did God create bones, he also must have created the entire universe and placed every photon of light in exactly the right place, AND given that photon the right speed, so that we see the sky as we do today.

Talk about "irreducible complexity"!

Re:Well good

[jedidiah]

> You clearly do not understand what a scientific theory is, nor what
> science is. You never hear real scientists saying "Evolution is fact!"
> because it isn't.

        One of my university Anthro profs (who was one of the first people
to examine Lucy), did this very thing when confronted by a student
that couldn't handle the whole evolution idea. Genuine scientists are
infact very confident that evolution happened.

        I suppose this is what separates the real scientists from philosophy
majors that like to split hairs.

Re:Well good

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Computers continue to exist because they reproduce.

No, they are manufactured. Jesus christ, there is a difference.

I never said this was based on biology. The concept of natural selection and its ties into evolution do apply here.

No they do not. The process you described is far more explicit that anything in Evolutionary theory. You're simply conflating the cycle of technological innovation with natural evolution, which is the sort of stunt IDers love to pull in order to cloud things.

Re:Well good

[NMerriam]

Science has no explanation for how everthing began

First of all, you like many other IDers are confusing evolutionary theory with abiogenesis, the beginnings of life. Evolutionary theory says nothing about "how everything began", it only says how organisms change over time in reactions to external forces. Nothing more, nothing less.

Those teachers now can't decide on their own, or even use their own freedom of speech to teach

Of course they can decide on their own, nobody is mandating that science teachers be required to renounce belief in God or intelligent design or even young-Earth creationism. They can believe whatever they want. And nobody is abridging their freedom of speech -- they can put up a web site, protest outside the school, even teach ID classes for the same students outside of school hours (I knew several teachers who would see the same students in Sunday school classes). But their job from 7-3 is to teach science, and if they aren't doing their job, they'll get in trouble. That's no different than you or me.

would then like a question like "what are most people hypothosis on this subject?" The answer now will have to be "Well, it is illegal for me to tell you that".

And of course you're completely wrong yet again. The correct answer to that question would be "Well, there are many theories, though none really have a significant weight of evidence behind them, which is part of why it is such an interesting question. Of course, there are lots of religious explanations for the creation of life that differ from culture to culture, and some interesting experiments have been done to try and create simple organic materials from inorganic materials by simulating early Earth environments, but nobody has been able to say for sure."

That's a completely accurate answer, and doesn't require teaching religion or condemning it. I've seen many times where students ask about creationism in science classes, and teachers have always been respectful in basically saying "yes, many people do believe that, but it's not really something we cover here since there's no way to prove or disprove it."

Re:Well good

[timster]

Even better, if he's an agent of God, maybe he could lead the feds back to God. I know I want to sue, and I'm sure there are lots of police departments that would be interested in criminal indictments...

Re:Well good

[tutori]

And apparently spelling was banned from being taught in your school ;) (and if English is not your first language, I partially apologize)

Re:Well good

[Mr_Huber]

It is perfectly correct to teach the fact of evolution, for it is a fact. It is an observed phenomenon, or fact, if you like. The Theory of Evolution is the theoretical construct explaining how evolution operates, the mechanism involved and the consequences of these mechanisms. So far, it has survived every challenge thrown at it by the fossil record, genetics, comparative biology, chemistry, physics and even computer science. And it has grown more powerful for it. The current incarnation of the theory bears as much resemblance to Darwin's original proposal as modern quantum electrodynamics bears to Ben Franklin's work with electricity.

The phenomenon of evolution is well established and as solid a fact as gravity, electromagnetism or heat transfer. The theory describing it is, in some ways, better off than the theory of gravity or electromagnetism. We know those two are inconsistent and at least one is due for a revision. There are no such open questions on the theory of evolution.

Evolution does not require faith. That's the thing about science, it works even if you don't believe in it. Disbelieving in the quantum nature of electrons won't make a lick of difference in how your computer operates. Likewise, disbelieving in evolution does not mean that advanced antibiotics suddenly stop having any effect. (Now, current diary practices, that's another story.)

Given your statements, it is clear you have not bothered even the most cursory attempt at understanding science. You seem so enmeshed in your dogma, you refuse to understand anyone else's position, casting well reasoned positions as mere articles of faith. Science is not a religion, no matter how much you wish it to be so.

Really, just because you insist on wielding a hammer, do not treat us screws and bolts as nails.

Re:Well good

[sickofthisshit]

Well, it depends on what you mean by "tolerate" people who claim they were abducted by UFOs.

I think it is an interesting psychological question as to what these people claim to have experienced, what basis this experience might have (and the basis "it really happened just so" isn't one I would waste much time on), and even what people like this believed in before UFO's existed as a cultural phenomenon.

People believe all kinds of stuff that doesn't make much sense. If UFO-abductess insisted that UFOs be taught as science in the classroom, I would vociferously object. But you should have some sympathy and tolerance for people who honest believe they had some experience that affected them.

Re:Well good

[Thangodin]

Newton's theory of gravity is just a theory too. Does that mean that we can just decide not to believe it and fly?

This is just a semantic trick. The use of the word theory in science differs from the way it is used. Normally, a theory is a theory until it is verified. I have a theory that a car is in the driveway: I look out, see the car, and the theory becomes fact. But scientific theories are more complex, and we persist in calling them theories simply because we can never have all the evidence. We cannot go back in time and witness every step of evolution. But this does not mean that they are mere matters of opinion. Evolution is supported by all the evidence that we have and not contradicted by any evidence. As a scientific theory it is a resounding success, one of the gold standards for scientific truth, with an extraordinary power to explain and predict events in the world of biology. This is as close to certainty as human beings can get, so calling it a fact is not an exageration. After all, that car in the driveway could be a cardboard cutout of a car that just looks like one from the window. Or maybe it's made of paper machier.

On the other hand, if you want to assume an attitude of radical doubt about everything, go ahead. But I would think your religion would be the first thing on the block. You should know the philosophical implications of your postmodernist position--the first thing that goes out the window is faith.

...if you are so sure ID is incorrect, where is the fear coming from that it cannot even be mentioned and discussed by rational thinking people.

I'm pretty sure that crack is bad for you too, but why don't we give equal time to a crack dealer to tell kids of the benefit, and let them decide for themselves? Because they're kids! We send kids to school to get the correct information so that they can make informed choices, not so that they can choose what they want to believe. We don't let neo-nazis teach them that the holocaust was a myth either, because it's a lie, but chidren don't have enough knowledge of history to know this. Children are not rational thinking people. That's why they are not tried in court as adults.

Stop trying to exploit the ignorance of children for your own religious and political ends. It's evil. Stop doing it.

Re:Well good

[cbr2702]

A statement that evolution is "just a theory" or "a theory, not a fact" generally gets interpreted with the "hunch" sense of theory, not the scientific sense. Statements like this play off the usage difference of theory between scientists and the general public. They are true under one sense of theory, but false with the sense they will most likely be interpreted under.

"Evolution is a scientific theory, not nessicarily a fact." : ok; it's clear that the right use of theory is being used.
"Evolution is a hunch, not a fact." : not ok; evolution is the most likely explanation, and is more than a hunch.

Re:Well good

[Anonymous Coward]

This ruling is inherently anti-science. Any ruling that sayes "you may not teach this type of science" inhibits science and discredits the study.

Re:Well good

[Anonymous Coward]

"Separation of church and state" is not in the constitution.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ..."

is all it says.

Re:Well good

[misleb]

Actually, ID (before it was hijacked by Creationism) technically belongs in a philosophy course. Creationism belongs in a sociology course. And the book of Genesis belongs in a mythology course.

-matthew

Re:Well good

[germx]

If you discount the hype from both sides, ID claims to be a methodology to determine if an event is random or not. For instance, it can be used in forensics to determine if a DNA match is coincidental or not. In that sense it is science.

The discussion gets heated when ID proponents try to apply it to analyze biological structures and determine if they were designed or just came about through randomic events.

The discussion should be kept on the merits of the theory. Unfortunately, regardless of the side they take, the media and the majority of the population don't have the knowldge or background to do that.

Re:Well good

[Caiwyn]

And those of us who are Christians and do not take part in the bashing of other religions do appreciate it.

Re:Well good

[Fizzl]

Holy crap.
Are you trolling or are you retarded?

Re:Well good

[jeffasselin]

No, the judge didn't decide on what is Science. He read and listened to scientists define what science is, and he then decided that Intelligent Design, as explained to him, was NOT science, was in fact a veiled religious argument, and as such should not be taught in a SCIENCE public classroom.

He didn't decide what science was or make arguments or ruling that would affect any other scientific theory.

When some "weird" theory comes along, it can be evaluated along the same principles. Joe Nobody invents some theory that explains where ghosts come from, it's not a scientific theory. If a scientific argues against something being a scientific theory, we can use the exact same definition the judge used in this case, essentially the requirements of falsifiability, testability and basis on observation.

Re:Well good

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, and your kids are being forced to learn "2+2=4" even if you believe it is 5.

Those are the breaks.

Re:Well good

[jayp00001]

I think the intelligent design folks would be happy if Darwin would be taught as a theory and exactly what theory meant was also explained. Many science teachers simply refuse to admit that because it is a theory it cannot be proven true, but it is the best scientific explanation we have, and would be changed should it be proven false. They instead expect that should accept it as true.

Re:Well good

[Anonymous Coward]

You cannot possibly prove the theory of evolution unless you can take one species into lab and walk out with a totally different one.
Nothing is ever proven in science, only shown to fit the evidence. Unlike ID where the evidence it made to fit it.

The "fossil record" is not proof of evolution.
Nice unsupported assertion.

It is a bunch of fossils from which some people have posited a fairly absurd theory under which dogs can become cats and ameoba become whales in a ridiculously short number of generations. Evolution is no more "real" than any other creation myth.
Quit being obtuse, if you'd done one minute of research, you would have made better arguments then this garbage.

Evolution's followers however are some of the most extreme religious zealots in the world and are quite willing to force their belief down everyone's throats and to vigorously persecute those who disagree with them.
Clearly I'm wasting my time.

Re:Well good

[|/|/|||]

Yes, it's a stupid attitude, and I'll tell you why.

Starting with a belief and then trying to justify it through evidence is a sure way to fool yourself. If you're already sure that something is true, then you're going to subconsciously ignore evidence and arguments to the contrary. Look at all these slashdotters posting about ID that have no idea what constitutes a scientific theory. They've been told over and over, but they don't listen, because their minds are not open to alternatives. Science, on the other hand, thrives on alternatives. Turning over old ideas is what drives science forward. In science, you have to work on the assumptions (theories) that you've already established, but you always have to keep checking those assumptions because eventually you will find out that they are not completely correct.

The "Young Earth Creationists" are not keeping open the possibility that their underlying assumption is wrong. Their goal is not to get closer to the truth, it is to find support for the assumptions that they started with. Very bad way to find out anything about reality, IMO.

As for the idea about God faking the age of the Earth, you're falling into the trap of thinking that because something is possible then it must be true. There are an infinite number of complex explanations for how all of the particles in the universe got to where they are now. The only way to proceed is to eliminate the ones that we can't test -- such as the "God made it to fool us" idea. Sure, it could still be true, but when it's 1 among an infinite number of possibilities, it's infinitely unlikely to be true. Anyway, even if you decided that it *is* true, you have to admit that it has to be taken on faith. It has nothing to do with science.

Re: Well good

[Bodrius]

That's because ID is a skeleton created to pass for a scientific theory to teach a very particular point.
Any powerful arguments have been neutered by pretending it is something it is not, and discarding what would most obviously weaken that point, or its acceptance as a curriculum topic.

There is a long tradition of philosophical ideas and theories based on Creationism in its diverse forms. This was a very mature debate (thousand-years old) in philosophy before it became a topic of science, and there is certainly enough substance to both present a debate to the fundamental assumptions of science, and influence the development of science itself in very profound ways.

Heck, I would argue that in order to understand why we accept science, this is a vital topic of study. Then again, I would argue that if we are to have critical thinking in high-school graduates, philosophy-training is vital, so I may be biased.

Re:Well good

[keraneuology]

Why does this suddenly become a topic that MUST BE TAUGHT IN SCHOOL?

Because it is true? Because it is science?

What we are against is teaching ID in a classroom in a way to undermine the extremely solid theory of evolution.

If only you were speaking the truth.

ID does not undermine evolution. ID counters only the notion that everything in the universe except for buildings, glow in the dark cats and open pit copper mines are mere events of random chance.

Here's the honesty test: if this was really about separation of church and state then you shouldn't mind a federal law prohibiting any public teacher from ever declaring in a classroom that any religion that includes creationist traditions are false.

Re:Well good

[ckhorne]

I don't dispute the fact that they are extremely well founded theories.
Chemistry and physics are also very well founded theories. The difference between these theories and evolution is that we have little way of testing evolution, and only circumstantial evidence. With the other theories, we can do test after test after test to show the process from beginning to end. We can setup experiments to show "given x and y, we get z". Thus, as I said, they are extremely well founded and impossible to dispute by any reasonable argument.
But evolution doesn't work the same way - show me one repeatable experiment where an animal actually independantly mutates to a genetic advantage. I understand that evolution supposedly takes thousands if not millions of years for this to happen, and so this experiment may not be possible. However, without repeatable experiments (instead of just circumstantial evidence), we can only make educated guesses as to what happened (whether that result is ID, evolution, FSM, or whatever).
I will also submit that ID is not a valid scientific theory (by definition!), and thus cannot be called such. I'm just arguing that evolution is a theory, and shouldn't be presented as fact. I would argue the same with chemistry, physics, etc, but no one is challenging them. :)

Re:Well good

[JWW]

I disagree with you about atheism. I most definately count it as a religion. There are many atheists out there (and here at /.) that are more evangalistic about their beliefs than most Christians.

Agnostics however, I agree, by definition are non-religious.

Back on topic, while I agree that ID is a poor subject for science class, I wish the court had found some other grounds for excluding it. The school is most definately Not "establishing" a religion by teaching ID (as long as it is attributed to an outside power, which it generally is). What _I_ feel the school board did wrong was take the control of the curriclum out of the teacher hands and ordered them to teach a theory that has almost all its merit coming from philosophy and not science. And the teachers are the ones who should have that final decision (or at least a large say in it), not a bunch of buearucrats(sp?).

Re:Well good

[jcr]

Actually, ID (before it was hijacked by Creationism)

ID never was anything more than re-packaged creationism.

-jcr

Re:Well good

[Nos.]

You have not presented evidence, only a hopeful event that has not occured.
Um, yeah. If it that event had occured, the theory would be disproven, or at least need to be seriously altered to fit the new evidence.

Evolution has years of observable change in life forms, years of studying the fossil record, etc. etc. No, its not proof that evolution is what took a single celled organism and produced what we see to day. But it is a theory that fits the facts.

Re:Well good

[jc42]

You never hear real scientists saying "Evolution is fact!" because it isn't.

Actually, you do - with important qualifications.

Stephen Jay Gould wrote several papers that said just this. Of course, he said a lot more. (He had a column to fill, after all. ;-) He and others have made a distinction between the fact of evolution and the theory of evolution.

What he pointed out in several articles was that by the early 1800's, when Darwin was sailing on the Bugle, it was already widely accepted that biological evolution was a historical fact, thoroughly documented in the fossil record. What was missing was a good explanation of this fact. People examining fossils could see the general outline of the evolutionary process; they just didn't understand how it worked.

Facts are what we observe, combined with the easy inferences from the observations. To be scientific, you need not just a lot if facts, you also need explanations of those facts. Such an explanation is first called a hypothesis before it has been tested, and then a theory after it has passed sufficiently many tests.

What Darwin did was to propose an explanation for the observed fact of biological evolution over geologic time. His explanation was unusual in that the mechanism didn't require any guiding intelligence. But it did have explanatory power, and also made testable predictions. So, while the religious folks derided Darwin's heresy, the scientists set about trying to poke holes in his explanation.

In the 1860's, Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection was really just a hypothesis, not a theory. But now, more than a century later, it's a true theory. We've had plenty of opportunities to test it, and it has passed the tests quite handily. So now it's a true scientific theory. Biological research these days is mostly concerned with working out the details of the mechanisms. Nobody seriously expects that the basic theory will be overturned.

Not that it hasn't been modified along the way. Darwin didn't know about DNA or genes, and could only write vaguely about the mechanism of intelligence. He observed that this mechanism was imperfect, something that any plant or animal breeder would agree with. He also proposed that some variations were "random", which need not have been true, but which we now know is essentially true. He also proposed that the inherited code was not modified by an organism's environment, contrary to others such as Lysenko, and it turns out he was right in this, too. True, environmental things may alter your DNA, but not in any "directed" fashion.

But most importanly (and ignored by most creationists and ID proponents), his theory invoked a very non-random directing force, natural selection. This was difficult for him to observe, but we've since watched and tested it innumerable times, and again it turns out he was quite correct.

OTOH, he didn't guess about viral transduction. And he didn't anticipate Barbara McClintock's idea of the way that eukaryotic cells arose via merger of independent single-cell organisms. So he did miss a few important things that have since modified his theory a bit. But none of these things have significantly weakened his theory of evolution by natural selection.

Of course, we are now on the verge of implementing designer genes ...

Re:Well good

[Anonymous Coward]

Intelligent Design is not science. Science must be demonstrable and/or falsifiable. ID is neither. Science is based on observable, repeatable evidence. ID is based on conjecture.

  ID is the idea that anything too complex for our little brains to fully comprehend must be the result of some controlling intelligence wrapped up in fancy words and calling itself science. Just because we can't fully explain something, or just because something seems too complex to have happened by accident doesn't mean some intelligent agent had a hand in it. Maybe we're just not (yet) capable of fully explaining creation.

Explaining away that which seems too complex or too convienent as the work of Gods was good enough for cavemen. I'm hoping we can move past that soon.

Re:Well good

[jedidiah]

No, his post is the rantings of someone that KNOWS that he doesn't live in a Iranian style theocracy and would like to keep it that way. You are attempting to confuse free discourse with government sanctioned discourse.

            Why do you need to be so dishonest.

            Jesus would be ashamed of you.

            The issue is what the state can push on people, or simply endorse. Believe it or not, we have rules in this country that came about through centuries of bad experiences in this area. Many highly spiritual men rightly concluded that the church and state should stay out of each other's business.

              This doesn't mean that religion is chased out of the classroom or the town hall. It just means that religious expression remains the initiative of THE PEOPLE and not the state.

              Want to push wacky religious ideas onto your kids, do it yourself. You are at liberty to do so.

              The state has no business indulging in such shenanigans. Your gravely mistaken notion of what sort of government we have here in the USA does not excuse such attempts at Taliban style mob rule.

Re:Well good

[sardiskan]

Yes, and there was also a HUGE community of people that believed in the cult leader Jim Jones in the late 70's called "Peoples Temple" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_Temple that caused the death of over 900 people. Just because a bunch of people are following something doesn't make it correct. Again, my point is that all this stuff is based on a BELIEF. Science if fallible and don't you think that a left winged "scientist" would alter their findings in favor of evolution just as much as a creationist scientist might alter their findings in favor of creationism. The problem is that a christian scientist is SUPPOSE to be abiding by the moral laws set forth by his/her own belief. A evolutionary scientist has no contrants to control what he/she lies or speaks truthfully about. Again I say, this is all rooted in the question "what do you believe". Flame on!

Re:Well good

[MightyMartian]

So whatever happened to just voting out the school board?

They did, but not soon enough for the board to waste thousands of dollars on an attempt to push their religious beliefs down the throats of kids. Beyond that, US citizens do have the right to take the government to court when the government violates their constitutional rights. I mean, that is the principal behind a constitution, right?

And still, why was this an issue for a federal court as opposed to a state court?

Because it seems to be legal precidence that says the Establishment Clause applies to state and local governments. Apparently this also violates the Pennsylvinia constitution as well.

Re:Well good

[HunterZ]

That's a broad definition that can be used to apply a religion label in any number of absurd ways in addition to the one you provided:

Cause:
So fighting for, say, gay marriage is a religious war?

Principle:
Those who believe in following the editing guidelines for Wikipedia are religious fanatics?

System of Beliefs:
Anyone who believes in upholding the constitution of any particular country is practicing religion?

Re:Well good

[misleb]

Note that it is the definiton #4. FYI, they are usually listed in order of significance. If #4 was used as the only criteria, far too many things would also be included as religions.

-matthew

Re:Well good

[Vaughn Anderson]

No, its not proof that evolution is what took a single celled organism and produced what we see to day.

This is really the crux of the problem with teaching either evolution or ID in schools, they are both just ideas, not proven facts. Why not leave this to let people decide what they want, since it more a belief issue than a scientific one?

Re:Well good

[M0b1u5]

No - it is NOT a theory. A defining characteristic of a theory is that it must be falsifiable. ID is NOT falsifiable - so it can not be described as a "theory". It is, best described, perhaps, as a "crackpot theory". Or alternatively, we'd be kind, and say it is "conjecture", "speculation", or "a poor answer to a question which doesn't exist", or any other non-scientific concept.

I'm encouraged to see some sense coming out of a US court on this topic: there's hope for the USA yet!

Be nice if you could learn to spell. The word is "DEFINITELY"!

Re:Well good

[scheming daemons]

A great book that discusses this very thing (and many others) is:

The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark - By Carl Sagan.

Fascinating reading.

Should be mandatory reading by all high-school students in the United States (and their parents).

Re:Well good

[agallagh42]

"with the particular hypothesis that the Earth was created exactly 10000 years ago"

Science can't even prove that statement wrong. Let's say that, for argument's sake, the earth was created by a supreme being 10,000 years ago. It would of course have to be created with the dinosaur bones already buried underground, the Grand Canyon already formed in all it's grandness, the mountains already built, etc. Basically, all the evidence that currently points to a multi-billion year old universe was put in place on purpose during the course of 7 days, 10,000 years ago. Okay, fine. There's no way science can disprove that statement.

The question you should ask yourself is, why would your God put all those things in place specifically to fool you?

Re:Well good

[|/|/|||]

I think the grandparent's hypothetical situation was one in which the preacher voluntarily talks about alternatives, like a scientist. In science, everything is tentative. IDer's complian that science is discounting ID because science is not open to alternatives, but the real fact of the matter is that ID *was* considered, and was immediately discounted. Evolution is absolutely up for debate, and in fact our understanding of the details change continuously.

The hypothetical preacher would never exist because religion tries very hard to stay locked in on the ideas that it already has. The religious are convinced that they already know the truth, while scientists are satisfied to find ever closer approximations of what seems to be the truth. Big difference.

Re:Well good

[SpinyNorman]

I have to disagree.

If one has a varied population differently suited to the prevailing environment, then necessarily the more suited ones will prevail - they will live longer, compete and breed better, leave more offspring. This isn't a theory or even an empirical observation - it's cold logic (a conclusion of "better suited" being defined to mean precisely that!).

If the characteristics of the individuals in a population are hereditory, then it follows from the above (again - just logic - not theory) that each generation will be better suited to the prevailing environment than the previous one.

If these hereditory characteristics are subject to continual variation then this process will continue ad-infinitum, with each generation becoming more suited to the local environment prevailing at the time. If populations exist in differing environments then the the generations of the respective populations will chart different courses as their individual hereditory charactristics are put to the test by the differing local environments. Again, pure logic - no theory involved.

Darwin's genius was both pointing out the above facts (obvious when you think about it, but radical at the time, and anyways seemingly irrelevant given that no such hereditory mechanism was known), and having such faith in this being the mechanism for evolution that he did so at a time when these hereditory charactrics that would drive the whole scheme, and variations to those hereditory characteristics, was just a theory. Thus the theory of evolution, at the time it was conceived was rightly called the Theory of Evolution.

Since Darwin's time we have of course discovered that these theorized hereditory characteristics do indeed exist - encoded in DNA, that they are inherited via the process of sexual reproduction, and that they are continually subject to variation by factors such sexual reproduction. The cold logic of evolution which during Darwin's time required theorized mechanisms to become fact rather than theory, has therefore indeed become fact due to these scientific discoveries. It is not correct to call it a theory anymore since the only theoretical part of it has been proved.

Indeed, not only is evolution now proved to be inevitable in nature, but of course this ability to evolve via dumb variation and "survival of the fittest" is even being used today (genetic algorithms) to design things like airoplane wings whose complexity is beyond the ability of any human to design "intelligently"!

Some people get hung up on speciation - accepting that animals may vary due to evolution, but thinking that creation of new species is somehow a different matter altogether. In fact, speciation is just a trivial specific case of evolution, albeit one with dramatic (over time) results. The scientific definition of species is that two animals are different species if they can't interbreed. DNA changes that change anything other than ability to interbreed (e.g. size, color of eyes, type of metabolism) do not make a new species, but if a particular DNA combination makes the offspring unable to interbreed with the species of the parents then it is by definition a new species, and becuase of this inability to interbreed is necessarily going to diverge from it's predecessor species. Of course in practice speciation involves other factors such as social & geographic ones ones - interbreeding being avoided due to reasons other than lack of viability, and we find whole populations "speciating" (drifing apart to the point of inability to interbreed) rather than this occuring on an indivual basis.

Re:Well good

[jedidiah]

>> "People have believed in God since the start of time"
>
> People haven't been around "since the start of time".

Ironically, this is true even based on the religious view of things.

[chuckle]

Re:Well good

[lynx_user_abroad]

Science has no explanation for how everthing began, and yet a teacher can't say "A large number of people believe that a higher power had a role in the overall design of everthing, this is not to say that they don't believe in evolution, but that a higher power had a role in the overall design".

You may be missing some subtlties of the ruling.

First, this is not about the actions of a teacher, but the actions of a School Board.

Second, the judge did not say Intelligent Design could not be taught. The judge said it could not be taught as a part of a science cirriculum.

Third, the judge specifically cited the hidden agenda of the school board in promoting Intelligent Design as a stand-in for promoting Creationism.

The Constitution does not ban the teaching of religious principles in public school, it bans the State from the establishment of a religion. I don't think there would be a problem with having Intelligent Design taught in a public school, but it seems like the only people with an interest in having Intelligent Design taught in the public schools are religious zealots who disagree with the concept of a State allowing religious freedom.

I would then like a question like "what are most people hypothosis on this subject?"

Are you familiar with the concept of a tyranny of the majority? You speak highly of free speech, but seem entirely unfamiliar with the works of John Stuart Mill.

Re:Well good

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, but the policy being promulgated by the former (they were all sacked) Dover school board was to teach ID as though it were science. That was what the judge says was impermissible (the ID policy they attempted, to teach religion as science, not at all what you are suggesting). Even so, should a school board be directing a teacher to have to mention a particular counter-example to science in a science class? Or, should such a decision of what counter-example(s) to use, if the teacher would be so inclined, be chosen by the teacher from among the easily thousands upon thousands of examples of what is not science? I would say a science teacher can make up their own mind on what counter-example to use, if a discussion of that nature is even necessary. Heaven knows there's not enough time in a science curriculum to speak about what is science, much less what isn't.

Re:Well good

[agallagh42]

Sorry, I didn't mean for this to be a direct response to Pxtl. The last sentance should have read:

The question the creationists should ask themselves is, "why would your God put all those things in place specifically to fool you?"

Re:Well good

[Pxtl]

That's enough to go with to seriously confuse ID advocates. Just go through the insane amount of detail, and show how such an event must have been the instantaneous creation of the universe and everything in it. ID is being used for backdoor christianity by biblical literalists, but through ID you can still show how the world is incompatible with biblical literalism. If the world was created 10000 years ago, then there was no Adam and Eve, as there were other people present at the time.

Re:Well good

[azuravian]

www.americanhumanist.org has the following on their website.

What is the DHC/HS?

The Division of Humanist Certification (of the Humanist Society) functions as the qualifying body which confers uniquely Humanist ministerial credentials. All persons certified by the DHC are legally authorized to perform weddings, as well as all other rites-of-passage in all 50 states.

Ministerial credentials? Certified to perform both weddings and rites-of-passage? Sounds somewhat religious to me.

Re:Well good

[penguinoid]

Just like Buddhism is not a religion.

Also, what about people who are religiously atheistic? If it looks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, ...

Re:Well good

[jedidiah]

Part of science is getting ravaged by your peers if you can't support a deviant position.

          No Xian should be unaccustomed to this really. Xians have been burning each other as heretics since they stopped needing to worry about the current regime (Nero) from doing it for them.

        In ANY serious Academic environment you need to be able to back up whatever thesis you choose to come up with, even if you're just regurgitating the course materials.

Re:Well good

[misleb]

That is just not true. THe idea that living things are designed goes back a long way. It is only very recently that ID has become an active movement associated with (neo)Creationism. It happened somewhere in the 1980's, i believe. See the wikipedia article.

-matthew

Re:Well good

[morganix]

And you think evolution IS science? LMFAO! There is about as much truth to evolution as there is to star wars.

Re:Well good

[ClamIAm]

The entire framework of their philosophy is that God, the most complex entity imaginable, somehow spontaneously sprang in to existence from nothingness.

BZZT, wrong. The framework of "supreme being" philosophy that Jews, Christians, and Muslims share (I'm pretty sure they're similar on this) is that there is one being that created all and has always existed. And the reason we can't understand this because it's outside the scope of our existence. Some believe you will be "enlightened" in heaven or something. While ID is a flawed concepti, your misrepresentation of easily researchable doctrine is worse, as it is data easy to find and understand.

Re:Well good

[kurzweilfreak]

So you are of the impression that science by majority vote is the way to go? Since 90% of the people in the world think it, it's gotta have some merit right? Probably 90% of the people in the world have no idea how a computer works, so I guess it must be magic. Let's get a couple clues straight here that you seem to be missing right off the bat:

• Abiogenesis is not evolution. Neither is cosmology. Evolution doesn't start until AFTER you have a mechanism for self-replication. Cosmology is the study of the universe as a whole. Evolutionary biology is a totally seperate area of science.
• Not currently having an explanation for something does not mean that a default "God did it" explanation must be inserted instead.
• Freedom of speech does not mean that you have to be forced to listen to every whackjob with a view or opinion. Especially in a science class who's purpose is to teach *OMFGBBQWTF* science. (who woulda thought?!) Such a statement about the beliefs of the world has no bearing on the science anyway, so what's the point? Put it in a sociology class where it belongs.
• Your religious freedoms and freedoms of speech are not in jeopardy. There are places for those views: they're called churches. Who is stopping you from going to church?

Re:Well good

[Anonymous Coward]

Too bad Catholicism is not a democracy.

Re:Well good

[Anonymous Coward]

Science is not about belief. Science has nothing to do with belief.

Absolutely and competely wrong.

The problem with rejecting the fact that we all interact with our universe through a faith premise is that the alternative would require our independent verification of every state and condition. This verification would impede the basics of living life and also represent a losing strategy in the competition with other life systems, e.g. those that trust and have faith in the possibility of a condition are able to bypass verification and make a faster decision.

When looking at religions as belief system constructs that facilitate a faith foundation for facilitated decision-making, all approaches to perspective become faith or religion. Agnosticism, Atheism, fundamentalist Christianity, Islam, etc. are all faith systems that provide a template for interpreting information in our daily experience.

A suggestion on an area to obtain more perspective on this matter is to delve into materials on quantum mechanics. Surveys of scientists have found these folks to be much higher believers in faith than other scientific fields and it's been commented that their greater understanding of the influence of perspective and observation on the "state of things" might contribute to this condition. We all choose to believe in a state of things given incomplete information and at a quantum level, this choice has a material impact on our reality.

Re:Well good

[Nos.]

Please explain to me how this happened with any human intervention or design by an outside force. Evolution is totally different, where it states that these changes happened by "accident". This being clarified to the point to exclude all possiblity of an external designer.

If you honestly believe that all of the changes/evolutions we are seeing in organisms around the world are only in direct reaction to human interferance, then you should consider what if another cause changed something about the environment. Take for example that some people are hairier than others (think Robin Williams). Now, in a colder climate, Robin would be better able to survive due to this extra hair. As such, he would be more likely to have children. These children, having a parent that is very hairy, are more likely to be hairy. This is evolution. An outside factor (in this case the cold) results in a species becoming harier. However, there are also mutations. Cases where a fast change occurs in an individual (maybe that's where Robin's extra hair comes from). These are flukes, and we seem them even today. We usually think of them as birth defects, but suppose instead of a child missing a body part, they had something that made them a little better than most other people. Then the process starts again. This is evolution.

Now, you can argue that these mutations are the act of some powerful or even omnipotent being. Evolutionists don't believe that. They see these processes are naturally occuring everyday right in front of our eyes. Can we prove that they are not done by some super being? Probably not. It tends to be very difficult to prove a negative. However, aruging that this kind of evolution does not occur makes you look, well, stupid. The Catholic church accepts that evolution occurs. Its the cause of evolution that is the question. Is it simply a fact of nature, or is it the design of some being we don't understand. This is probably a question we will never be able to answer in any definite way.

I believe this theory has only lasted so long simply by the hope and faith that some day it could be proved, not that it ever has. Can you say without a shred of doubt that you 100% believe in the theory of evolution?

Yes, I 100% believe in the theory of evolution. Do I think that there are other possible explanations? Absolutely. Your question is worded very poorly. Instead you should be asking if people believe that the theory of evolution is 100% correct. I doubt you'll find many takers. Now reverse the whole thing. Do you belive 100% everything that the church says and interpruts from the bible? They certainly don't have a good track record to date (think center of the universe, slavery, etc. etc.).

Re:Well good

[jedidiah]

Not all churches are created equal. Some do include notions that when subjected to impressionable people do turn out to be abusive intellectually if not emotionally. This is also true to a certain degree physically.

YMMV.

The established line between cult and respectable religion isn't where it should be.

Re:Well good

[Jobe_br]

Actually, its not even quite this.

"Evolution is a scientific theory, not nessicarily a LAW."

In fact, the tenets behind the scientific theory of evolution are based on facts. The observations, experiments, etc. all have dealt with facts.

However, the needed proof to establish evolution as a law (which, if I recall, indicate that exceptions do not exist), are not available. This is not in any way a failure of the theory, but most likely a function of the subject matter, which would dictate absolute knowledge of all species, and detailed information on the reproduction, DNS stability, mutations, etc. of all living organisms to exclude the possibility of exceptions.

Re:Well good

[Redwin]

Prove to me there is no God.

"Now it is such a bizarrely improbably coincidence that anything so mindbogglingly useful [the Babel fish] could have evolved by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God.
The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic." -- Douglas Adams

Re:Well good

[azuravian]

So, playing the devil's advocate, are we saying that we are opposed to any definition that is at or below #4? Let's see here.

Let's get ready to tell all the ravers that house can not be used any more as the following:

9 : a type of dance music mixed by a disc jockey that features overdubbing with a heavy repetitive drumbeat and repeated electronic melody lines

My God (whether I believe in Him or not), it is definition number NINE. It must not be valid then.

Re:Well good

[Anonymous Coward]

This comparison is so bad I think it gave me cancer.

Re:Well good

[rkcallaghan]

2 of the teachers at my school (computers and science) both have minors in Greek mythology.

And look where that got them![/rimshot]

~Rebecca

Re:Well good

[Jeremi]

As far as the merits of one framework over another, the only common theme I see among many of them is intolerance for other ideas.

Well, there is at least one judgement that can be made: that teaching people things that are true is better than teaching them things that are false. I think we can all agree on that.

Of course, that leads to questions regarding what is true and what is false. I won't attempt to debate whether the frameworks of "evolution" or "intelligent design" are true or false, but I do want to note that the idea that "intelligent design is a scientific theory" is definitely false. Intelligent design can't be disproved using empirical evidence, so while it may be a nice belief, and it may be true or it may be false, it simply isn't a scientific theory.

Therefore, telling our children that it is (by teaching in science class) is deliberately misleading them and therefore is wrong.

Re:Well good

[l3prador]

Not really. Scientific theories are based on observable evidence that anyone can observe. Scientific theories are also constructed so that that, at least in principle, they can be shown to be invalid. Not so for religions.

Really? It seems to be illegal to attempt to show that evolution could be invalid. (I actually, personally, believe that the theory of evolution is the best explanation of what we see in biology today, so I'm not knocking it, but I think we border on the dogmatic when we hold it up as a theory that it is "unscientific" to question or challenge.)

Not really. Lack of belief is not a belief.

I feel like these two posts phrased this well. 14301429 and 14301949.

I am an atheist. I don't believe in supernatural things.

Do you believe in free will?

Re:Well good

[10101001 10101001]

"If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby."

Funny quote, but it's wrong. A better analogy is: if atheism is a religion, then mocking stamp collectors is a hobby. To state a belief in a God or to state a belief in a lack of God is a religious belief. Therefore such is religion. Agnosticism may be a religion, as it states an inability to for certain know if there is a God. Simply put, any sort of belief related to supernatural beings, for or against, is religious.

Now, whether you alone or with others discuss this belief or use it as a basis to mock/convert others would determine whether you're following a religious practice. In this part, one can say that one can be atheist or agnostic without religious practice, but a Christian cannot be without religious practice. To that end, the fundamental problem with the quote is that it attributes religion with activities one carries out, when it is the case that one can be religious without any activity at all.

Re:Well good

[Anonymous Coward]

The entire framework of their philosophy is that God, the most complex entity imaginable, somehow spontaneously sprang in to existence from nothingness.

Actually, thats not quite what is believed. What is believed is much simpler and much harder to grasp at the same time... the belief is that God simply has always been. No start no finish. Alpha, Omega etc all that.

I also don't see why evolution and creationism (I refuse to call it ID, it sounds ridiculous) have to be mutually exclusive. My assumption is God is pretty smart, and certainly would have built tools to aid him. Evolution is a pretty slick trick if you ask me :)

Re:Well good

[rjshields]

The way I understand it, Atheism is better described an absence of belief.

Re:Well good

[Anonymous Coward]

This was definition number 1:

RELIGION, n. A daughter of Hope and Fear, explaining to Ignorance the
    nature of the Unknowable.

Re:Well good

[chefbb]

It comes from "religion" having different meanings.

1 the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods. 2 a particular system of faith and worship. 3 a pursuit or interest followed with devotion.

1 and 2 apply to your point and are the common use. 3 can be applied to anyone who feels strongly about anything. I'm devoted to my wife, that could be called a religious pursuit. It certainly wouldn't be a common use of the word, though.

Using the justification of athiesm being a "religion" is a complete red herring here. Not teaching about God is different than teaching there is no God. People get very bogged down in rabbit trails and innuendo in this discussion.

Re:Well good

[GuyverDH]

And you know that how? Were you here?

If God used science to develop man from the carbon in the soil by trial and error, would that be any different from evolution?

If Cain and Abel went out into the world to take their wives from the *people* living elsewhere, where did they come from if not from *failed experiments*?

If God is eternal, then who's to say how long one of his *days* were? Could have been millions, perhaps billions of years.

Until science can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, without any holes in their theories, then Intelligent design is as good of a theory as any.

As far as the Judicial system goes, it is my opinion that it's unconstitutional for the Judicial system to declare anything regarding religion. As it clearly states that religion must be held separate from the state. That would indicate that the state (not government), which is made up of all 3 branches of the government would have NO say in how anyone (or groups) practiced religion. If a community decides to have ID taught in their schools, then the Judicial system CANNOT say that the community can't - they have NO say in the matter. It's up to the people to decide what they will and won't do in regards to religion.

Now, I'm not saying that it's okay for someone to declare that their religion mandates the murder of people, and therefore they cannot be tried for murder. However, deciding what is and isn't taught regarding religion vs. science, is not a murder case, and clearly is not a venue for the Judicial system.

Re:Well good

[Yewbert]

So Atheism does not conform to the following: religion -- 4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith I know many atheists who would say that is exactly what their belief/disbelief is.

So there are mushy definitions and less-well-spoken stances on every side of the issue - what's new? A more robust definition, it seems to me, is that a-theism is, very strictly, the absence of faith in things theistic. There isn't convincing evidence to support belief in (x), therefore I lack belief in (x).

Re:Well good

[rthille]

Agreed, and the other replies to your post are just idiotic. "No, see God just existed forever. That way we just eliminate the question of how He came into being. Simple, see?" You may be mischaracterizing their beliefs (sprang into existence vs existed forever), but the issue with it is still there. I don't pretend to know what brought the universe into existence, or what there was before the big-bang (if that theory is correct), but the belief that whatever it was foresaw me typing this and is somehow upset that I don't believe in 'Him' is just idiotic and useless.

Re:Well good

[Nos.]

Because, in a science class, the leading theories should be taught, but taught as theories. Don't take a class of kids and say, "Evolution, this is what happened". This is wrong. Instead, it should be taught that given this evidence, this is what seems to make sense.

Re:Well good

[KingEomer]

My question is: if we can't understand that portion of it, how is one to say whether we can understand his processes, as in Intelligent Design? Furthermore, there is nothing, which I can see, that is stopping us from going further and claiming that there is no way of understanding anything that the all-powerful being does--including what he says; that is, the bible should be impossible to understand. But if that is the case, then how can we understand that it is impossible to understand, since the impossibility of understanding was set down in the bible in the first place...

Ugh. I don't understand this stuff. Would anyone mind enlightening me/solving this apparent paradox?

Re:Well good

[gone.fishing]

Those PDP-11's were pretty capable machines but more than once I heard them called F**kers! So maybe...

There were digital computers over a hundred years ago. One example was the card loom.

Re: Well good

[xikzantric]

Feel free to question my credibility, but you haven't understood the point of my comment, which I believe was clearly written. You stated that I "risk being dismissed 'right off the bat' for not considering philosophical topics outside of the standard range of the University of Michigan classroom", which I never did. I simply hold that U of M, being a very respectable philosophy school, is a good program to poll in considering what philosophical topics are worthy of discussion. As to whether U of M has the #1 philosophy program, there will obviously be many points of view on this, but it has been rated as such at various times by multiple sources. High-profile professors such as Darwall, Loeb, and Curly (a noted atheist) add to department's credibility.

Second, I never said that I agree ID is a "good" argument, so I don't really care about your debate with Dembski or how much you think you "ate him alive" (for which we only have your word to believe). All I have claimed is that ID gets a huge amount of discussion among respectable philosophers, whether they agree with it themselves or not, and shouldn't be discounted as a philosophical topic.

For my own credibility, I don't have much to offer. Yes, I was a philosophy major. I'm not a PhD student, although I took some graduate level courses. I am quite familiar with the ID argument and have read extensive writings from both sides. However, I am able to read another person's comment and respond to what they wrote without imagining arguments and statements that were never made, which you seem unable to do. I'm sure you have some philosophical experience, and from that you will know that reading and clearly understanding what someone is saying is just as important as the statements you make for yourself. I suggest you work on this area.

Re:Well good

[Stripe7]

What is really sad is that this even got to the courtrooms. Teaching and defining science should be left to the scientists. Not to political appointees who have no clue what science is.

Re:Well good

[Anonymous Coward]

"both Evolution and ID are Theories, and therefore perfectly legitimate to be discussed"

And thus, the FSM (Flying Spagetti Monster), being nothing but another theory finds its legitimate way to be discussed too.

After all, why ID but not FSM?

Oh, wait! Now I remember, neither high school nor university grades are places where science is *discussed* but they are places where science is *TAUGTH*.

Now, are you claiming that ID is a scientific theory so it should be thougth on high school or university? Please, support your position using ranked scientific papers.

Re:Well good

[adrenaline_junky]

Because it is true? Because it is science?

No, it most certainly is not. ID does not meet many of the requirements of science (eg, falsifiable).

ID does not undermine evolution. ID counters only the notion that everything in the universe except for buildings, glow in the dark cats and open pit copper mines are mere events of random chance.

Here you show off how naive you really are. Evolution is not about random chance at all, and you've been completely misled and mal-educated if you think it does (or maybe you're just an idiot... who knows). Evolution is about NATURAL SELECTION which is NOT a random process.

Yes, there are random genetic changes that occur all the time, but that is not the focus of the theory of evolution. NATURAL SELECTION is the mechanism through which evolution occurs. In any given situation, certain genetic variation will impart a slightly better chance of survival. This is not "flip and coin and see which genetic variation moves forward". The inevitable trend is towards greater and greater complexity. No "intelligent designing" is necessary.

Educate yourself before you open your trap again.

Re:Well good

[anhata]

Evolution is very complex thing. It is Gods Intelligent Design. Don't argue about gods design.

Re:Well good

[Eggplant62]

Amen. Neither is the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and I'm betting His Noodly Goodness had something to do with it all.

Re:Well good

[sickofthisshit]

No, actually the ID people insist that *their* pet theory be included, not only that the philosophical foundations of scientific belief be thoroughly treated.

The idea that we can teach high school children, in general, the subtle and complex reality of how science (and scientists) work, and the subtle distinctions between evolution and natural selection, is hard enough to believe. It gets much worse when the Bible-thumpers like Pat Robertson are saying that believing in evolution will result in God's wrath.

Imagine someone suggesting "2+2=5" is an alternative theory of math, and the response being, OK, we'll teach children the very basics of mathematical logic, working up to some inductive model of the integers, and then we can show them, logically and completely, the difference betweeen "2+2=4" and "2+2=5". (In the 1970's, people tried something like this with "New Math", and the only result was parents couldn't help their 3rd grade kids with math homework.)

Forget it. You learn 2+2=4, because that's the truth, as far as elementary arithmetic is concerned, and later on in Mathematical Logic in junior year as a math major, you might learn *why* it is true.

Similarly, teach "Evolution happened through natural selection. Period." And if you want, some junior year philosophy of science class can teach exactly the meaning of "happened" in that sentence, and sophomore biology can teach more clearly what "Evolution" and "natural selection" mean.

The whole freaking year of high school biology could (and probably should!) be on evolution in its huge variety. Instead we get a huge controversy when evolution is included for two weeks in their whole freaking K-12 education.

Re:Well good

[Vaughn Anderson]

all of the changes/evolutions we are seeing in organisms around the world

What changes/evolutions? Without proof, this is just fiction.

maybe that's where Robin's extra hair comes from

Robin Williams is not an example of evolution.

aruging that this kind of evolution does not occur makes you look, well, stupid

Again, ad hominem, please stick to provable facts.

Yes, I 100% believe in the theory of evolution.

Does your belief make it a fact?

So far you still have not actually shown any proof, just descriptions of your own logical perspective. If evolution is proveable, there should be evidence of it, not only your personal logic to prove it.

Re:Well good

[maxume]

I get the sense of a wagon that has lost its driver.

Re:Well good

[the phantom]

Still no belief in the supernatural. Doesn't meet the definition. Also, judges can perform weddings... does that make them religious officials?

Re:Well good

[|/|/|||]

Evolution is not about how life started. See the sibling post.

Also, the people who are saying "If it isn't fact, don't teach it" obviously don't know what science is. Science is about theories, not facts. A theory is a way to explain observed evidence, such as the existence of fossilized organisms or the fact that different species have physical and genetic features in common.

We come up with different theories, and they compete to be the most accurate. Some theories, like the theory of evolution, are erroneously called "facts" because they are so well supported and because there aren't really any competing theories.

Theories are not facts, though, and real scientists don't blindly accept them as such. By reanalyzing our existing theories and probing their faults, we're able to constantly replace them with even better theories, which is the whole point of doing science.

Seriously, we need to start teaching the concepts that underlie science, rather than just having kids memorize theories. Most of the misunderstanding on the part of the "Intelligent Design" proponents stems from simply not knowing what science is.

Re:Well good

[jcr]

THe idea that living things are designed goes back a long way

So do many other superstitions. So what?

See the wikipedia article.

I have. It's a battleground between creationists and rational people.

-jcr

Re:Well good

[duerra]

This is one of those really mind-boggling thoughts. Honestly, though, that frame of mind doesn't hold water on its own. Even if you support the idea that life has not come from an intelligent being, all of those particles that have been floating around to spontaneously create life over the course of billions of years had to all of a sudden "come from somewhere", too.

I don't think humans can comprehend it. Everything we know and understand had a beginning. Whether "God" was always there, or whether all of the stuff in the universe that is there now was always there, I don't think humans can comprehend the "always there" part entirely.

Just a thought...

Re:Well good

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah yes, but what you do not know is that God did not "spring" into existance. Yes, it defies human logic, but I realize that it is beyond your own capacity to believe that God could exist without being created.

Re:Well good

[Vaughn Anderson]

Because, in a science class, the leading theories should be taught

Why should the "leading theories" be taught. The leading theories from a hunderd years ago are insanity now.

Who gets to determine what "leading theory" is? politicians, judges, teachers...?

Re:Well good

[The Spoonman]

being agnostic are all religions too

Another poster commented, but I'll repeat: they are not religions.

both Evolution and ID are Theories, and therefore perfectly legitimate to be discussed

They're not both theories. ID is an extension of a theory that puts "and something magical happened" in all the parts that haven't been filled in, explained or proven. ID tries to serve as the "proof" of evolution by saying "yes, yes, that's all well and good. Things started out like this, and then changed, because someone started them and then changed them. All the other fiddly bits, like proof, are unimportant."

also, if you are so sure ID is incorrect, where is the fear coming from that it cannot even be mentioned and discussed by rational thinking people.

To a degree, I'll agree that the response that's often given to ID discussion is pretty much the same response religious types give when discussing gay couples raising children. It's a fear of conversion more than anything. Children are impressionable, and when you start discussing magic and the like, they get interested and want to participate. Since religion is based on some kind of magical superstition or another, it's easy to fear the children being pulled into cults like christianity and the like.

the belief that those that believe in a creator are wrong is a religious belief

No, it's really not, and constantly calling it that doesn't make it so.

Evolution requires every bit as much faith as ID

Um, no, it doesn't. Evolutionary theory can at least present some proof to backup its claims. Religion, however, has yet to produce even the slightest shred of credible evidence that some kind of god-figure exists. Again, ID simply fills in the missing parts of evolutionary theory with "magic".

protected by law from hearing or discussing anything different from the parent poster's personal beliefs

That's pretty much the basis of separating church from state. If I'm sending my child to a PUBLIC school, I wanted him educated, not indoctrinated in some kind of hoodoo-voodoo. I don't care if it's the prevailing hoodoo of the time, I don't want them anywhere near it. Ideally, if we could force all religious types to keep their intolerant, ingnorant, hate-filled agendas out of the public eye entirely, that would be, forgive the pun, heaven on Earth to me. Freedom OF religion should imply freedom FROM religion. I don't know why it's ok for churchy zealots to protest outside of the new local strip club, but I can't protest the building of yet another catholic church without someone calling me some kind of nut. In one building, I'd see naked women, in the other I'd practice cannabalism. Yeah, I'm the nut...

Re:Well good

[Trogre]

Intelligent design isn't science, therefore it doesn't belong in a science room.

By that logic, neither is evolution.

This is as much as case of religious oppression as was banning discussion that the earth might be round, or the existence of microscopic life forms in the dark ages.

Re:Well good

[Anonymous Coward]

it actually is science. It is a theory. Why is it not science? Evolution is also a theory. Neither is scientific law nor been proven, why are you scared?

Re:Well good

[Nos.]

Evolution is not fact. Lots of things we take for granted every day are not fact. Just because we can't (currently) prove something, does not mean we should not believe it. There is no proof of God, or that the sun will come up tomorrow.

Re:Well good

[huge colin]

You're using a very different definition of the adverb "religiously" in that case. In your usage, it means "with extreme conscientiousness", and has nothing to do with religion itself.

Re:Well good

[Haelyn]

I mean it is just about conceivable that god created the earth 6000 years ago and hid dinosaur bones that look as if they are 200 million years old,(...)

Ummm... these were the Magratheans, everybody knows that...

Re:Well good

[Phillup]

Religion requires faith, atheism doesn't.

Re:Well good

[azuravian]

The way I understand it, Atheism is better described an absence of belief.

It could also be described as a belief, just as easily. One could say "I don't believe in God," or they could say "I believe that there is no God."

Re:Well good

[Anonymous Coward]

"I disagree with you about atheism. I most definately count it as a religion."

You count wrongly then.

Christianism or muslisms (whatever it is said) are definetly religions.

Atheism in contrast, *may* become a religion to some individuals, but it is not a religion by itself. By itself is nothing more than saying "God, Muhammad, Yahveh? Yeah, well, I'll believe in them the day they knock my home door".

Note that this is not agnosticism, which bases upon evation about the question of the divinity (either on the basis that there're no facts to support such a "theory", or by negating the human ability to "understand" such a creature as God disregarding its true existance).

Atheism can become a rabid way to see reality, thus becoming a religion, but by itself, atheism is no different that the credence that there's no such a creature as Bugs Bunny (and I don't see how believing that there's no such a thing as Bugs Bunny can become a religion).

Re:Well good

[roman_mir]

Hello, Mr. Troll.

I have 15 seconds I want to waste, so here is a reply to you:

Holy freaking smokes are you ever wrong. - blasphemer. But I digress.

Intelligent design is exactly what belongs in a classroom. But it has nothing to do with religion. - when I was attending a classroom I definitely would NOT have wanted to study something like ID. A philosophy class though, that I could bear.

There isn't a biological engineer on the planet who wouldn't love to create life from raw elements and watch them evolve into something more complex. If you want to have a real education then it should be along the lines of: - There isn't a physicist on this planet, who wouldn't want to make a time machine so that a biological engineer could use that to do his/her research into life creation by speeding up these experements that in nature took billions of years.

Let's say you wanted to create a world as complicated as earth - what knowledge and technology would this require? - Is this a question on planet transformation?

Can an intelligence construct a world? Absolutely. Can we? No. Why not? That's what physicists and geological engineers and biologists and a whole bunch of other people are trying to answer. - no, I don't remember anything like these questions in my science books. No science poses a question like that: 'can we construct a world?'

The people who are rabidly against the concept of intelligent design are nothing more than arrogant freaks who declare that man may be able to build evolving life in the lab but nobody else in the universe has ever been able to do so, nor ever will - wow, the anger, the poison. So we are the arrogant freaks, ha? I could go on a tangent explaining who are the people that are rabidly pro-teaching ID in science classrooms, but I won't lower myself to that level. Let me just say this: I don't want a doctor, a matematician or an engineer to base their decisions on something they learned in an 'ID science' class.

It doesn't matter if ID is real or, if it is, who did the design. It really doesn't matter. What does matter is the question of "how could it be done". - ID is not real until there are at least some testable statements that can be made about it and that somehow show that ID can be turned into a scientific theory. And to answer the last bit of that 'question'. We are not trying to build a new universe here. We are only a bunch of lazies, who are trying to make life more comfortable. When the life becomes quite comfortable and we can spare some cycles for other things, we start figuring out what's going around us in this Universe and how the hell did we even get here? Since those are real questions, we desire some real answers. ID doesn't have ANSWERS to questions, ID requires a system of believes that are outside of scientific process, which means ID is magic. Since we cannot do magic, ID is useless to us. Science doesn't have all answers and will never have all answers. But it is useful, since when it actually does answer something, the answer can be used by us, repeated by us for something new.

The point is: we don't have THAT many spare cycles to waste them on useless stuff.

Re:Well good

[Anonymous Coward]

"If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby."

Wow! I have an infinite number of hobbies!

Re:Well good

[KeensMustard]

And I'm reminded of the quotation: religion disguised as a coat won't keep you warm in the evening.

Or in other words, all you've done is merely restate some presumptive belief as if it were really true by drawing an analogy - an analogy that illustrates the belief does not make the belief true. The presumptive belief in this case is the belief that when considering the question of the existence of a Deity the default position is to conclude that the Deity does not exist. But in actual fact, the (only) rational answer to the question is to conclude "I don't know". To make a positive conclusion either way is to accept one or the other presumptive belief.

Re:Well good

[foeclan]

I first saw it here, in Brent Rasmussen's blog. It doesn't look like a quote, so I'm guessing this is the source.

The full quote:

You can call atheism anything you want, but you may just confuse people if you do so. Because if atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby and baldness is a hair color.

Re:Well good

[scowling]

A statement of postitive non-belief in gods is not religious by any meaningful sense of the word. In any case, atheism does not require positive non-belief, but only requires the absence of belief, which is not a religious belief (in exactly the same way that 'bald' is not a hair colour.)

So, regardless of approach, atheism is not a religion.

Re:Well good

[|/|/|||]

Too bad you posted as a damn AC so you'll never learn why you're wrong.

I operate in this physical world that I seem to occupy by basing my decisions on assumptions that I make about reality. The reason that they are assumptions and not beliefs is that I also assume that my assumptions are either incomplete or incorrect. To believe that something is true is to not question it. For me, everything is questionable, and this is how science sees the world. Nothing is sacred. Nothing is taken on faith. Like I said before, science has nothing to do with belief -- it has everything to do with assumptions (theories), and with finding out what's wrong with our assumptions so that we can improve them. No, this will never lead us to absolute truth, but only a fool would ever expect to discover it anyway.

Re:Well good

[AxelBoldt]

unless you can take one species into lab and walk out with a totally different one.

Wolves and chihuahuas are pretty different. Not a different species quite yet, but close.

Re:Well good

[breddy]

Is the following statment true or false. Evolution (or theory of evolution) is gods intelligent design!

Re:Well good

[Nos.]

Don't quote half a thought and go off on a rant about it. Leading theories should be taught because showing how these theories are developed teaches students about the scientific process.

Re:Well good

[Guitar Wizard]

Ah yes, good old evolution. The scientific "theory" with no real evidence. I'm not even going to touch on ID here, but here is why evolution doesn't make sense to me:

------------

1. Evolutionist believe that the world was created from nothing. Where did all the matter in our universe originally come from? A big bang? That sounds like something only children could be fooled into believing.

2. After all the world's matter appears it magically forms together into planets that have perfect orbits. Telling me that our galaxy resulted as the after-effects of a haphazard explosion is absurd. As if everything in the Milky Way magically aligned itself into orbit. Any good scientist will tell you that complex systems take balance and planning. The chaos theory doesn't result in progress, only destruction!

3. Now, after believing in steps 1 & 2 you have to believe that all this matter that came from nowhere somehow became a living, single celled organism. This has never been shown in science -- that a non-living element somehow turns into a living element. This leads us into steps 4 & 5.

4. Explain to me why all the animals in the zoo aren't evolving into different species. Find me a monkey that has learned to talk. Find me a fish that has grown feet or "scales to fly with" (becoming a bird). It's ridiculous.

5. If we started from a single celled organism with a simple DNA sequence how can that one cell turn into other forms? Over thousands of years of adaptation? I'm not saying species don't adapt...some call this "micro evolution". This is a legit point -- everything will adapt to it's new climate / settings or die out. However, to tell me that this one cell not ONLY evolved into other species but that it's DNA pairs grew/shrank somehow is absurd. Show me how to take a human and alter the number of DNA pairs it has without making it a mutant or going sterile.

------------

Honestly, evolution seems utterly unbelievable. I'm not trying to start a war here on /. but I am interested in seeing how people can explain my points 1-5 from an evolutionary standpoint.

Re:Well good

[Vaughn Anderson]

Evolution is not fact.

This is part of the problem, many people believe it is fact.

Lots of things we take for granted every day are not fact.

I challenge you to prove anything that we teach scientifically (math, phyisics, etc...) in school that has not been proved absolutely. This is an issue specifically related to science, teaching, our children and our schools. The one "scientific" element that is not science that is being taught in public schools is evolution.

There is no proof of God

And this is not being taught as fact in our schools that there is/isn't a God or who/what he is if there is one. But evolution is. or that the sun will come up tomorrow

Re:Well good

[Anonymous Coward]

Evolution isn't being taught to explain to kids how life came about on this planet, it's being taught to show how the modern world was formed and how species evolve.

Because I don't know where you're coming from it's impossible for me to adequately critique your post, but why exactly does explaining the creation of life have to go hand-in-hand with teaching evolution?

Re:Well good

[richieb]

Really? It seems to be illegal to attempt to show that evolution could be invalid.

Huh? How do you get that? I can imagine plenty of evidence that could be produced to put evolution in doubt. Show me some life forms that are not based on DNA or give me physical proof that Earth is 10,000 years old. I'm sure there are plenty of others.

Re: Atheism as belief. In your definition any statement I can make is a belief - like "The sky is not green". Is this a "belief"?

Do you believe in free will?

Hmmm... Define please.

But intuitively yes. "free will" is not a super-natural thing. Just not a materialistic idea. I "believe" in number 42 as well.

Re:Well good

[michael_cain]

Ok, so now they teach the "Fact of Evolution" not the "Theory of Evolution"

Parts of evolution are well-demonstrated facts. Under environmental pressure, a particular species of bacteria will evolve, giving us such unfortunate results as antibiotic-resistant gonorrea. Or bacteria that are capable of metabolizing crude oil, so that they could be used to help clean up spills (although no one's been brave enough to actually let them do that outside the lab yet). It is a fact that viral DNA can become linked into cells infected but not killed by the virus, that the included DNA is replicated when the cells reproduce, and that the DNA can be active (eg, produce proteins that cells without the viral DNA do not produce). It is a fact that the total differences in the DNA of two species can be very small -- 98.8% of human and chimp DNA sequences are the same.

Can the accumulation of small DNA differences lead to speciation? The more we understand the underlying mechanisms and all the ways that DNA sequences can be modified, the more likely it seems that the answer is yes. An alternative hypothesis -- eg, ID -- would need to explain why phenomena such as the ability to incorporate viral DNA would be included in the design.

Re:Well good

[hb253]

Umm, airplanes ARE able to fly because of the Bernoulli effect.

Re:Well good

[FreakWent]

That's right in a certain sense, but ID isn't science, it belongs in Philosophy, I cannot understand why this hasn't been mentioned often and loudly. If there is a need for philosophy in US schools (and by God there surely is!) then there should be e philosophy class. Whether "wood shop" is dropped, or school extended by 20 mins a day or whatever, the choice needs to be made.

Teaching ID in science is like teaching maths during English. Certainly there are bits of one inside the other, but it still doesn't belong.

Re:Well good

[brontus3927]

well, that is what tenure is for. In NJ, it's 3 years and 1 day. So the 1st day you show up for class your 4th year at a school, you have tenure and basically can only be fired for breaking a law.

Re:Well good

[n54]

I agree Creationism isn't science and do not belong in a science (class)room but I do believe the scepticism towards macroevolution and other prescisely formulated challenges to the theory of evolution that I.D. carries absolutely do belong in a science classroom.

What science is left in science if there's not room for controversial challenges to the perceived notion of truth? Some challenges will be flawed and some wont but it's not scientific to browbeat such challenges rather than scientifically respond to them. Such argument should be a godsend (sorry) for any intelligent teacher as an excellent tool for showing students how science is meant to work through an "eternal" cycle of bickering (aka discussion about facts and their interpretation).

At least it would be if instead of the "pro-scientists" running crying to the courts they'd take on the "battle" by explaining why I.D.'s challenges are wrong without browbeating and ridiculing their opponents while commiting just about every "logical" fallacy under the sun :) (not that it means they're the only ones).

Well actually... now that I think of it to browbeat opponents would be typical of scientists and has always happened, to the detriment of science because one has to wait for stubborn people to die before a new idea or view of things can be dealt with without bias and tons of selfesteem on the line. It happened to Darwin too.

Re:Well good

[Vaughn Anderson]

Leading theories should be taught because showing how these theories are developed teaches students about the scientific process.

What good is it to teach about theories that haven't been proved after over a hundred years of research?

Re:Well good

[idsofmarch]

Schools should teach what the majority of people in the district want taught. If one parent does not like what 1000 other parents want in the curriculum, than the 1 parent should educate their child on their own. The rights of the majority are being attacked.
But, in the Dover case, and in many others, only a small minority of people want Intelligent Design taught in schools. But, I would argue that the what the 'majority' wants taught in a public school should be applicable to the real world and current scientific, sociological, historical thought. Students should be prepared for the real world and college.

There should be freedom to discuss anything in the classroom. I find it absurd that liberal groups want to give academic freedom to ideas they believe in, but will deprive others of the right to speak their mind.
Ah the unfocused 'liberal groups' you might as well say boogeyman for all the fact this contains, but I digress. Students should be exposed to the scientific method, how it works, why it works, and even where it can fail. This is Science 101--and frankly many Slashdotters should take this class again. The rest of the sciences should be devoted to exploring current scientific thought. You want Evolution to get the single caveat that somehow it is worth less than other scientific theories because for some reason your faith is threatened and this isn't right. It confuses the issue, it pretends that Evolution is somehow dangerous or less viable when it stands up at least as well as any other science.

Prove to me there is no God. Prove to me that everything science measures and describes was not created by God.
Uh, I can't. At least not in any meaningful way, because God is an idea that presupposes an omnipotent and omniscient entity that exists outside of our physical universe. Any defined test could be easily thrown away as "God wishes it so." I can't test for God, I can't question God or even observe God.
Furthermore, why can't evolution be the very mechanism by which God created us. Why does God just have to plunk humans down as a child poses toys in a sandbox? Why can't God be smarter than that and create an elegantly balanced system that allows the flotsam and jetsam of supernovas eventually collalece and form in planets, which allows a substrate for small creatures to form and evolve and through enormous chance--not really, because God knows every dice roll--eventually end up with beings who not only believe, but begin to wonder how God did it. Isn't it possible that not only did God use evolution, but he wants us to understand it?

People have believe in God since the start of time. What makes scientists today so much more ceertain than scientists of 100 years ago?
Actually, monotheism is a fairly recent invention of man, all evidence seems to support that up until the Israelites most people were polytheists or animists. The idea of God, especially in Christian terms, is relatively new, as is the idea of the holy trinity and Jesus' resurrection, which both came after the Nicene Creed. Furthermore, all we know of Jesus has been translated from Latin and Aramaic sources and transliterated by Medievel monks. What we know of Jesus and God in the Christian sense has changed over the generations. So, with that in mind, what makes the bible any more accurate than any other good story? What makes you so certain over Simon or Paul about the nature of Jesus?

Re:Well good

[Nos.]

I challenge you to prove anything that we teach scientifically (math, phyisics, etc...) in school that has not been proved absolutely.

Let me get this straight. You want me to prove things like the theory of relativity, gravity, etc? Okay, I'll work on that as soon as you scale Mt. Everest backwards, walking on your hands.

Yes Evolution is taught in schools, but should (and for the most part is) taught as a theory. Teachers are not standing up (or at least shouldn't be) and saying that this is what happend. Just that the theory fits what we see

.

There is no harm in teaching children what we believe to be true, as long as it is taught as a theory, not fact.

Re:Well good

[Vaughn Anderson]

Evolution isn't being taught to explain to kids how life came about on this planet, it's being taught to show how the modern world was formed and how species evolve.

The modern world was formed from what though? Teaching a theory based on a complete unknown is not scientific at all...

..why exactly does explaining the creation of life have to go hand-in-hand with teaching evolution?

Because many people actually do use evolution to explain the beginning of life? I don't know why they do... I don't know where you're coming from it's impossible for me to adequately critique your post

My point is that evolution is no more scientific at it's root than ID, so why should it get precidence in the schools teaching ciriculum? Why not just not teach either one?

Re:Well good

[brontus3927]

There is a way to disprove that statement, it's called radiometric dating. Which leads ID propenents to pick at parts of it they don't understand and show them as facts that radiometric dating isn't valid

Re: Well good

[ISayWeOnlyToBePolite]

if the philosophical community at large merits ID to be a system worthy of inclusion in a standard philosophical curriculum, then I will defer to their judgment instead of yours.

Very few people outside the US has even heard of ID, it's a non-issue mainly supported by sectarian religious groups (again outside of the US).

I don't think you have the authority to say "this doesn't deserve to be called a philosophy". Or maybe you can point me to some of your published works on the subject?

It works the other way around.

I studied philosophy at the University of Michigan (our program is #1 in the country)

From what I can find http://www.msu.edu/~pennock5/ having your professor Robert T. Pennock refute ID, really doesn't make ID into philosophy (refuting it however might be and that ofcourse entails learning about it, but I'm thinking I might be talking over your head here).

Re:Well good

[ultranova]

"If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby."

Taking every opportunity to try to convince others to not collect stamps and to ridicule people who do to the point of inventing tales about flying spaghett monsters and invisible unicorns is an obsession.

I don't know if there's a silent majority of atheists, but on Slashdot there's several who don't merely disbelief in the existence of supernatural, but disbelief it with conviction and passion and feel the need to preach their views and try to offend and/or ridicule every theist at every opportunity. It is rather difficult to avoid drawing parallels between such people and religious fundamentalists.

Now lets see how many flames I'll get, and how many of them claims that atheism is more scientific than theism (it isn't; supernatural is outside the scope of science, so science can't say anything about the existence of nonexistence of any supernatural entity), and how many make references to invisible one-horned spaghett monsters and imagine that it makes a valid argument (it doesn't; it's both a strawman argument and an appeal to ridicule).

Re:Well good

[Nos.]

So, we should teach them nothing about the origins of life? Nothing about gravity? Nothing about life? So, since it is unlikely that we will ever be able to prove how life and the universe began, there's no point in even researching it really. I mean, if you're not going to pass that knowledge on by teaching it, there's not much point at all.

Re: Well good

[penguinoid]

What's really interesting is that nobody is peddling this crap to religious schools, or other private schools. They could teach it with complete impunity.

The government has no business with private schools. However, since people are forced to go to school, and many can only afford public school, the issue of separation of church and state rears its ugly head. Is the government allowed to teach that atheism is true? (while some people have no trouble mixing evolution with religion, they forget Occam's Razor. Also, Jesus's geneology, traced to Adam, is not metaphorical)

Re:Well good

[rjshields]

It could also be described as a belief, just as easily.

Atheism is a reaction to religions that believe in god. If there was no belief in God, there would be no Aetheism. It makes a lot more sense to describe it as an absence of belief. Either way, I can't say Atheism is a religion any more than I can say not believing in ghosts, fairies or UFOs is a religion.

Re:Well good

[bonkedproducer]

Thanks anomaly - notice I was very careful not to point out which way I lean, I just find it odd that "Freedom FROM Religion" types fail to recognize that lack of subscription to an organized religion is a religious choice as well.

Re:Well good

[Anonymous Coward]

You never hear real scientists saying "Evolution is fact!" because it isn't.

Actually - I hear it - because it is. Unless you're considering some omnipotent being creating the earth in its current state, the fossil record shows evolution as a fact...i.e. you see certain creatures "evolving" into others. Whats debated is the mechanism for evolution...natural selection is our current candidate, but Lamarck had a theory based on use and disuse...it was however still a theory of evolution.

As a side note, I really laughed when GWB said the jury was out on evolution, then months later warned about a mutating bird virus - umm...you mean organisms can change through mutation? Isn't that evolution? You can't have it both ways.

As another side note, people who don't believe in science can stop going to doctors.

Re:Well good

[Ryan Amos]

I agree with you. However in most high school biology classes they are lumped together.

Re:Well good

[penguinoid]

Cute, but Pastafarianism *is* ID. The question is whether they should teach theism, since they are (arguably) teaching atheism, to cancel out religious involvement by the state.

Re:Well good

[Yewbert]

A better analogy is: if atheism is a religion, then mocking stamp collectors is a hobby.

Mocking stamp collectors certainly could be a hobby because at least it's an action/activity, and not simply the absence of one.

To state a belief in a God or to state a belief in a lack of God is a religious belief.

Fine as far as it goes, but if you really don't see that this is a false dichotomy,... well, I'll draw it out from the start: A belief in the lack of (a) God is not the same as the simple lack of a belief in (a) God. I assert that the simple lack of belief in any god or gods is qualitatively different than either belief, positive or negative, for or against; it is simply the absence of belief. Belief is based on what? Faith? Evidence? It seems to me a more useful definition of "religious" is any belief that's based only on faith, or at least which is inextricably tied in with faith. Belief based solely on evidence (and along with that, absence of belief based on lack of evidence) is, again I assert, something different and surely not religious.

But as far as I can tell, you either disagree or don't even consider the third stance, so it's not much worth trying to answer the rest of your observations,... Maybe later.

Re:Well good

[Jugalator]

Isn't it a fact that electricity powers light bulbs?

Hey you there!

"... and God said, let there be light"! ;-)

Re:Well good

[Vaughn Anderson]

You want me to prove things like the theory of relativity, gravity, etc?

1. These things are not being taught in grade school, evolution is.

2. Evolution directly opposes a religious belief set (when taught as a theory of the origins of life), and is also relgious in nature that you have to "believe" in it because there is no proof.

No other element to standard education does this. (math, english, PE, etc...)

Based on the constitution, one sect of religion vs another, whether based on a scientist studies or a preachers teachings, should not be taught in schools. (ie, paid for and supported by the government) This means both ID and evolution.

When you fight to support an idea you have no scientific proof to support, how can it be considered anything but religious?

Re:Well good

[agallagh42]

That doesn't disprove the statement. What I meant was that they could just say that the universe was created to look as if it was older, on purpose. My question to that would be, "why?".

Re:Well good

[spxero]

And if you believe 2+2=5? Should you get straight A's in math and go on to become an engineer?

If math was a subject that no one knew the answer to, then yes. But we do know that 2 + 2 does not equal 5, so it is the wrong answer. Saying that we evolved from a primate species millions of years ago is no more correct than saying that it happened thousands of years ago. Why? Because you weren't there millions of years ago to watch it. It can't be proven. 2 + 2 /= 5 can be proven.

Re:Well good

[bonkedproducer]

Thanks for making my point more clearly that I could - notice that I got modded a troll because people have trouble acknowledging that all belief could be defined as a religion by observers are more easily offended than they are willing to admit.

Re:Well good

[TruthfulLiar]

The theory of evolution doesn't say "There is no supreme being"

Science assumes that God (or any other supernatural being) is not fiddling with things that they observe, otherwise the observations would have no value. As far as I understand the theory of natural selection, it does assume that any supernatural being is not fiddling with things. My understanding is that it claims that species evolve into other species through gene mutations that survive by only the fittest surviving. I suppose you could argue that gene mutations could be caused by God, and therefore evolution is compatible with religion, but since the name is "natural selection" (i.e. selection not caused by God) it seems pretty likely that Darwin had in mind a theory which did not include God.

This part of the theory is not testable. It does seem like there is substantial evidence that species seem to mutate into different species. But it is not testable (on a human timescale, anyway) whether these mutations are a result of natural causes or a result of God altering them. (And if God were a programmer, He'd probably alter the DNA code a little bit at a time...) So to use the theory to cast doubt on God is pretty shaky, too. All the evidence says is that species seem to change relatively smoothly over rather long timescales. It doesn't say anything about whether this change was natural or supernatural.

Evolutionists using the evidence to argue away God is just as bad as Christians making up evidence for a young earth. It's just that the evolutionists sound more scientific because everyone has forgotten that Science assumes that God does not interfere (for good reason--otherwise they couldn't get any work done).

Re:Well good

[Kazoo the Clown]

Well, you know how the black & white world works, one is incapable of differentiating belief in the lack of with lack of belief.

Re:Well good

[spxero]

Thank you for clearing that up.(I'm being 100% serious) I need to write a letter to my HS biology teacher about that. When she taught evolution, she taught it as the beginnings of life, and life changing. Basically she taught abiogenesis and life forms evolving all as evolution.

You're right about teaching the concepts that underlie science. There were way too many experiments done in science that didn't really explain why something happened, or why it was important. It was just repeating back what happened (i.e. c = a + b, rather than why a and b together make c)

Re:Well good

[pthisis]

It is only very recently that ID has become an active movement associated with (neo)Creationism. It happened somewhere in the 1980's, i believe. See the wikipedia article.

The ID label as used now was introduced in the 1980s, and it doesn't simply refer to traditional clockmaker views of the universe or other philosopies positing a common-language intelligent design (and such philosophies are just that--philosophy and not science).

The core ID textbook, "Of Pandas and People", is published by the Foundation for Thought and Ethics--a group "promoting and publishing textbooks presenting a Christian perspective" according to their IRS application for tax-exempt status. The book itself was originally a Creationist work that had the equivalent of a global search-and-replace from "Creationism" to "Intelligent Design" performed after the Supreme Court's 1987 Edwards v. Aguillard decision banning the teaching of Creationism in public schools.

The wikipedia article on ID that you point to says "the vast majority of the scientific community views intelligent design not as a valid scientific theory but as neocreationist pseudoscience or junk science".

Re:Well good

[Dachannien]

I spend so much time not collecting stamps that sometimes it seems more like a job.

Re: Well good

[xikzantric]

You are correct in saying that ID (in a biological science sense) is not discussed much outside of the US, but continental European philosophers began writing about it hundreds of years ago as a philosophy.

As to "It works the other way around", yes it does. However, I am not claiming my own credibility or authority on this matter, but the credibility of a very respected philosophy department. Feel free to write to some of U of M's philosphers and question their decision to include ID in their curriculum.

U of M and MSU are different schools, which some people don't realize, but that doesn't really matter. More importantly, having a philosphy professor take the time to write a paper attempting to refute a philosphical idea (in this case ID, per your example) does make it a philosophical idea worthy of discussion. Otherwise he would not have taken the time to write about it. Thanks for making my point. I'd bet every philosophy ever imagined has had someone write a paper refuting it; you can't claim that something is wrong simply because a paper has been written trying to discredit it.

Again, I am not writing to say that I agree with ID. I'm just saying that it is indeed a philosophy that merits discussion by some of the best philosophers in the world.

Re:Well good

[Caiwyn]

I went to a school that was a Church of England Foundation. Pupils that attended it did better because they first had to sit an entrance exam designed to select the top 20% of the population by intelligence. Of my classmates, about 5% had any kind of strong religious belief. This leads me to believe that this statistic may be slightly skewed. The majority described themselves as either atheist or agnostic, and hated the weekly chapel service.

Well, as long as we're throwing out anecdotal evidence... my first years of grade school I attended a private school run by a local Baptist church. The King James Bible was one of our textbooks. I attended until 3rd grade, after which my parents transferred my sister and me to a public school. For the next two years, everything I was taught in math, science, and English, I already knew. I finished tests in a fraction of the time, I ruined the curve, played the know-it-all. Not having to work for two years probably had an adverse affect on my secondary schooling, but that's beside the point. I hate that school because of much of the dogma it pushed on us, but I'm still a Christian, and the private school's effectiveness over the public school system was clearly illustrated in my life.

My parents divorced when I was 17 and, while it was not much fun for me (or my mother), I don't believe it had much impact on society as a whole

I think you're minimizing the importance of your own life as a part of the greater society. It's a logical fallacy known as the "argument of the beard." You're still part of society, and the event did have an impact. As the divorce rate goes up, the impact increases. Even though things turned out well in the end, I think we can generally agree that divorce isn't a good thing. Sure, sometimes it's necessary. But often times it's not as necessary as people would like to believe, and in the instances where it is, it's that necessity that makes it so painful.

If you limited these to violent crime, or theft, then I would concede the point. If the crimes are of the order of getting caught smoking pot, then I would contend that blunting the inquisitiveness of the children is not a worthwhile trade-off for a slightly more ordered society.

I don't see how this rebuts the GPP's point, though. In fact, if you concede the point in regards to violent crime and theft, then your minimization of the impact of lesser criminal offenses only supports his assertion.

Re:Well good

[brontus3927]

Well, I guess a God, who would create fossils to trick people into not beliving in God, would change well understood laws of nuclear physics.

As a related note, I once had the misfortune of being in the dorm room of one of these ID "science is wrong" morons. He had a poster refuting common scientific "misconceptions" about the history of the Earth. On dinosaurs: the word dinosaur is a relatively new term, during the medeival times there are documented (emphasis added) accounts of dragons (emphasis added again) whose discriptions are very similar to what we call dinosaurs today

Re:Well good

[Anonymous Coward]

Atheism requires extraordinary faith in your own infallibility and that you have enough knowledge to be able to tell. Pretty much the same as the worst among anyone religious.

But since so many atheist claim that the non-existance of scientific proof for god equals scientific proof against god (logical fallacy to the extreme) they require an extraordinary amount of hubris and arrogance to a level few other philosophies, ideologies or opinons can compete with except the usual fruit-basket group of nazis, commies and over the top loons.

All in all explaining why most people regard atheists as mostly snotty little kids even if they're of great age and achievement lol.

atheism : honesty :: fascism : freedom i.e. as long as you're having the "right" opinion you couldn't be more "honest"

A.C. because I couldn't care less about the replies and moderations of outraged selfrighteous defenders of "rational" though which are nothing but delusional nihilists. Call me a troll and live in the ignorance you cherish.

Re:Well good

[agallagh42]

Wow, I'd love to see that poster. It'd be good for a laugh. :p

Re:Well good

[Nos.]

Maybe not where you come from, but I was introduced to gravity in either grade five or six. Lots of teachings have, and continue to contradict with religous beliefs. There are so many conflicting religious beliefs, there would be very little that could be taught in schools that wouldn't contradict with some religions. Remember, some religions teach that women are not equal. Guess we shouldn't let females in the classrooms at all.

The cafeterias I guess just shouldn't server meat... I mean is it kosher, or halal? No female teachers would be allowed of course, since working women is against some religions. We should of course never mention contraception, or sex being pleasurable since some religions view sex as being purely for the purpose of procreation. Of course if that's the case, we don't need to bring up STDs at all.

Re:Well good

[Vaughn Anderson]

So, we should teach them nothing about the origins of life? Nothing about gravity? Nothing about life?

You are attempting to bundle proveable scientific fact (life exists, gravity works, etc..) with science fiction (evolution). This argument is not effective.

So, since it is unlikely that we will ever be able to prove how life and the universe began, there's no point in even researching it really.

Research it all you like, just don't try and use tax dollars to support the spreading of theory that has no application to everyday life other than belief in the idea.

I mean, if you're not going to pass that knowledge on by teaching it, there's not much point at all.

Go ahead, teach and research it, but don't force others to listen to the idea through public schools...

Re: Well good

[randy]

First, evolution is philosophy, not science. It is not demonstrable, repeatable or reproducible. (If you think it is, please give me the precise instructions by which I can take simple elements and produce a living creature.) Science cannot answer the question of origins, it is strictly the realm of philosophy. One would hope though that we would base our personal philosophies upon things that have substantial evidence.

When you take into account the fact that there has never been shown to be a single beneficial mutation, they have always been detrimental and often fatal either to the initial individual or to their immediate offspring, that spontaneous generation was disproved centuries ago, that there have been no aquired traits passed on (such as the long necks of those that put rings around their necks to stretch them, and yet their offspring are born with normal neck length, or mice whose tails were cut off for many generations ant yet, the offspring were still born with tails) and that the fundamental assumptions regarding radiometric age dating have been proved false, (decay rates have been shown to change when pressure, temperature, electric and megnetic fields and monomolecular layer stress, change. Many other factors can affect each of the different methods, and other assumptions are quite clearly false, i.e. no daughter products present, closed system with no possible contamination, etc.), it would seem that evolution does not have enough evidence to be taught in a philosophy class either.

Re:Well good

[brontus3927]

I'll see what I can do to locate it.

Re:Well good

[Anonymous Coward]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ..."

Good to know.

I am a true Krishnah believer, so I'm glad to know government it's going to do nothing when I start killing people with my sacred snake-shaped knife for Divinity to drink their blood.

By the way, how is it that mormons are not allowed to have a bunch of spouses in the vast majority of the states?

Re:Well good

[Anonymous Coward]

The evolution of the nylon-dissolving enzyme nylonase (And therefore, the ability to survive on a material that *didn't exist* until very recently) seems to qualify. The results have been repeated in the laboratory, the process is completely understood. See: http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/apr04 .html

It's simply amazing how many of the people who refuse to believe that the Theory of Evolution has just as much peer-reviewed evidence and study behind it as the Theory of Gravity or Electromagnetic Theory, don't actually know much about Evolution at all.

Every time they come up with a 'It's not a fact because X!', within 10 minutes, someone can point them to the study that shows -exactly- what they say doesn't exist.

Perhaps the folks on Slashdot who try so hard to show that Evolution is a fact are simply smarter or better informed than you are. Perhaps if you actually *studied* some of the references they provide, you'd become as knowledgable and sure as they are.

I realize that blind faith is a lot easier than study and actual critical thought, but to anyone who CAN think critically, it's really, REALLY obvious that the evolution-deniers are willfully ignorant.

Why should we have any respect for someone who's being *intentionally* stupid?

Re:Well good

[demachina]

"all of those particles that have been floating around to spontaneously create life over the course "billions of years had to all of a sudden "come from somewhere", too."

Those particles are matter and energy and they can move back and forth between the two states. The universe could easily be cycling between a pure energy state, pre big bang, and a matter and energy state, post big bang. Its quite possible there has been a never ending cycle of big bangs so our 14 billion year estimate of the age of the universe might just be this iteration when in fact the mass and energy in universe is more probably infinitely old.

The key point about mass and energy is they have no intellect in their basic state. God on the other hand seams to have existed forever as an omnipotent being with intelligence. Explaining how God acquired his intelligence is a much tougher sell than explaining how evolution randomly strung together organic compounds to create our primitive by comparison intelligence.

If God is infinitely old and intelligent he must be getting extremely bored. Just saying God always existed is again a much tougher sell than saying the universe has always existed as some mix of matter and energy.

Re:Well good

[hackiavelli]

The overwhelming majority of theists believe in certain acts and attributes of god which CAN be disproven. To get around this they inevitably make god a vaguer and vaguer object. This creates a whole new problem: how do you know this? They, of course, don't. They've simply taken the traditional diestic views and stripped out the problematic bits leaving an unprovable mass.

Re:Well good

[bonkedproducer]

Note that I DID NOT say what theory I subscribe to - and everyone is missing the point of the post - I feel it is unconstitutional to rule that speech can be limited to the point of making it illegal to discuss or teach a widely held belief to anyone.

Hell, if that kind of thinking was being supported 40 years ago, it could conceivably be against the law to teach that we are all human beings because some judge in Podunk, Alabama said it was unconstitutional to teach that blacks are just as human as whites, or even that it could be made unconstitutional to teach the theory of evolution.

Just because the coin is flipped to a side you agree more with does not make the ruling correct or supportable.

The issue is not what rational people discuss, but what is taught as science in a school.

RTFA - not what is taught as science in school, but what is legally allowed to be taught in school at all. By the way, this is censorship, most of us disagee with that - there are better ways to educate than censoring unpopular or popular ideas.

I'm sorry but this is forcing religious belief on the students - the belief that those that believe in a creator are wrong is a religious belief.

I never said that Evolution denies a creator, but I did respond to previous posters who did make such claims (that there is no creator, not that evolution states that.)

Re:Well good

[Vaughn Anderson]

We are talking about science, evolution and ID, not social studies or food, so your other are irrelevant to the issue.

So far you haven't provided any facts supporting the theory of evolution. I've shown that evolution can only be "believed" since it can't be proved.

If you feel you can support the idea that we should teach "faith" based science, then who cares if it's ID or evolution?

Re:Well good

[duerra]

My point being the the particles still had to come from somewhere that we can't comprehend, just as well as God would have. Either way requires some sort of leap of faith. Pick your poison.

Re:Well good

[Kazoo the Clown]

Based on Einstein's spacetime universe, any God that might exist would presumably be outside spacetime where the concepts of "before" and "after" and "infinite" time and/or space are meaningless-- and that's pretty hard to get your brain around, independent from any existance or nonexistance of God. I suppose such a God wouldn't experience events serially as we do, and petty emotions like "anger" and "jealousy" of such an entity are merely egotistical anthropomorphising.

Re:Well good

[griann]

Not sure if we need proof, but I, for one, don't want proof of this one, thank you very much.

Re:Well good

[Nos.]

The THEORY of gravity is not scientifically proven at this point, and if you want to get philisophical, its not provent that life exists either.

Understanding that life evolves may not be used in your everyday life, but it is for some people. Ask anyone at a pharmaceutical company, biologist, heck even your doctor understands that evolutions take place.

With your logic, there's not point in studying anything in English class except rules of grammar and spelling. I mean, poetry is all theory and isn't used in my everday life.

Re:Well good

[gruntclub]

Great, now I can explain it to my mom.

Re:Well good

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, strictly pedantic scientists would never say that evolution or gravity is a fact. They are both theories based on previous observations that have massive amounts of correlating evidence. But that could all change tomorrow. Tomorrow, the force of gravity could double or halve. At that point, we'd all go back to the drawing board and try to figure out exactly where the current theory of gravity is flawed. Just because it's never happened in the past doesn't mean that it can't happen in the future.

Obviously, nobody considers it likely that the force of gravity will change but the whole point is that within a scientific framework you can't rule it out.

And of course, this is the whole point of the Slashdot thread. Real science means that everything is open to re-evaluation in a way that ID is not for its proponents.

Re:Well good

[Prophet of Nixon]

Wow, when I look at it that way, I'm suddenly a very interesting person! Can I re-write my resume this way too?

Re:Well good

[dstewart]

Intelligent design isn't science, therefore it doesn't belong in a science room.

Moderation
    10% Offtopic

How perfectly ironic. This nearly mirrors the arguments of ID proponents.

"We want ID in the science classroom."
"But it's not science."
"Irrelevant! ... Hey, look over there, a bunny! It's complex!"

Re:Well good

[Rary]

"Simply put, any sort of belief related to supernatural beings, for or against, is religious."

I do not believe in God.
I do not believe in Santa Claus.
I do not believe in the Easter Bunny.
I do not believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
I do not believe in ghosts.
I do not believe in leprachauns.
I do not believe in (etc etc etc)...

How many freaking religions can one person have at a time?

The GP's quote, in addition to being humourous, was quite accurate. I do not have faith in the lack of a god, I lack a faith in a god. I believe there is no god in the same way that I believe there is no tooth fairy, and in the same way that I believe that aliens were not involved in JFK's assassination. I simply don't buy it. To me, it's a ridiculous idea. This does not make a religion.

Re:Well good

[Nos.]

Ah, so your arguments obviously fail in the big picture, so we should only apply your arguments to the teaching of one specific theory in one specific class. Wow, has this been a waste of time. I'm not going to try and provide evidence of evolution to you. If you want evidence, to a quick search on the internet, its not tough, I'll even get you started. Just click this link and start reading the information there.

Re:Well good

[jrob323]

So you weren't indoctrinated, but you just happened to (in an enlightened and non-sheep-like way) wander back to the same religion as your parents? Maybe you don't even realize you were indoctrinated. After all, you apparently didn't start to think for yourself until you were 18.

Re:Well good

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate to go against the ignorant horde of slashdotters

Well an educated, non-delusional horde of slashdotters just effortlessly demolished your flimsy argument. Of course, that is what happens during every argument, though it appears that the IDers make their trolling statements and then run like hell. It is different to sit around nodding heads with other IDers (even that biologist who goes to your church!) than it is to have a rational conversation with the staggering majority of scientists who see intelligent design for what it is. What I am saying is: bring the "debate" into the realm of science instead of the shadow-lurking guerilla war that is going on now. Under the light of scrutiny (e.g. talkorigins.org) your claims will not stand up and it will be clear to you and anyone that intelligent design, whatever its "merits" may be, is not science. (And that, sir, is a fact, not a theory ).

Re: Well good

[Kazoo the Clown]

Yes, it's interesting that they have so little confidence in their belief system that they feel a significant need for the government to shore it up...

Re:Well good

[l3prador]

Re: Atheism as belief. In your definition any statement I can make is a belief - like "The sky is not green". Is this a "belief"?

I guess... If you held it to be true enough to act upon it.

I guess I would define free will as the ability to choose to attempt to do anything. It seems to me that for a person to be able to do this he or she would have to somehow control some variable in the laws of nature.

Re:Well good

[tbannist]

No, it just that many of the fundamentally religious slashdotters make it so easy to mock them. I mean really, when someone posts in public that everything in the Bible is true, that it's easier to believe that God used quantum folding and cryogenic hybernation to pack all the animals in the world onto Noah's Ark than it is to believe that story is allegorical, what do you expect to happen?

And yes, Athiesm is more scientifically sound than fundamentalist religion. Fundamentalist religion says things happen because invisible hands makes them happen, atheism says invisible hands don't exist. It usually means the atheist believes in basic principles of science, which fundamentalists frequently deny. However, that comparison doesn't always hold true when you compare rational athiests versus rational believers. There is room to believe in the existence of a God without falling into the trap of believing in superstitions and mysticism.

Some people can't see the difference between those points, but it's simple. In the first world view, the hands have a will and can choose whether or not consequences can occur. Thus the world is inherently unreliable and unpredictable, while second believes that events and reactions can be predicted with sufficient understanding.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster isn't a strawman argument and isn't an appeal to ridicule either. They aren't claiming the ID people believe in the Spaghetti Monster. Instead they created an example that shows that the "impartial" people who are supposedly allowing the theologically neutral viewpoint into the classroom are lying and simply looking for a way to force their religion on children. There is exactly as much proof to back up the Flying Sphaghetti monster as there is for Intelligent Design, in other words, none. Both are designed to be impossible to disprove.

Of course, the current battle over Intelligent Design in schools isn't even really over religion, though many of the footsoldiers are lead to believe it is. There are people who are afraid that they (and their successors) will loose their current power if American Children are well educated on scientific topics. They want children to be raised ignorant of scientific knowledge so they will always have a supply of pawns to mobilize against anything they dislike.

It's the new way to win elections, some people are just planning to ensure their group maitains power well down the road.

Re:Well good

[demachina]

"The framework of "supreme being" philosophy that Jews, Christians, and Muslims share (I'm pretty sure they're similar on this) is that there is one being that created all and has always existed"

Of course the flaw in their philosophy is they have absolutely no way to prove the existence of this supreme being. They require you take it on faith this being exists. The problem with relying on faith as the basis of your philosophy is you can concoct an infinite series of philosophies, all wrong, and expect people to believe them using the faith based canard. I have no way to prove my religion is the right interpretation, just trust me. That's why there are so many religious variants. Any crack pot can declare himself to be a prophet or messiah and as long he can sucker enough people in to believing him a faith based religion is born. Mormonism is a classic study in how a con job turns in to religion thanks to blind faith.

The basic problem with injecting faith in to education is it completely destroys rational thinking. Why seek truth or provable laws of nature if you can reduce all existence to blind faith in the unknowable and unprovable and in philosophy which might be completely wrong or a complete sham.

The amazing thing about Darwin's work is he had NO knowledge of the mechanism of heredity or DNA when he did his work. He observed the world, analyzed it and created theories which were subsequently verified and strengthened at every turn as the world discovered heredity, DNA and genetic mutation which explained the mechanics of how Darwin's theory worked.

By contrast nothing in the last 2000 years has buttressed the teachings of the bible or Jesus. In fact if you take its timeline literally, which is a naive thing for even religious people to do, it has been proved time and again that the world and mankind isn't a few thousand years old and we can't trace our heritage through the begats back to Adam and Eve. All the evidence thats surfaced in the past 2000 years suggest Darwin was right and the Bible's take on the origin of life is faith based fiction.

Re:Well good

[Rary]

"I don't know if there's a silent majority of atheists, but on Slashdot there's several who don't merely disbelief in the existence of supernatural, but disbelief it with conviction and passion and feel the need to preach their views and try to offend and/or ridicule every theist at every opportunity."

People post comments on Slashdot for the purpose of discussing and debating. Therefore, by definition, you will not hear from the majority of folks out there who aren't interested in getting their point of view across and trying to convince those with alternate points of view that they're wrong.

The vast majority of atheists don't give a flying fuck what you or anyone else believes. Just like the vast majority of computer users don't give a flying fuck what operating system (web browser, programming language, whatever) you or anyone else uses, and yet Slashdot is filled with evangelical preaching about this one over that one.

Re:Well good

[jwhitener]

That things evolve is indeed a fact. You can watch it happen in any high school biology class room. We bred fruit flies and noted changes in the population based on different pressures we introduced over the course of one term (honors biology).

Now, the "Theory of Evolution" is a bit too broad a term to say that its fact or not. You can argue about the smaller pieces of evidence that support the theory as being facts or not (valid or invalid experimental data, for example). But Richard Dawkins was 100% correct if he said "evolution is FACT" (I didn't hear the exact words) because it is certainly a fact that things evolve.

Re:Well good

[Anonymous Coward]

at the very least you believe in rationality which is principally the area of science. I do not therefor i consider evolution and ID equally valid. That said, it is quite clear that ID makes a half hearted attempt at being rational merely to cover its irrational foundation. One honestly claims to be science, the other in a weak attempt to subvert scientific thought. Frankly id have very little trouble with the subversion of science if it wasn't for the simultaneous assertion of religious belief. Unfortunately it is rather difficult to subvert both religion and science at the same time.

"I reject your reality and substitute my own"

Re:Well good

[rjshields]

I got modded a troll because people have trouble acknowledging that all belief could be defined as a religion

Oh dear.

1. All belief cannot be defined as religion.

Taking religion in the "God" sense of the word, faith is required. Other beliefs, e.g. scientific, do not require faith, we have realised these beliefs based on the evidence put before us.

2. lack of belief is not the same as belief in the lack of.

I can say I lack belief in something because there is insufficient evidence to prove something exists. Unlike belief in the lack of, I don't need any evidence to the contrary.

It's for these succinct reasons that it's very hard to accept that Aethism is a religion. I believe this is the reason you got modded troll!

Re:Well good

[Anonymous Coward]

What he pointed out in several articles was that by the early 1800's, when Darwin was sailing on the Bugle, it was already widely accepted that biological evolution was a historical fact, thoroughly documented in the fossil record. What was missing was a good explanation of this fact. People examining fossils could see the general outline of the evolutionary process; they just didn't understand how it worked.


An important distinction here, however, is the difference between what is accepted as fact, what scientists tend to believe as fact, and what is in the fossil record. You won't see "proof" in the fossil record that "first we had a microbe, then we had a fish, then we had a land mammal that evolved to an ape that evolved to a human". You might see evidence that they occured in that order, but we haven't even filled in species for all of the steps, much less proven that they step from one to the next.

Many (and I mean MANY) scientists accept the latter along with the former. I have actually heard a respected scientist (speaking on something related) say (paraphrasing) "X must be the case because for Y to be the case would imply something I'm not willing to believe". Talk about bad science....


He also proposed that the inherited code was not modified by an organism's environment, contrary to others such as Lysenko, and it turns out he was right in this, too. True, environmental things may alter your DNA, but not in any "directed" fashion.


Actually... he might not have been. Recent research has indicated that species under selective pressure mutate more rapidly than other species (yes, mutate more rapidly). Furthermore, it has implied that those species mutate in the direction of a solution to the selective pressure.

Re:Well good

[Culture]

This is a false defense. If you choose to believe that God always has and always will exist, this is more unlikely than God springing into existance out of nowhere. It is still a crazy-stupid arguement on a rational basis. I like it much better when christians simply admit it is a matter of faith and does not have to make rational sense. That I can handle.

Re:Well good

[demachina]

"My point being the the particles still had to come from somewhere that we can't comprehend"

The eternal existence of mass and energy is a much more explicable and understandable concept than the eternal existence of an omnipotent being.

You can convert mass to energy and energy to mass but you can't create mass or energy from nothing nor can you turn mass or energy in to nothing. It is inherent in their nature that they would exist forever because they can't be destroyed, all you can do is move them back and forth between the two states.

Mass and energy are inherently eternal.

Re:Well good

[krmt]

And he didn't anticipate Barbara McClintock's idea of the way that eukaryotic cells arose via merger of independent single-cell organisms.

Great post, but this attribution is wrong. McClintock was responsible for finding that genes could move (using maize as her model system). Lynn Margulis came up with the idea of endosymbiosis leading to eukaryotic cells.

Re:Well good

[Austerity Empowers]

If it were my school district, I'd lobby to have ID removed from the curriculum. The fact is I don't live there, my kids don't attend school there, hence I really don't have any business telling them what to teach.

I do not think the federal government should be deciding what is or is not taught in school any more than the pope should. The entire purpose of having hundreds of representatives and senators is to somehow ensure all regions with clashing views about certain things, get represented in the federal government fairly, NOT to homogenize them all into a single popular belief. Why does the federal government need to be involved AT ALL in this issue? It does not seem to be a constitutional issue, or certainly not a clear one...no one is being physically, emotionally or financially hurt by the teaching of ID, nor are their rights being trampled on. It's not, strictly speaking, religion. Shouldn't the local population be the deciding faction?

Re:Well good

[BritneySP2]

one cannot know

From the scientific viewpoint, what one cannot know does not exist.

On the other hand, how "God" is different from, say, "Baba-Yaga" and other mumbo-jumbo. There may be "ideas" about what what those "words" mean, but trying to build some kind of "science" that is supposed to prove that those words denote real objects usually serves some agenda that has nothing to do with science.

Incidentally, the theory of non-existence (or non-being) is a very insteresting one. There are many different types of non-being (like having just died; having never existed (even as a fictitious object); non-being as a real object; unable to exist (even in the future) etc.)

Finally, let's not forget about anti-theists, i. e. those who think that if God existed, he should be caught and hung by His balls. (I, personally, think, that God should not be held responsible for all the suffering that humans inflicted to themselves.)

Re:Well good

[malfunct]

I just read the establishment clause again to be sure that I had it right but as well as not allowing the government to establish a religion (which there could be some disagreement on the definition of religious establishment then versus the definition now that I will leave alone) it also does not allow the government to prohibit the free expression of said religion. To me this would seem to say that while the school cannot as a policy "teach" the religious opinion they could not as a policy prevent the mention of religion and the discussion there of. In this way whether or not ID is considered a religious idea (I think it is a religious idea for multiple reasons even though I tend to believe it though I won't try to say that I know it to be true) it doesn't seem like the discussion could legally be prohibited in the classroom. The only thing prohibited seems to be taking a firm stance on "the truth" (which is orthoganal from the fact or theory debate that goes on).

The idea of the establishment clause was the prohibition of persecution on religious grounds not the equal persecution of all religions. So I say have a lively discussion on ID vs Creationism vs Evolution vs Whatever else and explain why each holds up under the light of science and also why scientific backing need to be necessary to hold a belief in a higher power and also why it need not preclude that belief (even where observation currently seems to preclude it because every hypothesis is considered true only so long as observation supports it). Let people be free but also let them know all the thoughts one way or another. Just don't be devisive in your statements or load the debate in only one direction.

Re:Well good

[Anonymous Coward]

No, scientific theories serve to model the world. The theory of electricity is just a model to explain experimental data that suggests that electrons move in a conductor. Even electrons are models created to explain most phisical observations.

Re:Well good

[Oligonicella]

No. Where do you stop? Nursery Rhymes?

Re: Well good

[jc42]

Actually, "Santa Claus" is a mispronunciation of "Saint Nicholas", who was apparently a real 4th-century person. Let's see ... Yep; there's a web site showing pictures of his church in Cappadocia. See the pictures of him at the bottom. Not quite the modern commercial Santa, but not all that far off.

Of course, his current association with the ancient solstice holiday (Saturnalia to the Romans) has little to do with him. Or with Jesus, for that matter.

The real complaint should be about the ongoing attempts by Christians to corrupt the solstice holiday (with its traditions of evergreen tree worship, lights to counter the dark, and trading gifts) into some sort of Christian religious thing. That's bogus history and theology, as anyone who has read the biblical accounts of his birth will understand. But then, Christians have never been known for their accurate histories.

Re:Well good

[Rimbo]

I disagree. Using myself as an example, I can say that not everyone needs a religion. I have no faith -- only assumptions.

You are most likely correct that you don't have a religion. As for faith, when you act on your assumptions, believing them to be basically correct, that is faith. (Faith is not "blind belief in some random superstition." There's a better word for that: Arrogance.)

Now isn't ID just another assumption you could have convictions about? Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory based on evidence; it is call to arms against looking for evidence. That includes looking for evidence of God's existence, if you really must know. That makes it, in my mind, the absolute nadir of theological thought: The denial of the value of theological thought itself.

See, I write this as a practicing Christian. But my belief in God is based on evidence that I believe outweighs the evidence (or lack thereof) against God's existence. I know that the evidence I've experienced that God does in fact exist has not undergone the scientific rigor and experimentation that evolutionary theory has. I am willing to concede that I may be wrong about the whole God thing. And that is what separates faith from arrogance.

I recently discovered a quote from St. Augustine, in De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim (translated by J.H. Taylor) that I believe is relevant for all of my fellow Christians who would challenge evolutionary theory:

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, ... and this knowledge he holds as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?

I think it sums up the issue facing Christianity with regard to Science today neatly.

One other thing I've noticed is that the modern-day "pop Jesus" crowd, with their disdain for naturalistic science and earned knowledge, seem to represent a reprisal of the ancient Gnostic Heresy. It's an interesting thought, no? Especially considering their supposed fondness for Genesis 1, the chapter of the Bible that repeats over and over that God created the naturalistic material world and everything in it and said it was GOOD.

So Creationists are worse than hypocrites. They're appalling not just for lack of knowledge about science, but about the Bible as well, even the very verses they claim to support literally...

Re:Well good

[Kismet]

"If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby."

A comparison meant to show how atheism isn't a religion.

Which is an absolutely valid comparison until you consider that the non-collector of stamps has begun advocating non-collection over collection. And then argues with the collectors about it. And also has a list of reasons why he does not collect, plus some talking points that he can refer to. And possibly very specific grievances against particular collectors. And maybe he has even written a book about not collecting, or at least read a book about it. And he has lobbied or sued the government to reduce the influence of stamp collectors in politics. And frequently makes skeptical comments about the collectors in multpile public forums. And belongs to an organized non-collector club. In that case, yes, not collecting stamps is that man's hobby. Just like atheism is the religion of many atheists.

few atheists live lives devoid of ideals. Atheism is merely the axiom upon which they establish their ideology. Eric Hoffer wrote a book called "True Believers," in which he made a statement that I think is very applicable:

"Though ours is a godless age, it is the very opposite of irreligious. The true believer is everywhere on the march, shaping the world in his own image."

Wherever there is ideology, there is religion. Maybe not formal, organized religion, but nevertheless it is religion.

Many atheists fool themselves into thinking they have shaken free from the manipulations of religion, but this is mere delusion if they hold any ideals at all. There is no science that has ever claimed to have arrived at the final truth of anyhting, nor established standards for good or evil, nor proven that humans have any sort of rights or entitlements.

Atheism is no more organized than, say, Christianity is organized. It's not an establishment, as Christianity is not an establishment, as Islam is not an establishment, as Buddhism is not an establishment.

As with its theistic religious counterparts, atheism covers a number of sects: Humanism, secularism, hedonism, agnosticism, objectivism, etc. And atheism even has its organized groups of activists, analogous to the various denominations and established churches in theistic religion. They have their own missionaries bent on getting the theists to "leave them alone."

Re:Well good

[rjshields]

I don't know if there's a silent majority of atheists

This could be the salient point of your post. Atheism is not about being religious, it's about not believing in religion, or more specifically, not believing in God. There's no need to preach the non-belief of something, hence the "silent majority". Ridiculing people who blindly believe and follow ("have faith") does not eqaute to religious fundamentalism, which is about preaching faith. Next time you see someone ridiculing, consider that the subject might be ridiculous.

Re:Well good

[smellsofbikes]

... I can't argue with you. You're entirely right. I'm playing semantics games with the variable definitions of 'theory' and 'fact' -- but so are the ID people, albeit unknowingly.

So how about this: from what we currently know, evolution is as trustworthy as gravity, and the theory of evolution beats the pants off the theory of gravity.

Re:Well good

[Oligonicella]

Since the electro-magnetic forces do model the world in every real sense, perhaps you should rethink.

Re:Well good

[caitsith01]

In a simplistic sense you are right about agnosticism. However, take for instance gravity. No matter how many times it is observed in action, it can never be conclusively proven to work the way we think it does. We can make a million, a trillion, observations confirming our theory of gravity and yet this can never preclude the possibility that one day we might make an observation that directly contradicts it.

Nevertheless, instinct and logic tell us that in the end we might as well take the chance and rely on our observations to treat the theory of gravity as a law.

Atheism is the equivalent of this last step. Once we do that we can go on, like the Wright brothers, and build an aeroplane that works, for example. Agnosticism is the equivalent of refusing to get into a plane because gravity cannot be conclusively proven to work the way we think it does.

I guess religion would be sitting on the tarmac praising the gods for the magical metal birds we ride around in and blaming the devil if they crash.

Re:Well good

[OreoCookie]

Exactly. Not a different species

You could probably start with chihuahuas and get back to something pretty wolf like. Different breeds of dog are exactly that, breeds. The DNA is pretty much identical.

Re: Well good

[Black Parrot]

> Of course, the current battle over Intelligent Design in schools isn't even really over religion, though many of the footsoldiers are lead to believe it is. There are people who are afraid that they (and their successors) will loose their current power if American Children are well educated on scientific topics. They want children to be raised ignorant of scientific knowledge so they will always have a supply of pawns to mobilize against anything they dislike.

I.e., "'Religion is the opiate of the masses', and by-Golly we're going to use it to keep them stoned out of their minds."

The naive religionist needs to realize that these people are their worst enemies, not their best friends.

Re:Well good

[tallguy81]

Schools should teach what the majority of people in the district want taught.

When people say things like this, it makes me ashamed to be human. If we taught our children what the majority of people in their school districts thought, we'd still think things like segregated schools were good and that reading "1984" is bad. That is, after all, what a majority of Americans believed at one time.

Re:Well good

[Vaughn Anderson]

Wow, has this been a waste of time.

Just curious what you were expecting by posting on this topic?

I'm not going to try and provide evidence of evolution to you. If you want evidence, to a quick search on the internet

This is partly my point with evolution, there is no obvious proof, where everything else we discussed is readily apparent with many proofs.

Re:Well good

[einhverfr]

Note that there are branches of Buddhism that are essentially atheistic in the sense that they don't believe in a divine entity per se. For this reason, the late Pope John Paul stated that Buddhism was the equivalent of autoeroticism and the main enemy of the Catholic church after the fall of Communism. I got a big laugh out of this one.... Not that his analogy isn't apt (i.e. the idea that Buddhism doesn't suppose to be an interaction between humans and God(s) but rather an interaction with oneself), just that he runs the wrong direction with it.

For what it is worth, I am a polytheist.

Re:Well good

[ultranova]

And yes, Athiesm is more scientifically sound than fundamentalist religion. Fundamentalist religion says things happen because invisible hands makes them happen, atheism says invisible hands don't exist.

And since science cannot say anything about the existence of these hands, since if they exist they are invisible and therefore cannot be detected experimentally, neither viewpoint has any backing from science. Thank you for demonstrating my point.

Some people can't see the difference between those points, but it's simple. In the first world view, the hands have a will and can choose whether or not consequences can occur. Thus the world is inherently unreliable and unpredictable, while second believes that events and reactions can be predicted with sufficient understanding.

Appeal to consequences is a logical fallacy: a viewpoint cannot be proven correct (or even shown to be likely correct) just because the alternative makes the world appear insecure.

Or to put it another way: just because atheism is convenient does not make it correct (but of course it doesn't make it incorrect either).

The Flying Spaghetti Monster isn't a strawman argument and isn't an appeal to ridicule either. They aren't claiming the ID people believe in the Spaghetti Monster. Instead they created an example that shows that the "impartial" people who are supposedly allowing the theologically neutral viewpoint into the classroom are lying and simply looking for a way to force their religion on children. There is exactly as much proof to back up the Flying Sphaghetti monster as there is for Intelligent Design, in other words, none. Both are designed to be impossible to disprove.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster is quite obviously meant as an appeal to ridicule because, after all, it is utterly ridicilous. It is not designed to expose any lies on part of ID proponents (how could it; the statement "living things were designed by an intelligent designer" is simply impossible to disprove - see my comment about "invisible hands" above); it is designed to set up a strawman in the hope that students will associate God with Spaghetti Monster (the strawman) and consequently, since the Spaghetti Monster is designed to be ridiculous, disregard the tought of God existing as ridicilous. This is both a strawman argument, with SM as the strawman, and an appeal to ridicule, since SM is designed to be ridiculous.

Re:Well good

[Anonymous Coward]

Because science is the only true religion and nobody should pollute it with their outdated theories.

We all know that science is the only way to explain anything we cannot understand. Even when we don't have evidence to prove it! I wish these old school religions would shut up and leave us alone.

We all know that the theory of evolution, even though it doesn't have evidence to prove everything it teaches, is a fact. It doesn't matter that eventually if you ask enough questions like "how this happened", you will either find conflicting answers that we won't talk about. It doesn't matter that if you try to ask "how this happened", we cannot fully illustrate it with facts just assumptions. It doesn't matter if you ask "but what was there before life" and "how did the things that made life possible become available" that not only do you have conflicting explanation, it ends up at a beginning were something was just there magically and mythically.

Yes, take these religions and throw them out. We will instruct every student that's required to attend school by law that their religion can't possibly be correct. Their parents are dummies for even believing in them. We will use our own mythology and give enough facts to make it appear possible. It is time to create a movement were science is the only religion allowed to exist. To hell with the first amendment. We will use public schools to refute other religions in the very beginning were the rest of the religion cannot possible be true after that. It doesn't matter that those religious zealots used our scientific methods to support their claims of the bible. It doesn't matter that scientific processes were performed that prove parts of the bible and the qu'oran to be historically true. We will deny this so called freedom of religion in the first amendment by stating their religion is false in the beginning of their books.

Science rules!

Re:Well good

[smoker2]

.... when Darwin was sailing on the Bugle,

Aaah, evolution in practice, or are you spouting bollocks ?

Darwin sailed on the Beagle !

Jesus (not allegorical), can't you scientists get it right ?

Re:Well good

[endoplasmicMessenger]

by the early 1800's, when Darwin was sailing on the Bugle, it was already widely accepted that biological evolution was a historical fact, thoroughly documented in the fossil record. What was missing was a good explanation of this fact. People examining fossils could see the general outline of the evolutionary process; they just didn't understand how it worked.

No, here is what Darwin really said about how poorly his theory stood up against the fossil record, and how many gaps there were in the record:

"Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory."

What you describe about the general understanding of evolution in the 1800 is pure fiction.

Re:Well good

[Ayanami Rei]

We didn't attempt to make the rats poison resistant, nor the bacteria antibiotic resistant. Those are unintended consequences (wholly undesirably in fact) that required us to find the evolutionary pressures for. Once we identified what we thought were the evolutionary pressures, we could devise experiements to test to see if these evolutionary pressures could recreate these adaptations.
We could.
Superbactieral strains are caused by patients taking incomplete courses of antibiotics, just enough to kill off most of the population in a person while leaving enough to infect someone else, with the offspring that survived the longest with the antibiotic in that person's system. You can repeat these tests in laboratory conditions, starting from "common" strains, and get penicillin resistant strains within a hundred generations, IIRC.
So now medical professionals recommend people take _all_ their antibiotics when given a course, and not to request them when they have a cold, for example.
That was only because we determined it was the social behavior of patients taking antibiotics that ultimately was to blame for creating superbacterial strains.
And we only knew how to find out why this was happening because we have this evolutionary theory that we can refer to and use as guidance in such investigations.

Re:Well good

[Anonymous Coward]

Firstly, just because someone doesn't support evolution as fact doesn't mean they are an idiot. There are many highly respected scientists (including evolutionists) that have noted severe flaws in the theory of evolution.

Secondly, that link you point to is a classic example of the unfortunate way people on both sides tend to argue. Any point made by the opposition which doesn't have a lot of merit in an argument is taken and shot down repeatedly, with plenty of supporting evidence. Any point that has a lot of merit in an argument is briefly dismissed, with no evidence, in an attempt to imply it's non-importance. This leaves all but the most objective readers siding with that debater. I don't know if you've ever listened to someone talk in a debate and thought "Wow that makes lots of sense, I agree with them", then heard someone's rebuttal and thought "No wait I completely agree with the other side now". For example, in this article they only briefly refute the claim about 9 days being too short a time for this to happen, in a very condescending manner too. However it could be argued that if 9 days is a short enough time, there would be far more examples of this kind of genetic variation -- but there isn't. Also, with our currently lacking understanding of genomes, I would be very skeptical of anyone who says that a "new" gene sequence wasn't actually just a re-structure of previous genes in the sequence (with no added useful information).

"Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please." -- Mark Twain.

Re:Well good

[Oligonicella]

"Actually, strictly pedantic scientists would never say that evolution or gravity is a fact."

Baloney. From Webster's:
fact - something that actually exists; reality; truth.

Name one single scientist that would state that gravity does not exist.

"Tomorrow, the force of gravity could double or halve."

Which would do nothing for the base fact that gravity exists.

"At that point, we'd all go back to the drawing board and try to figure out exactly where the current theory of gravity is flawed."

We'll change the attraction variable.

Re:Well good

[einhverfr]

A total absense of belief would bring you to a form of agnosticism, where not only is the existance or lack thereof of God(s) unknowable but also irrelevant. If you state this, I would say that one is more of an agnostic than an atheist in the normal sense of the term.

There are forms of Buddhism that are atheistic, for example (and other forms that approach some blend of polytheism and pantheism).

But there is another problem. I tend to think that religion is as much about practices that link us with a greater sense of things as a set of beliefs. Hence the etymology which traces back to the Greek word for "to reconnect." Secular atheists in the sense that they don't seek this reconnection are, to my mind, not religious, though they may have a set of religious beliefs that may include a belief in the lack of an existance of a divine entity. Worship, meditation, occult ritual, etc. are all forms of religious activity, and I would say they define religion more than *belief system.* But this is getting off-topic.

Re:Well good

[NetMunkee]

It is *NOT* accepted as fact, because in science there are no absolute truths.

By your own definition, this claim would not be scientific.

Isn't the whole purpose of science to discover truth? If there is no absolute truth, then what is the point of science? The reason Einstein is so famous is because he came up with a theory that better matches with the behavior of matter than Newton's theories. In other words Einstein's theory is closer to the truth than Newton's. If there is no absolute truth then 2+2=5 is just as valid as 2+2=4.

If you don't have a consistent frame of reference in which to make scientific claims and tests (such as logic, consistent behavior of matter/energy), then the whole endeavor of scientific discovery is meaningless.

Science makes no claim about anyone's beliefs. The very idea of whether there is or isn't a creator is completely out of bounds.

If science makes no claims about anyone's beliefs then why all the dispute between darwinian evolution and ID? It's self-evident that both darwinian evolution and ID can't both be true. One comports with a materialistic worldview, the other theistic.

I read another post on here somewhere that said that atheism is not a religion just as not collecting stamps is not a hobby. I'd agree with that in so far as religion goes. (religion being concerned with customs and traditions and not on claims of truth) By that definition atheism is not a religion. But atheism is a worldview just as Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, etc are. Should science make the assumption that a materialistic worldview is true and all others are not? It seems to me that we should take a look at the evidence before we make that assumption.

Re:Well good

[Oligonicella]

I'm an athiest. It is neither a pursuit or interest and I do not "follow" anything, much less with devotion.

Re:Well good

[vishbar]

Wait...so are you implying that atheists mock Christians?

Yeah, I remember seeing atheists at churches screaming at churchgoers. Oh wait...oops, I was thinking of conservative christians at an abortion clinic. Nvm.

Re:Well good

[smoker2]

....because in science there are no absolute truths.

What is this, dickhead day ?

Let's conduct a scientific experiment, in which you stand in the path of a speeding 40,000 pound truck and I posit the theory that you get killed when it hits you. You will die !

how's that for a scientific fact ?

Re:Well good

[n54]

"Generally, it boils down to finding examples of complicated structures or systems in biology, and saying "see, this is complex enough that I don't think it could arise by evolution.""

No it's the other way around I.D. is based on one point of view among biologists trying to find how something as complex as for example a flagellum could evolve. In their opinon they did not find any satisfactory answers within the confines of the theory (in the scientific sense of the word) of evolution. They also think there are other scientific flaws within the theory of evolution or at least in how it is being backed up and taught. Of course other scientists disagree with them and that's fine.

I.D. doesn't say that evolution doesn't occur, it is saying that evolution does not provide enough explanation and that there are parts of the theory of evolution that are simply wrong and even larger parts which are on very shaky ground scientifically. But not all of it.

"Their is a conundrum here when ID proponents say these supposedly "enormously" complex structures couldn't possibly have spontaneously sprung in to existence on their own."

I'm sure some of them, or more precisely some adherents of them, put it this way but the point of the matter is as explained above. You wouldn't say that someone who manufactured a car or similar just made it "spring into existence" would you?

"The entire framework of their philosophy is that God, the most complex entity imaginable, somehow spontaneously sprang in to existence from nothingness."

Sorry but that is easily a straw man argument as a lot of religious people believe god is eternal in both directions. I'm religous myself (no organised religion though and I don't see either I.D. or evolution as having anything to do with religion) and I consider the idea of a god having to spring into existence totally absurd (I could go into a scorching rant and use worse words) as imo god is not confined by time/space-time.

Since the rest of your post is your conclusion from the above quotes it shouldn't be necessary to reply to.

Now, I.D. might be totally wrong or completely right or somewhat right/wrong (imo the last is the case) but why not try to get going a real discussion about the topics instead of the illinformed inflamed opinions that dominate Slashdot on these subjects?

Btw here's a link to a page by Michael Behe http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/behe.html who is probably the most recognized scientist among those who are behind I.D.. It doesn't directly concern I.D. and it might give a more nuanced impression of the scientist. Imo a lot of people on both sides desperately need that.

Re:Well good

[|/|/|||]

Thank you for the interesting post. I still maintain my position, though. When you say that "As for faith, when you act on your assumptions, believing them to be basically correct, that is faith" you fail to recognize that I do not take it on faith that my assumptions are basically correct. They are assumptions. I act as if they are true, but at no time am I ever fooled into thinking that they actually are true. I pretend that they are true in order to make decisions, but that is all. If I were to take my assumptions on faith, then I might fail to notice evidence that my assumptions were wrong.

I guess how you interpret my position comes down to how you define the terms, but I balk at the terms "faith" and "belief", because to me they represent blinders that become invisible once you put them on. If you fail to question your assumptions about reality, you'll soon be wandering off into a world that exists only in your own mind.

Re:Well good

[dmadole]

Umm, airplanes ARE able to fly because of the Bernoulli effect.

If the Bernoulli effect is what makes flight possible, then how can an airplane fly upside down? Wouldn't the Bernoulli effect push it into the ground? Or how can a wing with a symmetric airfoil, for example a simple balsa glider with a flat slab wing fly at all?

The answer is that reactive lift, caused by angle of attack, also makes flight possible. In practical airplanes, both forces play a part, but reactive lift is pretty much always the bigger contributor, up to 80% for heavy-lifting planes. Planes that rely exclusively on the Bernoulli effect are not economically practical.

There is a pretty good article here.

Re:Well good

[einhverfr]

But evolution doesn't work the same way - show me one repeatable experiment where an animal actually independantly mutates to a genetic advantage. I understand that evolution supposedly takes thousands if not millions of years for this to happen, and so this experiment may not be possible. However, without repeatable experiments (instead of just circumstantial evidence), we can only make educated guesses as to what happened (whether that result is ID, evolution, FSM, or whatever).

Welcome to the 18th Century and the theories of Lamarck :-P When can we actually get rid of this nonsense? Darwin was supposed to have more or less debunked Lamarck's nonesense.

Also note that current evolutionary theory is missing one or two critical questions that we may not have an answer to in the near future, but your objections have largely been overruled by modern research.

Part of the problem is that any life-form larger than a bacterium is not in a position to mutate spontaneously for genetic advantage. Yes, this behavior has been experimentally studied in bacteria, but it doesn't show up in anything larger. So for larger organisms you have a different process.

Spontaneous mutations occur and affect the general viability of offspring. Many of these are disasterous and probably result in very early miscarriages, or stillborns, etc. (though spontaneous mutations aren't very common). But the rest goes into a sort of community gene pool. This genetic diversity inherent to the community is extremely important.

Now suppose we have an environmental change. Say there is a drought, you poison a population of insects with an insecticide, there is a sudden abundance or shortage of foot or water, a population explosion of predators, etc. Now, the genetic variances between the individuals in the community start to become valuable. For example, birds with a smaller beak might die first in a drought because the seeds that are available to eat might be too big. A shortage of food might favor some members more than others, poisoning might be more likely to kill those who are genetically susceptible to the poison first, etc. So these environmental changes don't cause an individual to spontaneously mutate. They cause the composition of the community gene pool to change. This is basically a summary of puntuated equalibrum theory regarding evolution.

Now, if you have a sudden and long-term increase in food, you will see animals specialize according to their talents. So within a given population of a species of finches, those with bigger beaks might decide to eat different seeds than those with smaller beaks. This specialization is generally temporary because the resource availability is cyclic, but after a mass extinction this may be different. This leads to the communities partially separating and becoming subspecies. Now the missing piece is the question of what causes species to separate to the point of becomming genetically incompatible under these circumstances? Is migration and physical separation required? Or are other factors more likely to cause this? This is a big unknown and we don't have enough data to answer it. However, at the current rate of extinctions, maybe in a few hundred years, we can start watching ;-)

Re:Well good

[Lifewish]

Actually, as it stands, ID is a dodgy mathematical theorem masquerading as a scientific hypothesis. It is not just theistic evolution - that says that God might have done some of the grunt work, whereas ID says that God (or alternative all-powerful entity) must have chipped in because it's mathematically impossible for certain structures to evolve.

I haven't looked too deeply into the maths yet (although as a maths student I'll probably check it out eventually), but the wikipedia summary suggests that Dembski et al are making some extremely dodgy assumptions.

Re:Well good

[Alsee]

What classes should be dropped so that this particular pet subject of yours can be studied?

A rhetorical question I presume? I think we all know what subject he would like dropped :D

-

Re:Well good

[n54]

"The ridiculous thing is that there is plenty of room for evolution in the Christian faith."

Of course there is and it applies to any religion I know of (including my own personal beliefs). And now for the shocker: there is even plenty of room for evolution in I.D.!

It speaks volumes about the public debate about I.D. that people are talking about I.D. as if it aims to disprove any and all kinds of evolution as it does not. What it does however is criticize widely accepted and large portions of the scientific theory of evolution . What I.D. is saying can be, in a very simplified manner, described as the theory of evolution not being enough to scientifically explain all that it seeks to explain. Yes there is more but that is a large part of what I.D. is about.

So why has it become a debate about religion vs. science? Well it takes two to fight and imo it's because of droves of unintelligent sheep flocking to two additional sides: creationists and ultra-materialists, and these two sides are trying to use the scientific controversy to their own political gains (and in the process fucking everybody over several times as well as science).

Re:Well good

[HTL2001]

What I was trying to say is that, despite literal interpretations, the bible is vague in many senses. Considering scientific knowledge at the time of writing, that could have been the way things were conveyed, so as not to confuse people (think talking computer to Joe Sixpack) and therefore it was not entirely accurate.

Re:Well good

[misleb]

I am opposed to #4 because it a) is not very specific and b) doesn't apply to atheism in general. At best, it applies to particular radical or "active" atheists.

-matthew

Re:Well good

[einhverfr]

Firstly, just because someone doesn't support evolution as fact doesn't mean they are an idiot. There are many highly respected scientists (including evolutionists) that have noted severe flaws in the theory of evolution.

Most of them are working off of outdated resources. Seriously-- evolution via Darwinism isn't wrong. It is woefully incomplete however, and you need at least some of the work that has been done within the last couple of decades to really make it work. Even so there are questions we don't have answers to. This doesn't mean that the basic theory is flawed anymore than 19th century classical physics is flawed because it predicts the wrong color light from glowing iron (the answer to this problem is Planck's Constant, which largely suggests that energy exists in atomic quantities). It isn't wrong. It just doesn't have all the answers.

There are still some areas I look at regarding evolution and still see a lack of answers. In these cases the current answer is simply "we don't know." However, most of the ID stuff strikes me as deeply unparsimonious and problematic for that reason. I.e. one does not need to posit the existance of one or more gods or the lack thereof to accomplish scientific theory. Any attempt to do so is theology and not science. If you want to subscribe to ID, that is fine, but scientifically, one doesn't have a strong case. Why would people look to science as a substitute for theology anyway? How is this different from looking to theology as a substitute for science?

Re:Well good

[OwnedByTwoCats]

Or one could say "There is no evidence for God". No belief required at all.

Is it worship when one says "I believe I'll have another beer"?

Re:Well good

[Vaughn Anderson]

The THEORY of gravity is not scientifically proven at this point, and if you want to get philisophical, its not provent that life exists either

I am not talking about philosophical ideas, simple facts, period. You can prove gravity exists in grade school science with basic experiments. Evolution is a theory with _no_ proof, only theory.

Understanding that life evolves may not be used in your everyday life, but it is for some people.

Great, then let them study it, but don't force a belief in evolution upon the public with tax money.

Ask anyone at a pharmaceutical company, biologist, heck even your doctor understands that evolutions take place.

Belief in this theory does not mean it is true.

poetry is all theory and isn't used in my everday life.

Poetry is art, evolution/ID are science subjects, there is no comparison.

Re:Well good

[|/|/|||]

Nope, not trying to be a dickhead. Just trying to be realistic.

Let's look at your brilliant theory. I suppose it's testable, and therefore scientific. So say we do the experiment and I'm killed by the truck. Score a point for your theory. However, you can hardly say that you've "proven" your theory. You have a sample size of one!

So, you say (I assume), well we can look at the physical makeup of the body, use some newtonian physics to model the truck hitting the body with such and such an amount of force, and... hmm, how can we prove that it would kill me? I guess we could model all of the molecules in the body and show that they will change arrangement in such a way as to prevent me from surviving... wait, now the theory is going to need to be generalized to cover all of the possible relative orientations of body vs truck...

OK, for simplicity well specify a certain orientation. Now, we're going to model the movement of all of these molecules for the purpose of *proving* that your theory is true. How do we do that? I guess we might as well jump to QM, which is the most accurate model that we have of the physical universe.

Oh, wait, nobody has proven QM to be true! Shit, I guess we'll have to do that first...

Um, how do you suggest we proceed?

Re:Well good

[jc42]

Jeez; how did I miss that one? I even remember looking at it as I typed it, thinking that a cute little dog was a funny name for a ship of such historic importance.

I wonder how its spelling changed? Oh, well; I've seen some even more bizarre changes in other posts, things that couldn't be explained by the usual fat-finger mechanisms.

One of my posts several months ago ended up with a string of Chinese characters in the middle. It was pretty, but I wouldn't have known how to type that even if I'd wanted to.

Re:Well good

[hawg2k]

I'm sure there are some people who believe that God sprang from nothing, but (and I'll use Christianity here as that's what I am) that is not the basis of the "philosophy". The bible makes it clear that God has no begining and no end, so Christians well versed in the bible making the argument that complex strucutres couldn't have evolved from simple ones is not a conundrum at all.

Re:Well good

[Halvy]

Intelligent design isn't science, therefore it doesn't belong in a science room.

Insightfull!!?

LOL,.. more like: INCITEFULL!! :)

-- SlashDots Moderation System is NOT broken.. it is 'fixed'.

Re:Well good

[|/|/|||]

If science makes no claims about anyone's beliefs then why all the dispute between darwinian evolution and ID? It's self-evident that both darwinian evolution and ID can't both be true.

There really is no dispute among scientists. Science doesn't claim to know the truth, but it does pick the most reliable theory from among the ones that we've thought of. That's why a scientific theory has to be testable -- there are an infinite number of untestable theories, but we can't really pick a "most likely" candidate from among them, because we have no criteria for doing so. In the case of ID vs Evolution, it's no contest. Evolution is a well supported theory with lots of observational evidence in its favor, and ID is an untestable conjecture. It's not even science, much less a contender for our leading theory. Evolution isn't scientifically "true", it's just the most well supported theory we have. It's also being constantly modified as we understand the process better -- in a way it's always being replaced by new theories that are only slightly different.

Should science make the assumption that a materialistic worldview is true and all others are not?

That's what science is -- the study of the material world. You can have a different worldview, but that's not science.

Re:Well good

[ademaskoo]

show me one repeatable experiment where an animal actually independantly mutates to a genetic advantage.

What about the genetic mutation in early humans that resulted in a weaker jawbone muscle? If that random mutation had never happened, you certainly wouldn't be pushing around rediculous criticism with your apparently massive cranium.

I get so frustrated when creationists simply assume that something is not true, especially when the facts are only a few clicks away (google).

Re:Well good

[Vaughn Anderson]

Superbactieral strains are caused by patients taking incomplete courses of antibiotics

As you have said, this effect was caused by human intervention, the use of antibiotics created the effect. This is not a natural phenomenon, but a human created one.

The specific bacteria that could resist the penicillin already existed , you simply filtered out the ones with the effect.

Filtering out a specific bacteria is not evolving the bacteria.

Your example is not an example of evolution.

Re:Well good

[linuxrocks123]

"What he pointed out in several articles was that by the early 1800's, when Darwin was sailing on the Bugle, it was already widely accepted that biological evolution was a historical fact, thoroughly documented in the fossil record. What was missing was a good explanation of this fact. People examining fossils could see the general outline of the evolutionary process; they just didn't understand how it worked."

They didn't "see" it. What they saw were a bunch of fossils that each looked slightly different, such that it appeared that those fossils represented a species changing over time. THIS IS STILL A THEORY! They are drawing _inferences_ from the fossils that they _observed_. One inference is that the similar but different fossils represent not completely separate types of animals, but rather the same animal changing over time. Another inference is that natural selection is the reason why it's changing. The fact is that similar looking fossils exist. The inference is that the fossils are related and that natural selection describes their relationship.

Re:Well good

[OwnedByTwoCats]

Schools are agents of the States, and the 14th Amendment made the other Amendments binding on the State governments as well.

So the First Amendment prohibits public schools from advocating for any particular religious belief. Teachers are not free to "mention ... religion and the discussion there of". School Boards are not free to mandate specific mentions of religion in science classes.

Judge Jones saw through the claims that "ID was not Religion", and pointed out that the good Christians lied on the stand to avoid making that admission. (Which says something about good Christians.)

ID does not hold up under the light of science. ID is a political attempt to change what is science to allow all sorts of nutjobbery, including astrology, into science classes.

Re:Well good

[bigg_nate]

Newton's theory of gravity is just a theory too. Does that mean that we can just decide not to believe it and fly?

I hope so (well, not the flying part) -- Newton's theory of gravity is wrong! Children learn about it because science class is not about teaching facts; it's about teaching science. If ID advocates believe otherwise, they should be arguing that we stop teaching Newton and jump straight to Einstein.

- Nate

Re:Well good

[Programmer2Lawyer]

I wonder if these same philosophers look down at their Bridge hand (13 cards) and conclude that the odds of them being dealt that particular hand are less than 1 in 6 billion, so they couldn't possibly have been dealt that hand by chance. The dealer must have given them a seemingly random crappy hand on purpose.

That's a terrible analogy. More like 20 Bridge players (each with the name "Amino Acid") look down and each finds that he has Ace through King of the same suit, thus allowing them to link all of their hands together in a chain we'll call "Protein." Your analogy presupposes that any hand will do, and so the probability of getting it doesn't matter. My (correct) analogy posits that only one hand will do and so the probability of getting it and getting it repeatedly is improbable to the point of absurdity.

Re:Well good

[xerid]

How many freaking religions can one person have at a time?

exactly 42.

Re:Well good

[Ayanami Rei]

No.
It can be shown that the bacteria collected in the 100th generation is in no way similar to the "normal" bacteria in the original culture.
PS - Most antibiotics are natural. Pencillin is natural.

Re:Well good

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep, it is a theory, It is a model that successfully explains how electricity power up a light bulb.
And yes, it could be wrong, but so far, it works for our needs.

Take for example the cell theory
It has changed numerous times, over the past few decades because it failed to explain some things and/or because our knowledge over it grew.

Remember, theories change all the time, they are not facts, just very well thought models.

Re:Well good

[ademaskoo]

in science there are no absolute truths. . . It's not sacred, it's not "fact", and nobody takes it on faith.

Is gravity not an absolute truth? We see evolution in the fossil record. There is no other probable explaination than some form of the theory of evolution. But dismissing the theory as non-factual is like saying that gravity might not exist. Of course gravity exists and I don't need a leap of faith to take it as fact. Neither do I with evolution. Evolution exists, it is a fact, and creationists need to open their eyes to free inquiry.

Re:Well good

[Jesus_666]

Lots of things that aren't science belong in science class. Because discussing them is (related to) science. For example one could dissect the rhethorics etc. in English or policics class. If stuff like Id legislation happened our religion teachers would just leap at the chance to discuss the connections between ID and creation. (Over here, "religion class" doesn't have much to do with religion, as it's often used as a substitute for philosophy class by schools who don't have philosophy teachers.)

Re:Well good

[Vaughn Anderson]

It is a testable theory. And many tests have been devised and tried and non have disproven it yet. Remember a theory can generally not be tested as correct, but science can try and prove theories wrong with tests.

None have proved it true either. So if it's not true, and can't be proved false, why are we forcing it into the schools? Isn't this the same problem with ID? How are these any different?

It is a theory about how things 'could have' evolved from simpler life forms into different more complex life forms

This is another reason why it's not provable, it's based on the assumption that life already existed. If it already existed at what stage was this life form? Can we just assume it was a one celled organism? How many assumptions have to be made to believe in this theory?

Re:Well good

[10101001 10101001]

>>A better analogy is: if atheism is a religion, then mocking stamp collectors is a hobby.

>Mocking stamp collectors certainly could be a hobby because at least it's an action/activity, and not simply the absence of one.

I know. I was stating that atheism is a religion and was using an example of a hobby that stamp collector haters might carry out. This is true for atheists I know of, but it's not true of all atheists, and atheism isn't a religion for some. Of course, with the first statement false, the latter statement can be whatever one chooses. It doesn't make my analogy better.

>>To state a belief in a God or to state a belief in a lack of God is a religious belief.

>Fine as far as it goes, but if you really don't see that this is a false dichotomy,... well, I'll draw it out from the start: A belief in the lack of (a) God is not the same as the simple lack of a belief in (a) God.

I'll agree it's a false dichotomy in the same way that it's a false dichotomy to say a ripe apple is red or not red based without considering that there are blind people for which the apple has no color. My point wasn't to draw a dichotomy, only to point out that a belief or anti-belief in a supernatural being is religious. Those without a belief of any kind are still atheist and hence makes atheism not a religion.

>It seems to me a more useful definition of "religious" is any belief that's based only on faith, or at least which is inextricably tied in with faith. Belief based solely on evidence (and along with that, absence of belief based on lack of evidence) is, again I assert, something different and surely not religious.

Any belief in knowledge of the supernatural is faith, simply based on the fact that the supernatural is unobservable. Hence, any belief in knowledge of the supernatural is a type of religion. This can mean one can hold multiple religions at the same time (belief in Santa and God, for example, as held by a child). Usually a person tries to resolve their religious beliefs to create a form of community or heiarchy to remove inconsistencies. In any case, evidence which by definition arises from the natural is not a form of religion nor did I ever imply such.

Re:Well good

[einhverfr]

Sure, you hear scientists all the time saying evolution is a "fact."

Personally I think that evolution (as a process) is a fact. How it happens and what it does is a theory, however :-)

Of course, if you press them, they will qualify it and say something like "the apparent descent of organisms with modification is observed in the fossil record so often in so many cases, that it strains credulity to worry that genetically similar organisms did NOT arise from common ancestors; furthermore, as a totally separate question, the adaptedness of organisms for their particular mode of existence does NOT require that they were 'designed' for that purpose, or arose from some mystical teleological drive, but rather is a forseeable consequence of the process of natural selection."

Do a search for "punctuated equilibrium" sometime. This is a theory that is forcing a number ways we rethink the process of evolution. Many of the concerns that ID advocates have with evolution are answerable today through a combination of this theory and current evolutionary ecology theory. Indeed I think that evolutionary ecology theory will eventurally provide the answers to the problems that are currently unanswered because, I think, often the solutions are not in the genes but in the niches. I.e. it is not a question of the animal, but rather the resource availability, that allows for rapid changes to occur on a short geologic timescale (1-2 million years).

Re:Well good

[Vaughn Anderson]

It can be shown that the bacteria collected in the 100th generation is in no way similar to the "normal" bacteria in the original culture.

How is this _any_ different than "I am nothing like my great, great, great.....great grandfather"?

Selective breeding is _not_ evolution.

Most antibiotics are natural. Pencillin is natural. Natural ingredients have no bearing on the effects when used unnaturally or in unnatural quanities.

Re:Well good

[ddimas]

The Dover school board need just introduce a new course "Mysticism, Superstition and Things That Go Bump in the Night". Then they could teach ID.

Actually it should go under Theology, Christian, Protestant, Fundementalist. The topic heading should be "Detrimental Effects of the Enlightenment". Along with Creationism ID is one of the worst effects of the idea that scientific knowledge is the only true knowledge.

Mysticism is a subheading of many Philosophies and Religious beliefs and should be discussed in the appropriate context.

"Things That Go Bump in the Night" goes in Phys Ed., subheading, Geeks, Dorks, and Nerds.

I hope this has cleared up any confusion.

Re:Well good

[jc42]

You won't see "proof" in the fossil record that "first we had a microbe, then we had a fish, then we had a land mammal that evolved to an ape that evolved to a human".

You don't see "proof" of much of anything in the fossil record. All you see is fossils, usually incomplete and badly mangled. And they're a tiny subset of the critters that actually existed, since it takes rather special conditions for your body to be preserved rather than devoured.

You might see evidence that they occured in that order, but we haven't even filled in species for all of the steps, much less proven that they step from one to the next.

Yup; expecting the intermediate steps is a standard strawman argument that can never be satisfied due to the sketchiness of the fossil record. But by Darwin's time, they had enough sequences to document a lot of very similar patterns that were most parsimoniously interpreted as the transmutation of one species into another (or sometimes several others).

And, of course, at the time this was revolutionary, because the prevailing belief was that the world was created whole in a short time. The fossil remains of creatures that didn't exist any more, and the apparent changes in these creatures through the fossil beds, gave them a lot to think and theorize about. The world's history was obviously a lot more complex than what their culture's myths described. It sure looked like many species had changed form over time.

Recent research has indicated that species under selective pressure mutate more rapidly than other species (yes, mutate more rapidly). Furthermore, it has implied that those species mutate in the direction of a solution to the selective pressure.

I've read those reports, too. Very interesting. It's definitely a case of "further research is needed". Lots of people will want to see the research done. But right now, it's just an "ears up" preliminary conjecture.

I have seen people point out that a stable, unchanging species could well be under strong selection pressure - to stay in exactly their current niche. There could be a high mutation rate (e.g., due to a high level of mutagens in their diet), but the selective pressure would weed out the mutated forms with a vengeance. If the selection was from predation, we'd never see the mutated forms as fossils.

As an example of this, birders know how easy it is to identify many species at a glance, from small details of their shape or flight pattern. Many birds are under strong selective pressure due to the requirements of flight (low mass, high-energy food, exact aerodynamic shape, fast reaction time, etc). Even slight variations can be rapidly fatal, so there's very little intra-species variation. You don't see many mutants in wild populations, because variants die at a very young age and become food for something else.

But maybe there is a partial control of mutation rate. It sure would be interesting to know the mechanism.

Re:Well good

[labnet]

I still think most people here are confusing Natural Selection with Evolution.

Natural Selection is simply faulty biological copies that die out.
Evolution is the addition of information to create new function.

Take a biological cell. It's DNA is like self replicating object code. Evolution proposes that during a copy process (or in a more complex process such as cell division), a mistake happens and if it turns out to be beneficial it could cause a branching (a different kind) or an overall improvement (where the change eventually dominates)

But lets start a bit of critical thinking.
What is the ratio beneficial mutations to non-beneficial(benign or destructive).
Maybe this is not a good example, but lets take something complex like the linux kernal. So if I copy it with say one or two added, removed or changed bytes, what will the beneficial mutation ratio be? Emperically, I think it would be very low. Even if I did it on a 100 line program, it would be very low.
So with this example, I see I'm leaving behind me a huge(many orders of magnitude) debri of lower functioning forms (some of which die, but most of which just don't perform as well) than higher forms.
So I'm thinking... ID perhaps makes more sense, that we started with perfect, and are gradually getting more imperfect.(ie why are we getting more genetic diesease rather than higher functioning.. even within our lifetime)

Re:Well good

[Anonymous Coward]

Taking every opportunity to try to convince others to not collect stamps and to ridicule people who do to the point of inventing tales about flying spaghett monsters and invisible unicorns is an obsession.

Gee, I wonder where all of the opportunities to discuss religion come from. Could they, perhaps, come from fuck heads like yourself who constantly try to stuff their stupid ass religion down everybody's throat? Why, yes. Yes, they could. I guarantee that if you religious fuck wads stopped trying to push your line of brain damaged crap down the throats of thinking people, there would be no ridicule from your victims.

P.S. Do fuck off and die now.

Re:Well good

[keraneuology]

A key difference is that in every physics class I have ever taken the clearly and openly expressed sentiment was along the lines of "general relativity is as close as we can get to understanding the way things work - for now". General relativity was always presented "as a theory". Evolution is usually presented as iron-clad, hard-core absolute fact, from the random creation of proteins and amino acids through a completely random generation of Barbara Streisand. I have never seen any public school curriculum that had anything even close to the same "this seems to fit so let's work with this until we find something better" attitude that accompanies general relativity.

THIS is that to which I object.

Natural selection should be taught. It can be demonstrated. It can be replicated. It is easily understood. Survival of the fittest should be taught. It can be demonstrated. It can be replicated. It is easily understood. These are the basic principles that can and should be taught to kids of any age.

However, that is as far as it goes. In my elementary school classes the first concept presented was "man evolved from the apes". This concept was presented long before the white moths in england that changed their color. This was presented long before the concept of random mutations and environmental pressures. The first concept of evolution was - and commonly is - that man descended from ape-esque critters. (As as aside, this is as much a violation of the separation of church and state as a sticker that says nothing more than "evolution is a theory and may be replaced with something else someday".)

The basic problem with ID is that we don't seem to have come up with a way to test it. It doesn't make predictions, which is the usual basis of tests.

You can't test ID any more than you can test architecture or civil engineering. You either build the dam or it falls down or go boom. The WTC withstands the impact of an airliners or it doesn't. ID is a question of engineering and not one of theory. Macroevolution isn't that much better at making predictions: since evolution studies are always looking backwards it is at best a special application of forensics. True, they can make predictions along the lines of "50,000,000 years ago all wombats were 500kg, 30,000,000 years ago they were 300kg and 20,000,000 years ago they were 200kg so I won't be stunned if I find 400kg wombat remains that date to 40,000,000 years ago" but that's about it.

If someone could find an effective way to test for the existence of an intelligence behind the universe, you can be quite sure that scientists would be fascinated. They'd all be applying for funding to do the tests. But no such test seems to have been defined (yet).

SETI doesn't count? The best way to establish intelligent life elsewhere in the universe is to strike up a conversation and break out the Hasbro Turing Test. There is a fair amount of funding on such things. But even if we do find intelligent life out there doesn't guarantee anything because there is always the possibility that the Intelligent Source (tm) is from a different universe, alternate reality, intersecting dimension - who knows? Who should care? (Nobody, really.)

The problem I have with the anti-IDers and the pro-macroevolutionists is that they tend to be unfair and lack the very same critical thinking that they pretend to foist on others. All too representative is the clown who mods as troll any post that dares to do anything other than fully embrace macroevolution as gospel. Teaching microevolution is good, valid and necessary. But before the teacher, school board or anonymous troglodyte with mod points declares "man came from apes, anybody who says otherwise is a religious nutjob fanatic, end of story" I'd like to see evidence that a wiener dog can spontaneously evolve into a great dane or even a hamster randomly mutating into a gerbil.

Re:Well good

[kurzweilfreak]

Please explain which aspects of evolutionary theory come from philosophy and not sciences such as geology, paleontology, genetics, physiology and anatomy please.

Re:Well good

[Anarchitect_in_oz]

Isn't that the point.
Science isn't a body of Knowlegde.
It's a body of Questions some of which have answers,
but most of these lead to more questions.

Re:Well good

[gammoth]

LOL!!

Re:Well good

[einhverfr]

Gould was also responsible for the Punctuated Equilibrium theory. This theory holds that you have long periods of relative stagnation punctuated by short periods of rapid changes (forced by environmental changes).

BTW, one can experimentally verify most of the effects of changing environments on natural selection of fruit flies. Fruit flies make good subjects here because you can deal with a large number of generations in a short time frame.

But the obvious example in recent times is the development of DDT resistance among insects. Indeed it is possible within a *very* short timeframe (evolutionarily speaking) to make a population of insects quite resistant to any given insecticide or other environmental hazard. For example heat-resistant fruit flies have been successfully bred using the same process (as an odd byproduct of this research, these fruitflies also lived twice as long ans their ancestors too). Perhaps if HIV is unchecked, we will see the human population develop resistance to it too (untreated HIV has an 90-95% mortality rate, perhaps 1-2% less).

If metabolic processes can be changed so easily, and if physical features can be changed as we have observed in birds during times of drought, why is it not likely that everything else can be seen to change as well?

Re:Well good

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait! Did something happen to Santa!? OMG! I hope he'll get better before Saturday.

Now back to why I think all you "evolutionism" bigots all hate Christians....

Re:Well good

[ddimas]

While I do agree to you on many of the points you make I do disagree about ID being a testable theory. On the scientific side how do you prove the influence of an intelligent designer? On the religious side how do you square ID with the injuntion "Do not put the LORD your God to the test" (Matthew 4:7)?

To me ID (and Creationism) seem to have the worst of both worlds, an untestable theory that may be heretical.

Re:Well good

[Lord Ender]

A more specific definition of modern scientific philosophy also includes the word "falsifiable."

Re:Well good

[NetMunkee]

That's what science is -- the study of the material world. You can have a different worldview, but that's not science.

I guess I missed the memo that said science makes a worldview assumption. Theories should be based on evidence, not evidence and a particular worldview. A theory doesn't need to be materialistic to be testable.

As an example, I can make the claim that God created the universe. Two hundred years ago the universe was thought to be eternal, so having it be created by God at some point in the past wasn't such a good theory. But now we have the scientific community pretty much agreeing that the universe came into existence about 14by ago. The evidence for God creating the universe got a whole lot better. There were competing theories, the reciprocating universe, steady-state model, etc, but those have all fallen out of favor based on the incresing body of evidence. At the same time, with the increasing body of evidence, the "God created the universe" theory has really come into it's own. In fact (I use that term purposefully :), we have enough evidence to start to discern some characteristics of that God. To be sure, this isn't the only theory, but it is a scientific theory simply because it is able make predictions about future discoveries.

That it is able to predict future discoveries makes it scientific. This is true of any historical science (for example, scientists used to think the earth was flat till someone found some evidence that contradicted that theory). Cosmology and paleontology are both historical sciences. Theories in those disciplines are tested by gathering new evidence and examining the existing theories in the light of the new evidence and the existing evidence (observing stellar phenomena for cosmology, digging up and examining fossils for paleontology). If a theory can make predictions about future discoveries, then it is testable. Darwinian evolution is testable because we can dig up more fossils, add those to the existing body of evidence, and see if the theory does a better or worse job at explaining the whole body of evidence. If you can do this and see a general trend towards being a better or worse explanation, then you have an idea of how good that theory is.

ID can make predictions about future discoveries, such as finding more and more irreducably complex systems. (incidentally, the main idea of ID is not simply complexity, but information content. An irriducably complex system implies information. Information implies design. Design implies both a designer and a purpose for that design.) So if we find more and more evidence of information-rich systems, then the ID theory looks better and better scientifically and darwinian evolution looks worse and worse. If we find more and more small incremental changes that lead to speciation then you have the opposite situation.

Re:Well good

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't it a fact that electricity powers light bulbs?

Of course not! There is the Dark Sucker Theory:
http://pw1.netcom.com/~rogermw/darksucker.html

Re:Well good

[gammoth]

I'll have to respectfully disagree. I'm not particularly knowledgable in physics, but it's my understanding that the theory of relativity suggests that gravity warps space-time. Now I know that it has been empiracally and proven that two clocks travelling at different speeds will diverge. However, I don't know of anyone who's seen space-time, nor the effect of gravity on space-time. I know of no attempts beyond mathematical analysis to demonstrate space-time. I could very well be wrong here.

Let me elaborate on my initial point. Just about any scientific theory should make Creationists worry because a scientific theory describes complex phenomena without any mention of God. Geology, genetics, physics, astronomy, medicine, physiology, mathematics etc. That's the whole point of science: describe things that are hard. Show me any repeatable experiment that digs out the equivalent of the Grand Canyon over thousands of years. Do you now doubt geology?

BTW, I believe there have been repeatable experiments mutations and micro-organisms as noted in other posts. Plus, not every mutation results in an advantage--don't straw man an argument! Also, I believe the fossil record supplies much, much better than circumstantial evidence.

Re:Well good

[ddimas]

In a simplistic sense you are right about agnosticism. However, take for instance gravity. No matter how many times it is observed in action, it can never be conclusively proven to work the way we think it does. We can make a million, a trillion, observations confirming our theory of gravity and yet this can never preclude the possibility that one day we might make an observation that directly contradicts it. Nevertheless, instinct and logic tell us that in the end we might as well take the chance and rely on our observations to treat the theory of gravity as a law. Atheism is the equivalent of this last step. Once we do that we can go on, like the Wright brothers, and build an aeroplane that works, for example. Agnosticism is the equivalent of refusing to get into a plane because gravity cannot be conclusively proven to work the way we think it does. I guess religion would be sitting on the tarmac praising the gods for the magical metal birds we ride around in and blaming the devil if they crash.

No, religion is the ones who are sure (without any previous proof) that they have understood the problem and go on to build the plane.

The Agnostics being unsure are willing to wait and see.

The Atheists militantly deny both gravity and aerodynamics and casually walk off the cliff...

Re:Well good

[Crunchie Frog]

I just find it odd that "Freedom FROM Religion" types fail to recognize that lack of subscription to an organized religion is a religious choice as well. What a bunch of fetid dingoes kidneys, It only sounds like a religous choice to religous people. Im not 'actively not believing in a god', therefore lack of subscription to an organised religon is not a religous choice. Im a "Freedom from Murder" type person myself. So that makes me a muder victim who hasnt been killed yet?

Re:Well good

[Ayanami Rei]

How is this _any_ different than "I am nothing like my great, great, great.....great grandfather"?

It is when I can't successfully mate and produce offspring with him if we were living at the same time. You know, speciation.


Selective breeding is _not_ evolution.

But that's exactly what evolutionary theory states. It _is_ selective breeding. Only it's your current niche, your environment that's doing the selection for you.


Natural ingredients have no bearing on the effects when used unnaturally or in unnatural quanities.

Now we're getting to the nitty gritty of saying: what's natural, and what's not.
I postulate that nature can create conditions on its own that we might consider wholly "unnatural" in any specific metric you choose to define, given sufficient time.
I also postulate that the behavior of humans as a whole (society) is entirely a natural phenomenon, as it lacks intent and exhibits unexpected, emergent behaviors.

Re:Well good

[Anonymous Coward]

So do many other superstitions. So what?

You could have presented an argument showing ID as repackaged creationism. You could have shown the parent simply because ID is historical does not mean it's been used to repackaged creationism today. Rather, you turn to a complete irrelevant point (i.e., straw man). Try again.

Re:Well good

[Anonymous Coward]

The parent was not arguing ID is science. The parent was arguing that ID is and has been a philosophy, and is not simply repackaged creationism. I am not arguing for/against the parent's argument, only pointing out that you seemed to miss his point.

Re:Well good

[jomammy]

Neither is evolution, so why is it taught in science classes?

The Best Damn IRC Search Engine

Re:Well good

[KeensMustard]

The overwhelming majority of theists believe in certain acts and attributes of god which CAN be disproven.

Perhaps they do. Perhaps they don't. Irrelevant either way, because in order to demonstrate the worth of their beliefs, atheists need to disprove the existence of ANY Divine Being, regardless of whether any theist believes in that God or not. So the particular beliefs of various theists are orthagonal to a proof of atheism.

So when engaging atheists in conversation theists may validly demonstrate a disproof of atheism by generalising the concept of the Divine as much as they wish.

Re:Well good

[hobbit126]

how is these players getting these hands any more absurd than them getting any other specific hand?

Re:Well good

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmmm, I definitely should have said "theory of gravity" there instead of just "gravity" since I opened the door to pointless argument for the sake of argument.

Anyway, "facts" are things that can be observed or have been observed. A theory is a tool for predicting future behavior. You can't actually observe future behavior.

Nobody is arguing that gravity doesn't exist *right now*. But serious scientists would probably allow for the possibility that gravity could just disappear tomorrow. Remember, nobody is saying it's likely, just that it can't be completely ruled out. If gravity did disappear tomorrow we would just try to find a theory that explained this new observation. (Well, barring the fact that we'd all be dead...)

And also remember that Newton's formula for explaining the behavior of gravity is F=-G(m1*m2)/r where G is the gravitational constant. Note that word, constant. It's not called the "attraction variable", mostly because according to the theory it's not variable.

To use another example, I have a theory, supported by all my previous observation, that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow. Is it a fact that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow? Nope, because it hasn't happened yet.

To bring this back on point, ID does not allow for the possibility that future observations will deviate from the theory. That's the whole 'falsifiable' thing that's been more eloquently explained in other posts.

Re:Well good

[Alsee]

Here's the honesty test: if this was really about separation of church and state then you shouldn't mind a federal law prohibiting any public teacher from ever declaring in a classroom that any religion that includes creationist traditions are false.

The constitution itself already prohibits it, even without passing any such law. Oh, a law on it could add some additional helpful legal mechanisms and flexibility in how to handle it, but even without a law specifically on it you can go to a court and get an injuction to stop it, and even prison for contempt of court for continuing to do so in violation of the injunction.

The First Amendment.. the Right of Religious Freedom and the prohibition against establishments respecting religion... the Separation of Church and State... it meens Freedom against the force of government being weilded against us to to promote or suppress and religious or religious belief or religious practice.

A teacher acting in an official capacity as an agent of the government itself cannot abuse their government powers to promote or supress any religion.

This is exactly why the ACLU has won (to the best of my knowledge) every School Prayer court case. The ACLU supports the right of students to pray in school - religious freedom. The ACLU website has a standing invitation for students to seek the ACLU's assistance if their right to pray in school is suppressed. The reason the ACLU has been winning these court cases is because every single case has targeted a school offical acting in an official capacity and abusing his governmental powers for the purpose of promoting or suppressing prayer by the students.

Of course the propaganda peices from religious rightwing groups complaining about these cases conviently leave out the fact that it is actually an act of government being targeted for promoting or supressing religious practice. They all LIE and MISREPRESENT the cases claiming that it it religion and student prayer being targeted. They issue all sorts of BS propaganda that the ACLU is trying to exterminate religion. No, the ACLU publicly supports the right of students to pray in school and has a standing invitation for students to seek thier help if that right is infringed. The ACLU has supported and won a number of cases supporting religion. They won a case requiring a highschool yearbook to include a student's Bibele quote (all students were granted space in the yearbook for a personal comment or quote). They jumped in to support a religious display on government land (a city attempted to prohibit people from using a lake in a public park for public baptism services).

random chance

As someone else has mentioned, the selection phase of the evolution process introduces a very non-random aspect, and that is exactly the step that creates information.

You can build the complete works of Shakespeare if you have enough completely random letters and you simply erase (kill off) each random letter that doesn't move you in the right direction.

The selection process in evolution is just as directed... it is directed towards whatever increases survivability and offspring. That is a very complex slection rule, and it produces very a sophisticated and complex sort of information.

ID does not undermine evolution.

ID - as being addressed in this court case - is a very specific entity. As the judge noted this particular entity was explicitly founded as a direct response to the Supreme Court ruling prohibiting Biblical Genesis from being tought by the government in public classrooms. It was specifically created to subvert that ruling, and specifically created to attack evolution. A fundrasing document (the Wedge Strategy) even leaked out of one of the two main groups driving the ID movment... and this document laid out their twenty-year strategy(!) to wage a PR campaign to discredit evolution and to recast their creationism as mock-science to slip it into public classrooms and to gain influenc

Re:Well good

[KeensMustard]

Your analogy falls down because gravity (at least, it's effects) are observable, whereas a Divine Being is not. So to draw conclusions about the unobservable based on observations is irrational.

Re:Well good

[misleb]

Right. Isn't that what I said, just not in so many words?

-matthew

Re:Well good

[misleb]

THe idea that living things are designed goes back a long way

So do many other superstitions. So what?

So... what you said is false. ID has only very recently been associated with Christian creationism.

-matthew

Re:Well good

[Rimbo]

I guess how you interpret my position comes down to how you define the terms, but I balk at the terms "faith" and "belief", because to me they represent blinders that become invisible once you put them on. If you fail to question your assumptions about reality, you'll soon be wandering off into a world that exists only in your own mind.

That's fair; the word "faith" really has come to embrace the meaning "blind faith," so I understand your hesitation. That's why ever post I ever make on the subject ends up being 19 pages long: I have to explain: "Wait, look, faith has a meaning other than 'blind.'"

Of course, it could be worse; I could be trying to convince other Christians to go to a Presbyterian church and have to keep re-explaining Predestination. Boy, did that one ever get messed up from its original intent. It was originally intended to show why excommunication from the Catholic Church did not, and could not, lead to eternal damnation. (Hmmm... Now that I look at that, that wasn't that bad after all...maybe there is nothing worse than taking on the meaning of the word "faith!")

Re:Well good

[Dimensio]

See previous Georgia court case where all that was asked was that a sticker be placed that said evolution was not fact, but was a theory.

The sticker in question lied about what the theory of evolution states. There's also the fact that no one lobbied for similar stickers for any other theories taught in schools, such as gravitational theory and atomic theory.

Re:Well good

[Anonymous Coward]

Please list some of the scientists, and the "severe flaws" that they point out. There are certainly refinements that have been made to evolutionary theory, but that is mostly filling in the details. What are the severe flaws to which you refer?

Re:Well good

[CapnGrunge]

Oh, so you're an uncyclopedian?

Re:Well good

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. That is why the origin of life as explain by evolution (which is a belief system, not a fact) should not be taught either.

Don't confuse things. The ID folks love to do this since it muddles the issues ...

Evolution is not a fact, it is a testable, refutable scientific theory that thus far has been an accurate predictor of the observed biological world.

ID, on the other hand, is not a refutable scientific theory, it is an assertion based on faith. It is untestable, therefore not scientific.

Re:Well good

[Vaughn Anderson]

Everything you've said to this point requires decsions to be made to get to the conclusions. Evolution is based on accidents in nature, not externally manipulated breeding enviroments. What you have described is _not_ evolution, selective breeding by definition is controlled by intelligence.

Evolution says that a simple system developes into a more complex system. (let's have a standard definition of evolution to discuss from) What you have described is filtering a quality until it's more pure, not creating something new, and certainly not more complex.

Re:Well good

[Anonymous Coward]

O_O

thats actually by me. i won post of the month for it in april 2005 on alt.atheism.

im known on the internet as "snex"

Re:Well good

[Anonymous Coward]

If the stamp collectors talked endlessly about how their collecting stamps not only saved them, but could save you too, and came to your door weekly to help you learn about stamp collecting, and constantly threw hissy fits about people not observing the national holiday called "Stampmas", then yes, people who didn't believe in stamp collecting would probably mock stamp collectors too.

Since very few stamp collectors actually are as annoying as true believers, then they don't get mocked much.

Re:Well good

[Anonymous Coward]

There is the scientific theory of electro-magnatism. Do you dispute that electricity is a fact? Isn't it a fact that electricity powers light bulbs?

I do dispute that electricity is a fact. It is a very well-supported theory, certainly, but it could still turn out to be mistaken. Perhaps all light bulbs up to the present day have been powered by invisible blue fairies who are attracted to filaments inside glass bulbs. I may suggest this as a hypothesis, create an experiment to test it (say, by tempting the fairies away from the bulbs with trays of chocolate cookies), and either support or disprove my new hypothesis.

It is very unlikely that such an experiment would support the invisible-blue-fairy hypothesis, but it would be irresponsible to state that it was impossible. If the results of the experiment suggested that the fairies do exist, then we would have experimental evidence in favour of both the fairy-theory and the electricity-theory, and would need a series of further experiments to settle the matter of which one was more correct (that is, a better description of reality).

Re:Well good

[Anonymous Coward]

You are a fucking moron. His argument had no logcial base.

Re:Well good

[timbo234]

I'll have to respectfully disagree. I'm not particularly knowledgable in physics, but it's my understanding that the theory of relativity suggests that gravity warps space-time. Now I know that it has been empiracally and proven that two clocks travelling at different speeds will diverge. However, I don't know of anyone who's seen space-time, nor the effect of gravity on space-time. I know of no attempts beyond mathematical analysis to demonstrate space-time. I could very well be wrong here.

I think this is the reasoning that gives people so much doubt about evolution. The whole 'if I can't see it directly then how can I know it ever happened?' thing. It makes no sense to say 'I don't know of anyone who's seen space-time' since you're seeing it all around you, every second of every day. Similarly the clock experiment you mentioned is an empirical, physical, experiment. Its not some abstract mathematical proof or calculation.

Re:Well good

[scowling]

Atheism includes both positive non-belief and lack of belief. Agnosticism is orthogonal to theism and atheism; it is the philosophy that the existence of gods is unknowable. One can be a theistic agnostic or an atheistic agnostic. Religion requires a belief in a supernatural force; as such, atheism is not a religion.

Re:Well good

[6800]

You operate "by basing my decisions on assumptions that I make about reality". This hints of a deeper faith of some kind. Perhaps it is in your intellect. There is something deeper than what you describe that gives you the confidence to move forward. I'd guess that a philosopher might define your 'religon' as a variation of existentialism.

Cutting off here 'cause 0330 alarm for early system work calls, cheers.

Re:Well good

[timbo234]

The ID people simply want their own untestable and unscientific theory to be taught as a 'fact' as well, or at least as a 'science' since most people associate science with finding facts, even if that isn't strictly true.

Any debate about how science is taught in schools (and yes your point is very valid about teaching what a theory is and that science can never find absolute truths or facts) is a completely seperate issue. In fact letting ID into classrooms would just further take science teaching away from the scientific method and processes.

Re:Well good

[Anonymous Coward]

actually in some cases. Like say if you display floor(2.5) + floor(2.5) = 2.5+2.5 would produce that result.

Re:Well good

[Anonymous Coward]

step 1. In the beginning god created the heavens and the earth.

I'd like to go over step 1 in more detail.

You ask them who created god.

They answer god is eternal and didn't need a creator.

I say that the universe is eternal and didn't need a creator.

I invoke Occam's Razor on two theories that both result in the same set of observations and predictions. The simplier theory wins every time.

Given two equally predictive theories, choose the simpler.

Evolution requires just that the current creatures exists, multiply and time passes. ID requires that you throw in several other premises that cannot be observed nor measured ( such as the existance or non existance of a supreme being ), and it must still explain ( and yet fails to do so ) the observed evolution of creatures even in our own time scales, such as bacteria acquiring immunity to antibiotics in the time scale of our own lifetimes.

No, evolution is explained much better with the current theories. No need for ID at all, because it doesn't answer or solve any of the questions in our current understanding of evolution.

Re:Well good

[mj2k]

science is, by definition, that which we can observe, and guess what, we only have our 5 senses to use. We can observe electrons, by noting macroscopic movements within bodies, we can devise theories for nuclear reactions, and can observe these by designing electronic devices that measure changes in electric field, etc... We don't just assume "electrons exist" because we came up with a cool idea, and thought it might stick. Scientists in the early 20th century devised experiments and (by accident) discovered the particle that bends to certain magnetic fields, which ultimately became known as the electron. You can argue radio carbondating says the world is 4 billion years old, yet an advocate of ID might argue that it a mature world was created, this is a valid theory, you can't disprove that these so-called evidences of evolution were not introduced by some higher being, you weren't there to see the evolution of the world. You may think the idea of a higher being is perposterous, but unless you are everywhere at once, you cannot logically make the argument that such a being doesn't exist, any more than you can argue that aliens don't exist in some other galaxy... Regardless on whether or not you think ID is a load of BS, my point is this: the question of the origins of the universe is not a scientific, but rather, philisophical question. Science should deal with _facts_ or well-established theories (at least in HS or below), evolution is a hypothesis, and unlike most _theories_ it has not been proven to be true, except for micro-evolution within species, something which even advocates of ID do not dispute... Evolution, the supposed "theory", refers to macro-evolution, and we have no proof of this "missing link" scientists have been searching for, for over 40 years... You know what my textbook said about it? Evolution either happened too quickly for there to be a fossil record, or so slowly that the changes are not evident from the fossils remaining... That's not evidence to me, and until you can show me proof of macro evolution, i.e. evolution accross species, I will keep an open mind about things... P.S. So the big bang occured, then where did the energy come from? It's easy to devise a theory that manufactures life from something, but how does something, say an electron, appear, out of nothing?

Re:Well good

[sickofthisshit]

Haven't read it, but Sagan was not a trained psychologist or cultural historian. He didn't deal clinically with these cases, where other investigators have and continue to do so.

Re:Well good

[mj2k]

a human is observing something, right? come on, you're still looking at images produced from a telescope, you're not just dreaming up a nebula exist 20 mil light years away...

Re:Well good

[sgage]

"Ok, so now they teach the " Fact of Evolution" not the " Theory of Evolution" hmmm.... you know that humanism, atheism, and being agnostic are all religions too, just because you claim that you don't find science in ID, doesn't mean you are absolutely correct either, both Evolution and ID are Theories, and therefore perfectly legitimate to be discussed, also, if you are so sure ID is incorrect, where is the fear coming from that it cannot even be mentioned and discussed by rational thinking people."

ID can be mentioned and discussed by anyone who wants to. It simply is not science. It is the same old "God of the Gaps" nonsense that has been going on for over a century.

ID is saying "I don't understand (fill in the blank) therefore it must be God!" This is not science.

Evolution is a fact, if anything is. The body of evidence for evolution is overwhelming. The "theory" part is exactly how it all works. It is subject to new data, revision and refinement - that's science.

Humanism etc. are not religions - and it's just bullshit to say so. Religion is claiming that "my book is the literal truth of God, period", and "oh by the way, everybody else's book is blasphemy and you will all burn in hell". No possibility of debate, or discussion, or change.

The Bible (which I have read many times, and indeed studied), whatever else it might be, is not a science text. Get over it. If your faith depends on ID, it is a sorry faith.

Re:Well good

[Anonymous Coward]

Prove to me there is no God.
 
God is dead. Nietze confirmed it.

Re:Well good

[richieb]

I guess... If you held it to be true enough to act upon it.

I thought of better way of explaining atheism. Basically the concept of God is meaningless. Asking an atheist if he believes in it just does not make sense.

God is like division by zero. The answer is not defined, it does not make sense, it does not exist. Asking me if I believe that 1/0 is 42 is a meaningless question.

I guess I would define free will as the ability to choose to attempt to do anything. It seems to me that for a person to be able to do this he or she would have to somehow control some variable in the laws of nature.

Of course I believe that I can control some variables in my environment. I can choose to type this text in, instead of not doing it.

What you should be asking me is what is the "I" that I'm talking about. And once you remove the metaphysical mumbo-jumbo, this becomes a really deep and interesting question.

Re:Well good

[Glooty-Us-Maximus]

"Burden of Proof, you son of a bitch!

YOU made the motherfucking claim, it is up to YOU to provide evidence to back it up! Otherwise, you could just fucking say "The core of jupiter is made of broken dreams and also unicorns" and it would be truth by default because we can't prove otherwise. If you're going to make an outrageous claim, you have to back it up. It's like a fucking natural law, or something. Fuck." - Unknown Poster on the SA Forums

Re:Well good

[Ayanami Rei]

What you have described is filtering a quality until it's more pure, not creating something new, and certainly not more complex.

*shakes head*

The original example, you know, the superbacteria? Yeah, none of the old bacteria had any of the qualities of the superbacteria. There was no refining going on.
You are assuming that the bacteria initially had all the potential to become the superbacteria. If that was the case, then it would have taken much fewer human to human infections for the superbacteria to overcome all the other bacteria (and probably kill any human it infected). This is because that specific bacteria would surely thrive, regardless of whether a person took an antibiotic or not.
No, the bacteria from one generation to the next was, on average, just a tiny bit different, even in a control group. But the bacteria cultured from the specific condition (repeated partial applications of an antibiotic) resulted in a new group that was nearly invulnerable to said toxin, while the control group could be _completely_ killed by a similar dosage.
So... where are the poison surviving members of the original colony? How come after applying the full-dosage antibiotic to the control group, you didn't have a few stragglers which would re-colonize the growth media?

This seems to be like one of those things were you don't quite grasp that thermodynamic law of increasing entrophy... assuming it supports this idea that everything is universally headed to chaos and nothingness as an opposite to Gods' intial creation.

Sure, it states that overall, the entropy of a system increases. However, for arbitrary large stretches of time, it can decrease. It just has to tend to increased entropy over time (we only can show that limit -> inf as time -> inf). Also, it depends on how you define your boundaries of a "system", whether entropy is really increasing or decreasing in any specific circumstances. This can be very confusing.

But I assure you there is nothing counterintuitive about bacteria seeming spontaneously building an immunity to a toxin it didn't already have. It (the "lucky" mutation) just has to happen once in all those random DNA exchanges going on in that petri dish before you see the effects. It gets magnifed by the application of the toxin, by increasing the chance that the mutation will catch on.

That is what evolution is about. Forget about dinosaurs and apes and men. This is biology and medical science stuff we're talking about. Current research. Important stuff to know for your health even!

Re:Well good

[Alsee]

You post is the rantings of a bigot who hates Christians.

That's a peculiar claim, particularly considering that he *IS* Christian.

Schools should teach what the majority of people in the district want taught.

Sorry dude, this is America and we abide by the constitution areound here. The constitution establishes a substantial number of individual rights and created a number of areas where the majority cannot simply vote itself whatever it likes and abuse the force of government to violate other's rights.

In particular the constitution guarantees the Right of Religious Freedom. That means the force of government CANNOT be used to promote or suppress any religous belief, no matter how much 51% of the population wants to hijack the force of government to grant itself special religious favor and to press their religious beliefs onto the minority.

That is why the ACLU wins their school prayer court cases. The ACLU supports the right of students to pray in school, the ACLU only sues school officials acting in an offical capacity as agents of the government itself and attempting to abuse that governmental power to either promote or suppress student prayer.

The rights of the majority are being attacked.

The majority does not have the right to violate the constitution, and had the Dover population majority not already voted to reverse the school policy it would be the rights of the minority being protected.

I find it absurd that liberal groups

Ah yes, liberal groups. As in George W. Bush and his liberal cronie judge appointees. That damn liberal bastard Bush.

want to give academic freedom to ideas they believe in, but will deprive others of the right to speak their mind.

I think you need to learn what the constitution means, and what Freedom of Speech is, and what is and is not censorship. No one it trying to prevent anyone from speaking their mind. You are perfectly free to talk about ID all you like, and the judge even encouraged continued work inthe area - outside of the government run school classes. This is strictly about what the government can do. The government cannot push non-science in a science classroom for the purpose of favoring and promoting a particular religion or religious beliefs over others.

Prove to me there is no God.

Why the FUCK are you asking a Christian to poove there is no God?

Oh, that's right... I forgot... you somehow overlooked the fact that he stated he was a Christian.

You are also apparently under the bizzare delusion that evolution and God are somehow in conflict. As the judge said, there is absolutely no conflict between evolution and God.

You may as well be asking Galileo to proove there is no God because he said that the earth goes around the sun, contrary to a literal reading of the Bible.

A sun centered solar system is perfectly compatible with God, science explaining where rain comes from is perfectly compatible with God, science explaining how the sun shines is perfectly compatible with God, science explaining how the constellations are created by other stars accross the galaxy is perfectly compatible with God, and science explaining how life changing and diversifying and becomming more complex... that is perfectly compatible with God.

Science explaing how the universe operates is hardly anti-God, and it certainly does not disproove God, nor does it disclaim God.

Prove to me that everything science measures and describes was not created by God.

Who said it wasn't? Science simple explains how the universe operates. Are YOU placing limits on God? Are YOU FORBIDDING GOD to have created the universe and having chosen to use evolution as his mechanism to create the vast diversity of life on earth He wanted? The same way He chose nuclear fusion to power the sun and create the sunlight for earth that He wanted? The same way He chose evaporation and condensation to provide the create the rain He w

Re:Well good

[tjmcgee]

Amen Brother.

Re:Well good

[ddimas]

People have believed in God since the start of time. What makes scientists today so much more certain than scientists of 100 years ago? Cos, you know, science progresses. That's what it does; that's what it's meant to do. I'd be extremely troubled if scientists today knew less than 100 years ago.

I must have missed something in graduate school. When was it proved that there is no God?

Re:Well good

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh come on - "but when it's 1 among an infinite number of possibilities, it's infinitely unlikely to be true" - what kind of argument is that? By your logic, all explanations of anything are "infinitely unlikely to be true". Where does that leave us? And you're supposed to be a proponent of science?

Re:Well good

[jcr]

Did I say "Christian"?

Creationism is the basis of most mythologies. My statement stands.

-jcr

Re:Well good

[Liam Slider]

Personally, I have met many Atheists who have gone out of their way, downright fanatically, to convert non-Atheists to Atheism. I've seen them degrade and abuse people who have any religious beliefs whatsoever that do not agree with them. They behave as if their way is the only way, and that everyone else is not only absolutely wrong, but inferior for their beliefs. I've seen them behave, in many ways, much like "Born Again Evangelical Atheists."

Re:Well good

[jcr]

Which is an absolutely valid comparison until you consider that the non-collector of stamps has begun advocating non-collection over collection.

Not all atheists bother to argue the point. Do you then maintain that they are still religious?

-jcr

Re: Well good

[Anonymous Coward]

Please, take a moment and seriously consider the possibility that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Really. I don't know you, and just one single person isn't going to influence any policy. I'm not getting anything out of this; I honestly wrote this for you. Just trying to do a random good deed today. You are unbelievably wrong, and I won't hazard a guess on where this misinformation came from, but wouldn't you rather have a fully informed view of the world?

Re:Well good

[bonkedproducer]

No, you are choosing to subscribe to a personal belief system - I really do not believe anyone has the ability to know beyond all doubt that they are correct in their belief system and therefore that anyone that believes differently than they do is "WRONG" - this is not the same as your "I have not been actively murdered" example, beliefs are not the same as issues that are absolutely black or white.

Murdered/Not Murdered != believes/doesn't believe.

I'm sorry that your prejudice toward me makes you assume I am a "religious type" - saying/thinking/evangelizing that there is no God/Higher Power/One Eyed Unicorn Buffalo/etc - is a belief toward the supernatural which means it IS a religious belief. This has nothing to do with my personal religious beliefs!

The only people who get pissed about this are those that are so prejudicial toward what they view as the "weak-minded religious" folk that they dare not even be grouped in with them by someone saying every person on the fucking ball of clay we share has a belief that the supernatural exists or doesn't.

Also, on that note - dingoes kidneys made me chuckle far more than it should have. Guess what something we all share is the ability to disagree, although according to my inbox, it's best to not dare suggest that anyone on slashdot could possibly be religious (it also is my first ever post flagging me as a troll - although I have no clue what was trollish about my post.)

Re:Well good

[jcr]

Prove to me there is no God. Prove to me that everything science measures and describes was not created by God.

Since you're the one postulating the existence of a god, the burden of proof is yours. Nice try, though.

-jcr

Re:Well good

[mdwh2]

Last time I looked, they weren't teaching that there isn't a God in schools, so your (absurd) claim that "believing God doesn't exist" is a religion is irrelevant anyway.

Re:Well good

[Liam Slider]

That's because Evolution is a fact. Long and well observed. The mechanisms themselves, such as Natural Selection, are what are classed as Theories. The fact the living things change, adapt, and develop into different living things over time...that is absolutely at the level of hard scientific fact, and that is Evolution.

Re:Well good

[bonkedproducer]

No, it is just bad grammer.

Re:Well good

[Anonymous Coward]

Christianity is a collection of beliefs.
eg: A common belief that atheists have is: There is a god.

Atheism is a collection of beliefs.
eg: A common belief that atheists have is: There is no god.

Science is also a collection of beliefs.
eg: Most Scientists believe in the theory of relativity. They used to believe Newton's law were also theories, but those have now been disproven.

The difference is that scientists accept that their theories are NOT 100% proven true, whereas Christianity requires you to believe that "there is a god" as fact. Some atheists believe that "There is no god" is a fact, and in that case they are religious (they unquestionably follow a collection of beliefs without proof). You're definition of religion might defer, but that's what it means to me.

For the record, I am atheist in that I believe that there is no god, but I also believe that is a possibility that there is a god that I can't detect/prove. I think there is a special name for this collection of beliefs, but I forget.

Note: maths works in an abstract system where IF axioms are accept as fact, then theories that follow MUST also be accepted as facts. Anything that is not proven but seems true under all humanly possible observation is still only considered as a conjecture. Maths requires you to accept the axioms if you want the theories that follow. The choice of axioms is entirely up to you, but usually a problem that you encounter comes with an implied set of axioms.

Re:Well good

[grolschie]

Evolution is not a fact, it is a testable, refutable scientific theory that thus far has been an accurate predictor of the observed biological world.

I call BS. Although minor variations within a species have been observed, there is no testable evidence of one class, order, or family evolving ever into completely new class, order, or family. Prove me wrong! And I am not talking examples like different breeds of dogs and wolves, I mean a complete type into another such as reptiles into birds. The "Tree of Life" is a fairy tale.

Re:Well good

[Dimensio]

Is gravity not an absolute truth?

No, it isn't. The cause of the force we call gravity far less understood than evolution.

Re:Well good

[Vaughn Anderson]

No, the bacteria from one generation to the next was, on average, just a tiny bit different, even in a control group

Every single living thing that reproduces changes a little in every generation, but they aren't "evolving", unless you are trying to redefine the term.

But the bacteria cultured from the specific condition (repeated partial applications of an antibiotic) resulted in a new group that was nearly invulnerable to said toxin, while the control group could be _completely_ killed by a similar dosage.

This is what you call evolution? Forcing a group of bacteria to survive in a toxic environment? You can do this experiment on yourself with alcohol. The first time you drink a six pack the cells in your body react and have to reject it to survive as the toxicity levels are too high. But, if you condition your body to deal with the hightened level of toxicity after awhile you can easily drink a 6 six pack.

And all you have to do is ask any nurse in a big city that deliver's baby's if any of the traits of a drug abusing parent (as an extreme example) get passed onto the child. This is a very basic concept, but certainly not evolution.

Sure, it states that overall, the entropy of a system increases. However, for arbitrary large stretches of time, it can decrease.

Entropy, the bane of evolution. Describe this for me, how is it even possible for a simple single celled organism (sperm) combine with a human egg, and at the most simple level life gets for mammals and then for a very specific time period entropy goes in reverse (invariably)?

How is it that everything in the universe looses heat through entropy, but living things gain heat? The larger the living element grows, the more heat it contains, defying the concept of entropy. But only living things do this, nothing else.

Considering the fact that scientists cannot explain how adding water to a seed will cause life to enter the seed and it will grow into a plant, (again completely defying thermodynamic entropy) I venture to say we are extemely ignorant of the true inner workings of even a bacteria.

Re:Well good

[bonkedproducer]

How many freaking religions can one person have at a time?

ONE! Your own!

Who the fuck would have thought I would have offended the largest gathering of INDIVIDUALS on the damned Internet by expressing my belief that not all of us fit into one fucking label! Sorry if you don't understand that I feel that each individual's personal beliefs toward the supernatural are their personal religious beliefs.

Re:Well good

[Dimensio]

That's a terrible analogy. More like 20 Bridge players (each with the name "Amino Acid") look down and each finds that he has Ace through King of the same suit, thus allowing them to link all of their hands together in a chain we'll call "Protein." Your analogy presupposes that any hand will do, and so the probability of getting it doesn't matter. My (correct) analogy posits that only one hand will do and so the probability of getting it and getting it repeatedly is improbable to the point of absurdity.

But your analogy falls apart when you consider that playing cards don't have the same properties as amino acids, wherein the molecular properties cause the viable links to hold together while the nonviable links tend to fall apart. With that in mind, the statistics game becomes meaningless.

Re:Well good

[Anonymous Coward]

and macro-evolution is not significantly repeatable or testable.
Show me an experiment that makes a single celled organismed species evolve
to one of much more complexity...You can't...

Also "Insertion mutations" invalidate already gained information nearly 100% of the time.

So evolution shouldnt be taught also.

Re:Well good

[Anonymous Coward]

a great bit to observe about Pandas and People came to light in the court case.

see:
http://www2.ncseweb.org/wp/?p=80
which shows early drafts of the book where the terms of inteligent design are used to replace creationisim in later drafts.

Re:Well good

[mdwh2]

although I have no clue what was trollish about my post

Probably any of:

- Referring to humanism, atheism and agnosticism as religions.
    - Humanism could be, though it's more accurately considered a philosophy - but that's irrelevant as no one's advocating teaching humanism in science lessons.
    - Atheism as a religion? Well evidently I'm not going to convince you, but calling atheists religious without any good argument is bound to get you labelled as a troll. And again, irrelevant - even if you characterise atheism as a dogmatic belief that God doesn't exist, no one is arguing that atheism should be taught in science lessons either.
    - I've never heard agnosticism referred to as a religion - that's someone saying "I don't know if there's a God". It's not surprising that people may have thought you were just trolling here. And yet again, no one's advocating teaching agnosticism (if that were possible).
- Not understanding what a theory is. If you really don't, then please go to learn what a scientific theory is. This comes up so many times on Slashdot, it's hard to believe people still don't get it.
- No one's forcing religious belief - even if you define "lack of religion" as a belief, people are still free to believe and learn about ID, including in schools. Just not in science lessons.
- Claiming that "We don't have 100% proof that this is true" is on an equal level to "We don't have any evidence for this whatsoever". Honestly, I'd hope you were trolling here ;p do you really consider them to be comparable?

I'll believe you when you say you were sincere in your posting, but with some many outrageous claims, on many cliched points that have been made time and time again, and aren't even relevant to the issue of teaching evolution in science lessons, it's not surprising that people mistook you for just trolling.

Re:Well good

[Coniptor]

He has always existed and no point "sprang into being"
He is before all things and NOTHING came before him.

Re:Well good

[Laser Lou]

here is no testable evidence of one class, order, or family evolving ever into completely new class, order, or family

I noticed that you didn't mention "species" there. Sounds like a tacit admission of evolution to me.

Re:Well good

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Assuming that's how it works, which it isn't. Everything from minute chemicals to gross structures can start out as other things, then evolve down into a new niche.

It is intellectual fraud to propose such things only happen by literal random shuffling of dozens to hundreds of pieces to suddenly achieve a goal. These ID "scientists" know this, yet persist anyway.

Re:Well good

[Anonymous Coward]

Holy out of context quotes batman.
What you've quoted here is from The Origin of the Species. The passage is setting the stage for a whole chapter on the imperfection of the geological record and answers his own staging question question quite well. You should read the whole thing in context sometime.

Re:Well good

[slavemowgli]

I don't see the problem, really. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, feels like a duck and smells like a duck, then chances are it *is* a duck, and a judge finding just that (that it is a duck) is not unreasonable. I think it's a bit out of touch with reality to worry that this will be used in the future to find that cows are ducks, too.

And what's more... what is your alternative? Would it have been better to declare that the duck is a cow, *now, definitely*, just so that there might not be a situation where a cow is declared a duck, *in the future, maybe*?

For that matter, what findings could a judge still make, anyway? You could argue that *everything* could be used as a precedent for something we don't want in the future; but doing so will not solve the problems we are facing today. Are you suggesting we don't solve those problems just because there *might* be other problems in the future?

That doesn't sound reasonable to me.

Re:Well good

[tom's a-cold]

No - it is NOT a theory. A defining characteristic of a theory is that it must be falsifiable. ID is NOT falsifiable - so it can not be described as a "theory".

That's Karl Popper's definition of a theory. It's relatively modern and is not universally accepted. Popper's criteria for what constitutes a science would disqualify just about anything outside the physical sciences, and possibly cosmology too.

But I agree that ID is not science, and would add that it is piss-poor philosophy and reflects a shallow and stunted theology.

Re:Well good

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, bad analogy on your part too: firstly all that chemistry isn't random, secondly you should look up the anthropic principle.

Re:Well good

[cbr2702]

In fact, the tenets behind the scientific theory of evolution are based on facts. The observations, experiments, etc. all have dealt with facts.

There is a difference between being based on facts and being fact. The theory itself is not fact, and we are not in a position, through any amount of research or experimentation, to make it one.

As for evolution's being a law vs a theory, Wikipedia describes the difference as being:

Physical laws are distinguished from scientific theories by their simplicity. Scientific theories are generally more complex than laws; they have many component parts, and are more likely to be changed as the body of available experimental data and analysis develops. This is because a physical law is strictly empirical. It is a summary observation of things as they are. A theory is a model that accounts for the observation, explains it, relates it to other observations, and makes testable predictions based upon it. Simply stated, while a law notes that something happens, a theory attempts to deal with why or how it happens. -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_law

So the law/theory distinction isn't really what we want here.

This is not in any way a failure of the theory, but most likely a function of the subject matter, which would dictate absolute knowledge of all species, and detailed information on the reproduction, DNS stability, mutations, etc. of all living organisms to exclude the possibility of exceptions.

If we're going to define the field broadly enough to include DNS stability, we're looking at one hell of a big theory.

Re:Well good

[bonkedproducer]

Modded up by other ignorant Slashdotters. How sad.

Are you new to this debate, or have you just not listened to anyone that you disagree with? Perhaps you've already stopped reading this -- that would explain your profound misunderstanding. Please, bear with me for just a minute, and in the future you'll be able to enter this debate a little bit better armed."

You fucking elitist asshat fucktard, you completely missed my point! I am saying it is utter and complete bullshit for the judge to make it illegal to teach a widely held belief if the teachers and school board feel it should be part of the fucking curriculum. You see, school board members are elected, by the People, to do their bidding, if you don't like what they do, you have the fucking option to send your kid to private school (see that arguement works both ways.) This is all about freedom of speech, the constitution talks about that also.

As for everyone claiming that the lack of belief isn't belief, look at what happens when they assume that I don't buy into their belief (to those that have made comments about that, your assumptions are wrong by the way, I do believe in evolution.)

Your claim of having no faith IS a religious belief, if you don't like that too fucking bad, it fits the definition. Now, I'll go back to be the ignorant, toothless, inbred, hillbilly sister-fucker you apparently assume I am.

Re:Well good

[Tablizer]

You mean designed, right? Or did you really mean that some pdp-11s had sex and gave birth to a pdp-12?

DOS raped a Mac and birthed Windows.

Re:Well good

[Thangodin]

Actually, Newtonian physics works perfectly well until you get into relativistic scenarios: high speeds, and very large and very small scales. Most people never will in everyday life, and the math and measurement are a bitch. Contrary to popular belief, Newtonian physics continues to persist in relativity--the extra terms just collapse to insignificance when calculating forces and events at a human scale, essentially giving you the original Newtonian formulas. So it isn't wrong, just incomplete, in that it doesn't incorporate rare details that 99.9% of the people in the world will never need anyway.

Re:Well good

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

> I'm sorry but this is forcing religious belief on
> the students - the belief that those that believe
> in a creator are wrong is a religious belief.

No, actually it's that, in order to be taught in schools, you have to be a reasonable, scientific theory. Religious beliefs don't meet that standard. Hence they are purely religious, and not science whatsoever and thus cannot be taught in public schools because of the separation of church and state.

You are free to believe whatever you like; you'd just better have actual, real proof if you want it taught as science, especially if it's religious in nature.

Re:Well good

[Jobe_br]

Hehe, thanks for doing more legwork than I did! I stand corrected, and gladly so.

Re:Well good

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Exactly. How saying "Show me proof, and I'll believe", like in a god, or a unicorn, or so on, is religious, I don't know.

Re:Well good

[MetalOne]

Excuse my ignorance on this issue, but where did this belief spring from. I know that it is written in the bible, but I am after the real source. Is this supposedly told by God to Moses? If so, how did the information get from Moses into the bible. That is, did Moses write the entry down himself or was it spread by word of mouth through a few generations before being written down in the bible. The only way this statement could have any weight is if it came from God himself. Anything else would simply be a guess.

Re:Well good

[bonkedproducer]

Matthew 4:7 could also (and has been) translated as: "Do not tempt"

Re:Well good

[jc42]

Oh, yeah; I've confused them before. And they both did a bunch of other things.

But y'know how it is. All them women scientists look alike. ;-)

(For that matter, are you sure you could tell a picture of Charles Darwin from a picture of Karl Marx?)

Re:Well good

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't worry. Xander is.

Re:Well good

[hackiavelli]

Irrelevant either way, because in order to demonstrate the worth of their beliefs, atheists need to disprove the existence of ANY Divine Being, regardless of whether any theist believes in that God or not.

The burden of proof is on the claimant, not the skeptic. It is not my job to make someone else's argument then disprove it.

In all of human history no one has provided any factual or even compelling evidence for god or gods. Furthermore, theism is not based on observance but mysticism, emotionalism, and ritual; it's is an inherently irrational system. Finding religion wrong does not require counter-evidence, it requires an examination of its own axioms.

Re:Well good

[Programmer2Lawyer]

[P]laying cards don't have the same properties as amino acids, wherein the molecular properties cause the viable links to hold together while the nonviable links tend to fall apart.

I'm afraid you've only dug your own grave here. Actually, amino acids have the curious property of preferring not to link as such. So, the case worsens. Now, you've got 20 players each getting these hands, but in addition, 3 of Hearts doesn't like 4 of Hearts, and so on. Then, should you somehow get these contentious chums to link up, you've got the second law of thermodynamics working against you, preventing these miraculous chains from joining with other chains in order to form organized life.

Re:Well good

[Anonymous Coward]

Congratulations. In just three sentences you have illustrated how to:
1. Miss the point
2. Confuse the issue
3. Get a +1 Flamebait all at once.

Electro-magnetism is a theory because electricity is not a fact in the scientific sense. We can define a lot of predictable things about electricity but as a matter of fact, we don't know how magnets 'work'. We know that they can exert force without 'running out' of magnetism, which is in itself fascinating. Once we know more about that, we will probably also be finding out how things like 'gravity' works.

Even the Laws of Physics do not explain 'why' objects have mass or inertia, just that they clearly, repeatably do.

By the way, 'electricity' does NOT power any light bulb. Mechanical or chemical energy powers the bulb- through a battery or generator. Electricity is just a convenient currency for shipping (or storing) that power.

Re:Well good

[Dimensio]

I'm afraid you've only dug your own grave here. Actually, amino acids have the curious property of preferring not to link as such. So, the case worsens. Now, you've got 20 players each getting these hands, but in addition, 3 of Hearts doesn't like 4 of Hearts, and so on.

I'm sure you can reference documentation showing that amino acids normally don't link the way they are observed together in living organisms.

Then, should you somehow get these contentious chums to link up, you've got the second law of thermodynamics

Okay, you've clearly cribbed everything from creationist websites.

THE EARTH IS NOT A CLOSED SYSTEM! THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS ONLY APPLIES TO CLOSED SYSTEMS.

Re:Well good

[LeonGeeste]

Okay, but you have to be careful not to equivocate. What fundamentalists, and many people in general, dispute is that the transition from single-celled organisms, through a series of stages, to birds (for example) occurred. This has not been observed. It is *inferred* from an incomplete fossil record. And don't get me wrong -- I'm not saying that infererence is false. But you're dealing with two distinct meanings of evolution: 1) change in allele frequency; 2) descent from one species to a (say) more complex one. You can't just assert the (obvious) (1) and claim it is equivalent to (2). That's just playing fast and loose with facts.

And I'm not sure what you mean by "Natural Selection" being a theory. It's a tautology. Whatever survived -- that was fit. Whatever didn't -- that wasn't fit. Precisely nothing could falsify it. It's true by definition. And it only deals with *removal* of genes, not *changing* or *addition*.

I really don't mean to sound like a fundie here, but you're giving people the wrong idea about what evolutionary theory really says and what really has been observed.

Re:Well good

[rts008]

"I've shown that evolution can only be "believed" since it can't be proved." No, you have not shown this- I don't "believe" in evolution, I accept that as the best current explaination possible at this time due to our limits in gaining full knowledge of what occured! I reserve beliefs for religion/philosophy, and leave it out of science- it does not belong.

Re:Well good

[Vaughn Anderson]

I accept that as the best current explaination possible at this time due to our limits in gaining full knowledge of what occured!

And you are totally welcome to your belief in this theory, but it should not be forced upon public schools with public tax money.

I reserve beliefs for religion/philosophy, and leave it out of science- it does not belong.

Evolution is a philosophy, as it can't be proved or disproved, only believed or not believed. I agree, it should be left out of science teachings in public schools. Just ID should be left out of public schools.

Re:Well good

[caitsith01]

That was the precise point I was making. A Divine Being (tm) is not observable. In other words, all of the evidence suggests there IS NO divine being.

Re:Well good

[ddimas]

Too bad we can't post in Greek. Transliterated it's

"Efi afto o Isous palin gegraptai, ouk ekpeirasis Kyrion ton Theon sou."

loosely that becomes:

"said to him Jesus, again it is written, do not make (or perform) an experiment of the LORD your God."

Ekpeirsis can also be translated as bother. The point is you should not go around testing the Lord. In this particular case that is what the Devil was tempting Jesus to do. (Kind of futile, I don't think Satan had quite grasped what was going on yet, then again, with the possible exception of his Mother, I don't think anyone had a clue yet).

Re:Well good

[KeensMustard]

The burden of proof is on the claimant, not the skeptic. It is not my job to make someone else's argument then disprove it.

If that is so, then the burden of proof is on YOU. YOU are the one asserting a particular position, of which, from my experience as an ex-atheist, I am highly sceptical!

In all of human history no one has provided any factual or even compelling evidence for god or gods. Furthermore, theism is not based on observance but mysticism, emotionalism, and ritual; it's is an inherently irrational system.

Irrelevant: since no particular theistic position is up for discussion, and you are making a defence of atheism, which must prove the non-existence of a Divine Being, regardless of what some other person might or might not believe.

Finding religion wrong does not require counter-evidence, it requires an examination of its own axioms.

Which is why I am trying to get you to examine the axioms (the Presumptive Beliefs) that underly atheism. Yet for some reason, you keep trying to change the subject/play semantic games.

Re:Well good

[SpaceLifeForm]

Well put.

Re:Well good

[Liam Slider]

And I'm not sure what you mean by "Natural Selection" being a theory. It's a tautology. Whatever survived -- that was fit. Whatever didn't -- that wasn't fit. Precisely nothing could falsify it. It's true by definition. And it only deals with *removal* of genes, not *changing* or *addition*.

I was speaking of Natural Selection as the mechanism of Evolution. It is, of course, the leading theory, and an extremely good, solid one, but still a theory. Even though Natural Selection itself also quite clearly happens.

However, in your assessment of Natural Selection, you are not taking into account the fact that mutations occur, both positive and harmful, and thus natural selection can ensure that positive ones spread while harmful ones are eliminated over the long term.

Re:Well good

[Tekoneiric]

I think a better class would be "The History of religious influence on Science". A lot of students would come out of the class disliking organized religion when they see just how much religion has held back the advancement of science.

Re:Well good

[wayland]

easier to believe that God used quantum folding and cryogenic hybernation to pack all the animals in the world onto Noah's Ark than it is to believe that story is allegorical

Actually, neither quantum folding nor cryogenic hibernation is necessary.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i2/an imals.asp

While they don't explicitly mention it on the page linked above, they accept speciation (with the exception that they don't believe that new genetic information is added), which explains a lot.

HTH,

Re:Well good

[endoplasmicMessenger]

Actually, ID (before it was hijacked by Creationism) technically belongs in a philosophy course. Creationism belongs in a sociology course. And the book of Genesis belongs in a mythology course.

And where would you put the following statement:

The greatest scientific advance of the last 1,000 years was providing the evidence to prove that human beings are independent agents whose lives on earth are neither conferred nor controlled by celestial forces. Although it may be more conventional to measure scientific progress in terms of specific technological developments, nothing was more important than providing the means to release men and women from the hegemony of the supernatural.

My response is that when they remove their atheistic materialism from the science room, I will remove my faith. But not one moment sooner.

BTW, that statement came from the scientific journal Cell. If you are not astounded, then you have probably already been assimilated.

Re:Well good

[endoplasmicMessenger]

You seem to have confused the Word Theory.

Then why does Google report 183,000 web pages from universities for the phrase "new theory".

Re:Well good

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, so? Babe Ruth hit 714 home runs in his major league career!

What? Irrelevant you say? So. My point still stands.

Re:Well good

[endoplasmicMessenger]

You clearly do not understand what a scientific theory is, nor what science is. You never hear real scientists saying "Evolution is fact!" because it isn't. The theory of evolution doesn't say "There is no supreme being". Teaching evolution theory does not say "A supreme being cannot exist". The theory of evolution doesn't even mention supreme beings.

Intelligent design, on the other hand, is not a scientific theory by any definition and therefore should not be taught in a science class because it simply isn't science. Whether you're Christian, Muslim or an atheist, it makes no difference - ID is *not* a scientific theory. If intelligent design is to be taught, then it should be taught either in a philosophy class or a religious studies class. It has no place in a science class because it simply is not science.

I am not aware of any public figure who is an advocate of Intelligent Design that uses the term "supreme being" or even mentions that or any similar concept. In fact, my experience is that they quite deliberately steer clear of the issue.

Since you are rather strongly implying that proponents of Intelligent Design do make explicit mention of concepts like "supreme being" and depend on such references to make their case, please provide links to such instances.

Or STFU.

Re:Well good

[endoplasmicMessenger]

But a lot of scientists do indeed say that evolution is a fact, seeing as they watch it happen on a daily basis in microbiology laboratories and drug/chemical testing facilities all across the world.

Scientists witness evolution on a daily basis? Really? At the origin of which new species are they habitually present?

Re:Well good

[grolschie]

Micro-evolution is observable. As in changes within a species. Macro-evolution is a fairy tale. My point is that the origin of life as explained by the theory of evolution has no testable evidence and must be received by faith (truthful evolutionists admit that macro-evolution is a belief and not a proven fact) or deception (passed off onto the ignorant/innocent as being proven fact when it isn't).

Re:Well good

[Anonymous Coward]

"...don't believe..."

not believing in god does not make you an athiest.

you actually have to believe god does not exist to be an athiest.

not believing makes you an agnostic.

it is because an athiest *believes* there is no god, that people say such a person has faith.

Re:Well good

[Associate]

Rational thinking people? You mean the middle and high schoolers this was meant to be taught to? The same hormonally imbalanced people that concern themselves more about getting rid of a zit than whether they do well in math? Had this crap made it into the schools, most students would have said whatever and continued with their social life, while the minority would have nodded their heads from the same crap their parents fed them from birth.
Besides, I've never heard a biology teacher ever suggest that evolution was anything more than a theory. Your statement to the contrary shows how weak a foundation ID 'theory' has. I use the term loosly in your case.

Re:Well good

[endoplasmicMessenger]

The fact that ID requires belief is what makes it nonscientific. ID requires belief because it is untestable.

I am not an ID proponent, but I could just not let your statement by without commenting.

From what I have read, ID requires no belief other than the belief in the scientific process (which is, as a matter of fact, a belief).

Pray tell, what belief is it that ID requires? If you answer "a Designer", then you would be wrong. Anything I have read about the topic from its advocates (which, admittedly is not that much) steers well clear of even mentioning a Designer. They mention the evidence for design, but make no statement about who or what the designer might be. For all that is said, it could be My Favorite Martian.

Of course, for some people, even the wiff of a designer is too much. And so they jump to conclusions. But be careful of the straw man arguments that you set up for yourself. As far as I know, ID advocates argue for the evidence of design, but deliberately remain silent on the topic of the designer.

Re:Well good

[einhverfr]

Then those branches of Buddhism which don't believe in a higher godlike entity or entities are not religiouns? If one's whole religion* is based on meditation to transcend attachment and an empathy with the suffering of others, then is that any more of a religion than atheism?

* Yes, the simpler forms of Buddhism believe in some ill-defined concept of a soul and some ill-defined concept of reincarnation. But these are sufficiently ill-defined to fail to qualify as a supernatural force.

Now my own view, if you press me on it, is that Atheism, like Monotheism, Polytheism, Pantheism, etc. is a category of theological thought, and that none of these categories are religions per se. I think that religion is defined by an attempt to reconnect oneself to something, whether that is the experience of the Buddha, a number of gods in a patheon, even the state (as in ceremonial Soviet Communism, or even perhaps in pledging allegience to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands.....). Note that the root of the term "religion" is from the Greek for "to reconnect." Hence practice is what defines a religion, not belief. It is therefore quite possible to be a religious atheist but not all those who are atheists are religious (just as not all Christians are religious). In other words, one can believe whatever one wants, but until it is manifested in ritual for the purpose of reconnecting with the source of that belief, it is not a religion.

Re:Well good

[einhverfr]

Ok, I should have said that 'There are no gods in the "theological" model of certains schools of Buddhism' and hence we can say that these are atheistic religions.

Re:Well good

[Anonymous Coward]

IT analogies are bad. study thermodynamics and chemical kinetics before making comments about evolution. thank you.

Re:Well good

[Anonymous Coward]

it isn't religion, since that would require a belief in a supernatural power...clearly not the case.

however, it does require faith, since it is a belief.

and all definitions of 'atheist' I've seen/heard/can find, specificy state that it does require 'positive non-belief' as you put it.

agnostic is where you've not been convinced either way - which includes 'not believing god exists' but does *not* include 'believing god does not exist'.

Re:Well good

[Associate]

Sound of one hand clapping

Re:Well good

[Laser Lou]

So you absolutely don't belive that micro-evolution can (and has) cause a single species to split into two similar species that can't interbreed?

Re:Well good

[Anonymous Coward]

Great, what an accurate web site!! There went your creditablity in the scientific community!

Re: Well good

[wayland]

Well, if you want some help help in convincing Christians that Christmas is a bad thing, try this

http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualNLs/Xmas_ch2.ht m

Re:Well good

[Associate]

So tell me, do people start out as stamp collectors or non-stamp collectors?

Re:Well good

[misleb]

No, creation myths are at the *beginning* (where else would you put them?) of most mythologies. The *basis* of mythology lies in culture and psychology (just ask C. G. Jung). Creationism is a literal interpretation of particular creation myths misunderstood as historical and scientific fact and set in opposition to scientific theories. You are essentially equating Creationism with mythology, and that is just wrong. Creationism is a perversion of mythology as well as an embarassment to many modern Christian sects.

-matthew

Re:Well good

[Anonymous Coward]

From your science teacher. Grade F! Please start your science classes over. If everything evolves/changes over time and we came from apes; then, why are there still apes??? I received my degree in science. Did you??? True and recognized auhorities in Science still recongize that Evolution is a Theroy scince it has not been proven to be 100% factual at this time.

Re:Well good

[Laser Lou]

My point is that the origin of life as explained by the theory of evolution has no testable evidence and must be received by faith

I don't understand this either. How can fossils not be evidence? They're quite easily observed, and are tested by a variety of dating methods. How can you refute something that you can see?

Re:Well good

[gehrehmee]

That's it, to a T. This is about the underlying philosophy of the Ultimate Question, which, despite numerous and violent assertions to the contrary from slashdoters is not "What is the answer to life, the universe, and everything?". The ultimate question is: Why is there stuff instead of no stuff? Why is there a universe? Why are there laws of physics, of math, of logic? Why are the fundamental axioms which describe how the universe works, which can't be broken down any further?

This ultimate question of the universe and the ID debate face the same fundamental problem: They're by definition asking a question whose answer cannot be found within itself. Science itself is that philosophy that states that conclusions must come from evidence, and that theories must be tested. It's a wonderful philosophy, with a very rich set of consequences, and a fantastic proven track record of success. Every application of it has proven that it is trustworthy and useful. This is why it's very important, from a strictly pragmatic standpoint, that the teaching of the workings of science not get muddied with non-scientific ideas.

The philosophy of science is fundamentally seperate from other philosophies like ID and religion. While there may be value in examining one in the context of the other, one cannot be called a subset of the other. Trying to call science-contrary philosophies like ID and religion, even if completely valid and true (as I as a Christian happen to believe), a part of the science curriculum, is foolhardy.

Now on the other hand, if you want to encourage discussion of religion, creationism, science, and other philosophies in a school, I have no problem with that. Just make it the introductory philosophy class, and put kids in a environment where they feel free to talk, discuss, debate, and argue opposing , contrary, controversial, or even offensive ideas. Just be prepared for a hard sell :)

Re:Well good

[misleb]

And where would you put the following statement:

The greatest scientific advance of the last 1,000 years was providing the evidence to prove that human beings are independent agents whose lives on earth are neither conferred nor controlled by celestial forces. Although it may be more conventional to measure scientific progress in terms of specific technological developments, nothing was more important than providing the means to release men and women from the hegemony of the supernatural.

Sounds a lot like philosophy to me.

My response is that when they remove their atheistic materialism from the science room, I will remove my faith. But not one moment sooner.

And I am not going to buy a new car until they remove all that darn atheistic materialism from the owners manual! Is baseball atheistic materialism because the rules don't mention God and none of the outcomes are attributed to supernatural forces? Then why is science atheistic materialism because none of its rules involve God?

There is nothing wrong with maintaining faith in a science classroom, but you're going to get an F if you can't apply the decidedly materialistic rules of science to produce verifiable results. Saying "God did it" is not a scientific answer. To drive a car, you still need to push on the gas pedal and stear the wheel. You can't drive by faith. To play baseball, you still have to swing the bat and throw the ball. Faith won't do it for you. In science you still have to apply those materialistic rules. Faith won't do it for you.

BTW, that statement came from the scientific journal Cell. If you are not astounded, then you have probably already been assimilated.

I guess it depends on the context. Was it an opinion/commentary column or part of a research article? Do you care?

-matthew

Re:Well good

[Dimensio]

Quote #79 of the Quote Mine project.

Why are so many creationists such shameless liars?

Re:Well good

[CNeb96]

>> Science has no absolute truths

Except one very important one. That everything can be explained by materialist means. Meaning, a God is not needed, is a fundamental part of science. Not science when it used as a tool, but when it used as dogma.

Interesting quote.

'We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.'

Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i3/ad mission.asp

>>Science makes no claim about anyone's beliefs. The very idea of whether there is or isn't a creator is completely out of bounds.

It's only out of bounds if you believe that God is not needed and that science can explain everything without him. Then true, whether he exists or not is not needed as part of discussion about how creation happened. But, if someone holds to the philosophy that science can't explain everything then if God exists it is very relevant to the discussion because God wouldn't have had to create the world using the rules of science.

Re:Well good

[TheWolfen]

Stop trying to exploit the ignorance of children for your own religious and political ends. It's evil. Stop doing it.

Here! Here!! Well said.. where's mod points when I need them?! Note: I'm one of those kids who was force-fed this crap growing up in private schools, but eventually realized how many problems creationism had (not to mention all the rest of it). Strangely enough, I'm now an agnostic.

Re:Well good

[Firethorn]

I'd tend to say that the vast majority of 'athiests' are of the first sort. There is a vast difference between those who are more or less indifferent to the existance of god and those who reject that existance. Kinda like those 'christians' who only step into a church for a wedding and maybe easter.

Newdow(One of the ones suing over the 'under god' part of the pledge) is one of the ones that reject, and are crusaders on the part of atheism. Him, I'd say turns atheism into religion.

Re:Well good

[Gogogoch]

I understand what your saying but I don't think you can compare science and ID and suggest that they are similar in both being beliefs. The world really DOES seem to behave as science, with all its theories, describes it. Look, you're using a computer which relies and depends on a mountain of technology and scientific ideas and advances just to exist. Science really is practical. It's real, to all intents and purposes.

ID, on the other hand, doesn't really help us at all. There's no practicality. It's a belief that has no use. Nothing can be tested, and there is no evidence. Believe it if you want, but it will only have life in your head - there's no application of it. Computers wont get faster, GPS systems wont become more accurate, vaccines won't be produced, whether someone believes in ID or not. It has no bearing on the world as we all experience it.

So given the two alternatives, I go for a scientific view of things. It has real pragmatic value. It makes sense, at least as much as I understand a fraction of it. It adapts to new discoveries and information, and it fills me with awe. The 'received wisdom' on ID has none of that; it's static, parochial, lethargic and leads nowhere.

Re:Well good

[TheWolfen]

So 6,000 or so years ago, not only did God create bones, he also must have created the entire universe and placed every photon of light in exactly the right place, AND given that photon the right speed, so that we see the sky as we do today.

And even that doesn't work, since you'd also have to assume that God included the appearance of events (supernova, etc) that never actually took place, which only works if you assume God is perfectly willing to lie out his ass just to fool us silly humans. When you give a creationist a choice between God being a deliberate liar and the universe being more than 6,000 years old, it pretty well shakes their entire foundation. Oddly enough, none of the creationist web sites EVER talk about the speed of light and the size of the universe. I wonder why? ;-) Now there is one site out there that claims the universe is really a very small bubble (slightly larger than the solar system), but it comes across as just rantings of a madman (which, of course, it is).

Re:Well good

[Anonymous Coward]

Intelligent Design==creationism. Always has been. Always will be. The creationists are now working on rebranding intelligent design as "sudden emergence theory," like they did before in 1987 after the last name switch from "creation science" (nee "creationism") to "intelligent design." This was a *major* point of the trial when the first book to promote ID was found to use the term as a drop-in replacement for creation science, complete with the transitional fossil "cdesign proponentists." This name change occured right after Aguillard ruled teaching creationism would violate the establishment clause.

Re:Well good

[TheWolfen]

As for the idea about God faking the age of the Earth, you're falling into the trap of thinking that because something is possible then it must be true.

The whole "appearance of age" crap is just another way of saying "God lied." Most Christians don't like hearing that, so it is pretty easy to shoot that one down anyway. After all, deliberately designing something to look one way and be something completely different is deception, pure and simple. I find that the concept of God's infallability is more important to them than a literal interpretation of the Genesis story.

Re:Well good

[werewolf1031]

My kingdom for a mod point. Thank you for a reasoned, articulate commentary on this volatile topic. Especially:

...the atheist believes in basic principles of science, which fundamentalists frequently deny. However, that comparison doesn't always hold true when you compare rational athiests versus rational believers. There is room to believe in the existence of a God without falling into the trap of believing in superstitions and mysticism.

Very well said.


There are people who are afraid that they (and their successors) will loose their current power if American Children are well educated on scientific topics.

If they want the U.S. to keep the power it has, then those people had better realise how much more harm they are doing than good. The world as a whole is experiencing technological and scientific progress at an astonishing rate, and those who think the U.S. can keep its position of economic strength by creating future generations who are ignorant of knowledge and understanding -- and are, indeed, incapable of truly learning after being psychologically conditioned by formal education -- are contributing to our doom. Our public education system (really a mental conditioning system in disguise) does not teach kids how to think; it teaches them what to think, and punishes them for arguing against established dogma -- whatever that may be at the moment -- and for not regurgitating the accepted answers.

Re:Well good

[scowling]

and all definitions of 'atheist' I've seen/heard/can find, specificy state that it does require 'positive non-belief' as you put it.

Then you haven't looked very hard. Or at all, I suspect.

however, it does require faith, since it is a belief.

That's also debatable. The default existential position is always "X does not exist". Therefore, without evidence for the existence of an entity, it is reasonable to assume non-existence. Thus, positive non-belief need not require any faith.

agnostic is where you've not been convinced either way

And you're wrong again. Agnosticism is the philosophy that the existence of gods is unprovable; it says nothing about the stance on belief.

Why do people feel the need to spout off on things they know nothing about?

Re:Well good

[scowling]

All forms of Buddhism still have a belief in a supernatural force of some kind; I do not agree that such concepts are not sufficiently well-defined. Further, to suggest that Buddhism is not a religion requires a very narrow definition of religion. It's not analogous to atheism.

It is therefore quite possible to be a religious atheist but not all those who are atheists are religious

Not by any useful definition. Ritual is not required for religion and religion is not required for ritual. They are orthogonal. Even the practice of some atheists to belong to an organization and meet regularly does not in any way suggest that any form of atheism is a religion. And the idea that state-worship is a religion is also not a useful (or used) definition.

In any case: no, atheism is not a religion. It's the atheists who get to decide if they're following a religion, and you will not find an informed atheist who considers his or her atheism a religion.

Re:Well good

[Crunchie Frog]

Well regardless of anything else, I must correctly attribute the 'fetid dingoes kidneys' to the late Douglas Adams... I was going to add '...may he rest in peace' but of course i don't believe in all that rot!!! ;)

Re:Well good

[shitdrummer]

I am saying it is utter and complete bullshit for the judge to make it illegal to teach a widely held belief if the teachers and school board feel it should be part of the fucking curriculum.

Why am I not surprised that you find this so hard to understand?

Schools can teach ID all they want in theology or religious studies. What they can't do is re-label science to be whatever they want it to be and teach non-scientific material in science class.

This is the same reason why you don't do book reports in maths class, learn sports in english class, or learn about evolution in religious studies.

Shitdrummer.

Re:Well good

[aanantha]

Ok, so now they teach the " Fact of Evolution" not the " Theory of Evolution" hmmm...

Nothing new there, my high school biology book of 10 years ago stated that evolution is fact. That dinosaurs existed millions of years ago is considered fact. That humans existed for a few million years is considered fact. That now extinct humanoids existed before humans is considered fact. The whole fossil record is considered factual. Just as the concept that the Sun is a star. Something becomes a fact when there is no scientific evidence that can be found to disprove it. But fact does not equal truth. There always remains the possibility that everything we sense is a complete lie. So there is no way to know truth. But science is about trusting what can be observed and only trusting what can be observed. Always has been.

But how evolution took place is considered theory. Darwin has a theory of how evolution happened.

Re:Well good

[Weedlekin]

Once again a post filled with straw men and bosh, including a statement about evolution theory that is the complete opposite of what it actually postulates. Either you do not understand anything about evolution, or you are a troll. Neither is worth the effort of any further responses.

Re:Well good

[Weedlekin]

Indeed. And the Judaeo-Christian definition of a single all-powerful God is a fairly recent development that is not accepted by the majority of people alive today.

Re:Well good

[IllForgetMyNickSoonA]

There is a difference: I don't tell my kids they'll suffer internal damnation in the fires of hell if they throw their food on the floor. Religious teachings - in their core - are exactly that: if you don't believe and act as I tell you, you'll suffer *badly*. Therefore, you better be a good soldier, go to church, and fall down on your knees on a regular basis in front of a deity which can and will punish you in a monstrous way if you don't.

I don't even want to know what being raised under such conditions does to a mind of a child! Lucky ones, who manage to recover from this later in their lives.

Before somebody jumps in and says "no, your full of it, my religion says blabla": I'm talking about christianity, which is - whether you like it or not - the most wide-spread and influential religion in the western world.

Re:Well good

[grolschie]

Fossils can be observed. Whether or not they are fossils of early ancestors, or completely different but now extinct species is yet to be conclusively proven.

Re:Well good

[grolschie]

Let me be very clear: I don't believe that any evolution can cause a dinosaur species to evolve into a bird species. Can you conclusively prove this to be the case?

Re: Well good

[ISayWeOnlyToBePolite]

ID (in a biological science sense) is not discussed much outside of the US, but continental European philosophers began writing about it hundreds of years ago as a philosophy.

And then new scientific theories arose wich utterly debunked that theory and left it for historians and possibly theologians to discuss.

having a philosphy professor take the time to write a paper attempting to refute a philosphical idea (in this case ID, per your example) does make it a philosophical idea worthy of discussion. Otherwise he would not have taken the time to write about it.

So are you claiming that when Hegel refuted phrenology he wasn't as I certainly belive, one of the ones who passed it to the scrapheap of history, but instead "immortalized" it and now phrenology is a something that possibly ought to be tought in philosophy class because of it? Science in itself is subject to philosophical debate, it does not follow in the least that (pseudo-) science debunked should be.

Thanks for making my point

I'm doing no such thing.

Feel free to write to some of U of M's philosphers and question their decision to include ID in their curriculum.

Pointing to authority and then when I question the validity of you even constructing an argument in such a way, you want me to take it up with said philosophy department?

I'm just saying that it is indeed a philosophy that merits discussion by some of the best philosophers in the world.

And that's the rather bold claim you're continually making and failing to back up.

Re:Well good

[Anonymous Coward]

If you take the Bible as God speaking through the authors, then the first verse of Genesis gives you the answer.

"In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth."

God created the heavens and the Earth in the beginning. It implies that God existed before the "beginning". To exist before time itself means to exist external to time, external to even the concept of eternity.

Philosophical musings about String Theory and what happened before the 10-dimensional universe collapsed frequently lead into discussions about the absence of Time. If you could exist in 10 dimensions, you wouldn't be bound by space, time, or any of the laws of the Universe that we can study with our tools. "God-like" is a term to describe an entity like that.

Re:Well good

[jlehtira]

For all we know, the universe is rather big. So indeed there is a huge if not infinite number of hands dealt. And they've been dealing hands for billions of years, and it still goes on.

So, even if chemistry was random, if space (or time) is infinite, each finitely improbable hand would certainly be dealt to someone. Infinitely many times, to be exact.

Now, most scientists assume that chemistry is not random, and most planets are so big that forming some molecules by luck isn't that improbable if you count the available surface area. If you get a molecule or a set of molecules that copies itself, you have life.

Re:Well good

[coastwalker]

You are correct, it is a war to the death, or at least it could get that way very quickly. It is not possible to not take a side, the religious right will not allow this. Its all about power, specifically its about the power of man over man.

At the end of the day one side is going to kill the other side - which is probably why people with no faith are so desperately angry to discover that they are due to be burned at the stake for not being interested in something that is patently a mental illness from their perspective. Religion is a mental disease, an infection with a meme, a self replicating thought pattern that destroys rival thought patterns.

Man has a spiritual impulse and it is expressed in many different church mediated belief systems, the very fact that there is a class of these things, indicates that no single one is so sucessfull as to be regarded as the truth, the victors after all get to rewrite history.

Atheists do not need to argue the point when they live in a tolerant secular society. The United States of America is drifting towards an intolerant religious mono-culture as evidenced by this ridiculous Intelligent Design farce. Hence the desperation of the argument.

Re:Well good

[rp]

Well said: the belief that those that believe in a creator are wrong is a religious belief, and therefore should not be taught in science class. And indeed, it isn't - not in my experience, at least.

Science is about explaining hy things we see on earth today look the way they do. Natural history, including the results of research on how the fossil record and geology of earth can be explained as gradual developments, is definitely hard science. Creation isn't, and doesn't claim to be: it doesn't at all attempt to explain why things, orlife forms, look the way they do. Frankly I don't see any conflict. There is a conflict if you take the Genesis story literally, or some other creation story, and since these stories are not supported by what we see around us, they have nothing to do with science.

Creation "scientists" are no scientists: they don't try to explain anything. They do try to discredit scientific explanations, but they never ever come up with any support for alternative explanations, and without support, an alternative is not just implausible, it is completely untenable. This is why their ideas have no place in science class. If you think that the notion of the evolution of life is "just an idea", that it isn't the result of painstaking labor to come up with the best explanations of the things we see around us, please read something about fossils, taxonomies of life forms, DNA, etc.

Re:Well good

[ultranova]

Atheism is not about being religious, it's about not believing in religion, or more specifically, not believing in God. There's no need to preach the non-belief of something, hence the "silent majority".

It is rather difficult to say if there's a silent majority, for the simple reason that they are silent, and therefore don't show up in these discussions. That's why I said that I don't know if there is.

Ridiculing people who blindly believe and follow ("have faith") does not eqaute to religious fundamentalism, which is about preaching faith.

Fundamentalism is about unshakable believe that the fundamentalist is right and everyone who disagrees with him are either stupid or evil and should be treated accordingly. That's why fundamentalists of all creeds tend try to use any and all means available to force their will on everyone else: you don't want stupid people to make the rules, and if you have to blow someone to bits, well, they were evil so they deserved it, right ?

Fundamentalism isn't about faith, it's about overinflated ego.

Next time you see someone ridiculing, consider that the subject might be ridiculous.

I'll consider their arguments, but I won't believe that they are indifferent to whether others agree with them or not, since I saw them trying to convince others to agree with them. Mocking a view is a method of trying to get more supporters to opposing view, after all.

People who are truly indifferent to others beliefs don't bother mocking them.

Re:Well good

[VdG]

There's an interesting discussion of Atheism on the BBC web site:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/atheism/

Re:Well good

[xSauronx]

thast because, atheist or not, people suck. there are people everywhere who dont give a real shit about anyone else in the slightest, which means some christians, some arabs, some atheists, some this that and the other group ....some people are always going to be vocal and a pain in the ass. it ruins the reputation of decent people who *arent* a pain in the ass. there are some nerds giving us decent nerds a bad name, right this minute. it sucks, but thats life.

Re:Well good

[keraneuology]

Nice post, btw - unusually reasoned.

The constitution itself already prohibits it, even without passing any such law.

But that is the de facto effect: if child A believes in a creationist story, be it adam & steve or the cosmic turtle and the teacher starts out in grade 3 by saying "the world was not created, here's what really happened" then you have a much more egregious violation of church and state than the aforementioned sticker.

The First Amendment.. the Right of Religious Freedom and the prohibition against establishments respecting religion... the Separation of Church and State... it meens Freedom against the force of government being weilded against us to to promote or suppress and religious or religious belief or religious practice.

And you don't consider a court order to openly declare - and requiring the children to regurgitate under threat of failing the class, screwing up a GPA and being denied entry to college - religious beliefs assertively false an act that suppresses religious belief?

A teacher acting in an official capacity as an agent of the government itself cannot abuse their government powers to promote or supress any religion.

Then a teacher shouldn't be allowed (ne, required) to say "the earth was not created," which has the clear, direct and unmistakable effect of declaring any believes that the world was created false. I'd say that's pretty much an official declaration on the part of the government that several religions are blowing smoke and are wrong.

The ACLU website has a standing invitation for students to seek the ACLU's assistance if their right to pray in school is suppressed. The reason the ACLU has been winning these court cases is because every single case has targeted a school offical acting in an official capacity and abusing his governmental powers for the purpose of promoting or suppressing prayer by the students.

The ACLU tried to get the supreme court to ban a moment of silence: that 95% of the boys were using that moment of silence to lust after the 23 year old just hired teacher and/or the cheerleading squad wearing game dress and 95% of the girls were thinking about how they were fat next to all of those cute cheerleaders, the ACLU wanted to ban silent, unled, private, personal prayer. The teachers didn't even have to say "time to pray", just "let's have a moment of silence".

Excuse me if I don't put much stock in the ACLU's ability to reason.

The selection process in evolution is just as directed... it is directed towards whatever increases survivability and offspring. That is a very complex slection rule, and it produces very a sophisticated and complex sort of information.

I dare you to introduce this concept in San Francisco.

Re:Well good

[Anonymous Coward]

Ark than it is to believe that story is allegorical, what do you expect to happen?

It would be easier to follow the Quran and believe it was an smaller area that was flooded? Would'nt be so hard if you believed that the Red Sea split, and that quantum phsyics do really exist.

Re:Well good

[KeensMustard]

In fact, the lack of evidence tells us nothing, because in the case that a Divine Being exists, no evidence is expected. No conclusion can be reached either way based on evidence. To claim that a lack of evidence leads us to the negative when no evidence is expected in the positive is irrational.

Re:Well good

[Laser Lou]

Let me be very clear: I don't believe that any evolution can cause a dinosaur species to evolve into a bird species. Can you conclusively prove this to be the case?
Yes ... the dinosoar DNA code has to change to that of a birds. Period. Its that DNA copying mechanism that's responsible. Its a long process from point A to point B, but that's what happens.

I was a creationist before ... defended it to the bone. I eventually started judging evolution independent of the Bible, and found out that its rock solid science.

Re:Well good

[Anonymous Coward]

You cannot dispute that electricity is a fact, just like you cannot dispute that life is a fact. You can dispute the scientific theories explaining it, like Maxwell's equations. (In fact, they where found to be incorrect in some experiments, so today they are more of a special case of the now-accepted quantum electrodynamics).

Re: Well good

[jc42]

Interesting site. They've done a lot of research on the topic.

Actually, I mostly think it's funny that Christians can keep talking about returning Christmas to its religious roots, when the slightest investigation shows that the holiday has never been primarily religious. They've been alternately trying to suppress the holiday and converting it to a religious holiday for ages, never very successfully.

It's one of the better examples of the general Christian contempt for history, and their preference for making up fake history that says what they want history to say.

Of course, this isn't exactly unique with Christians. One hint in the article is the comment on other gods who were supposed to have been born on the solstice.

Maybe what we need is a big campaign to return the solstice to its pagan roots.

Re:Well good

[Liam Slider]

Thank you for demonstrating my point for me, that there are Atheists who are just as batshit insane and intolerant, as fundamentalist Christianity.

Re:Well good

[Dan Ost]

I'm pretty sure that the scientific theory of evolution doesn't say anything about the origins or life. Darwin certainly avoids making any such claims in _origin_of_species_ (note the name!) and after flipping through my wife's molecular biology textbook, it describes evolution as the mechanisms that determine how biological machines adapt over time. Again, no claim as to the origin of these biological machines.

In fact, I clearly remember my high school biology teacher avoiding such questions as to how life originally began because she said that it was unimportant to understanding how genetic material is passed and how organisms are adapted over time.

If my understanding of evolutionary theory and how it is taught is out of date, perhaps you can correct me.

Re:Well good

[Liam Slider]

From your science teacher. Grade F! Please start your science classes over. If everything evolves/changes over time and we came from apes; then, why are there still apes??? I received my degree in science. Did you??? True and recognized auhorities in Science still recongize that Evolution is a Theroy scince it has not been proven to be 100% factual at this time.

Sorry, but you are the one who gets the grade F. We are not descended from any of the other current apes, we are merely related to them. The reason there are still apes is that they evolved into different niches than this particular ape did. Evolution isn't about improvement, it's about adaptation and survival. In fact, because of that you can have primitive forms that have stayed in the same niche for millions or billions of years, right alongside vastly more advanced forms that grew and adapted into a niche that was an advantage for survival.

I doubt your degree. What was this alleged science degree, an associates degree in astronomy? Maybe you're counting a theology degree as some sort of scientific degree? Do you have a degree in "Christian Science" from some nutjob fundy Christian school? Clearly you've had no real study whatsoever of the biological fields.

Re:Well good

[F_Scentura]

When we refer to Creationism, we're not talking about the "idea", we're talking about the political movement. The idea is useless on its own, and harmless because of its unscientific nature. When politicized, it's an attempt to shoehorn pseudoscience into the mainstream, regardless of how far it may be divorced from anything scientific.

Re:Well good

[F_Scentura]

An agnostic theist or agnostic atheist?

Re:Well good

[Laser Lou]

You can tell if a fossil is an early ancestor by how it looks. Its a matter of the eye. If a 3 million year old fossil more closely resembles humans than anything else out there, we have to conclude that its an ancestor. Its that easy.

Re:Well good

[Loki Giggling]

None have proved it true either.
That's why it is called a theory. By testing it, and it holding up under those tests makes us more confident in its accuracy but it can never by proved true.

So if it's not true
Thats jumping to a conclusion. Before you can say it is not true you must be able to prove it, that is what science is all about. So far it is the best theory that fits all the available observable facts.

This is another reason why it's not provable, it's based on the assumption that life already existed. Yes that is true. There is that inherant assumption that life already exists. The theory of evolution is a theory about how life evolved not about how life started.

This is probably why the even the Vatican supports the theory because it still leaves in the posability that GOD created life so that it would evolve to what we are today.

There are other theories about how life was created. But evolution does not even touch on that particular subject.

Re:Well good

[Walkiry]

>but in addition, 3 of Hearts doesn't like 4 of Hearts, and so on.

If you bother to look for data, you'll find that almost every position in an aminoacid chain can be mutated without affecting the catalysis. It's an easy to do experiment: grab a popular sequence, load it up in a BLAST server against, say, the NCBI non-redundant data, and start comparing the thousands of different sequences that perform the exact same function in different organism, not even taking into account intra-specific variations. Except for the couple of key catalytic residues, the rest of the protein is typically structure, and structure is cheap. Suddenly the odds aren't so bad, are they?

Re:Well good

[Kismet]

Not all atheists bother to argue the point. Do you then maintain that they are still religious?

No. My point is that religion entails holding or advocating ideology. What else can you call it? Superstition? It's certainly not science. Science embraces no ideology.

Disinterested atheists are like the man who doesn't collect stamps for his hobby because he simply isn't interested in it. He's not being religious about his atheism until he starts spending his time thinking about it, or talking about it, or being otherwise proactive about it. As I said, most atheists who are not religious in the sense of traditional religion, nevertheless maintain some standard of morality (they believe in a "right" and a "wrong"). Where does such ideology come from? Like the Buddhist or the Shinto, he has espoused religion without a god. But it is no less religion, and atheism is at the root of it.

Re:Well good

[Ayanami Rei]

Considering the fact that scientists cannot explain how adding water to a seed will cause life to enter the seed and it will grow into a plant, (again completely defying thermodynamic entropy) I venture to say we are extemely ignorant of the true inner workings of even a bacteria.

Oh really?
They do. You don't, and you don't seem curious enough to find out.

The seed contains enough internal energy in the form of sugars to allow it to germinate. The metabolic processes are activated by the presence of water (the chemistry doesn't work without it). It's an _exothermic_ process that is actually increasing in entropy, not decreasing. Once the seed germinates and sprouts, it needs the additional energy from the sun to continue growing. (This is where you might argue the system is now decreasing in entropy, the plant is growing without the pre-existing sugars to metabolize, where does it come from? The sun.). You can reverse entropy by taking energy from outside the system. Of course, the efficiency is never better than 100% so the overall system (plant AND sun) actually increases in entropy. But if you narrow your scope to say just the seed/plant, then it looks like it's decreasing.

Re:Well good

[tbannist]

And since science cannot say anything about the existence of these hands, since if they exist they are invisible and therefore cannot be detected experimentally, neither viewpoint has any backing from science. Thank you for demonstrating my point.

I think you missed the point, athiests tend to trust science while fundamentalists do not, thus athiesm is more scientifically friendly than fundamentalism.

Appeal to consequences is a logical fallacy: a viewpoint cannot be proven correct (or even shown to be likely correct) just because the alternative makes the world appear insecure.

Yes, an appeal to consequences is a logical fallacy, however, I am not making one. I am not saying that ID is wrong because the consequences would be undesireable. I am saying that only an willfully ignorant person could seriously make the claim that science doesn't work. The evidence that it does is all around you. The very fact that you can post to slashdot should be proof enough that science works. This evidence, that runs directly contrary to the fundamentalist point of view (that Science should be unreliable because it depends on the will of invisible being(s)), is everywhere. When was the last time you flipped a coin and the result was "hovering in midair with mysterious chicken noises" or any other magical effect which would validate the fundamentalist viewpoint?

The Flying Spaghetti Monster is quite obviously meant as an appeal to ridicule because, after all, it is utterly ridicilous.

It appears you do not understand the application of logical fallacies. For example, the wikipedia definition of Appeal to Ridicule:

Appeal to ridicule is a logical fallacy which presents the opponent's argument in a way that appears ridiculous, often to the extent of creating a straw man of the actual argument

Proponents of the Flying Spaghetti Monster have never claimed that ID proponents believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is a consequence of belief in God (those claims are necessary for it to be an appeal to ridicule). Instead they have said that when a Kansas school board said they would teach all the sides of the debate on evolution, their viewpoint should have been included as well. It is the school board's failure to put any qualitative requirements on what they would teach in a science class, that is being pointed out by these shennanigans.

It is not designed to expose any lies on part of ID proponents (how could it; the statement "living things were designed by an intelligent designer" is simply impossible to disprove - see my comment about "invisible hands" above)

It was not designed to expose ID as a lie, it was designed to expose the lie of the Kansas school board. The board claimed it was impartial and was only seeking to include all viewpoints on the topic. In reality they ignored every other viewpoint in favour of pushing Christian fundamentalism into the school system.

Let me repeat that, Flying Spaghetti Monsterism makes no attempt to prove or disprove ID. It is an example of why untestable and unfalsifiable statements should not be part of a science class. It is also frequently used to show how Christian fundamentalists disguise bad logic and bad policy with an appeal to authority. When the Pastafarians may the same pronouncements or challenges (stripped of the authority of the Church) they look pretty stupid. Of course, that's the point of the fundamentalist appeal to authority, any stupid idea sounds better if you say God backs you.

Re:Well good

[Listen Up]

You and I agree %100.

Re:Well good

[Kismet]

Exactly. Which is why it is very difficult to be a disinterested, irreligious atheist. The theists really rankle the atheists, and why is that? Because they don't share the same ideology. They feel provoked, bemused, and annoyed by each other.

A genuine atheist wouldn't care in the least about the ravings and feeble persuations of the Evangelical. He might grumble over the odd interruption (forgive me if I'm skeptical of the "weekly" visits), but he certainly would never take up the issue on a philosophical level. He just wouldn't care.

I get interrupted by frequent (incessant) corporate advertising more than by any Evangelical proselytizing. Advertising is just as ridiculous and irrational as any religious zealotry in the world, far more pervasive, and on the whole, much less complained about. Sure, there are probably a few groups out there whose sole purpose is to tear down marketing in all of its various forms, but you never hear about them, and they make no progress at all. It's because people don't care enough to be religious about it. Now consider the massive humanist, secularist, and atheist movements that are afoot right now. Why is it that we have movements in direct opposition to theistic ideology, while we have nothing like it in opposition to equally silly salesmen? I'll tell you why: Today's Atheism is a religious movement, not a dissinterested condition of people who just don't care. Atheists, by and large, are true believers in their own ideology, which they do possess and do promote. As true believers themselves, Atheists are equally annoying to other types of true believers.

Re:Well good

[misleb]

Heh, nice little word substitution there. *I* was talking about ID and you just switched to Creationism. I don't suppose you were an editor for "Of Pandas and People."

-matthew

Re:Well good

[smellsofbikes]

Well, what do you call a species? That's a serious question and it's not easy to answer. We call donkeys and horses different species, but they can interbreed, and sometimes their children can interbreed. Ditto lions and tigers. We, as humans, really like to draw lines, but Nature doesn't seem to like those lines very much. There are a number of places where we can find a set of populations across a landmass, where members from populations on opposite sides of the landmass cannot interbreed, but can interbreed with members living in the center. Ability to interbreed isn't necessarily a good determinant for making the same/different species call: I'm just using it to illustrate the idea. So bearing that in mind: every chemical that is produced in the USA intended for consumption by or exposure to humans is tested for its ability to mutate cells. That's hundreds of new chemicals per week. The way they test for mutagenicity is: they take a bacterium that cannot digest a certain sugar or protein, expose it to the chemical they're testing, and then try and grow it on the metabolite it couldn't digest. They measure the number that CAN grow -- the number that were damaged by the chemical and in repairing that damage managed to gain the ability to live on something they couldn't previously -- and that's a direct indication of how strongly mutagenic the chemical is. If evolution didn't exist, the test wouldn't work, and as I said, it's used hundreds (if you count chemicals) or millions (if you count bacteria) of times every day all across the world. The test works.

Re:Well good

[Kismet]

Most people start as non-stamp collectors, hence it is much easier to be a disinterested non-collector of stamps. In fact, I'd wager that most people have never even considered stamp collecting.

On the other hand, perhaps a majority of atheists started out as "believers," then "escaped" from "religion." Therefore, it is very difficult to be a disinterested atheist, and conversely, very easy to be religious about atheism. If you believe that you have "escaped" from some irrational system, why then I suppose that implies some sort of ideology right there. You've made a value judgement regarding right and wrong, bad and good.

But, as no one has picked up on how ridiculous it is to compare stamp collectors to atheists, I will explain it. Stamp collecting, it turns out, espouses no philosophy or ideology regarding the proper way to live, the difference between right and wrong, the nature of human rights, the origin of ideas, or the proper organization of enlightened and civilized human society and relationships. It's fine to be a human and not be interested in stamp collecting.

What is exceedingly odd is the condition of being a human so disinterested in those circumstances which have elevated us in intelligence so decidedly above the common animals (who nevertheless, many among even the lesser animals display remarkable qualities of society, loyalty, fidelity, etc.). Surely science can reveal many interesting likelihoods to establish a rational base upon which to consider whether or not humans have rights, or whether or not there is a kind of right and wrong, or whether certain behaviors ought to be accepted while other behaviors are not. But such things as rights, priveleges, honesty, loyalty, chastity, order, fidelity, good, and evil are just as unscientific as Intelligent Design; they will forever remain the domain of religion and philosophy. Whenever an Atheist espouses an opinion regarding any one of those ideas, he has crossed the line from disinterested atheism to religion, having no way to empirically prove his position.

If you say it is reasonable and right to think critically while imprudent and wrong to accept ideas on faith alone (an ideal espoused by many atheists), then you are being religious. You have applied judgements of right and wrong to something, which you cannot prove with the scientific method. If you believe that a human has the right to behave however he sees fit, so long as it doesn't violate the rights of another (a humanist or objectivist ideal), then you are being religious. You have supposed that humans have rights, an idea that no science can test or prove.

And so I use the word "religion" to mean any belief, especially when advocated or expressed to someone else, that can bever be proven by empirical scientific means. There are several religions in the world that lack a god figure, but they are no less religions because of it.

The person who originally suggested the comparison between atheism/religion and not collecting stamps/hobby, did not spend enough time in rational thought that day.

Re:Well good

[Maxo-Texas]

You cannot prove that gravity exists.
That is why they call it the theory of gravitation.
General relativity is the most successful theory of gravitation to date.

You can observe -facts-.

An object experiences acceleration with relation to other objects.
A feather falls as fast a stone in a vacuum.

You cannot prove that evolution exists.

You can observe -facts-.

New species have differentiated themselves from base species within recent history (i.e. unable to breed with the base species any more).
Gene patterns have certain distributions of errors and patterns which statistically support the idea of differentiation from common base species.
Geology indicates the planet is -really- old.
Astronomy indicates the universe is -really really- old.
Genetics indicates our genes mix randomly with each generation in sexual species.
Natural selection has been observed to change the most common characteristics of species within recent history.
Forensics show that many species have flaws and drawbacks (such as the design of our eye, our tendency to go into shock for certain injuries, running a fever for some diseases, our appendix, lemmings tendency to run off cliffs).
Strong evidence that 99% of species throughout history are dead.
Strong evidence of long periods of history where no animals existed.
Strong evidence of long periods of history where large reptiles dominated the planet.
Strong evidence of massive extinctions via chunks of space pounding the planet.
Strong evidence that those chunks of space used to hit a lot more but now hit less often.

The theory of evolution - so far - fits all of those facts.

---

What disappoints me about ID so much is that formerly honest, honorable christians are trading that away to lie and become without honor. The sick thing is, that IT IS NOT A BASIC TENET OF YOUR FAITH.

Do you believe christ rose again to save mankind for it's sins.
That's pretty basic.

Why are you becoming so despicable over something that isn't a central tenet of your faith? You -KNOW- ID is creationism relabeled to try to slyly sneak it into schools. You have got to -KNOW- that you are lying when you say that it is really a scientific theory. You -KNOW- a basic principle of us government is the seperation of religion and state.

It is just insane to me. There are so many good things about christianity, why are you wasting resources on this issue? Instead of arguing evolution you could be printing bibles and doing missionary work to spread the word to the unsaved. I think you are losing your way over this issue.

Re:Well good

[jcr]

When politicized, it's an attempt to shoehorn pseudoscience into the mainstream,

Actually, I wouldn't say that the goal is to promote the pseudoscience, but rather to use the pseudoscience to try to promote religion.

-jcr

Re:Well good

[|/|/|||]

No, my cowardly friend -- I was only talking about the explanations that are untestable. There are an infinite number of possible explanations that are untestable, so the first thing we do is disregard those. Now we can start sifting through the ones that we can analyze. Get it?

Re:Well good

[|/|/|||]

Well, if you're looking for the reason why I create a model of reality in my brain and then base my decisions on the presumed accuracy of that model, it's obviously because that's how human brains evolved to work. It's pretty effective, even if it seems mysterious to us in some ways.

I suppose you could call the fact that the biological brain "trusts" itself to be right a kind of "faith" -- but on a conscious level I try to remain skeptical of everything, especially my own assumptions.

Re:Well good

[Maxo-Texas]

His point is that we have done that to wolves in less than 10,000 years.

Now, give 1,000,000 years and getting new species is going to be pretty trivial.

For that matter, we have observed mesquitos speciate in our recent history now (re the london subway species is new).

Re:Well good

[|/|/|||]

I guess I missed the memo that said science makes a worldview assumption. Theories should be based on evidence, not evidence and a particular worldview. A theory doesn't need to be materialistic to be testable.

There was no memo, because the woldview isn't an assumption -- it's forced by the need for evidence. Evidence is, by definition, materialistic. Can you give an example of a non-materialistic yet testable theory? Oh wait, you already tried to. Let's analyze it.

Your proposal is that some being called God created the universe. You insist that there is evidence for this, but I think I must have missed it. The only two things that you mentioned were A) the theory that the universe had a beginning and B) "irreducible complexity".

Let's start with the beginning of the universe ;). The thing a lot of people don't get about the big bang is that it was (theoretically) not only the beginning of space, but the beginning of time as well. There was no time before the big bang and therefore, scientifically, nothing could have happened there. In order for your creator to have done anything "before" the big bang, he would have to operate outside of our universe. This is certainly possible, but I don't think that there is any evidence that this is true. So, contrary to your initial claim, it looks like the big bang is evidence against the creator.

Now, "irreducible complexity" (I'll just call it IR). This one has a couple of problems. First off, if IR exists, what would it imply? It would imply that the theory of evolution is insufficient to explain where these IR entities came from, right? OK, where do we go from there? We try to come up with a better theory, of course! Is "Intelligent Design" a better theory? No. In fact, it's not a theory at all, which I'll show in a moment. Secondly, regarding IR, all of the examples of "irreducibly complex" entities have so far been explained using evolutionary theory. ID people keep trotting out the bacterial flagellum and other examples, but keep forgetting that the flagellum is known to be made up of parts that were useful for other functions at earlier points in the evolution of bacteria. So not only does IR not support ID, but IR doesn't even seem to exist.

Back to Intelligent Design, there really is no theory here. It proposes an explanation that is completely untestable. The only "evidence" for ID is the existence of the universe, which also happens to be evidence for an infinite number of proposals. How do you weed through them all? I know! Lets only bother to look at the ones that are testable via our interactions with the material world! Let's call those ones, "scientific" hypotheses. From those, we'll try to find the ones that best fit the evidence, and we'll call those "scientific theories". Hmm, seems to be a pretty good way of creating an abstract model that represents reality. You got a better idea?

Re:Well good

[|/|/|||]

Your blind faith in our current understanding of the universe is the same foolishness that has the creationists so confused. When you say that "gravity is an absolute truth" what exactly do you mean? Obviously you can't mean the Newtonian theory of gravity, as that was superceded by the Theory of Relativity.

I wouldn't exactly trust Relativity to be the final word, either, since QM (and its incompatibilities with Relativity) seems like a pretty big hint that there is a deeper theory required.

See, the problem is not just knowing an absolute truth, it is knowing that you know an absolute truth. In order to really stake a flag on it and say, with absolute certainty, "This fact about the universe is absolutely true," you have to rigorously *prove* the underlying theories. How do you do that, when there are always limits on how "deep" we can look? If you think our ability to probe the universe is unlimited, then you're implying that the universe itself is unlimited -- in which case we'll never reach the bottom.

Ultimately, you have to just be practical and work with what you know. Evolution, for example, is by far the best (and really the only) explanation that we have for human origins. Does that mean that you would believe in evolution even if someone came up with another theory that fit the evidence better? I don't care how unlikely that may seem - if it were the case then we would have to change our perspectives. Science is based on theories that we know are only approximations of reality, but we're constantly improving those approximations. That's what makes science so exciting -- we're exploring the universe. Not just physical space, but its inner workings.

In order to keep making progress, though, we have to avoid certain pitfalls. One of them is taking our theories as gospel. You can get stuck for a long time when you never reanalyze the ideas that you take for granted -- all of them probably have mistakes.

Re:Well good

[Vaughn Anderson]

That is a very simple way of saying you don't actually have any way to prove the evolution theory. If it did, your example would have been on the front page of every news paper in the country at some point, but it isn't. I understand these discussions are probably fruitless, but if there really is proof there'd be a very clearly defined scientific website anyone could point you too, and the discussion would be over.

Since evolution is a belief system to describe something not understood by science, it can be debated.

Re:Well good

[gammoth]

I'm speaking well beyond my knowledge, but I'll stick to my argument and say that the divergence of clocks has more to do with velocity than gravity warping time.

Regarding the doubts about evolution, you're absolutely right. I am pointing out that science is all about investigating phenomena that we can't experience directly. What good is science otherwise? That's the point of the electrical example. No one's seen an electron power a filament, but we don't doubt that it's the properties of electro-magnetism that power a globe. There is a theory that describes it with no reference to a designer or all powerful being. Practically all of science should raise objections with creationists and IDists. It's a subtle argument that I'm afraid I'm unable to articulate precisely, nor, would it seem, convincingly. I'm suggesting the IDists' world view is not consistent and their understanding of science incomplete, at best, and hence they shouldn't have any influence on science curricula. I'd go so far to suggest they are insidious, but I don't have the energy to make that argument--but the judge in the case seems to have done a good job of it.

I was speaking to the world frame of anti-evolutionists, but there are no shortage of manifestations of evolution, some of which I'll list here--but not because I think you're unaware. In particular, the continuing evolution of bacteria that render some antibiotics obsolete; the ever mutating influenza virus; and modern man's dental problems (our teeth are too big for our jaw bones). There is also the fossil record, with particular reference to Archaeopteryx and the transition from dinosaur to bird; specific adaptations in isolated environments, eg the flightless kiwi bird of New Zealand or the ocular structure of squid (depending on the depth of their usual feeding grounds, squid have square or round pupils due to the level of illumination); and the genetic record that demonstrates a surprising amount of common genes across species.

Re:Well good

[coastwalker]

Who says I'm an atheist, I just dont like opressive thought police. I certainly do not recommend atheism to anyone despite it being the most likely description of life, it has no language to describe spiritual things and there is no community that you can join, a dull and unattractive lifeview even if it happens to be true.

We watched the US and the Soviets slog it out over the cold war, now the Soviets have lost and gone on to rebuild their society the spotlight turns on the USA. In the cold light of day the difference between the former Soviet Union and the USA is becomming hard to distinguish. No law or principle is too sacred for Mr Bush to overturn by executive dictat. The armed forces are running around unchecked torturing and killing people illegaly. All privacy is being eliminated in the war on terror, and surveillance and monitoring data is being allowed into the hands of cutthroat capitalist corporations who would be happier if their customers only did what they were told. And finaly right wing religious fundamentalists have decided that the population have to be brainwashed into seeing things their way.

You are dead right I am batshit insane and intolerant about what is going on. I was born I thought into the age of reason in the mid twentieth century and am horrified to discover that the world in many ways - is becoming the worst nightmare of the thinkers from the age of reason.

Well I have a cold and I am not in a good mood so I am very pleased that the Law has finaly recognised the asinine rubbish being peddled by Intelligent design as just another advertising campaign dressed up with a few men in white coats adding blue sprinkles to your washing powder. Intelligent Design is being peddled by fraudsters and shamsters. And I am not about to be distracted by the interesting intellectual debate about Intelligent Design being a nice philosophical solution to how the universe works, it would be so comforting to know that some god fellow is behind all that mad complexity. However if ID is being used to discredit boring old hard science and foist a mono-religious view on science then you can count me out, we did our witch burning in the middle ages, it should only be uneducated savages like AlQuaida who cannot live with contradiction.

You are correct to be perturbed by my response to this ID nonsense. In your sheep like mind you cannot understand why random people with random thoughts would like to keep them for themselves rather than letting a corrupt institution like a church tell them what to think.

Re:Well good

[Vaughn Anderson]

So far it is the best theory that fits all the available observable facts

Doctors a hundred years ago didn't think anything they could not see (ie, bateria) could possibly be killing their patients. (the doctors were not washing their hands between working on cadevers and deliverying babies) Yet the mothers were dying.

I do not have confidence in any science that runs on the black box theory, so the only way to accept evolution is through faith. There have never been any organisms that have evolved and have been observed.

The theory of evolution is a theory about how life evolved not about how life started. ...But evolution does not even touch on that particular subject.

This is a major part of the problem, some geeky scientists may believe this, but this is not what is being taught in public schools. Who is the maintainer of what exactly the definition of evolution is? If we can use it label all sorts of things, (and yes I have seen/read/heard people use it to define how life began) then why should it be taught in science classes in public schools?

Re:Well good

[Anonymous Coward]

No, in simple terms, the message should be

"You, Vaughn Anderson, are either incapable or unwilling to observe the massive amount of scientific evidence gathered over the past 150 years in favor of the theory of evolution. There are plenty of websites (talkorigins.org), textbooks, books for the layman, scientific journals, etc., etc., that are absolutely filled with all the evidence you claim does not exist."

That's not an ad hominem attack. An ad hominem attack is where I would claim "you are a Christian, therefore full of shit" or something similar. "You are simply wrong" is a statement of fact.

Being wrong is sometimes curable. But probably not in your case.

Re:Well good

[RetroGeek]

Now there is one site out there that claims the universe is really a very small bubble (slightly larger than the solar system)

Yes, well.

I guess then that the Voyager mission will bump up against something in a few years. :-)

Re:Well good

[|/|/|||]

The belief involved is right under your nose. The very assumption that life was "designed" is a belief. I'm not talking about belief that the creator is God, I'm talking about belief that there was a creator at all.

Yes, it is *possible* that there was a creator. However, there are also a lot of other possible explanations. To pick out the "designer" explanation without any evidence and without any way to test it, requires belief.

Say, for example, you just look at two possibilities for why life exists. On the one hand, you have the possiblity that it was created by an intelligent designer. On the other hand, you have the possibility that there are an infinite number of universes representing every possible configuration of matter (therefore, our configuration has to exist). Now, I'm pretty sure that there is no test you can do to determine which of these explanations is more accurate. Without such a discriminator, you can't include either one in your model of the universe unless you take it on faith. That is what makes ID unscientific. Scientific theories have to be testable, or you can't distinguish the more accurate ones from the less accurate ones.

Is there a test you can do to see if life was designed? The ID folks don't seem to be able to come up with one, or if they have they're apparently keeping it a secret.

Re:Well good

[Vaughn Anderson]

form of sugars to allow it to germinate.

This is taught in grade school, and is a very basic concept. Please explain how a seed has this ability to germinate? The closer you look at this process and the more you try to define how it works, the more it will look like magic. Finally at the end of your analysis you will not be able to explain how something how a seed contains life, not just sugars. Otherwise our scientists would be able to create life, but it just can't

This is where you might argue the system is now decreasing in entropy

Yes, and if you analyze the process of a plant growing down to the most minute level, there is a decision process happening, how does the plant know to turn into a tree vs weed? There is information in the seed that describes the entire plant before it even sprouts. The entire process of the plant growing must follow a map or a plan in duplicating cells to eventually create the end plant. How do the cells know which cell they will become? A root, a leaf, bark, etc... Anytime there is work done there needs to be enery to do this work, making a decision is work, when the plant cells split to create new leaves or branches there has to be decision as far as what it will become.

Please explain where the energy comes from to make this happen. The sun does not decide, though provides the raw work energy, the water does not, the seed does not contain the entire plant. All complex organisms have this same structure. In a human our DNA splits and recombines, what makes this happen? More chemistry makes a decision? We start off as a few cells, chemistry cannot make decisions, and DNA of itself is simply a map, not a decision making apparatus.

Obviously we aren't going to convince anyone of our own perspective. I am interested though in how you , and other's with your beliefs, justify having faith in a theory that cannot explain the core workings of life yet is used to describe how life started simple and became complex. (against the laws of thermodynamics)

Re:Well good

[|/|/|||]

It's only out of bounds if you believe that God is not needed and that science can explain everything without him.

I should have been more clear -- it's out of the bounds of science. Science may or may not be the best way to look at the world, but it is by definition confined to the materialistic.

Thanks for the interesting quote, by the way. We are physical creatures living in a physical world, and that is the reason why science, as the study of the physical world, has been so successful.

Except one very important one [universal truth]. That everything can be explained by materialist means.

No, I would disagree. Science does not claim that everything can be explained by materialist means. Such a claim would involve the immaterial world as well as the material, which puts it outside the bounds of science. Science makes no claims about absolute reality, only about that which we can physically measure.

Re:Well good

[Vaughn Anderson]

Perhaps you have misunstood my position. I don't want ID taught in schools. The last thing I want is the state to force _any_ religion on my children. I fully agree with the concept of the seperation of church and state. Just in the last 2 centuries Christians have been persecuted by other Christians with the support of the US government. (late 1700's early 1800's)

What I do take issue with is that a theory (evolution) is not being taught as a simple theory, and left to the students. It's being taught as fact. Maybe you don't think so, but I have personally experienced this. In 6th grade our sceince books had drawings of the human fetus an how it looks like a fish, salamander, chicken, etc... through it's process of developement in the womb. This is a lie.

The same people that are fighting for evolution to be taught (I fight for neither idea) support these kinds of lies. Maybe you don't believe all the fraudulent data, but others do. It's no different than what governments have done with religion, lying about what the bible says (keeping it in latin) and manipulating the people with it. Evolution is no different, other than it has the support of a new group of zealots, those that want to prove evolution at all costs, even if it includes manipulation and fraud.

All of the events/facts you presented don't prove that a single celled organism can combine to make a 2 celled organism, etc... this has never, ever been observed or proved, and yet is the very pinnicale of the theory. Without this, there is no evolution. None of other things you mention even matter if 2 cells can't come together and make a more complex unified organism.

Re:Well good

[einhverfr]

Not by any useful definition. Ritual is not required for religion and religion is not required for ritual. They are orthogonal. Even the practice of some atheists to belong to an organization and meet regularly does not in any way suggest that any form of atheism is a religion.

Regular meetings or ritual (in the broadest sense) don't suggest a ritual of reconnection in the way that, say, the Pledge of Allegience does (even omitting for the moment the phrase "Under God"). This is why some Christian groups including the Quakers (one major branch has a ritual abstainence from ritual-- hard to explain this but take my word on it for now) refuse to participate in this ritual saying it violates the First Commandment.

For example, if I have a Chess Club and we have a regular practice in our meetings of going around in a circle and introducing ourselves at every meeting, this probably does not constitute a ritual of reconnection in the way that I am describing.

The idea that belief in and of itself constitutes religion is fundamentally a Christian construct. As I am not a Christian, I don't hold it to be true. Unless that belief is expressed through an outward or inward act* of reconnection, then it is not a religion.

* Silent meeting Quakerism has a period of worship absent all outward froms of ritual. Even the Evangelical Quakers reject rituals of baptism, etc. (though they have programmed worship, etc.) suggesting that the real matter here is in the inward experience of the divine which is to be sought after via *inward* acts of reconnection. Also in no event do Quakers have an official document which states a creed, i.e. what Quakers believe. So there is no problem whatsoever with an atheist being a Quaker, even an evangelical one (maybe he thinks that Jesus fellow was a wise person but does not accept the whole Son of God thing).

Re:Well good

[kurzweilfreak]

... says the genius posting from his faith-developed computer. You did pray for that text to appear instead of using a keyboard, right?

It's just humorous that the religious whackos attempt to brand science as a religion because that's the only context in which they can see something; there's no such thing as no religion, just religion different from ours, right? Like that religion of baseball games and driving cars someone earlier noted. Citing the first amendment is sure to get you some bonus points too, in light of all the censorship the government is doing in the churches these days.... oh wait.... And don't forget the brilliant stroke of logic there that because some parts of the Bible might happen to have a few historically accurate accounts of a few places and events then the rest of it must automatically be true too.

Re:Well good

[sardiskan]

Well, you can look at ID as leading no where. Maybe it does lead to nothing greater. Maybe it's an anchor to hold on to. But I could look at Evolution as leading somewhere WRONG. Didn't people use to believe the world was flat. Now there's a debate worth getting into 700 years ago. Science of 700 years ago said the earth was flat. And science of 100 years later said "no freaking way". And now, 700 years in the future (pending other plans) people may just look at evolutionist and say "no freaking way" about what they thought. You see, science is within itself a flawed and fallible HUMAN tool. And it's a flawed human tool used by flawed fallible humans. Cheers

Re:Well good

[Vaughn Anderson]

If evolution has been proved to be true, there wouldn't be this debate. All it takes is for the scientists of the current world to simply not understand the basic structure of how single cell organisms live for all that data to be meaningless.

We have an incredible capacity for arrogance, thinking we know something. All you have to do is read some history, and every generation of scientists has believed something that we now consider totally ridiculus.

Show me the evidence of the core of evolution working, where 2 single celled organisms come together to form a more complex organism, and then keep getting more complex (and of course without any "creator" helping it along). This is the most basic element of the theory. Anything as complex as everyone else has suggested as evidence of evolution is completely irrelevant without this.

Would it be any different for a Christian to try and convert a "non-believer" without being able to prove what he is saying? You are trying to convert me to believe in evolution yet this does nothing to convince, "are either incapable or unwilling to observe the massive amount of scientific evidence".

Why bother standing up for something, only to simply sit right back down again?

I am truly interested in understanding why people believe in this concept so vehemently that they will stand up and argue against any idea that is contrary to it. The more vehement people become about a "fact" they can't prove, the more belief in evolution looks like a religion.

At what lengths will people go to keep the teachings of evolution in the schools? Btw, I don't want ID taught in schools anymore than I want evolution, neither faiths should be taught, or if they are then purely as a study course, not in science class.

Re:Well good

[Weedlekin]

What absolute and utter shit. It would be on the front page of every newspaper in the world if somebody _disproved_ evolution theory. They haven't though, and they won't, because it has stood against an onslaught by religious people attempting to show that it is wrong since its inception, and has only grown stronger over time as more and more evidence has been gathered from new, emerging sciences and an ever larger volume from older, more established ones. The fossil record supports it; the genetic record supports it; and observations of living things support it. This is in stark contrast to Biblical creationism, which has been knocked down so thoroughly that the only Christian denominations which accept it as being anything more than a metaphor are fundamentalist sects that have more in common with the Taliban than anything else.

NB: the US is the only country in the Western world where anybody would even consider this subject to be worthy of debate. Elsewhere, ID is clearly seen for what it is: a last-gasp attempt by religious fanatics to resurrect a completely discredited creation myth by casting straw men left, right, and centre. Bring some some real facts to the table, and people will debate you with respect: but the use of tactics like yours will result in your arguments being treated with well-deserved contempt and derision.

Re:Well good

[stanmann]

The universe however is still a closed system.

Re:Well good

[krmt]

One of the fun things about these examples is that we don't know exactly how they happened. The possibility most people will jump to is that some random mutation(s) happened in the short time span that allowed the change to occur. The other possibility is that the population already contained within it the vast majority of the variation necessary to produce the change. If you shuffle the variations around, eventually you'll get a good combination without the need to mutate a thing. The interplay between these two possibilities isn't fully understood right now, and I'm personally pretty excited by the work in the field.

Re:Well good

[Dimensio]

The universe however is still a closed system.

And I never said otherwise.

Re:Well good

[fenris_23]

More specifically, a theory must make falsifiable predictions in order to be considered valid. For example, special relativity makes predictions regarding the bending of star light as it passes near the horizon of the sun during a total eclipse. This has been confirmed. Natural selection makes predictions as well, though the predictions are not so risky (making the theory less strong). Some of these predictions have been confirmed in moths changing their color in 19th century england due to the saturation of coal on tree bark. Intelligent design makes no predictions. It cannot be falsified or proved. It, therefore, is not a valid theory (even in the philisophical sense) or science.

For more information, interested /. readers should checkout Karl Popper's Conjectures and Refutations. This will provide a reader with a solid understanding of science as it is viewed by the majority of scientists in our time as well as an explanation of why theories like ID are not scientific.

Re:Well good

[stanmann]

Atheism as lack of belief logically would lead to indifference toward other people's religious practices. Whether it is carrying a bible or praying on a hilltop skyclad, but what I commonly see from "Atheists" is taking of offense to my religious practices, sometimes in an active militant manner. THAT form of atheism is religious. That is the form of atheism, most practitioners of other religions frequently encounter, and thus refer to as religion. I've met a VERY few a-religious atheists who chose to either ignore, or comment neutrally regarding other peoples practices.

Re:Well good

[LaCosaNostradamus]

That explains why tenure is becoming obsolete. College professors (for instance, and particularly) are being progressively relegated to contract employment. Even if one guy mouths off in class against ID, 1 to 3 years later, you can always get rid of him, with that black mark of "controversial public statements" following him for the rest of his (aborted) career.

Re:Well good

[stanmann]

No, Baldness is a HAIR STYLE. Sometimes it is chosen, sometimes it just happens, but it is a state on the spectrum of hair. Just like a mowhawk, beehive, or crew cut. A hat to hide your baldness isn't a hair style, but thats another argument.

Re:Well good

[LaCosaNostradamus]

Good call. Sagan's a great source for promoting rationality. I recall reading "Broca's Brain" in junior high, and watched "Cosmos" avidly while in early high school. His statement "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is a good rule-of-thumb for evaluating reality itself.

Re:Well good

[stanmann]

An Indifferent Atheist isn't religious, but they are a fairly rare breed in my experience.

Re:Well good

[Vaughn Anderson]

Let me clarify again, I think ID is a bogus theory, religion is not a scientific thing to be studied and analyzed. I'm not arguing in support of it.

All you have to do is prove that it's even possible for a single celled organism to change into a more complex, say with 2 cells. Considering this has never been done or proved even remotely possible, the core elements of the theory of evolution are fiction.

grown stronger over time as more and more evidence has been gathered from new, emerging sciences and an ever larger volume from older, more established ones. The fossil record supports it; the genetic record supports it; and observations of living things support it.

None of this matters if simple celled organisms can't evolve into more complex organisms. Observations that _seem_ to support evolution can easily be dismissed as a function of each organism.

All the evolutionist needs to do is prove the basic concepts, the big complex issues can be worded and used by elitists to prove anything us ignorant masses (just look at statistics) so it's not viable proof of anything.

Please don't say we should trust the scientist, and that everyone is telling the truth. The proving of evolution has been full of fraud from the beginning. And this can actually be proved with real evidence.

In the end it seems anyone who believes in evolution can do when debating this is simply state things like "Bring some some real facts to the table". Would I be out of order in asking you to do the same?

Re:Well good

[stanmann]

Ok, so there is a bacteria out there that is known to eat EVERYTHING it encounters. And what to our suprise we find, that when exposed to Nylon it eats it. WHAT A SHOCKER.

Re:Well good

[LaCosaNostradamus]

Well, it depends on what you mean by "tolerate" people who claim they were abducted by UFOs.

Tolerate = allow them to speak on the topic in legal or scientific forums

Without a shred of evidence, we should not "tolerate" assertions of fantastical nature. They can go to the dipshit forums where their blather is welcomed. We adults can then go on in relative peace with our logical and evidentiary procedures.

Of course, as with any forum, there is a basic freedom to speak. But if you can stay on topic and within the bounds of rationality, you're going to get bounced out one way or another.

The basic point I made is still clear: You must provide evidence for your claims ... and as Sagan has said, the more extraordinary your claims, then the more extraordinary your evidence will NEED to be. The total evidence for UFOs (as space-alien craft) is essentially zero. And that's STILL MORE evidence than that provided (i.e. ZERO) for this "god" character.

Sympathy must lead to analysis. Why are people so uncomfortable about that necessary step?

Re:Well good

[Xaositecte]

I'm confused.

What exactly are you trying to say?

Re:Well good

[Temsi]

There is no debate. The debate only exists in the minds of those who refuse to accept reality due to their preconceived ideas (which are usually based on religious dogma).
Billions of pieces of evidence all point to the same conclusion, not a single piece of ecidence exists that contradicts it. What's there to debate?
We have two columns with evidence, for and against.
In the "for" column, you have a few billion pieces.
In the "against" column you have nothing.
Why is the empty column still considered a viable alternative?

You did however make one point which explains how I feel about the ID people, even though you argued it incorrectly:
"it would be like someone debating against the Law of Gravity"
Well, here's the thing: The Law of Gravity is actually the Theory of Gravity. It's a theory, just like evolution is. Don't believe in gravity? OK, jump out a window and prove me wrong.
The ID people are in reality opposing a theory that has MORE physical evidence behind it than gravity. Imagine that! Now do you understand why I think these people are dumb?

Re:Well good

[Liam Slider]

I see you lump me in with the bunch defending that unscientific, religious (and not only that, but bad religion too) piece of garbage they call the theory of intelligent design, which is no theory at all. I'm not. I know evolution is science. I've argued evolution as fact. I see you consider me an "unthinking sheep" for not thinking exactly as you think, believing exactly as you believe. You accuse me of being "one of the brainwashed masses" because I do not agree with you on certain points. Gee, sounds like someone with a "them vs me" complex to me, since I'm against you, I must be one of the mindless drones of the faceless, identical, retarded, brainwashed enemy.

Gee...sounds like someone has issues.

Re:Well good

[sickofthisshit]

Bad textbooks are not a reason to stop teaching well-proven biology, including evolution in the classroom.

The main reason textbooks are so execrable in the U.S. is because purchasing decisions are made by state and local school boards that are filled with people who have political agendas, but little scientific or educational background. So topics like evolution get watered down and reduced to inoffensive pap, and there is no motivation to make the scientific material accurate, informative, interesting or challenging.

That said, you apparently have been using crappy sources for your biology information.

NO ONE BELIEVES THAT SEPARATE, GENETICALLY DIFFERENT, SINGLE CELLED ORGANISMS SIMPLY COMBINED TO FORM MULTICELLULAR ORGANISMS. It is nonsensical; look in the mirror: all of YOUR cells have the same genetic makeup. They all arose from a single fertilized egg. In that sense YOU are a single-celled organism that just grew.

It is much more likely that multicellular life first formed because single-celled organisms that reproduced by dividing continued to divide, but without separating into single-celled organism, but forming multicellular colonies. Then, it is a natural step that such colonies would adapt so that different cells could be specialized to perform different functions.

You might be confusing that with the idea that eukaryotic cells developed by a symbiosis where smaller organisms lived within larger organisms, finally losing their independence. This is one theory for how mitochondria, for instance, came to be part of eukaryotic cells. That they have their own genetic material is evidence of this scenario.

Re:Well good

[Vaughn Anderson]

No, it was a logical error, I meant to say a single cell organism that split/developed/changes/etc.. into a multicelled organism. (a form of mental dyslexia I feel prone to blame for this...)

I agree with your statement regarding the humans being single cells, but you error'd in your analysis of this. We are actually 2 cells that actually _do_ come together and become one. (sperm + egg) So in effect, my original statement (though I admit it was not what I was thinking) _is_ accurate.

NO ONE BELIEVES THAT SEPARATE, GENETICALLY DIFFERENT, SINGLE CELLED ORGANISMS SIMPLY COMBINED TO FORM MULTICELLULAR ORGANISMS

Every single mamal, reptile, fish, etc... is created this way. (sperm+egg) Even flowers and trees reproduce this way. So if what you are saying is true (I would venture to say an egg is quite a bit different than a sperm), then how come there is so much life on this planet that is created this way? You seem to be arguing against your own theories.

It is much more likely that multicellular life first formed because single-celled organisms that reproduced by dividing continued to divide, but without separating into single-celled organism, but forming multicellular colonies. Then, it is a natural step that such colonies would adapt so that different cells could be specialized to perform different functions.

But this idea has never been proved to actually happen, it's a nice idea, but has never been replicated.

Re:Well good

[sickofthisshit]

An egg and sperm are not viable organisms. We don't classify them as different species. They are gametes produced by organisms to reproduce. AFTER they combine, the fertilized egg is a SINGLE cell.

Your argument is seriously confused. Sexual reproduction does not argue for or against evolution per se. It allows the genetic diversity of a population to be increased much more quickly, probably speeding up the process of speciation.

Sexual reproduction is not basic to life. Many forms of life, even vertebrates, reproduce asexually. The prevelance of sexual reproduction is simply evidence that it provides a selective advantage.

Your hurdle of "replication" is absurd. It's like asking an historian to replicate the Battle of Waterloo so we can be sure it happened.

Re:Well good

[grolschie]

Firstly, how do we conclusively prove said fossil is actually 3million years old? Secondly, you do realise that a monkey looks alot like a human but is massively genetically different?

Although man and monkey are 95 to 98 percent genetically similar, the difference at the chemical base level is still in the millions. (Note that the DNA of the zebra fish is 92 percent similar to humans. Why don't zebra fish and monkeys hang out together?) - Quote from "What Darwin Didn't Know" by Geoffrey Simmons, M.D.

Re:Well good

[RespekMyAthorati]

YES, there are events in evolutionary biology that are hard to explain probabilistically.
NO, trying to explain them with superstition is not science, and doesn't belong in science class.

Re:Well good

[RespekMyAthorati]

THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS ONLY APPLIES TO CLOSED SYSTEMS

Well, not exactly. LTD2 always applies to a closed system, but may not apply to some open systems.
Does it apply to the earth? I would say yes, since there is a steady inflow of energy from the sun, and energy tends to shake up existing structures. Heat up ice (more structured) and you get water(less structured). Heat up water, and you get stream: again more entropy. There are always more ways for matter to be unstructured than structured, so the odds will always favor entropy (randomness) over structure.

This still has nothing to do with using superstition to explain the mysteries of nature.

Re:Well good

[grolschie]

Conclusively prove that dinosaur DNA code can and has changed into bird DNA. Some experts in phylogenetics will admit that there is little supporting evidence, but claim it's the best explanation that we currently have. However, it's still taught as fact.

Re:Well good

[grolschie]

Here is an example of marketing the Tree of Life to our kids.

Re:Well good

[sardiskan]

What are you talking about? Newtons LAW of universal gravitation is just that, a LAW. Gravitation isn't a theory. It appears that your arguments are fueled by some deep hatred of "reglious dogma". I don't wish to continue fueling your already hateful nature towards God and Christians. Cheers

Re:Well good

[Gogogoch]

You have a point, but doesn't that illustrate how the scientific approach works:

"Let's assume the world is flat. From here it looks flat. Makes sense. OK, lets try sailing around a bit with navigtion using flat Euclidean geometry. Oh, it doesnt seem to work, something is wrong. Anyone have any other ideas on what shape the Earth might be?"

A notion is only good so long as it is useful. Once humans do things with such scope or precision that errors start to appear between the notion and reality people adapt the 'theory' and try to find something that fits all the known effects. The new theory then may replace, modify or enhance the old. Flat changes to spherical, spherical changes to 'flattened sphere' and so on.

So these scientific theories depend on reality, and are used to describe and predict what happens in the real world - that we all experience. Evolution, together with genetics, has been tremendously successful. It explains much of what we see around us, and where there are questions people are busy trying to find answers. It has opened up the technology of genetic engienering. If this 'science' was wrong, then we would not have many of the vaccines we have today, and there would be no hope in the battles against HIV, SARS and all the other nasty bugs. Other than to prey - which is all that ID has to offer.

I'm not sure why you see evolution leading to something wrong. So much around you points to the fact that evolution and genetics are truely how things on Earth work. Of course we dont know all the answers to every question, not all the details are known, and may not be knowable, but many of today's inaccurancies and unknowns will be filled-in through the work of millions of people around the world.

Science may be a fallible human tool, but it so useful. It makes such wonderful sense of what we see and experience. Again, the fact that we are communicating on a computer and over the Internet demonstrates that millions of scientific ideas, steching back through years and years of human work, are right. Or at least, right enough that the computer and the Internet work well enough for our communication to happen.

So if such a sensible, useful, and practical thing as science might be viewed as a fallible human tool or construction what can we say about ID? Obviously ID is faith-based, and as we discussed earlier, it has no practicality to the physical world of today. How much more fallible is this? How much more a human construction, an imagination?

One might believe ID, and one might feel better for believing it - that we are here for a reason, that we might have an unknown purpose. It might be true, but it is no substitution for evolution and genetics. That God created our Universe - 13 billion years ago, in a flash - with a very long-term and a very cunning plan is, to me, quite plausible. Unimaginably clever. That fits in with how I might view God. More of a cosmologist than a naturalist.

Anyway, I very much appreciate your postings here Sardiskan. Cheers

Re:Well good

[Vaughn Anderson]

Your argument is seriously confused. Sexual reproduction does not argue for or against evolution per se.

You have 2 single celled organisms that during fertilization completely defy the definition of evolution. You can only argue about opinions, not facts. This is a fact.

An egg and sperm are not viable organisms.

I contest that _any_ one celled organism is a viable organism by the definition of "one celled organism".

We don't classify them as different species.

Classification is purely a documentation of reality. It doesn't change the fact that they are one celled organisms.

Many forms of life, even vertebrates, reproduce asexually.

They certainly do, but this does not invalidate the point that 2 single celled organisms _do_ come together (sexually) to create a more complex organism, which you previously stated no one believes occurs.

Re:Well good

[sickofthisshit]

There is no essential philosophical distinction between what scientists call a law and a theory.

The facts are that (heavier-than-air) things fall to the ground when they are dropped, the Earth goes around the sun, the Moon goes around the Earth, etc., etc.

The theory that attempts to describe these motions is a theory of gravity. Newton had one. Part of that is the inverse-square formula for gravitational force. The currently favored theory is Einstein's general theory of relativity. At some point, some physicists hope to have developed string theory to the point where they can supplant Einstein's theory with one fully integrated with quantum theory.

We could conceive of alternative theories such as "All matter seeks the center of the universe" or "Angels push the planets around the solar system." These are less predictive than even Newton's theory, and certainly cannot form a successful basis for predicting the motion of spacecraft, and so on, so we choose not to adopt these.

In biology, the facts are that almost all creatures, both those alive today, and those seen in fossils, can be classified into groups that appear to have arisen from common descent; that forms preserved in fossils generally appear different from forms preserved earlier or later, or found today; that genetic material is the basis by which creatures reproduce to form creatures that share many of the qualities of their parents; that most species reproduce at a rate far larger than can survive to future reproductive success, and so on and so on.

The theory of evolution by natural selection is a concept that makes sense of all of these things, without depending on "God did it just so", and there is essentially no biological evidence that the theory is not correct.

There is no essential difference between the two theories; nothing that makes one more of a "LAW" and one "only" a "THEORY." To try to denigrate evolution and elevate gravitation is pure sophistry.

Re:Well good

[NetMunkee]

The thing a lot of people don't get about the big bang is that it was (theoretically) not only the beginning of space, but the beginning of time as well.

You're absolutely right, you're talking about Hawking and Penrose's space-time theorem. So lets consider that theorem for a second. It's not just time and space, the big bang was the beginning of all the matter and energy in our universe as well (since matter and energy only exist within space-time). So where did space, time, matter, and energy come from then? Obviously it had to come from something that is operating outside of space-time. And obviously it has to be something other than matter and energy. So we're talking about something that is, by definition, super-natural. Something non-material and able to operate outside of time. This would be material evidence (the evidence is the universe itself) of a non-material thing. As an aside, these are some of those characteristics of the Creator that we can discern that I was talking about. I find it interesting that only worldviews based on the Bible describe a God that operates outside of time, and as the creater of time is able to operate within time as well. You can see where this is headed, the anthropic principle.

Back to ID ;) Since there is the possibility of material evidence of non-material things, we can look for such evidence in living systems as well. IR (to use your abbreviation) is evidence of information, which is something non-material. An example for clarification. When you write words to convey an idea (like we're doing in this discussion thread) we are using material things (all the material things that make up computers, the web, etc.) to convey something non-material. I see the red, green, and blue dots on my monitor, which is purely material. The dots themselves have a materialistic cause. But the organization of those dots are what I can see as evidence for some non-material thing called information. Finding the evidence for the existence of information compelling (based on the odds of those dots being organized randomly into a configuration which would appear information-rich), I can then go about examining the evidence further to see what that information is, what it's purpose is, from where that information originated (from the mind -- a whole other topic, heh -- of an intelligent person who speaks english), and so on.

We can do this with biological machines such as the bacterial flagellum and many others. We see the way those machines operate, how they are constructed, and we see the evidence for the information required to build those machines. It doesn't matter if the parts of the machines were all there already. I can take apart a working mechanical watch, put all the parts in a box, and shake them for billions of years, but they'll never go back together to become a functioning watch again. If I have a functioning watch, that is positive evidence of an intelligent watchmaker. Many, perhaps most, biological systems are vastly more complex than a watch.

The problem darwinian evolution has is that it doesn't even have billions of years (as if that were even enough). It has a few million years at the most. This with both an abiogenesis during a period of intense bombardment of meteors which would include several sterilization events and the Cambrian Explosion. And as mathematicians figured out a long time ago, you aren't going to get darwinian evolution in such a short period of time.

So I do agree that we test our theories in the material world, but that doesn't mean that we can't test theories that involve non-material causes.

Re:Well good

[Laser Lou]

Although man and monkey are 95 to 98 percent genetically similar, the difference at the chemical base level is still in the millions. (Note that the DNA of the zebra fish is 92 percent similar to humans. Why don't zebra fish and monkeys hang out together?)
I don't quite get it ... if the zebrafish DNA was more similar to a human's DNA than a monkey's DNA, then you would have a point, but since you claim its less similar, then I don't see the significance of it.

Firstly, how do we conclusively prove said fossil is actually 3million years old?
Radiometric dating. Sedimentation. Comparing results obtained through different methods. Nature leaves its clues. Science is used to figure them out.

Re:Well good

[Listen Up]

"However, that comparison doesn't always hold true when you compare rational athiests versus rational believers. There is room to believe in the existence of a God without falling into the trap of believing in superstitions and mysticism."

Actually, since I looked up the definition of a Rational Atheist, I appear to be ~%99 the definition of one. With one huge exception...God(s), Goddess(es), etc. were %100 completely invented in the imagination (and scientific ignorance) of mankind. That is a fact. And that is ALL religions. You cannot argue or believe that religion is real on any grounds, since it is fantasy to begin with. Hence, a false argument cannot be used as a basis for other arguments. Even without empirical evidence to support religion or a supreme being or beings, the entire idea is completely illogical.

Which brings me to some other points. How can there logically be any being, suspending the fact that there has never been empirical evidence to support such a being, that is beyond physical law? This is logically false, and can be falsified on so many different levels, one point of which you briefly mentioned. The second would be 'who created the creator'? An infinite loop of creators? Logically false. A third would be a 'creator that existed spontaneously or has existed forever'? Logically false. In that case, the universe itself could have spontaneously existed or existed forever on its own as well, without a creator. And on and on. The problem is that religion is human invented fantasy and the logical fallacies of religion cannot be overcome.

Otherwise, you wrote an excellent and insightful post.

Re:Well good

[Weedlekin]

"All you have to do is prove that it's even possible for a single celled organism to change into a more complex, say with 2 cells. Considering this has never been done or proved even remotely possible, the core elements of the theory of evolution are fiction."

This is much more interesting point, and one that's certainly well worth debating.

Two of the three types of slime moulds are examples of independent, single-celled organisms that swarm together into often fairly large (up to a foot in diameter for some species) multi-cellular forms.

The first group, called plasmodial slime moulds, starts life as a bunch of cells that propel themselves with cillia. These cells can however swarm together and fuse into what is effectively a single giant cell, but one with thousands of nuclei. It is a hybrid of a single-celled and multi-cellular organism (cells usually have one nucleus, not thousands of them).

Cellular slime moulds are the second interesting group. These spend the greater part of their life as single cells that resemble an amoeba, but will swarm into a single organism in response to certain chemical signals. Unlike the first group, each cell remains distinct, but they still co-operate and behave as a single multi-celled creature.

There are also a wide variety of primitive animals and plants that form co-operating colonies. As an example, Google for Pandorina.

Note that some of these primitive organisms are capable of both sexual and asexual reproduction, a trait retained by many sponges, which while definitely multi-cellular, retain many of the characteristics of colony-forming unicellular organisms, including having cells with cillia on them for water intake.

Re:Well good

[Listen Up]

tbannist,

Another excellent post.

Re:Well good

[Laser Lou]

Conclusively prove that dinosaur DNA code can and has changed into bird DNA.
From what I know, not all scientists agree that birds descended from dinosaurs, but as you said, that's the best explanation out.

Some experts in phylogenetics will admit that there is little supporting evidence, but claim it's the best explanation that we currently have.
Unfortunately, creationists don't listen to those experts; strong religious dogma gets in the way.

Re:Well good

[Vaughn Anderson]

Two of the three types of slime moulds are examples of independent, single-celled organisms

This is interesting (not having known about slime moulds), but considering their actions are consistent, this would only consitute a behavior of the organism, not an aspect of evolution. Fish do this on a larger scale, as do birds (staying flocks) and other animals.

Considering that my body started as one cell at one point (2 actually coming together), then by the definition of evolution I evolved from a single celled organism into a fetus, then into a person...

Based on this concept it seems that the theory is correct, but completely misapplied to something it doesn't actually work with. (ie, new forms of life vs continuing forms of life)

Re:Well good

[Copid]

But that is the de facto effect: if child A believes in a creationist story, be it adam & steve or the cosmic turtle and the teacher starts out in grade 3 by saying "the world was not created, here's what really happened" then you have a much more egregious violation of church and state than the aforementioned sticker.

At what point do you draw the line, though? If child A believes that the multiplication tables are the work of a false prophet, does teaching them constitute an equally egregious violation of church and state? What about the belief that water boling is spirits escaping from the liqud rather than lowering of vapor pressure at high temperature? The problem is not that we're teaching things that conflict with religious teachings. The problem is that we're not properly teaching children that science and religion answer different questions and sometimes conflict in their worldview. They need to understand that there is no inherent reason to discard either one in its entirety simply because some parables don't reconcile themselves well with scientific theory.

In fact, if people understood that they could accept the naturalistic methodology of science as simply a methodology and not an overarching life philosophy, we could avoid conflicts that arise when science tries to become religion or when religion tries to become science.

And you don't consider a court order to openly declare - and requiring the children to regurgitate under threat of failing the class, screwing up a GPA and being denied entry to college - religious beliefs assertively false an act that suppresses religious belief?

Children need to understand that understanding the prevailing scientific theories and their underlying data is not the same as adopting a new worldview. That's the deficiency--not the fact that some scientific results conflict with some religious beliefs.

Then a teacher shouldn't be allowed (ne, required) to say "the earth was not created," which has the clear, direct and unmistakable effect of declaring any believes that the world was created false. I'd say that's pretty much an official declaration on the part of the government that several religions are blowing smoke and are wrong.

I'm fairly certain that that doesn't happen most of the time, and that when it does, parents can and do have valid complaints. I think that there are a lot of people who seem to think that there is some vast atheist conspiracy to indoctrinate children in science classes into believing that the scientific process should encompass one's entire philosophy. There are certainly some (many!) people who believe that, and there are probably some teachers who push that agenda. Those teachers are damaging not just religion but education in general when they do that, though. They should be taken to task for it. They should *not* have to water down the actual coursework and push the religous agendas of the offended parties as some sort of settlement, though.

The ACLU tried to get the supreme court to ban a moment of silence: that 95% of the boys were using that moment of silence to lust after the 23 year old just hired teacher and/or the cheerleading squad wearing game dress and 95% of the girls were thinking about how they were fat next to all of those cute cheerleaders, the ACLU wanted to ban silent, unled, private, personal prayer. The teachers didn't even have to say "time to pray", just "let's have a moment of silence".

Excuse me if I don't put much stock in the ACLU's ability to reason.

Sometimes the ACLU goes overboard. They go well beyond what most moderates would want much of the time. That's their job. They're there to fight against any whiff of infringement on individual rights. People bring up the extreme cases all the time and ignore the fact that the ACLU takes on countless cases that they never hear about. You certainly don't hear Bill O'Reilly and his ilk p

Re:Well good

[|/|/|||]

According to current theory as I understand it, all of the information in the current universe (including the design of my watch) can be traced back to low entropy in the early universe. Where that low entropy came from is a topic of debate, but I guarantee you that we'll never have a scientific theory that relies on supernatural effects of any kind. It's pretty obvious that such a theory could never be tested (anything subjectable to testing is, by definition, a part of the natural universe) and can therefore never be distinguished from alternate theories.

The topic of what is "outside the universe" or what "came before the universe" is simply outside the bounds of science. Science is a tool for modeling the material world - it is useless outside of our physical boundaries. Even if you found evidence of information that had no source inside of the universe, that doesn't give you any ability to say where it came from or how. You would simply have to admit that you did not know. Look at all of the "evidence" for ID - it's nothing but attacks on evolution. I know you've probably heard that before, but it's true. Also note that attacking evolution does *nothing* to support ID. Even if we were absolutely sure that complex life forms could not have arisen as a result of evolution, then what would we have? Nothing. We just wouldn't know the answer. You could step up and say, "An Intelligent Creator must have made it!" but you wouldn't be able to back that up with any evidence. I could just as easily say, "The universe takes on a random configuration every 10 seconds, and it just happened to hit this one. It was a one in a gigillion shot, but this has been going on for eternity so it was bound to happen." I would have just as much evidence as you would -- none.

but that doesn't mean that we can't test theories that involve non-material causes.

How, exactly? Can you come up with a hypothetical example?

Re:Well good

[kurzweilfreak]

Right, we're just as nuts for NOT believing in the invisible sky fairy as those who do are.

Re:Well good

[scowling]

It is indeed an interesting discussion -- thank you for posting that link. Someone should mod your post +1 Informative.

Re:Well good

[Weedlekin]

You said there were no examples of single celled organisms becoming multi-cellular ones. I then gave you several examples of just such organisms, thereby proving that you are wrong. And no, this is not flocking behaviour as seen in birds and fish, because each individual member of the flocks can function as an independent organism at any time. This is not true of slime moulds, which become a new creature when their cells join, and those cells are no longer capable of functioning independently of the organism that they now constitute. It is an example of single celled organisms _becoming_ a multi-celled one, i.e. precisely what you said does not exist.

Evolution does not claim that you evolved from a collection of single celled organisms into a foetus, because that would be absurd. A foetus is one of the stages that animals go through between conception and birth, not a stage in the evolutionary process.

Re:Well good

[Copid]

Fossils can be observed. Whether or not they are fossils of early ancestors, or completely different but now extinct species is yet to be conclusively proven.

Well, here's a question that never seems to be answered by the "maybe they're not ancestors" camp: There appears to have been a time when there were dinosaurs but no birds. Now there are birds but no dinosaurs. The reason for there being no dinosaurs is that they died. That's easy enough. How is it, though, that we have birds now? Where did they come from? Did they pop into existence from nothing? Given that we watch evolution to varying degrees on a daily basis, and given that there is no known mechanism that prevents small changes from accumulating, one reasonable explanation is common ancestry. What's your explanation for the appearance of birds?

Re:Well good

[6800]

Well, I guess you are at least, a 'skeptic'. Anyhow I think that the terms: religion, world view, beleaf system and probably what you have 'stored up in your heart' are somewhat interchangable.

Thanks for the response, I do find your self-analysis interesting and somewhat novel. Maybe because I've led a hard life :-). I did make a serious existenial attempt as a younger man.

A spiritual man tries (weighs, discerns) all things. You might fit right in easily enough! Of course the only spiritual man who ever totally fulfilled that or any other such description was Jesus!

Gee, guess I have been up too long, still need to exercise, Goodnight!

Re:Well good

[SuperRushman]

Ok but then neither is the religion of "billions and billions of years". What does it matter if you invoke the God of the Bible or the God of Improbability, neither is real science. Give it a break. The "intelligentsia" has won this battle, but fortunately real science may eventually win. Let us pray (you pick which God to pray to.)

Re:Well good

[jc42]

But the obvious example in recent times is the development of DDT resistance among insects. Indeed it is possible within a *very* short timeframe (evolutionarily speaking) to make a population of insects quite resistant to any given insecticide or other environmental hazard. ... Perhaps if HIV is unchecked, we will see the human population develop resistance to it too (untreated HIV has an 90-95% mortality rate, perhaps 1-2% less).

There is a hypothesis that this is why the bubonic plague is no longer a problem. The idea is that, after killing 30-50% of all Europeans every generation for a couple of centuries, Europeans evolved resistance. The disease also affected Asia and Africa, so we can also guess that the resistance spread there in the obvious ways. Or maybe it originated outside Europe.

The alternative hypothesis is based on the idea that it's not a good idea for a parasite to totally devastate the prey. If you kill all your hosts, you die too. This would mean that in areas of high human mortality, the plague organism died out, and was eventually replaced by a less-virulent form that left the prey alive long enough to spread the parasite.

Of course, both of these could be true. That's probably what really happened, with humans evolving resistance while the plague evolved less virulence.

Anyway, the disease is still around, but it doesn't kill very many people. Here in the US, there are 10 or so cases per year. China has about 40 cases/year, and India has 35. These numbers are roughly the percent of the populations, implying a somewhat consistent but very low incidence everywhere.

Re:Well good

[Cre8ed]

If any one decided to have a look at ALL the facts, and come in with no presumptions then the only result would be to admit that Evolution is simply not possible, and Intellegent design is the only feasible answer. To think that Evolution is still around today is a joke that is not funny anymore. To teach is is schools as fact, when it can't be proven and very good cases can be made to disprove it, is completely ridiculous. The only reason for the "THEORY" of evolution is still espouted by these "scientists" is that people don't face the facts, that we are all created beings, by a masterful Creator. Because if they face the facts they would be forced to face the reality of their existence, and be subject to an ultimate authority and not themsleves - we live in a world where everyone does what is right in his own eyes -. Science proves Intellegent Design - check the facts. Science proves evolutionary theory and the "random chance" assoicated with it as totally invalid. think about it.....

Re:Well good

[grolschie]

Firstly, how do we conclusively prove said fossil is actually 3million years old?

Radiometric dating. Sedimentation. Comparing results obtained through different methods. Nature leaves its clues. Science is used to figure them out.

This article might interest your then. Here is an excerpt:

Another fact, which proves quite embarrassing to "old-age" proponents in regard to radiometric dating, is the half-life of Carbon 14 itself. Not only is the actual half-life length itself in some contention, but the effect it would have on the upper limits of its capability in dating illustrates clearly the level of fraud that has been foisted on an unsuspecting society. Consider that Carbon 14's half-life is around 5,630 years 3 (though estimates range from 5,300 to 5,700 years); in only ten cycles of this, there would be nothing left to measure in the extant specimen! This means that the absolute maximum age radiocarbon could date a specimen to would be around 56,300 years; yet daily society is barraged with reports that some new find was dated in the hundreds of thousands, and even millions of years using Carbon 14. Actually, after the sixth cycle or so, there would not be enough Carbon 14 in the sample to be measured; the upper limit then would be around 30,000 years.

Two embarrassing words of evolutionists: Cambrian Explosion

Re:Well good

[grolschie]

From what I know, not all scientists agree that birds descended from dinosaurs, but as you said, that's the best explanation out.

Here we have an assertion made without evidence, a belief even, yet you agree with the teaching of it as fact? Evolution is no less a belief system than any other religion. Whether all scientists believe birds evolved from dinosaurs is not the issue, the issue is that most evolutionists believe that they all share a common ancestor - even though there is NO EVIDENCE to support this crock. Not a shred of evidence.

To quote the Alpha Omega Institute: "There are no transitions between vastly different types of animals in either the living world or the fossil record. Lining up three objects by size or shape does not prove that one turned into the other."

Even the best explanation, whilest lacking tangible evidence, is still not a proven fact.

Re:Well good

[sickofthisshit]

You are being a complete blockhead.

Do you know what "viable" means? You might as well call my fingernail clippings "organisms" that "reproduce" because there are more and more of them everytime I cut my nails. Gametes exist so that adult organisms can exchange genetic material to produce children. They do not have an independent existence. More importantly, to address your last sentence, the sperm and egg each have only *half* the genetic material needed to make an organism. They combine to make something just as complex as a single cell of one of the parent organisms. There is no net increase in "complexity" caused by reproduction.

What I was trying to contradict was your apparent counterargument, which perhaps you meant to withdraw with your statement "it was a logical error," against multicellular life forms ever being able to evolve from single-celled life forms. Your growth from a fertilized egg is a completely obvious example that there is no essential biological barrier to single cells developing into multicellular organisms with NO INCREASE IN COMPLEXITY. There is no barrier, hence nothing evolution had to overcome.

Re:Well good

[Anonymous Coward]

To presume that birds came from dinosaurs simply because one have found no evidence of birds co-existing with dinosaurs long ago, and that birds exist today is silly. If I have a coke in my fridge and someone drinks it and then someone else puts a slab of cheese in there, does that mean that the coke has become a block of cheese?

Re:Well good

[sardiskan]

You are basing your entire primse on what you experience. There are 12 mathematically provable dimensions. But those are just numbers on paper. It's nothing we have the ability to experience. To some a 12th dimension is a non-reality, therefore it doesn't exist. But the existance and non-extance of anything doesn't hinge on if we experience it or not. But I digress. This discussion will go no where because, as I have said, the ID vs Evolution debate isn't a persuit of truth, it's a persuit of an agenda. If it were a persuit of truth there wouldn't be so much heat involved. This coming from a previous Evolutionist and Athiest, Me.

I'm glad you have enjoyed my postings, but I've become tired from responding. As I am not a professional debater, I must stop these replys tonight. It was nice dicussing with you.

God be with you.

Re:Well good

[grolschie]

Here is an article from one of us "maybe they're not ancestors" camp. Something else you might find interesting. There has been evidence of man co-existing with dinosaurs. So my explanation is that birds and dinosaurs can easily have co-existed. I cannot point to evidence right now, so will not state it to you as proven fact.

Re:Well good

[keraneuology]

Children need to understand that understanding the prevailing scientific theories and their underlying data is not the same as adopting a new worldview. That's the deficiency--not the fact that some scientific results conflict with some religious beliefs.

If it were presented as this, then fine. But schools are teaching the material as absolute, established fact - they went to court over a sticker that simply read "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered." The judge ruled that calling evolution a theory was to the satisfaction of creationist parents and for no other reason was a violation of church/state separation.

And yes, the biology/geology classes come out and say "this is how the world was formed. This is how man evolved from apes." The words this is how make the clear declaration that said concept is absolute fact beyond question. This is . Consider the people who trolled me down -2 for no reason other than disagreeing with my stance: do you think for a moment that they would ever accept a teacher being instructed to preface the course material with "most biologists believe" or "it appears that it happened like this"?

Re:Well good

[sardiskan]

Oh you found that information out today? Did you do that research yourself or did you read the published paper of a left-winged evolutionist? Don't you think that a scientist with an egenda will falsify their findings to promote their own agenda. This whole ID vs Evolution debate isn't about truth, it's about an agenda. That's what it's always been about and that's what it'll always be about. And yes, a creationist would probably lie to. The problem is that a creationist is probably a christian and should be making an effort to obey the moral principals put forth by his/her faith, whereas a evolutionist is probably NOT a christian and has no moral boundries which he cannot cross. Anyway, I have become weary replying to all of you /.ers and I cannot do it anymore. I will digress any further flames and leave you in peace. God be with you.

Re:Well good

[Laser Lou]

As a Bible believing Christian, I strongly disagree that evolution is a religion. Its science, just like Relativity, Gravity, Electromagnetism, etc.

Re: Well good

[zensufi]

Okay. I don't think that discussion in a philosophy department is necessarily an indication that it should be discussed in a philosophy department. It seems to that ID has managed to thrust itself into public discourse because a certain kind of Christianity has the ability to be loud. As a result of their exposure to the media, it is more likely to be on students' and instructors' minds. It doesn't follow, however, that ID is sufficiently robust to merit philosophical discussion.

Like gravity, evolution is not a scientific theory. It's a fact, and a number of scientific theories explain its mechanisms. ID is a facade for the insertion of religious propaganda into popular discourse, specifically in public schools. I'm curious if ID gets its alleged huge amount of philosophical discussion among philosophers in philosophical journals as opposed to undergraduate classes.

Re:Well good

[Laser Lou]

There are other isotopes used for radiometric dating besides Carbon-14. Look up "radiometric dating" in Wikipedia.

I noticed that you quoted Christian creationist sources in both of your replies. Let me just say that if you ever do decide to look for evidence that supports evolution, you won't find it in those places. You might find the Gospel there, but you won't get the big picture of evolution.

Re:Well good

[Conspiracy_Of_Doves]

You keep telling us to check the facts, but I notice that you aren't supplying any. Could it be that you don't have any to supply and are simply trying to BS your way through this?

The facts support evolution. There are no facts whatsoever that support creationism, regardless of whether it is wearing the cheap suit of intelligent design.

Re:Well good

[NetMunkee]

Well I already gave a hypothetical example of that (the reading a letter on the computer). But I'll try another one and see what you think about it.

Suppose I get a phone call asking if I want to subscribe to a newspaper, and then I report that company to the appropriate agency for that national do not call registry thing (I'm assuming of course that I've registered my phone number, you get the point I'm sure). That company might say they shouldn't have to pay the fine because I can't prove beyond all doubt that they really called me. There could have been an electrical problem with the phone which caused it to ring, and then when I picked up the receiver thinking someone was calling me that the speaker cone in my phone just happened to vibrate such that it merely sounded like someone trying to sell me a subscription. So, since this is a possibility, there is no absolute proof that there was an actual person from their company talking into a phone on the other end of the line.

So we have a hypothetical situation where we have a lot of material evidence, the bell on the phone sounded, the speaker cone in the phone's receiver vibrated producing waves of air that got into my ear and which were interpreted by my brain as someone talking to me, etc, you get my point. So my brain acquired this new information, the non-material ideas that there is this newspaper and I can subscribe to it for some amount of money per week.

So take the same situation except that when I pick up the phone all I hear is static, because of some problem in the connection or something. My brain doesn't aquire any of the information that the salesman is trying to convey. Then if I were to complain to the appropriate federal agency and I tell them I heard a bunch of static on the phone but I think it was the newspaper company trying to sell me something and they should be fined. They aren't going to bother trying to fine the company because the company could just say I was mistaken.

The point here is that I have a set of material evidence, the phone ringing, the speaker cone vibrating and making noise. Both sets of evidence (hearing a man's voice, and hearing static) are equally probable as far as the material goes, it's the organization of the materials that is the test of my claim. Is the organization of the material the product of an intelligent cause or is it random? The issue becomes what the odds are of any particular organization of the materials in evidence being in a configuration that could convey information from an intelligent agent. In the case of a phone call there are vastly more equally probable random configurations where no information is conveyed than there are where information is seemingly conveyed, making the odds that I was mistaken very small. Therefore, based on those odds, I am justified in complaining in the case where I hear someone's voice, but I am not justified in complaining in the case where all I hear is static.

Does this satisfy your idea of a scientific test? If so, then the ID claim is indeed subject to scientific testing. If not, Darwinian Evolution is not subject to scientific testing as it is just a measure of odds as well. Unless I am very much mistaken, this is the manner in which theories for all historical sciences are tested.

Look at all of the "evidence" for ID - it's nothing but attacks on evolution. I know you've probably heard that before, but it's true. Also note that attacking evolution does *nothing* to support ID. Even if we were absolutely sure that complex life forms could not have arisen as a result of evolution, then what would we have? Nothing. We just wouldn't know the answer. You could step up and say, "An Intelligent Creator must have made it!" but you wouldn't be able to back that up with any evidence. I could just as easily say, "The universe takes on a random configuration every 10 seconds, and it just happened to hit this one. It was a one in a gigillion shot, but this has been going on for eternity so i

Re:Well good

[grolschie]

As a Bible believing Christian, I strongly disagree that evolution is a religion. Its science, just like Relativity, Gravity, Electromagnetism, etc.

So then you'll be familiar with Exodus 20:11 where God states: "For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it." This is many years after the people have been used to 24 hour days and 7 day weeks. He tells the people in terms that they know that He made all things relating to the heavens and the Earth in 6 days.

Re:Well good

[Laser Lou]

I don't try to place the six days that God created the heavens and the earth into any sort of historical or scientific context. I know that it's true, and I also know that we came about through evolution. I understand evolution enough that its settled in my mind. I consider the six days to be a great biblical mystery; I don't dare mash it into a historical context. God's word stands on its feet; it doesn't need any help from me.

Re:Well good

[Vaughn Anderson]

You said there were no examples of single celled organisms becoming multi-cellular ones. I then gave you several examples of just such organisms

You gave an example of how a particular set of organisms behave, not how they evolve, two different concepts. The example you gave starts as a mould, and ends as a mould, it has not become something different. If the mould then reproduced as the multi-cellular organism and the offspring were such then perhaps it would be closer, but I doubt this is the case, as you have described the mould to be single cells attaching for mutual benefit, which is a behavior.

Evolution does not claim that you evolved from a collection of single celled organisms into a foetus,

This is _exactly_ what evolution states, only the process started a millions of years ago when all humans were one celled organisms, they just had not yet evolved. Though using the word fetus is a misnomer as it denotes only a specific stage in human developement.

Re:Well good

[Vaughn Anderson]

Your growth from a fertilized egg is a completely obvious example that there is no essential biological barrier to single cells developing into multicellular organisms with NO INCREASE IN COMPLEXITY

You are totally correct, because the egg/sperm _already have_ the DNA needed to make a complete human. That is why humans growing from one cell to a full human isn't evolution. But, the theory of evolution you apply to cells changing into something other than their original form doesn't happen.

Step back and look at this purely from a simple logic issue.

If you are a programmer, trying running this experiment. Make a random text generator, run it for as long as you think is possible (theoretically run it for a million years) and tell me the possibility of it ever spitting out the code needed to display a webpage, or come up with the millions of lines of code it takes to run windows or other complex software.

Then consider size of DNA and what it represents. Look up the statistical number for what is impossible. Compare this with all the steps it would take to even get a basic form of life to change into something more complex.

I will not venture to prove God created life, but I can say without a doubt it only takes some very basic logic to see that complex life was not created through evolution.

If you perceive me as a blockhead, show me some proof that actually is proof. Your current logic only satifies those that already believe in evolution.

Re:Well good

[grolschie]

I don't try to place the six days that God created the heavens and the earth into any sort of historical or scientific context. I know that it's true, and I also know that we came about through evolution. I understand evolution enough that its settled in my mind. I consider the six days to be a great biblical mystery; I don't dare mash it into a historical context. God's word stands on its feet; it doesn't need any help from me.

Well then you've got yourself a major theological dilema then. Because if evolution is true, then you have death existing in the world prior the fall. The bible tells us that death entered the world because of the fall. "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned" - Romans 5:12. Prior to the fall there was no death.

Macro-Evolution and christianity are incompatible. God created Adam in His own image. From dust. And then He breathed life into him. "the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being" - Genesis 2:7.

He then later created Eve from part of Adam. They did not evolve, otherwise they too would've had parents. God created Eve after stating that it was not good for Adam to be alone.

"The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him."..... But for Adam no suitable helper was found. So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh. Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. The man said "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called 'woman' for she was taken out of man." For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh."" - Genesis 2:18, 20-24.

If Adam were alone, then he cannot have had parents, grandparents, siblings, cousins, ancestors, etc. He would've just taken himself a wife otherwise. This is plain heresy.

Re:Well good

[Weedlekin]

Firstly, slime moulds are not moulds. They were given that name before people understood their true nature: they are far more closely related to protozoans than fungi.

Secondly, you are doing the usual anti-evolutionary "debating tactic" of moving the goal posts when you are shown to be completely and utterly wrong about something. You said a thing did not exist, and I proved you wrong by citing some examples -- now you are attempting to re-define the argument in a desperate attempt to discount _real evidence_ that refutes one of your original reasons for stating that the theory of evolution is wrong.

Yes, slime moulds change into multi-cellular organisms because they have genetically-coded "behaviour" that makes them do this, but our own cells become neurons, blood corpuscles, etc. because they are genetically coded to "behave" in that way too. And when something goes wrong with that genetic "behaviour" code, our cells don't do what they're supposed to, and we end up with genetically carried diseases, congenital abnormalities, cancers, etc., etc. There is thus no qualititive difference between the genetically coded behaviour in slime mould cells and the genetically coded behaviour of the more specialised cells in more advanced multi-cellular organisms, so any attempt to distinguish between them will require some really good evidence on your part, not a bunch of unfounded assertions and transparent attempts to re-define the argument again.

I have already given you examples of evolution, i.e. rats and bacteria evolving immunity to poisons and antibiotics. You made some stupid claim about this being due to "design by external forces" because it was humans who were doing the killing (IMO claiming that killing something is a design process is totally absurd). Of course, you neatly avoided thinking about the fact that the first antibiotics were discovered because fungi had been using them to kill bacteria for hundreds of millions of years before humans appeared, and bacteria were evolving immunities to them back then as well (resulting in the fungi evolving newer antibiotics to combat them). Or perhaps you are now going to claim that fungi are also "intelligent designers" for new strains of bacteria, thereby redefining not only the concept of design as you did previously, but now also that of intelligence.

And finally, has it even occurred to you that your arguments against evolution are actually arguments against a grossly over-simplified version of it gleaned from school and popular science articles and TV shows? The more you write, the more you reveal the fact that you know little to nothing about the theory itself, and even less about the vast and ever-growing body of evidence that supports it. I therefore suggest that instead of attempting to constantly assert that evolution theory says things which aren't actually in it, you spend some time reading up on what it really says, and why it is accepted by the scientific community.

Re:Well good

[sickofthisshit]

Your programming example is totally irrelevant, because that is not at all how evolution works.

Furthermore, your being a blockhead means, in part, you are apparently incapable of recognizing proof when you see it. You need to be able to understand the terms being discussed to understand the proof.

It is impossible to prove 2+2=4 to someone who doesn't understand what "2" means or "+" means or "=" means, or has some crazy definition, where numbers go 1,5,18,2,4,3, ...

You obviously have some bizarre ideas on what evolution and multicellular life and genetics are all about. Perhaps you are stupid, perhaps you are ignorant, I don't know. Perhaps your inability to understand evolution theory is a problem with YOU not with the theory.

Re:Well good

[Laser Lou]

You're the first person to ever call me a "heretic", and you didn't even mention Jesus!

Well then you've got yourself a major theological dilema then.
Yes there's a theological dilemma. So how do you approach it? Do you

A)Reject the science that raised the dilemma and embrace the theological text.

B)Reject the text that raised the dilemma and embrace modern science.

C)Embrace both modern science and the text as much as you can, and watch the dilemma crumble under the weight of truth.

For me, the answer is C.

Re:Well good

[sickofthisshit]

The agenda is on the side of those who refuse to believe evolution no matter how much evidence is provided, and would rather believe in something that has no evidence, and teach it to children although it is worthless as science.

Believing in evolution has very little to do with one's moral, ethical, or religious agenda. It has much more to do with an open, scholarly mind seeing nature in its vast complexity, and trying scientifically to understand the principles that underlie it, as opposed to attributing various agendas to people who hold beliefs for scientific reasons.

Re:Well good

[JWW]

Umm, evolutionary theory does come from science. I think you misread my post.

I was talking about Intelligent Design. It uses philosophy as a basis for its theory.

Re:Well good

[Maxo-Texas]

Actually do not see that organisms combining is impossible tho it has not been observed yet.

For example- many people can't digest food properly and have colon problems -until- they are infected with a parasitic worm. After that they are okay, even if the worms are killed off.

Lots of parasites basically take over their hosts almost completely. In some cases they are symbiotic. I could see by some random turn of events a parasite becoming so symbiotic that you might not be able to distinguish it from the host (very close to this are our mouth and stomach bacteria which we -require- to be healthy). Most adult humans walk around with about 5 pounds of healthy but alien creatures in their bodies and on their skin which protect them from unhealthy creatures.

Re:Well good

[Maxo-Texas]

Come on guy, there are lots of viable single celled organisms.

If you have ever had mexican revenge, you were suffering from an influx of very successful single celled amoeba's.

Re:Well good

[|/|/|||]

It just so happens that positive evidence for ID comes from showing that natural processes could not account for some specific system based on the odds of the particular configuration of materials needed for that system to be functional, that intelligence was required to make that system work, which by consequence is evidence against the naturalistic evolution of that system.

That, my friend, is a non sequitor. Your logic does not follow. Not having a naturalistic explanation does *not* imply design by an intelligent being. Look seriously at my 10 second proposal. Do you deny that this explanation is possible? Do you deny that it has the exact same evidence that ID does? Here's my argument: A) Complex life exists B) we can't explain it with naturalistic processes Therefore C) the universe takes on a random configuration periodically. What's the problem? See it? It's the same problem that ID has. Evolution and ID are not the only two explanations. Lack of evolution absolutely does not imply design. How can you possibly disagree with that statement?

...intelligence was required to make that system work

THAT statement right there is the one that I'm expecting you to back up with some data.

I was going to delve into your telephone scenario, but I think we would start getting a little deep into physics. Unless you really want to go there, I think it would be a little bit too involving. Suffice to say that, as far as I know, all of the information that we interact with, including the design of my watch and the structure of my brain and the shape of the continents, is the result of the crystallization of matter and energy according to the laws of physics. Low entropy at some point in the early universe allowed matter and energy to clump together. Since then, even though overall entropy has been increasing, that energy has allowed complex structures to form throughout the universe. My brain is one of those complex structures, and so is my watch. Your question asked where the information in your telephone came from, my answer is that the universe is self organizing when supplied with energy.

Does this satisfy your idea of a scientific test?

I'm not sure I understand what the test is exactly. Can you give a specific setup and tell me how you would interpret the results?

Re:Well good

[Vaughn Anderson]

You said a thing did not exist, and I proved you wrong by citing some examples

What you demonostrated with your example _is not evolution_, therefore is _not an example_ of evolution. Reread my post.

slime moulds change into multi-cellular organisms because they have genetically-coded "behaviour"

Exactly my point, it's already a part of their structure, they do it because that is what they are. The act of them combining is _not_ evolution.

I have already given you examples of evolution, i.e. rats and bacteria evolving immunity to poisons and antibiotics.

I can develope an immunity to poisons as well, this is not evolution.

arguments against a grossly over-simplified

This is the problem for evolution, not the arguments, if you can't prove the most basic aspects of the theory. (one celled organisms becoming more complex) none of your "non-over-simplified" arguments in support have worth. Unless you feel that we can just skip this aspect of evolution and just have faith that this has/does happen...

Re:Well good

[Vaughn Anderson]

btw, I had a logical error in my parent post, I meant to say single celled organisms splitting into 2, not combining. Meaning that a singe celled organism developing into multi-celled.

Re:Well good

[Vaughn Anderson]

yes of course there is, but the thread's issue isn't a debate about whether they exist, only (my point here) there is no proof that a single celled organism can turn into a multi-celled organism, which is the most basic aspect of theory evolution. If this can't happen, then none of the rest of the "evolutions" throughout history could...

Re:Well good

[kurzweilfreak]

Reading back I see I did misread your post, my apologies. I do still disagree with you on counting atheism as a religion though.

Re:Well good

[ShadowXOmega]

i was thinking about that and i find something interesting...

Faith is believing in something without enough evidence (at least, for the rest of the people) to support it, yes?

then, if i want to know, a complete description of...an apple, for example:
we can know..for example... its texture...

but we cant know the exact texture pattern (remember, we are using only our senses...no some device...), because our sensing system cant see all the posible variables that are in the texture, is simply soo much information...

our brain makes a the best that it can with the information that it can handle, but cant take, for example, the pattern at molecular level, so.....
your brain is making choices without having all the information about the system...in some way...is believing in the information that it gathered... no one says that the model of the universe that is in our mind is the best description posible (probably isnt) and there is no way to prove it, because the huge amount of information, so, in some way, you have to believe in something in order to do any action or choice.
in a simple way: our brain cant get all the information about our enviroment, not at the smallest level, so it has to work with incomplete info, so, it believes that the information is ok to do the choice, so, believing is deeply inside the way that small system (a lifeform, for example), works in a greater system (the universe)......
well...that is my observation...too much cooffe today...you know...all night playing starcraft :)

Re:Well good

[Copid]

Not without evidence that it *could* have happened. Genetic inheritence and what ID folks like to call "microevolution" imply that it is possible. The fact that rabbits and birds appear after dinosaurs in the geological column is a strong implication that they arose from some previous ancestor. The argument I put forth doesn't exist in isolation. It exists along with a huge mountain of other biological research. What I was pointing out is that aside from special creation over the course of a long period of time, creationists have no proposal for where those animals come from. Evolution does.

Re:Well good

[Alioth]

The "supreme being" is kind of implied by the term intelligent design, that there was an intelligent designer(s) behind what we see in biology on Earth. That sounds pretty fucking supreme to me.

Re:Well good

[Copid]

Here is an article from one of us "maybe they're not ancestors" camp. Something else you might find interesting. There has been evidence of man co-existing with dinosaurs. So my explanation is that birds and dinosaurs can easily have co-existed. I cannot point to evidence right now, so will not state it to you as proven fact.

And if you ask any professional paleontologist or geologist about those examples, they'll try not to laugh while they point out what's wrong with them. I'm very interested in hearing a (valid) refutation for the extensive radiometric dating data that shows that humans and dinosaurs existed during nowhere near the same timeframe. After that, a refutation of the geological data that shows layer after layer of strata between them.

I also would like to point out that drdino.com is probably not such a great place to be getting your data. At least point to answersingenesis.com if you want "analysis" that ignores refutations from the scientific mainstream. "Dr." Kent Hovind is sort of a laughingstock--so much so that even most other creationist organizations distance themselves from him.

Sure, birds and dinosaurs "could" have coexisted. But there's no real evidence that they did. The majority of the physical evidence points strongly toward them not existing in remotely the same time period. And of course, for the people who bemoan the lack of "transitionals" there's the archaeopteryx.

Re:Well good

[Weedlekin]

A quote from your original post:

"All you have to do is prove that it's even possible for a single celled organism to change into a more complex, say with 2 cells. Considering this has never been done or proved even remotely possible, the core elements of the theory of evolution are fiction."

I showed your assertion was wrong by providing several examples of organisms that do this. Now you are claiming that this is invalid because it isn't evolution. Again, the typical anti-evolution tactic of moving the goal-posts when somebody shows that you are talking utter rubbish.

[I have already given you examples of evolution, i.e. rats and bacteria evolving immunity to poisons and antibiotics.]

"I can develope [sic] an immunity to poisons as well, this is not evolution."

These are not however examples of a single individual. Such immunities are possessed by entire populations, meaning that the genetic code for the immunity is being passed on to descendants, which is precisely what evolution theory predicts for organism populations that are stressed by adverse environmental factors, i.e. they either die out completely, or adapt. Note the term "organism populations" here, because that is what evolution theory is concerned with, and pertains to. What you or any other individual can or cannot do does not matter one whit or iota to evolution unless it results in a trait which then becomes part of a sizeable, sustained population.

"This is the problem for evolution, not the arguments, if you can't prove the most basic aspects of the theory. (one celled organisms becoming more complex) none of your "non-over-simplified" arguments in support have worth."

I have provided examples of one-celled organisms becoming more complex, yet you simply continue to claim that they don't exist, or don't fit a set of entirely arbitrary criteria that you invent afterwards. I am becoming extremely tired of this.

" Unless you feel that we can just skip this aspect of evolution and just have faith that this has/does happen..."

And this is where you are degenerating into a troll again, because I have _not_ skipped this aspect of evolution theory in any way, and have provided plenty of examples, none of which have been effectively refuted by you in any reasonable way (saying that a thing is not evolution but behaviour is tripe, because behaviour is inherent in all living organisms, and is therefore as much a subject for evolution as anything else about them).

I am tired of banging my head against this particular brick wall. This is a public forum, and you are free to answer if you wish, but do not expect me to bother going over the same ground again. You do not accept evolution because you don't want to accept it, and that will not change no matter how much evidence is thrust in your face to refute your fallacious assertions.

Re:Well good

[Vaughn Anderson]

I showed your assertion was wrong by providing several examples of organisms that do this. Now you are claiming that this is invalid because it isn't evolution. Again, the typical anti-evolution tactic of moving the goal-posts when somebody shows that you are talking utter rubbish.

You showed me examples of cells that combined/joined/etc.. , _not_ split themselves into multicelled organisms. (as evolution says the very first single celled organisms did)

I wonder why you are discussing this anyways, if you want to educate you would do so, if you want to make someone look dumb you say they don't get it. Which are you really doing here?

The crux of the problem is that you want this theory to be taught in schools, yet you can't even prove it's possible on an extremely simple level. You said "slime moulds combine", they do this all the time, yet they are still slime moulds, they aren't evolving into something new. Rats, bacteria, all the same, they aren't new. They may have a "stronger" ability to deal with something, but then again I pass on traits to my children as well, which include chemical dependencies and resistance to toxin. Still not evolution.

So, no, you really haven't shown that anything can "mutate" into something more complex, only change be refined in it's current state.

Re:Well good

[BrenBren]

Wow, when I look at it that way, I'm suddenly a very interesting person! Can I re-write my resume this way too?

You have my permission to do so (if that's what you're looking for), but I seriously doubt that it will be of any help- unless, of course, you say "I don't use Windows" and you are applying for a job as a unix administrator.

Re:Well good

[Copid]

If it were presented as this, then fine. But schools are teaching the material as absolute, established fact - they went to court over a sticker that simply read "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered." The judge ruled that calling evolution a theory was to the satisfaction of creationist parents and for no other reason was a violation of church/state separation.

Read the ruling. It's very well thought out and carefully discusses this topic. The fundamental reason for the ruling is that the sticker did not serve a purpose other than to placate the religious activists. Everything that is taught is a theory and should be studied critically and approached with an open mind. They singled out evolution because they think it upsets their diety. The whole point of the sticker was to imply that evolutionary theory was somehow different from the host of other theories that children are taught, and that it deserves some sort of special skeptecisim. Please feel free to describe a purpose for that sticker other than to cast special doubt upon evolution that also somehow serves a purpose to improve science education.

The decision is over 100 pages long. It's terribly dishonest to imply that the reasoning was so simple and somehow dismissed that point. If you want to attack the actual ruling, I recommend quoting from it and talking about why the decision is wrong rather than handwaving at it in the abstract.

And yes, the biology/geology classes come out and say "this is how the world was formed. This is how man evolved from apes." The words this is how make the clear declaration that said concept is absolute fact beyond question. This is .

I can see how this might happen sometimes. It's unfortunate if it does. The solution to the problem is to spend a couple of weeks on the philosophy of science at the beginning of the year so that students better understand where the ideas come from and what they mean. Even if it was done that way, though, I doubt that it would satisfy most of the ID crowd. You would still have a large contingent of people who want nothing more than to deflate evolution. And you would still have a large contingent of people who think that it's somehow possible to reconcile the unobservalbe and unmeasurable with the scientific method.

Consider the people who trolled me down -2 for no reason other than disagreeing with my stance: do you think for a moment that they would ever accept a teacher being instructed to preface the course material with "most biologists believe" or "it appears that it happened like this"?

I submit to you that teachers do say just that without any consequences. That's what I saw when I went to high school, and I went to school in the Godless Christian Hating Land of California.

The solution to your complaint is simple. We need science education to push more heavily on the philosophy of science. Science education should include methodological naturalism, testability, and the rest of the foundations of the scientific method. It should also point out (but not belabor the point) that these methods are tools and not the arbiter of absolute truth. That would improve science education and it would make the problem you're complaining about go away. Point out what science is and what science isn't. Don't try to redefine science in such away that astrology is suddenly on equal footing with nuclear physics.

What the ID proponents are saying is that science classes are claiming to be the sole arbiters of truth and that the solution to that is to introduce material that flies in the face of the scientific method. That's nonsense, and nobody should be surprised when a judge calls shennanigans after hearing complete arguments from both sides.

Re:Well good

[Maxo-Texas]

I think that Siamese Twins are a pretty basic example of this happening.

I think it is a lot more likely for a single cell to divide but fail to separate than it is for human beings to divide and fail to seperate.

Once a single cell does that, then the question is- will it quickly kill the resulting duo-cell creature or can it survive. If it can survive, then there is a chance that a further reproduction will provide it with a selective advantage.

I still don't see why christians focus on this instead of on the central tenet of their faith- do they believe that jesus died and was resurrected in order to allow them to be forgiven their sins and enter heaven.

You are destroying your faith- my god several of the poeple in the recent case LIED UNDER OATH ON THE BIBLE that they did not have religious motives for their actions after they had previously publicly said that they did. That is part of what pissed the REPUBLICAN conservative judge off so badly. That these religious people were clearly PERJURING themselves in his court.

Whether or not the universe was created is not central to your being saved or not. ID is morally bankrupt- people who follow it only damage the christian religion they are professing to advance.

Re:Well good

[Vaughn Anderson]

I agree with you, I absolutely do _not_ want ID taught in schools, it's a relgious matter. But I also feel that evolution is so baseless and unproven that it should not be taught in schools either. Every observervation I've been shown that supposedly proves evolution is easily explained as something else entirely.

Keep in mind the massive amounts of fraud that have been foisted on the public to prove evolution. Pure lies were even in my own science books when I was a kid...

Re:Well good

[JWW]

No problem ;-)

Actaully I probably should have phrased my original sentiment as "athiests can be religious" , not "athiests are religious", as there are definately athiests who are not at all religous, even though there some who are very evangalistic.

Re:Well good

[Cre8ed]

Sorry mate but the facts DON'T support evolution. Evolution is an athiests' fairy tale, and they (you presumably also) will do anything to protect your security blanket.

You have just got to be kidding, to lay any claim to evolution being factual. You may be a monkeys' uncle, but I certainly am not.

Evolution is sooooo ridiculous.....
Even Darwin faced the facts before his death, why won't you?

I am sorry but you a horribly wrong.

Re:Well good

[grolschie]

You're the first person to ever call me a "heretic", and you didn't even mention Jesus!

Well then you've got yourself a major theological dilema then. Yes there's a theological dilemma. So how do you approach it? Do you

A)Reject the science that raised the dilemma and embrace the theological text.

B)Reject the text that raised the dilemma and embrace modern science.

C)Embrace both modern science and the text as much as you can, and watch the dilemma crumble under the weight of truth.

For me, the answer is C.

I never called you a heretic. Just the belief system that contradicts scripture is heresy. I sincerely apologise if I have made you feel condemned in any way. May the Lord Jesus Christ bless you and give you peace.

Macro-Evolution and the Scriptures are not compatible. Either you are truly a bible-believing christian or you are not. I'm not condeming you and suggesting that you are not a christian. Just questioning whether you actually believe what God has clearly told us in His word. It is clear in scripture that death was not in the world prior to the fall. God clearly outlines how and why He created Adam and Eve, from scratch, in detail. And then recorded in Exodus, some 2500 years later God states in plain language that the people of Israel can clearly understand, not parables or prophetic language, that He made all things in just 6 days. They had 2500 or so years to know what a 24 hours day was. He was not misleading them. But clearly you do not seem to believe what God Himself has said.

I hold a 4th option:

D). Believe the Authoritive Word of God over and above the "science" of man - Rejecting "science" that contradicts the Truth, and accepting the science that does line up with the Truth.

As Christians we must subjecting all ideas, arguments, sciences to the Word of God. Remember that science is just man's way of attempting to explain how things are. Science is ever changing, being revised constantly. The Word of God endures forever and is unchanging. I reject the parts of science that contradict the Word of God, while embracing the truth. "For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strongholds, pulling down imaginations (arguments) and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought into the obedience of Christ; " - 2 Corinthians 10:4-5

I don't throw out micro-evolution, as in observable variations within a species. But the the Theory of Common Decent is a fairy tale that is totally incompatible with the written Word of God. There is no mystery, one of these is a lie.

Re:Well good

[kurzweilfreak]

Now we're in total agreement. What a fuzzy /. feeling. ;)

Re:Well good

[grolschie]

I also would like to point out that drdino.com is probably not such a great place to be getting your data. At least point to answersingenesis.com if you want "analysis" that ignores refutations from the scientific mainstream. "Dr." Kent Hovind is sort of a laughingstock--so much so that even most other creationist organizations distance themselves from him.

For sure. I understand that. However, alot of his articles are written by and credited to others. He summarises the points nicely and people can look up many of the references themselves. But I see where you are coming from. Thanks.

Sure, birds and dinosaurs "could" have coexisted. But there's no real evidence that they did. The majority of the physical evidence points strongly toward them not existing in remotely the same time period. And of course, for the people who bemoan the lack of "transitionals" there's the archaeopteryx.

Here is a reference then from a source that you recognize.

Re:Well good

[NetMunkee]

It's only a non sequitor if there are more possible options than the two we're talking about. if x = a or b, and x != a, then x = b. The cause of the evidence we see is either natural(read: materialistic) or non-natural(read: super-natural), there aren't any other possibilities. Your 10 second universe thing is still a natural cause in the sense that it is materialistic.

Your 10 second reconfiguring universe could explain IR in principle. One problem with that theory is that we observe that the universe has had stable physics for at least as far back as we can observe stars, galaxies, quasars, etc. It could be that the universe reconfigures itself so that it just happens to appear that there are stables physics, but the odds against that are very long indeed. That the universe has consistent physics is a better explanation of the evidence.

I'm not talking about proof in the mathematical sense. Usually, historical science does not entail syllogisms as in "if a then b, a is true, therefore b is true". Where talking about what theory best explains the data, this is going to be based on some kind of odds-making excercise. Even if the odds aren't strictly calculated, we evaluate odds based on intuition all the time (not to say that we couldn't calculate the odds). Evolution theory does this all the time as well. They'll say that it is likely that birds are decendants of dinosaurs because they have some similar bone structures, the feathers might have evolved from scales, etc. There's no proof there, no repeatable experiments, just odds. So if someone puts forth the theory that birds evolved from dinosaurs based on similar bone structure, and someone else has a theory that birds evolved from ferns cause fern leaves look a bit like wings, then you can examine the available evidence and make odds on which theory is better supported by the data. The odds are much better for the birds to have evolved from dinosaurs than from ferns, so that theory wins out over the other. It's possible that new evidence could be found to tip the odds in the other theory's favor, or someone might come up with a new theory that better explains the data (since other theories are possible), but we have to act based on the evidence we have. Thats how historical science works.

So I'd say we can look at something like the bacterial flagellum you mentioned and see that for it to come about through natural means would require a decrease in entropy in that system (the system being a bacteria within which all the parts to the flagellum are floating around). So what are the odds of that happening? Well, from the naturalistic side of the coin, that would be a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics which is very very improbable. But the problem for naturalism is worse than that. It isn't enough for the bacterial flagellum to form out of those parts one time, you need to naturalistically produce the process by which it is constructed out of those parts so that the bacteria can pass that information on to it's descendants. So did that information come from a random organization of molecules, or was that information introduced to the system from outside? Given the ridiculously long odds of the information forming as a random organization of molecules (based on the above mentioned odds of a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics) it seems that the better explanation is that the information was introduced from outside the system. The only question that remains is where did that information come from.

So do you put your faith in countless violations of the 2nd law of thermodynamics at odds so low we can't begin to comprehend them? Or do you put your faith in a super-natural information source? As far as I can tell, it's clear which theory better explains the evidence.

Re:Well good

[sickofthisshit]

Darwin never recanted his theory on his deathbed. That's a complete falsehood, and exhibits the kind of intellectual integrity you anti-evolution types will stoop to.

Re:Well good

[sickofthisshit]

Evolution is supported by a huge amount of evidence. That you do not accept the overwhelming evidence is either because you are

1) unaware of the evidence, which can be found by reading books not written by anti-evolution kooks
2) are unconvinced by the evidence, which probably means you are impervious to persuasion
3) are utterly confused about what evolution is supposed to be, and unable to understand the logical arguments

I can no longer make any sense at all of what you are trying to say about multicellular organisms. Maybe I need to carefully track your responses to the other posters in the thread, but you seem to have multiple contradictory ideas about how multicellular life exists and could come into being.

There are literally hundreds of thousands of biologists who firmly believe in evolution because of the scientific evidence. There is not some kind of conspiracy trying to push evolution while secretly believing it to be false. There are just some nutcases who can't accept that evolution *might* be true, and therefore must spend a huge amount of effort insisting that it *isn't* true, no amount of evidence withstanding.

Re:Well good

[sickofthisshit]

You have just proved you do not understand the word "viable."

If you truly are so uninformed, or stupid, it is pointless to believe you will ever understand evolution or anything else in biology.

Re:Well good

[Vaughn Anderson]

The original topic is about teaching this in schools. If this topic is so complex that only extremely educated people can understand it, then it has no place being taught in grade school science.

But, if it can be taught to grade schoolers, I am sure you could explain it to me in less than a paragraph. So far, with the numerous posts on this subject with (I think) 4 people, no one has been able to be clear about what they think evolution is themselves.

I have one issue at the core of it, evolution says a single celled protazoan (from memory here) mutated/morphed/changed, through whatever process to a more complex multicelled organim.

Is this true or not true?

Re:Well good

[|/|/|||]

Your 10 second universe thing is still a natural cause in the sense that it is materialistic.

No, it is not materialistic. It proposes a mechanism that is outside of the physical universe that we interact with. It could be, say, a deterministic computer that generates the random universes. Even if that computer physically exists somewhere, if we can't interact with it from our universe then from our perspective it is supernatural, just like a God that exists outside of our physical universe.

It's only a non sequitor if there are more possible options than the two we're talking about.

Um, so evolutionary theory and ID are the only two *possible* explanations for the existence of life? That's crazy talk. Supernatural explanations alone are infinite in number. When you're talking about things outside the material world, *anything* is possible.

OK, your paragraph about "odds" makes some sense. No, we can't prove a theory, but we can look at multiple theories and say which one fits observational evidence better. Good. *My* point is that there is a heap of observational evidence in support of evolution, which is why it is the widely agreed upon explanation for how life changes over time. There also happens to be 0 (zero) observational evidence in support of ID. None. If you found some ancient, buried alien spacecraft with an advanced biology lab, then you would have a starting point.

So do you put your faith in countless violations of the 2nd law of thermodynamics at odds so low we can't begin to comprehend them?

OK, first off nobody is violating the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Overall entropy is increasing, but entropy can most certainly decrease locally. See here under the heading, "Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics" for a quick explanation. Secondly, what makes the odds of beneficial mutations so low? Do you have some figures on mutation rates, number of organisms mutating, generation time, possibility of beneficial mutations, etc? Have you ever seen how quickly bacteria can evolve into different strains? Assuming that you do have some data to base your decision on, and assuming that you conclude that evolution isn't likely to have produced life as we know if over the period of time that we think it has been working, then do you really think that it is *more* likely that an intelligent being from outside our universe had a detailed hand in it? Really? If I were to doubt evolution (which I certainly don't) then I would expect to find another materialistic explanation. Not only because searching for materialistic explanations has been so successful in the past, but also because it's the only space that I have the ability to search. The set of non-materialistic (supernatural) explanations is out of bounds, because I have no way of discriminating between the possiblities. Either stick to the material world, or base your understanding on faith. If we discover phenomena that don't have materialistic explanations, then I'll be happy to just not know the answer. It's better than picking a *possible* answer and believing it without any evidence.

I think I'm moving away from the critical point here, though. The point is, if we're talking about science, you can't call something a theory unless it has some evidence and makes some testable predictions. ID has no evidence. ID makes no predictions that can be tested in order to falsify it (name one test I could do that could produce a result that refuted ID). ID is *not* a scientific theory. It's a conjecture that is certainly *possible*, but we're not in a position to ever confirm or deny that conjecture. You can believe in it if you want, but you can't call it a scientific theory without redefining what science is (a la Kansas, the laughingstock of the educated world). The reason why science as we know it is more useful than science as defined by Kansas is left as an exercise for the reader. ;)

Re:Well good

[Cre8ed]

You guys are just full of it. I can't see how anyone can still believe in evolution. Unblieveable!!!!!

But I'm not going to change your mind, so have a merry Xmas anyhow.

Re:Well good

[sickofthisshit]

Apparently you are less educable than the typical grade schooler.

There are whole goddamn books, such as John Maynard Smith's excellent book:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0521 451280/qid=1135295014/sr=8-4/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i4_xgl 14/104-6105266-3267137?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

which are available for you to read, instead of asking confusing questions on Slashdot and expecting to get good answers from a guy calling himself "sickofthisshit".

While reading it, try adopting the mindset (temporarily, if you like) that evolution is true, and when you are confused, it is because you misunderstand rather than your having found some mistake in the theory that has somehow escaped the finest minds in biology over the last 150 years.

Re:Well good

[sickofthisshit]

I have one issue at the core of it, evolution says a single celled protazoan (from memory here) mutated/morphed/changed, through whatever process to a more complex multicelled organim.

Is this true or not true?

To get again attempt to answer your question, the way one generally answers these questions of "how did X evolve into Y" is to look for existing life forms (because they are much easier to study and understand than fossils) which are intermediate between X and Y, and hypothesize that the intermediate step in the ancient transition might resemble it.

First of all, biologists aren't exactly sure exactly what the family tree looks like back, say, 2 billion years ago, because organisms at this stage are poorly preserved in fossils. Just like it is much harder to be sure who your great-great-great-great-great-great-grandfather was than it is to know who your uncle is.

In any case, it seems extremely likely that the earliest life forms were made of single cells, and that multicellular life arose at least once, possibly multiple independent times, from single celled life.

One way this could happen is by a mutation that reduced the tendency of the organism to split apart after mitosis. I.e. instead of splitting from one parent into two separate children, there became an increased likelihood that the parent cell would divide and stick together to create a two-celled organism, where each cell could survive equally well on its own. We would tend to call these "colonies" because you can take a colony, split it up into multiple pieces, and each piece pretty much works on its own.

This "stickiness" might not be very strong, so that at some point, say, after dividing 10 or 20 times, the colony would tend to physically break (like a soap bubble that gets too big) into two or more subcolonies.

There--now you've got multicellular colonies that reproduce by splitting into subcolonies.

Something like this: http://www.micrographia.com/specbiol/alg/colo/colo 0100.htm

The next step is for this colonial organism to develop a more controlled way of governing the colony size and the splitting process. I.e. some protein which regulates the division process would evolve into a form which would more precisely govern the size of the colony before subdividing.

Then, similar protein mechanisms can arise which cause the subdivision process to cause differentiation; instead of all identical cells, you get cells which have different functions, depending on what stage of division they are in. That allows different kinds of tissues to develop, so you can get the beginning of organs, such as in coelenterates.

I fail to see how any of this is such an insurmountable problem or implausible scenario that you think it is sufficient to reject evolution.

Re:Well good

[Vaughn Anderson]

This entire thread is about what is taught in public schools to children. I'm sure if you understand it so well it would be easy to explain the basics of the theory.

Would you agree that this is the definition of evolution?

evolution
n.

1. Biology.
   1. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
   2. The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.

Re:Well good

[Vaughn Anderson]

Thank you, that seemed a very thorough explaination of the theory.

I fail to see how any of this is such an insurmountable problem or implausible scenario that you think it is sufficient to reject evolution.

Because _none_ of it has ever been proved to actually happen.

Re:Well good

[Copid]

To start, I didn't mean to imply that I recognize AiG as a particularly good source. I'm generally not impressed with scientific organizations that have statements of faith that include, among other things, the fundamental statement that no amount of observational evidence can ever be interpeted to conflict with a literalist reading of the Bible. Even so, thanks for the link.

The link you posted appears to be acknowledging that archaeopteryx is a legitimate fossil. Lots of creationists fought tooth and nail to paint it as a hoax, but for all of its flaws, AiG is usually the first creationist organization to admit that certain arguments are wrong (that is, if it is ever acknowledged, it's usually acknowledged first by AiG).

More directly to my point: There is ample physical evidence that birds did not coexist with dinosaurs. To argue otherwise is to argue against mainstream geology and nuclear physics. Archaeopteryx appears at just about the right time in the timeline to be a transitional organism. Archaeopteryx looks like a transitional organism. The extistance of an organism like archaeopteryx was predicted by evolutionary theory before the first specimen was discovered. All that adds up to pretty strong support for the idea.

Meanwhile, on the other side, people cling to one of two claims. 1) Archaeopteryx is a bird. OK. That's fine. Call it a bird. It's still a bird that looks like it's part dinosaur. Semantic argumens aside, you still have to reconcile your worldview with the fact that the skeleton looks like a transitional. The other claim is 2) all of these animals lived together. If you seriously want to assert that, you'll have to come up with the so-called pre-cambrian rabbit. Find a credible fossil in the wrong geological stratum. If geologists are unable to explain what happened, that's strong support for the assertion that our model is wrong. However, multiple dating methods (which agree with each other) place birds and mammals after the dinosaurs on our planet's timeline by a wide margin. A credible counterexample has yet to be found.

Re:Well good

[sickofthisshit]

What proof do you expect? A trip in a time machine to 2 billion years in the past to see exactly what happened? You admit that I have given a thorough, presumably plausible explanation of something that happened billions of years ago, all evidence for which has long ago been eaten.

There are single-celled organisms, there are loosely-congregated multicell organisms, there are fully-integrated multi-celled organisms, all of which exist, are able to function in a wide range of environments.

That, and they all contain genetic mechanisms that are virtually identical; an amazing amount of similarity even between yeast and humans. For that reason, we believe to be related.

You have given no reason to disbelieve that unicellular forms could evolve into multicellular forms, other than repeating "it has never been proven [to my satisfaction]."

Your standard of proof is too high to be satisfied by *any* theory.

Re:Well good

[sickofthisshit]

Read the damn book, dumbshit. Darwin didn't write two sentences to explain his theory, he wrote a huge book. If you don't understand it, or the modern books for the layman, it is because you are too dumb, and should consider keeping silent in evolution discussions so that you don't embarrass yourself.

Re:Well good

[Alsee]

But that is the de facto effect

By that reasoning any religion with any belief could simply stand up and declare "I don't like that" and have anything and EVERYTHING banned from classrooms.

There's some religion that teaches the earth is on the back of a turtle standing on an infinite stack of turtles. By that reasoning it would be unconstitutional for any teacher to ever show a photo of the earth from space becuase it has the "de facto effect" of contradicting and "suppressing" that the turtle story.

Or how about when the Pope had Galileo arrested and imprisoned for life, for teaching that the earth goes around the sun, in contradiction to Biblical teaching? By that reasoning teaching the (sun centered) solar system would also have the de facto effect of contradicting and "suppressesing" some people's religious teachings and beliefs.

Anyone could make up any religious belief about anything, and then have that entire subject banned from all schools across the country for contradiction their new religion.

So why is it permissiable for a teacher to show space photos of the earth, and to teach about the solar system? Because the government is engaging in a legitimate non-religious function, and doing so with no religious intent. Education in reading, writing, and arithmetic (and science) is a legitimate constitutional government function. A teacher showing students photographs of the earth from space generally is not doing so for the impermissable purpose of promoting or supressing religion.

if child A believes in a creationist story, be it adam & steve or the cosmic turtle and the teacher starts out in grade 3 by saying "the world was not created, here's what really happened"

The teacher should not make claims or rejections involving God or religion. The teacher should show his photo of the earth from space, and say that this is what the evidence is about the physical worlds and this is what scientists have concluded about the physical world, and here is why. If the student thinks the photo of the earth conflicts with the turtle story he was taught, then that is an issue to be resolved within his religion and with his priest or parents and out side of school.

Just because someone looks at the space photo of the earth and it raises religious conflicts in his mind, does not mean that there is anything religious about the photo and does not mean there was any religious intent in showing it.

A teacher should not say "God does not create the rain", but he does need to teach how water evaporates and how it condenses in water droplets.

Science class teaches about how the physical observable universe operates. It teaches what we've seen in the universe and it's physical mechanisms. It does not and cannot say there is no God above it all. If some religion sees something in the physical universe... such as a photo of the earth from space or an explanation of how rain works... and they give it some religious meaning and thet think it conflicts with their beliefs... then it is up to religion to resolve their internal conflicts.

requiring the children to regurgitate under threat of failing the class [] religious beliefs assertively false

Any religion can assert anything is false. That is not a basis to have teachers stand silently in front of silent students all day every day.

Science does not... cannot... say anything about God. If any science test mentions God then there is almost certainly a major problem.

Students are tested on their familiarity of the current state of scientific fields. Tested on their familiarity with various experiements and observations about the physical universe made by scientists, and tested on their familiarity with the basic concepts and understanding used by the professionals in the various fields.

Students do not need to believe that the earth goes around the sun, but they *do* need to be familiar with the *fact* that 99+% of professional astronomers use that as the foundatio

Re:Well good

[Alsee]

> The ACLU tried to get the supreme court to ban a moment of silence

Sometimes the ACLU goes overboard.

U.S. Supreme Court WALLACE v. JAFFREE

The Supreme Court held that the government officials in the Alabama State legislature unconstitutionally abused their power to impose a moment of silence on students for the explicit and unconstitutional purpose of promoting prayer by them.

The ACLU supports the right of students to pray in school, it only opposes acts of government to promote or suppress it.

-

Re:Well good

[Vaughn Anderson]

So please explain to me then why this should be taught in public schools to grade children if it takes an entire book to explain?

Re:Well good

[grolschie]

Even at a stretch that someone might claim it's transitional, but it's still a massive jump. Where are the in-between transitions? It could just be another species that is kinda like a bird and kind is like a dinosaur. But could be neither. Whale vs fish, is a closer example. We've got plenty of examples such as a platypus which is kinda like a duck and kinda like an otter. Left over parts perhaps. ;-)

Re:Well good

[sickofthisshit]

Algebra takes a whole book to explain. Geometry takes a whole book to explain. Trigonometry, Calculus, Chemistry, Earth Science, U.S. and world history, etc., all take long books to explain. Yet we teach those.

The earlier they start learning about the topic, the easier it will be to understand.

I assume you prefer children to grow up ignorant of everything that can't be explained in a ten-minute discussion? Sounds like a terribly low standard.

Re:Well good

[Vaughn Anderson]

Geometry Algebra Chemistry Trigonometry Calculus Earth Science History

Evolution

Which if these definitions is wrong? You seem to know quit about evolution, if this reference is off base and can't be used to define what evolution is, then it should probably be changed. Are the other definitions wrong too?

Go back through your posts, you will see that you have utterly refused to even define what evolution is. You have examples, but since you haven't defined "evolution" how can I see that your examples fit the definition?

No point in even getting to a book if I can't even be offered a definition of what it is I am supposed to be reading about. It seems like there is something to hide if there can't be a solid agreement on what evolution is. Can we make any definition we want to fit our own arguments?

Re:Well good

[Conspiracy_Of_Doves]

And yet you still havn't shown any facts supporting your position, just a bunch of baseless assertions.

Put up or shut up.

Re:Well good

[Conspiracy_Of_Doves]

Not only didn't Darwin recant, but it wouldn't matter even if he had. People like the grandparent can't understand that evolution doesn't hang on Darwin's say-so. Evolution is true because of the evidence supporting it, not because Darwin said it is.

Re:Well good

[Copid]

Even at a stretch that someone might claim it's transitional, but it's still a massive jump. Where are the in-between transitions?

This illustrates the problem with the "transitional fossil challenge." If we have two species and a fossil is found that fills the gap between them, rather than seeing it as evidence, creationists see *two* gaps now!

It could just be another species that is kinda like a bird and kind is like a dinosaur. But could be neither.

Sure, that's possible. But the question that your hypothesis still fails to answer is, where the heck did the birds come from? Unless you present some serious challenge to the evidence that shows that birds and dinosaurs never coexisted, the idea that this obvious transitional is just another animal wandering what must have been an obviously overpopulated earth falls flat. We're still searching for the precambrian rabbit.

Whale vs fish, is a closer example.

More interesting, however is the fascinating set of whale transitionals taking it from land to sea. Of course, if you decide to throw out the extensive dating evidence and assume that everything lived at one time, you could assume that Ambulocetus lived right alongside the killer whale and that there were just a whole bunch of creatures that looked like close relatives. I'm not sure why (aside from the obvious fact that it seems to support the creationist position) one would arbitrarily throw out the dating information, though.

We've got plenty of examples such as a platypus which is kinda like a duck and kinda like an otter. Left over parts perhaps. ;-)

Interesting that you should bring up that point. It's worth noting that a number of these organisms that look like "half X half Y" have fossils that show a strong indication of common ancestry with both X and Y. Sadly, not a lot is known about platypus ancestry as Australia is not a particularly productive place to find fossils.

A very interesting question that is worth exploring is why Australia has no native placental mammals. Evolutionary theory explains this observation. ID explains this observation the same way it explains all other observations: by attributing it to the whim of an indescribable omnipotent being.

Re:Well good

[grolschie]

This illustrates the problem with the "transitional fossil challenge." If we have two species and a fossil is found that fills the gap between them, rather than seeing it as evidence, creationists see *two* gaps now!

When two species are sufficiently similar then there may be reason to believe they are transitional. But currently the so-called single transition is still a massive leap. One would expect fossils showing minor variations of the inbetween developmental stages.

We're still searching for the precambrian rabbit.

As I understand it, aren't we looking for a lot of precambrian things, as in most things? The cambrian explosion was the complete opposite of what Darwin himself expected the fossil record to yield. As far as your other comments, while one may say they may point towards a view of evolution, they certainly do not conclusively prove it. It's more of a Who Dunnit mystery where people examine a crime scene and try to guess what happened. However, the crime occurs long long ago and has since been ransacked by time and nature.

A very interesting question that is worth exploring is why Australia has no native placental mammals. Evolutionary theory explains this observation.

Interesting point. We may never know the answer to that. Just like the Theory of Common Decent, any such theories will still be mere conjectures / speculation.

Re:Well good

[NetMunkee]

Um, so evolutionary theory and ID are the only two *possible* explanations for the existence of life?

No, thats not what I was trying to say at all. I was trying to say that any theory you can come up with will fit into one of two categories, materialistic and non-materialistic. To put it another way, materialistic theories would not require an intelligent agent, non-materialistic theories would. Evolution would certainly fit in the materialistic category, ID the non-materialistic one. But they wouldn't be the only ones.

OK, first off nobody is violating the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Overall entropy is increasing, but entropy can most certainly decrease locally. See here under the heading, "Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics" for a quick explanation.

I've heard the arguments given on that webpage before regarding the 2nd law of thermodynamics(I'll shorten it to 2nd law), and I do not find them compelling. I took a quick scan through the Wallace refutation of the FAQ and the refutation of Wallace by Duck. I don't think Duck does a good job of refuting Wallace's point. It doesn't seem like he understands the very equations that he's citing here: http://www.mindspring.com/~duckster/evolution/ther mo.html. The entropy of a system can decrease if external sources cause it to decrease. However sunlight, heat, shaking, whatever, do nothing to decrease entropy as those are all uniformly applied. So if you take a box of watch parts, and you add energy by shaking it, you're not going to reduce the entropy of the system because the energy being added to the system is uniformly applied. If you were to use tools to put them back together, you would decrease the entropy of the system since the energy you added was not uniformly applied.

Further, if the entropy of a system decreases because of non-uniform external forces, then the rate of entropy increase within the system will increase proportionally. So take the case of lightning which was used as an example on that talkorigins page you mentioned. The open system is the ground and the air. The entropy decreases as the electrical potential increases because of friction in the non-uniform air movement, an external non-uniform energy source. So the entropy in that open system can decrease temporarily from non-uniform introduction of energy. Then the lightning serves to increase the entropy back to at least it's original level. Notice that as the external force decreases the entropy of the system, the entropy level will then snap back up more rapidly. So in lightning, as in all electrical systems, as the voltage increases the current increases proportionally, i.e. Ohm's law. This concept is shown in the equations for the 2nd law on that page.

So if by some chance there was some decrease in entropy that led to the sudden appearance of an IR system, it would snap back to the higher entropy quite fast.

Secondly, what makes the odds of beneficial mutations so low? Do you have some figures on mutation rates, number of organisms mutating, generation time, possibility of beneficial mutations, etc? Have you ever seen how quickly bacteria can evolve into different strains?

Although I forget the figures, to my understanding beneficial mutations are extremely rare compared to detrimental mutations. So a species would need to have a small body mass, high population, and short reproduction cycle in order to speciate before going extinct. So something like a bacteria or a virus could do it pretty well, but something like a fish, horse, whale, or basically anything bigger than an ant would have essentially no chance of speciating whatsoever. They would go extinct too rapidly.

ID makes no predictions that can be tested in order to falsify it (name one test I could do that could produce a result that re

Re:Well good

[Weedlekin]

"You showed me examples of cells that combined/joined/etc.. , _not_ split themselves into multicelled organisms. (as evolution says the very first single celled organisms did)"

Stop putting up straw men so you can knock them down. You know what the example I provided was in answer to, because I quoted your own words in my last post, and it was not what you are claiming here -- in fact, it was the precise opposite. Furthermore, evolution does _not_ say what you claim, so this is yet another straw man. Such cheap debating tactics are the refuge of those whose arguments are too weak to stand on their own.

"I wonder why you are discussing this anyways, if you want to educate you would do so, if you want to make someone look dumb you say they don't get it. Which are you really doing here?"

Neither. You made a post that claimed the theory of evolution was wrong. I answered it. This is what happens on public forums such as slashdot.

"You said "slime moulds combine", they do this all the time, yet they are still slime moulds, they aren't evolving into something new."

How do you know they aren't evolving into something new? This behaviour could have developed in the last few hundred years for all you know, because soft creatures like slime moulds are poor candidates for fossilisation. Your statement is therefore merely an opinion which is based on absolutely no information whatsoever (you hadn't even heard of slime moulds before I brought them to your attention).

"Rats, bacteria, all the same, they aren't new. They may have a "stronger" ability to deal with something, but then again I pass on traits to my children as well, which include chemical dependencies and resistance to toxin. Still not evolution."

Ah, but that _is_ evolution! Evolution theory states that a population of organisms will react in one of two ways to lethal environmental changes: they adapt, or die out. In cases where organisms successfully adapt to such changes in ways that are passed on in their descendants, they become a genetically distinct sub-group, i.e. a _new variant_ of whatever they started out as. This means that warferin-resistant rats are not the same type of rat as non-resistant ones, and antibiotic-resistant staphylococcus aureus is not the same as the non-resistant ones -- both are new variants with genetic code that is different from populations of similar organisms that do not carry the immunity genes.

Furthermore, your ability to pass genetic traits on to your children is precisely the mechanism that drives evolution. If those traits turn out to give your offspring advantages under certain circumstances, then those genes stand a better chance of proliferating throughout future populations; conversely, genetic traits which are disadvantageous will tend to be either eliminated from future populations, or become recessives which only manifest themselves under rare sets of circumstances (often to the considerable detriment of the host organism).

"So, no, you really haven't shown that anything can "mutate" into something more complex, only change be refined in it's current state."

And another straw man! Now you've introduced the word "mutate" into the mix in the vain hope that I won't notice yet another pathetic attempt to make out that I haven't countered every single assertion you have made with things in the real world that are doing what you previously claimed they did not. Yet you have not attempted to provide one single shred of counter evidence to refute mine. All you do is build straw man after straw man, claiming that evolution theory says things it does not, countering facts with opinions that you don't even attempt to justify, or cherry picking one line from a large paragraph that I have written and answering that without making any attempt to address the actual topic.

I thus conclude that you fall into one of two categories:

1) You are a person who knows little about the theory of evolution, and therefore is honestly mistaken about what it actually is and says.

2) You know full well what it is and says, and are deliberately misrepresenting it to knock down straw men of your own making.

Re:Well good

[sickofthisshit]

The problem is not with the definition, because you keep starting from a definition, and go on to say nonsensical things that you claim "disprove" the theory. You can't disprove a definition.

A scientific theory is not simply a definition, it is a way of framing a problem for analysis. The definition of "gravity" as "what makes things fall down" is not a theory. Defining the laws of motion, and a force law, and a definition of mass and inertia, and claiming these things are true for all material bodies in the universe, and determining the gravitational constant---all that is a theory of gravity.

3a in your link is the most appropriate for the discussion, but it comes from a general English dictionary; definition 1, for instance, attributes a value judgement of "improvement" which is not strictly true for biological evolution.

In any case, can you tell me from the defintion you link to on "geometry" why the Pythogarean theorem is true? No. The definition is NOT ENOUGH. You need to know the axioms, the mode of deduction, and so on, to claim to understand geometry. Just because you can read a dictionary means you understand English or science.

Re:Well good

[Temsi]

It's nice, albeit not surprising, to see that when confronted with a well articulated and reasoned answer you can't argue on the merits, you resort to attacking the poster.
That's called an "ad hominem" which is usually the refuge of those who can't argue their side but refuse to admit they could be wrong, so they try to attack the other side with personal attacks.
Any scientist that falsifies his/her findings, will always be found out about, simply because of the very nature of the scientific method, which is that of verification and peer review. Just look at the Korean "clone" team that just got busted for fraud. They didn't get away with it, and neither will anyone else, because the beauty of science is that if you claim you've successfully done something, someone else will try it too, even if it's only to prove you wrong.

The only "agenda" in play here, is the religious one. Science has slowly but surely eaten away at the very foundation of religion, by demonstrating that their claims are impossible and/or naive. Religious leaders can't have their leadership being undermined by something as pesky as the truth, so they attack the method, the findings and even the people whose work is involved, all for the "glory of God" as perverse as that may be.

The real difference between science and religion:
Science looks at the evidence and tries to find an explanation.
Religion already has the explanation from a book with old fairytales, so the evidence must obviously be fake or misinterpreted.

Re:Well good

[Vaughn Anderson]

Ok, I'm not trying to spin things, I'm not trying to make up arguments just to knock them down, I really do have an issue. I am a parent, I have kids, they are going to be learning science in school. I have a vested interest in what is taught in the schools.

So when I have an issue with what is being taught in the schools, I'd expect that:

1. What the kids are being taught, should be understandable by the parents (ie, me).

2. If I don't understand it, I should be able to have an administrator/teacher (ie, you) explain it to me.

3. If the teacher cannot explain it without a lot of time and tons of reading, then I don't see that it is possible to teach children this in a public classroom.

4. I am a teacher. I teach college students. If I have to have a large book to explain something to adults, then they won't get it.

5. Even with adults you have to teach the most basic priniciples and foundations of an idea before getting to the complex aspects.

6. If I can't explain the simple basic foundations of an idea, there is absolutely no chance of ever teaching the more complex aspects that _require_ understanding of the basics.

Here's how this plays out in grade school.

Teacher: Evolution says when there was single celled organisms, they had to adapt to survive, so they became more complex.

Teacher: Today we have examples of evolution with bacteria adapting to survive in a toxic environment by all the weak one's dying off and the strong reproducing.

Student: Isn't "weak ones dying off" and "become more complex" two totally different concepts?

Teacher: You just don't understand because you aren't a scientist and haven't read tons of books, are in denile, don't want to see the evidence in front of you. Just trust me, I am telling the truth.

This is _exactly_ what I deal with as a teacher. I am presenting arguments to this board that I myself have had as a kid, and yet I am simply told I just don't get it or I am intentionally denying the evidence.

What is the basic foundation of evolution? It seems this is it here. If this is not it, then please post a link to what is. No point in arguing any further without a mutal agreement about what the foundation of the theory of evolution is.

Re:Well good

[Vaughn Anderson]

I'm not trying to spin circles here, I really am trying to understand what everyone sees with this theory. Instead of replying again, here's where I sum up my issue. It's a school/teaching/children/complex science concepts sort of problem.

The reply posted below the parent post is the one I am intending to link to. It starts off like this...

Ok, I'm not trying to spin things, I'm not trying to make up arguments just to knock them down, I really do have an issue.

I can at least explain _what_ Pythogarean theorem is. What _is_ evolution? The definition is _required_ as a starting place, without step 1, there is no step 2. You can't possibly expect me to understand any examples of complex bacteria describing evolution without understanding what the definition of evolution is.

Re:Well good

[EnronHaliburton2004]

So where do the Dinosaurs come into all of this? Or are they just a joke that we human's haven't gotten around to understanding yet?

If any one decided to have a look at ALL the facts, and come in with no presumptions then the only result would be to admit that Evolution is simply not possible

When you find scientific facts to support Creationism, like the location of Eden, proof that Humans once lived for hundreds of years, etc. come and talk to us.

Re:Well good

[tuckerteeth]

would this be the same ID that put Bush in charge of Iraq?

Re:Well good

[tuckerteeth]

yes you are so intellegent - so very INTELLIGENT

Re:Well good

[et764]

I find it much more likely that there has always been something in existence rather that that anything (God, matter/energy, etc.) spontaneously sprung into existence.

Re:Well good

[thing12]

Which facts? I'm interested to know the specific sources of the facts that support ID and disprove Evolution.

Re:Well good

[Iwishyouhadaclue]

Macro evolution isn't science, therefore doesn't belong in a science classroom. State one proven fact regarding macro evolution. G

Re:Well good

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps if HIV is unchecked, we will see the human population develop resistance to it too

I believe most epidemologist are convinced this is exactly what will happen -- that HIV lethality would approach that of common cold. It's more a question of "how fast" than "if", if I understand this correctly. There was an article that mentioned this in either SciAm or Nat. Geographic (both had articles about the anticipated bird flu pandemic, it was in one of those). It makes sense: that is what has happened to most common diseases; they adapt to have optimal survival rate (too lethal a disease has high risk of getting eliminated when hosts die too quickly).

Re:Well good

[cheesygrapes]

I don't collect stamps and don't really care whether or not you do. But if stamp collectors had a history of slaughtering those who don't or who collect the "wrong" type of stamp, and then try to force their belief on my children at my school system, I'd think it would only be rational to be pretty pissed off. I don't care if you wanna believe in God, Allah, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, but if you try to insert your religious propoganda not in your own religious schools but into the public school system and then lie about it to call it science, I'm drawing the line.

Re:Well good

[Copid]

When two species are sufficiently similar then there may be reason to believe they are transitional. But currently the so-called single transition is still a massive leap. One would expect fossils showing minor variations of the inbetween developmental stages.

The problem I've seen when transitionsals between X and Y are shown is that the response is always either "they're too far apart" or "it's obviously an X" or "it's obviously a Y." Creatonists seem to want it both ways. On one hand archaeopteryx is a "huge leap" and on the other hand it's "obviously a bird." The thing is, there are a lot of these transitions, and "huge leap" or not, they start to add up. The fact that evolutionary theory predicts that we will find them before we find them lends huge creedence to the theory. It certainly puts it a large step above ID which makes no serious predictions.

As I understand it, aren't we looking for a lot of precambrian things, as in most things? The cambrian explosion was the complete opposite of what Darwin himself expected the fossil record to yield.

Interesting that you should mention that. We see transitionals within the cambrian period. Google lobopods (between worms and arthropods). I'm not sure how you think that the "cambrian explosion" somehow works against evolutionary theory. All we see is a proliferation of new phyla over the course of 5-40 million years. There are a lot of good ideas as to why this was a major branching point (appearance of mobile predators, the development of "hox genes", etc.) and no reason to think that it's odd. Lots of life forms evolved after the cambrian as well (e.g. plants). What's interesting to me is that creationists bring up the Cambrian explosion when, at the same time, their beliefs are often incompatible with there being a Cambrian explosion at all. We see simple life forms before it and more complex life forms after it. How is this a problem for evolution? It seems like a more serious problem for ex nihilo creationism.

As far as your other comments, while one may say they may point towards a view of evolution, they certainly do not conclusively prove it. It's more of a Who Dunnit mystery where people examine a crime scene and try to guess what happened. However, the crime occurs long long ago and has since been ransacked by time and nature.

But of course, those unanswered questions keep piling up. We're talking about thousands upon thousands of observations, all of which support common descent to some varying degree. The fact that no group of two or three impresses you enough to consider the matter settled is not important in the face of volumes of observations so large that no single person can sift through them any more.

Interesting point. We may never know the answer to that. Just like the Theory of Common Decent, any such theories will still be mere conjectures / speculation.

I'm always more than a little agitated when an entire field of study with thousands of devoted experts is dismissed as "conjecture" and "speculation" by people who have clearly not sifted through even a small sample of the supporting work. Yes, technically speaking, we can never "know" what happened. At some point, though, the evidence piles so high, the explanations fit so well, and the dearth of alternate explanations is so lacking that one has to think that mabye the scientists are on to something. A person trained in the field can look at a fossil and tell you how old it will turn out to be when it is dated. A properly trained scientist can look at an animal and tell you what certain non-coding regions of its DNA will look like. Those things are remarkable and wouldn't be possible if all of this work were mere speculation.

We have to face the fact that those of us who are not doing the resarch on the front lines of science will have to be satisfied with only knowing a subset of the data and relying o

Re:Well good

[Anonymous Coward]

Bogus analogy. Not collecting stamps *would* be distinctive, if the norm was "collecting stamps".

Re:Well good

[StupidStan]

how is ID any more logical than basing a science class on start wars, all they are is STORIES. Homer wrote stories, and you dont see hydras in biology class. Not very believable, but least in his stories, people didnt live for 800 years...

Re:Well good

[Kismet]

But if stamp collectors had a history of slaughtering those who don't or who collect the "wrong" type of stamp, and then try to force their belief on my children at my school system

Much like the Communist regime of Mao? Remember, the one that endorsed atheism as its state religion? What was the final tally of the dead? 70 million? Yes, that sounds about right. No other people on the earth were so indoctrinated nor brainwashed as the Chinese, and atheism was the official party line.

America's propaganda-du-jour is one of humanism, secularism, and welfare-state socialism. What is the public school system but a psychologized brain-cloning factory where children learn how to be good little citizens in the new managed utopia? Haven't you paid attention to history?

but if you try to insert your religious propoganda not in your own religious schools but into the public school system and then lie about it to call it science

Oh, I agree. Like "tolerance" is science. Like "diversity" is science. Like all the "science" of social machinery, right out of nineteenth century rank-and-file Prussian schools, implanted by yesteryear's ideologues on American soil without even a public review. I have news for you: school is nothing but propaganda, designed to program our children to work happily for somebody else. We go to school so that we can "get a good job." Do you think any public school today could produce another Franklin, Farragut, Edison, or Carnegie? We have ways of dealing with their kind of genius: No Child Left Behind. If public schools had the goal of teaching children to think for themselves, then why does it require a 20+ million-worker bereaucracy to accomplish that?

It doesn't matter what you think. Someone's religion will be taught in public schools. Right now, the preferred religion, as I said, is one of secularism. We've had the religous ideologies of atheism force-fed to us since the 1890's.

Re:Well good

[einhverfr]

I believe most epidemologist are convinced this is exactly what will happen -- that HIV lethality would approach that of common cold.

For those who might laugh at this, it is worth noting that lions are entirely resistant to FIV (Feline Immunodeficiency Virus) while housecats have a high mortality rate. FIV is probably the grandparent of HIV.

Now, communally speaking, I am not sure our current approach to HIV is helpful. We know that about 1-2 percent of the population appears to be highly resistant to infection while another 5-15% of the population can get infected but never develops AIDS. So you have a real dilemma. If we stress testing and treatment, we don't select for those who are long-term carriers of the disease (i.e those who have a resistance post-infection). We can only select for that 5-15% if we don't remove them from the gene pool (saying "You can't have kids because you are HIV positive") when they get infected, and when we heavily treat with antiretrovirals so we *don't* know who is resistant and who is not. On the other hand, we can't just tell people that there is an 85-95% chance that they will die in the next ten years and we aren't going to do anything about it.

Sometimes I wonder if technology is going to be our downfall. We are too good at preserving life sometimes.

Re:Well good

[grolschie]

Interesting that you should mention that. We see transitionals within the cambrian period. Google lobopods (between worms and arthropods). I'm not sure how you think that the "cambrian explosion" somehow works against evolutionary theory. All we see is a proliferation of new phyla over the course of 5-40 million years. There are a lot of good ideas as to why this was a major branching point (appearance of mobile predators, the development of "hox genes", etc.) and no reason to think that it's odd.

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&actio n=view&ID=242. The Cambrian Explosions is called an explosion exactly because there was very little life below it, then boom mega population explosion of various life forms. An explosion of life! The exact oposite of what darwinists expected. They expected many more prior slow transitions through the sediment layers below to more simple lifeforms, leading right back to the common ancestors.

A person trained in the field can look at a fossil and tell you how old it will turn out to be when it is dated.

Not exactly a scientific journal, but interesting reading all the same. Many other dating methods shown to be flakey also. How do we really know how old the earth is?

Re:Well good

[Copid]

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&act io n=view&ID=242. The Cambrian Explosions is called an explosion exactly because there was very little life below it, then boom mega population explosion of various life forms. An explosion of life! The exact oposite of what darwinists expected. They expected many more prior slow transitions through the sediment layers below to more simple lifeforms, leading right back to the common ancestors.

I am not the only "darwinist" who is still more than a little conused as to why a proliferation of new life forms occurring over tens of millions of years is somehow opposed to evolutionary theory. I might ask what "creation theory" or "ID theory" or "sudden emergence theory" or whatever they're calling it this year has to say about a small variety of species proliferating into a larger variety of species over millions of years.

Not exactly a scientific journal, but interesting reading all the same. Many other dating methods shown to be flakey also. How do we really know how old the earth is?

I'm actually amazed that you didn't post the old chestnut about carbon dating of the shells of recently dead snails, although I'm pretty sure that the last link of search results brings it up at least once. It's a favorite. =P

Your first clause, "Not exactly a scientific journal" is an understatement. One of the links appears to be from ICR's Grand Canyon Project, which is critiqued extensively here. Pay special attention to Figure 2. I would be particularly interested in how isochron critics explain the remarkable colinearity of the samples. They're easily explained by nuclear physics and all of the observations supporting it, but I'm sure that a number of creationists have figured out ways of tweaking cosmic constants to explain it. Whether those tweaks result in the laws of physics fundamentally changing is another matter.

Not to continue too deeply with "dueling links" but there is a good discussion of the K/Ar and Ar/Ar dating here. If you're really interested in the dating end of things (which I see as the most telling evidence for evolution and an old earth), I recommend poking through the talk.origins usenet archives or posting a question there. You should note that the newsgroup is full of physicists and geologists who can talk about this stuff in detail. The discussions about biology all seem to boil down to somebody saying "well, I've decided to interpret the evidence differently, and even though I haven't looked at nearly as much of it as you have, my opinion is as good as yours." The debates on the physics and geology of the dating process usually come to a much more clear resolution as the data and physics behind it are extremely difficult to dispute.

Anyway, I'm still not surprised to see that essentially 100% of the criticisms of radiometric dating and other old earth evidence all go straight back to ICR (including the Wikipedia entry). It should not be surprising to the outside observer that the only noise that is being made is being made by an organization with specific religious objections to the implications of the prevailing theory. You never hear anybody say, "I really have no interest in the theological implications of this, but the data really shows a young earth." That is probbly one of the data points that made it so easy for Judge Jones to reach his conclusion.

Re:Well good

[endoplasmicMessenger]

Then why is science atheistic materialism because none of its rules involve God?

Science is not atheistic materialism. But atheistic materialism leads to bad science. Haven't you heard of the recent case of the Korean scientist who admitted to fraud in his research? Bad science does happen.

Of course, science has built-in correction mechanisms, which is one of its primary strengths. But sometimes these mechanisms don't work. Take the example of Richard Sternberg. He is an evolutionist who holds two Ph.D.'s. He was also managing editor of Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, a peer-reviewed journal from the Smithsonian Institute.

Richard appears to have been an even-headed editor who was open to having an occasional provocative article in his journal. Unfortunately for Richard, he seems to have been unaware of the extremely violent reaction that can occur when ideas challenging the conventional dogma of evolution are put forth, no matter how good the reasons.

A paper was submitted to him by Stephen Meyer in favor of intelligent design. Following standard procedures, he submitted the paper to the peer reviewers of his journal. All the peer reviewers found it acceptable, and being an open minded guy, he decided to go ahead and publish the ID paper in his journal. (An occasional provocation is good for science, right?)

The response was immediate and horrific. It included many articles written by scientists around the world blasting Sternberg for his lack of judgment. And note that it was Sternberg who was blasted, not Meyers who wrote the offending paper. Not the peer reviewers who reviewed the paper. Sternberg. And nary a peep about the merits of the paper itself.

Dr. Sternberg no longer has his job, and his career (two Ph.D.'s!) is in the gutter.

This is not how science is supposed to work. These "chilling effects" on the free and scientific flow of ideas makes it very difficult for any ideas in opposition to Neo-Darwinism to be examined in a truly scientific manner.

As far as I can tell, evolutionary science is broken.

Consider this quote from a recent editorial at USAToday:

Evolutionists used to style themselves the champions of free speech and academic freedom against unthinking dogmatism. But increasingly, they have become the new dogmatists, demanding judicially-imposed censorship of dissent.

Now, Darwinists are trying to silence debate through persecution. At Ohio State University, a graduate student's dissertation is in limbo because he was openly critical of Darwin's theory. At George Mason University, a biology professor lost her job after she mentioned intelligent design in class. At the Smithsonian, an evolutionary biologist was harassed and vilified for permitting an article favoring intelligent design to be published in a peer-reviewed biology journal.

Those who think they can stop the growing interest in intelligent design through court orders or intimidation are deluding themselves. Americans don't like being told there are some ideas they aren't permitted to investigate. Try to ban an idea, and you will generate even more interest in it.

you're going to get an F if you can't apply the decidedly materialistic rules of science to produce verifiable results.

There is nothing wrong with the materialistic rules of science. Science makes statements about observable (material) phenomenon. Science must, however, remain silent in areas where is has no expertise. This includes discussion of anything outside of the material world. For example, God.

The problem arises when atheistic scientists try to make science atheistic. Atheism is different from Agnosticism. The latter makes no definitive statements about God. Science could therefore be said to be agnostic. The former, however, makes the definite assertion that God doesn't exist. And this statement is certainly outside of the realm of science. This personal bias ca

Re:Well good

[endoplasmicMessenger]

Quote #79 of the Quote Mine project [talkorigins.org].

Why are so many creationists such shameless liars?

1. I'm not a creationist.
2. Quote #79 is about Robert A. Millikan. I've never heard of him. I was quoting someone named Charles Darwin. Maybe you've heard of him.

Why are so many Slashdotters such incredible ignoramuses?

Re:Well good

[sickofthisshit]

"Weak ones dying off" and "becoming complex" are only different concepts when Weak != less complex.

Evolution suggests that complexity results because it is *adaptive*. That is, complex creatures can inhabit ecological niches that simpler ones cannot. For instance, being a predator.

Also, there is no particular reason that things become more complex. Some things become *simpler* through evolution, because they have found a particular niche where they do not need the complexity. For instance, becoming a parasite.

For the Nth time, the basis of evolution is not gleaned from a general English dictionary. http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/charles _darwin/origin_of_species/ is one place where you can find it, or that John Maynard Smith text that I cited before.

YOU WILL NEVER UNDERSTAND EVOLUTION FROM READING THE DICTIONARY DEFINITION, YOU NUMBSKULL, any more than you will be ready to prove the Pythagorean theorem after reading the dictionary definition. You need to make an effort to learn BEYOND dictionary.com.

Re:Well good

[Vaughn Anderson]

Is this how you would have evolution taught in our schools?

Re:Well good

[endoplasmicMessenger]

they take a bacterium that cannot digest a certain sugar or protein, expose it to the chemical they're testing, and then try and grow it on the metabolite it couldn't digest. They measure the number that CAN grow -- the number that were damaged by the chemical and in repairing that damage managed to gain the ability to live on something they couldn't previously -- and that's a direct indication of how strongly mutagenic the chemical is. If evolution didn't exist, the test wouldn't work, and as I said, it's used hundreds (if you count chemicals) or millions (if you count bacteria) of times every day all across the world. The test works.

I would agree that the test you describe really does indicate the ability of a chemical to mutate cells.

However, this is an instance of micro-evolution: changes within a species. When most people talk about "evolution" I think they mean the "Origin of Species." And as you mentioned, speciation is a tricky line to draw.

One thing to keep in mind is that there may be various reasons why a particular bacteria cannot digest a certain sugar or protein. There may be repressor genes in the bacteria preventing it from metabolizing those particular substances. If one of the repressors is disabled via mutation, then the bacteria may be able to start metabolizing the substance.

But this type of mutation (disabling a repressor) is not exactly the type of mutation could explain evolution. In other words, the bacteria already had a basic capability, but that capability was repressed. It did not evolve a new capability that had never been seen before in its ancestry.

To answer the larger question of evolution, you must be able to explain where that basic capability came from to begin with. I don't think the type of test you describe necessarily reveals this type of mechanics which must be at work over the long course of evolution. But it may.

Re:Well good

[endoplasmicMessenger]

The belief involved is right under your nose. The very assumption that life was "designed" is a belief. I'm not talking about belief that the creator is God, I'm talking about belief that there was a creator at all.

If I look at a mouse trap, I can come to the conclusion that it was designed and not the result of random processes. The question is: is the process of determining whether or not something is "designed" a scientific process or not. Many great scientists believed in God. Their belief, however, did not prevent them from being great scientists.

Yes, it is *possible* that there was a creator. However, there are also a lot of other possible explanations. To pick out the "designer" explanation without any evidence and without any way to test it, requires belief.

Is it possible to proceed scientifically on the question of whether a thing is designed without addressing the question of the Designer? This happens in law cases all the time where the court choses to address one issue but not another. It should be possible for scientists to do the same thing.

Say, for example, you just look at two possibilities for why life exists. On the one hand, you have the possiblity that it was created by an intelligent designer. On the other hand, you have the possibility that there are an infinite number of universes representing every possible configuration of matter (therefore, our configuration has to exist). Now, I'm pretty sure that there is no test you can do to determine which of these explanations is more accurate. Without such a discriminator, you can't include either one in your model of the universe unless you take it on faith. That is what makes ID unscientific. Scientific theories have to be testable, or you can't distinguish the more accurate ones from the less accurate ones.

I'm glad you brought up that scenario. Maybe you can explain to me why in the discipline of astronomy, someone can hypothesize infinite universes and no one bats an eyelid. How is infinite universes a testable hypothesis? How is infinite universes scientific? But when someone mentions that something looks more like it was designed than it looks like the result of random processes, suddenly we've entered into the realm of the unscientific.

Is there a test you can do to see if life was designed? The ID folks don't seem to be able to come up with one, or if they have they're apparently keeping it a secret.

I don't know. Is there? Maybe we should dedicate some research to this question. Oh, I forgot, we are not allowed to even ask the question of whether something might be designed. Unscientific, you know.

Re:Well good

[endoplasmicMessenger]

Ok, this is not all in complete seriousness, but there is another side to the usage of the term "Theory".

People are stating that the word Theory is used to only describe something that has been well proven over a long period of time. As in "Evolutionary Theory". If that were the case, we would never see the term "new Theory" used, especially from universities.

But google tells us that people use this phrase all the time. Even in universities. Here's one near the top of Google's results: "Princeton paleontologist produces evidence for new theory on dinosaur extinction." If its new, how can it be a theory?

Re:Well good

[endoplasmicMessenger]

The "supreme being" is kind of implied by the term intelligent design, that there was an intelligent designer(s) behind what we see in biology on Earth. That sounds pretty fucking supreme to me.

Some people are able to separate out different questions in their mind. For example, one question might be:

(1) This mouse trap looks like it may have been designed by some intelligence. I wonder if it was?

A related but similar question might be:

(2) If it is designed, I wonder who designed it?

The two questions are related but separate. One question might be deemed to be a scientific question, the other might not. But just because one is deemed to not be scientific, it does not mean that both are.

Re:Well good

[smellsofbikes]

First off, once people say they believe in micro-evolution, they believe in evolution and they're just drawing arbitrary lines past which they say they no longer believe in evolution. That's plain silly. (Besides, they don't really: if you proposed teaching nothing but micro-evolution in schools they'd be as pissed. They know perfectly well that if you show a child micro-evolution and then you show a child a series of pictures of prosimians, chimps, and humans, the kids will connect the dots.)

Second off, you're entirely right about the bacteria can't digest certain proteins. The bacteria that are used in these tests are deficient -- normal bacteria CAN digest the material in question, and these have a very slight mutation in the relevant enzyme such that it doesn't work. Exposure to mutagens reverses the mutation and allows the bacterium to regain the activity that its distant siblings have. So, in a way you're right: it's not doing something magnificent, something that's never been done before. However, we're talking a single generation. It's going from gonna-die-of-the-starvations to life-on-easy-street in a single generation. Multiply that by a trillion generations and it's not hard for me to believe in development of eyes, or the current ID holy grails of ATP synthase and rotor/stator flagellae. For a while the ID crowd was all on about how the blood clotting sequence, or the immune complement activation sequence, were both so unbelievably complex -- but both of them consist of lots of similar proteins, each of which activates the next one in the sequence. If you accept that DNA can get duplicated sequentially, which is seen quite often in plants, then you can probably accept that a strand of DNA might pick up three or four copies of the same gene (there are good reasons for this to happen, and it's seen regularly in developing drug-resistance in bacteria coz it's a fast way to produce lots of material to help the bacterium overcome an antibiotic) and then you have exactly the sort of minor changes that we're talking about in my example, where a protein is produced that no longer does exactly what the other proteins do, and you have the basic building block for a cascade signaling system. (that sentence was way too long.) You get the general point: for most systems, we can point at a series of developmental steps, all of which are in evidence elsewhere, from which you can get from near-nothing to a spectacularly complex system. As I said, bacterial flagellae are currently a big deal in the ID theory wonk crowd, so let's talk about that. There are two proteins that make up the stator -- the part solidly attached to the bacterium's butt -- and both are required for the bacterial flagellum to work. They look a WHOLE lot like one another; there are long stretches of their sequences that are identical. It's hard to look at the sequence or the overall topology and come to any other conclusion than that at one point they were the same protein and maybe the flagellum didn't work as well back then. Likewise, if you put a severe mutation in one of the proteins -- substitute an amino acid called proline for an existing aa in the sequence, which puts a big kink in a protein chain and makes it unable to take the shape it used to -- the bacterium which bears this mutation has an inoperable flagellum, and presumably will die young and bitter. However, if you then do exactly what I was talking about earlier, and splice in two or three more copies of the other protein, the one that looks very much like the now-screwed-up one, the bacterium will overproduce the second protein and its flagellum will use THAT protein, doubled-up, in place of the mutated one, and lo and behold, the flagellum works again. (not well, as it happens, but better than nothing at all.) So, by duplication, it overcomes its problem. I grant you that's not something brand new either. But let's go a bit further afield: in order for bacteria to assemble a flagellar structure they need to essentially drill a hole in their skin to shove

Re:Well good

[sickofthisshit]

I would have evolution taught from high-quality textbooks based on real science, by teachers who understand the theory better than you do, and are able to answer real questions that students pose. Unfortunately, the religious right has managed to make most biology textbooks CRAP, but that is the a symptom of the anti-evolution disease, not a problem with evolution. If necessary, one could create a course around Darwin's Origin of Species. I linked to it because it is out of copyright, and so can be reproduced on the network for free download, and also because it is a masterpiece of scientific writing. More likely, you could find a copyrighted book like John Maynard Smith's book, or even one of Richard Dawkins' books, although I don't particularly like them.

Just like I would have schools teach algebra and chemistry and earth science and physics, and even world and U.S. history to be taught. Lots of kids get Ds in algebra, never able to comprehend it, but we don't rip math out of the curriculum.

Some kids might not get it, some teachers might not be qualified, but that doesn't mean we replace the curriculum with unfounded speculation that evolution is just one among several alternative explanations. It is the ONLY theory that has scientific support here in the 21st century.

Re:Well good

[misleb]

Regarding the first part of your response (I'd usually quote, but there is a lot there):

I am uncomfortable with your implication that evolutionary theory is necessarily flawed because of the politics (not the science) involved. Yes, it gets nasty. But that doesn't mean the theory is flawed or that the alternative that is being presented is automatically valid. In the bigger picture, there is nothing particular special about nasty politics in science. It happens any time a well established theory or idea is challenged. If the challenge has substance, what happens is that the current crop of scientists continue to cling to the old ideas until a new crop of scientists takes over.

There was once a time when scientists thought that the universe never began and will never end. Many scientists found it distasteful to believe that the universe had a beginning. The idea itself was too suggestive that there might be a God. In fact, in opposition to the then-new Big Bang Theory, some scientists even suggested that matter was constantly being created, and in that way we could avoid the Big Bang Theory altogether. That's how far they were willing to go to avoid the Big Bang Theory. However, the facts have caught up with us and we now know with a high degree of certainty that the universe is about 13.7 billion years old. The universe had a very specific starting point.

That isn't exactly true. The Big Bang could turn out to be a starting point, not the starting point... part of a continual cycle of expansion and contraction. While the age of the observable universe may be established, that doesn't necessarily mean there was an ultimate temporal beginning, pe se. This may not even be the only universe that exists...

Likewise, there is evidence today to suggest that it would be very difficult if not impossible for certain biological structures to have been created by random processes.

The problem with this statement is that it is a purely negative argument. What makes this different than the Big Bang challenge you talked about previously is that there is no positive argument to go along with it. Big Bang is an actual theory with its own predictions and mechanisms. You can go on and on about how "random" processes can't do such and such until you are blue in the face, but without an alternative "non-random" mechanism, you don't have much to go on and it is difficult to take seriously. And I do mean mechanism, not an attribution. Saying that an intelligent designer did it is a attribution, not a mechanism. If I asked how a rabit is pulled out of a hat and you said "a magician does it," I would have to ask you again because you didn't answer the question. If you kept answering with "a magician does it," I would probably start to get pretty annoyed with you. Kinda like scientists are annoyed with ID "theorists."

Just like you would look at a mouse trap and conclude that it was not created by random processes, you can look at various biological structures and come to the same conclusion. Have you ever thought how two completely different reproductive systems (male and female) came to evolve simultaneously?

Actually, they aren't completely different. They share many, if not most, of the same basic structures. They're just arranged differently. One can observe this in a developing fetus.

How two of them evolved through random processes is anyone's guess. And that's all we have right now -- is guesses. There is no direct evidence to show that they evolved through random processes. There is only wishful speculation. And science is not normally built on wishful speculation.

In science it is called a hypothesis. ID theorists might want to give it a try some time. Maybe one day they might actually come up with a substantial theory of their own.

But as I have shown above, we seem to live in a time where the chilling effects of oppression seem to be replacing the normal activities of science. So any alternative ideas are vicio

Re:Well good

[endoplasmicMessenger]

I am uncomfortable with your implication that evolutionary theory is necessarily flawed because of the politics (not the science) involved.

The theory is not flawed because of the politics, but the scientific methodology certainly can flawed because of politics.

This may not even be the only universe that exists...

Possible. But how is this hypothesis testable? How is it falsifiable? This is not a scientific hypothesis. In fact, conjecturing anything before the Big Bang is not scientific. That would require looking through the singularity, which, in principal, is not possible because all information is lost in the singularity.

I find it ironic that to argue against supposed "unscientific" hypotheses, one needs to bring up other unscientific hypotheses. Oh, and isn't it interesting how this is not really and issue in other branches of science, like astronomy. There seems to be a whole lot more breathing room in other branches of science. Which, in my opinion, is a good thing.

The problem with this statement is that it is a purely negative argument.

Let's turn this around. What evidence is there that purely random unguided processes were responsible for the variety of life that we see around us? The fossil record? No. That establishes that evolution took place. But it certainly does not establish that it was unguided random processes which caused it. Genetic DNA analysis? Again, that shows the evolutionary relationships between creatures, but does not prove that it was random processes that governed it.

Recombinant DNA? This only produces variation within a species. It has never been shown that recombination is sufficient to create a new species from an old one. And besides, research is showing that the previously considered "random" activity of DNA recombination is no longer as random as it seemed. This activity appears to be very precise and is controlled by special enzymes that break the chromosomes, exchange the pieces, and rejoin the free ends. Recombination also needs certain special structures in the cell to make it work. The activities of recombination are not just haphazard events. Special pieces of DNA jump around in the chromosome to allow these activities to happen. Recombination has been found to be a very complex process. And we still don't know the half of it. But fewer people are calling it purely "random".

So where is the irrefutable evidence that the "Origin of Species" is truly governed by an unguided random process?

BTW, I agree with you that ID is weak on the counter argument side. And that's where the political argument raises its ugly head. With the continual slapdown of any attempts to scientifically discuss alternatives to Neo-Darwinism, the scientific exploration of these alternatives is basically at a standstill. Any time a paper slips through, the reaction is tsunamic

They [male and female reproductive systems] share many, if not most, of the same basic structures.

Yes, but having the same structures is not what makes them work. It's having different complementary structures which makes them work. And evolving these different but complimentary structures randomly is quite a trick.

In science it is called a hypothesis. ID theorists might want to give it a try some time. Maybe one day they might actually come up with a substantial theory of their own.

If they only didn't get slapped down and ridiculed and fired and ostracized every time they made a suggestion, then may a little progress would be made on this front. But the momentum is growing and progress will come.

The alternative being what, exactly?

The observation is that some biological mechanisms appear to have the characteristics of being designed. Since there is precious little understanding of how these mechanisms actually did evolve, the first step -- if it were allowed -- would be to try and identify and understand the evolutionary processes which prod

Re:Well good

[misleb]

I find it ironic that to argue against supposed "unscientific" hypotheses, one needs to bring up other unscientific hypotheses. Oh, and isn't it interesting how this is not really and issue in other branches of science, like astronomy. There seems to be a whole lot more breathing room in other branches of science. Which, in my opinion, is a good thing.

Heh, nice try at turning this around, but I wans't arguing against the Big Bang. Nor did I say that it is unscientific. You may want to recalibrate your irony meter.

The problem with this statement is that it is a purely negative argument.

Let's turn this around. What evidence is there that purely random unguided processes were responsible for the variety of life that we see around us? The fossil record? No. That establishes that evolution took place. But it certainly does not establish that it was unguided random processes which caused it. Genetic DNA analysis? Again, that shows the evolutionary relationships between creatures, but does not prove that it was random processes that governed it.

Like I said, a purely negative argument. Clearly you have nothing positive to contribute to the scientific process.

Recombinant DNA? This only produces variation within a species. It has never been shown that recombination is sufficient to create a new species from an old one. And besides, research is showing that the previously considered "random" activity of DNA recombination is no longer as random as it seemed. This activity appears to be very precise and is controlled by special enzymes that break the chromosomes, exchange the pieces, and rejoin the free ends. Recombination also needs certain special structures in the cell to make it work. The activities of recombination are not just haphazard events. Special pieces of DNA jump around in the chromosome to allow these activities to happen. Recombination has been found to be a very complex process. And we still don't know the half of it. But fewer people are calling it purely "random".

*sigh* More negative arguments.

So where is the irrefutable evidence that the "Origin of Species" is truly governed by an unguided random process?

Ya got me. I don't know that anyone is trying to prove anyting about an "unguided random process." Evolution is not random. It is guided by any number of natural contraints, as you pointed out. The only people calling evolution a purely random unguided process are people who a) don't understand it (at all), and b) wish to discredit it.

BTW, I agree with you that ID is weak on the counter argument side. And that's where the political argument raises its ugly head. With the continual slapdown of any attempts to scientifically discuss alternatives to Neo-Darwinism, the scientific exploration of these alternatives is basically at a standstill. Any time a paper slips through, the reaction is tsunamic

Oh that's clever. Blame the other side for your lack of substance. And i suppose the reason we don't have perpetual motion machines is because the brilliant scientists working on them are viciously supressed by a thermodynamic cabal?

Yes, but having the same structures is not what makes them work. It's having different complementary structures which makes them work. And evolving these different but complimentary structures randomly is quite a trick.

So is pulling a rabit out of a hat until you figure out the processes and mechanisms behind it.

The alternative being what, exactly?

The observation is that some biological mechanisms appear to have the characteristics of being designed. Since there is precious little understanding of how these mechanisms actually did evolve, the first step -- if it were allowed -- would be to try and identify and understand the evolutionary processes which produced these mechanisms. But according to Genamics JournalSeek, there are 0 (zero) journals dedicated to the study of cellular evolution (in fact, there appea

Re:Well good

[Gieckboy]

The real truth is that God created the Universe in six days and then got bored with it all - leaving it behind to start a transdimensional peanukle league with Shiva and Loki.
Deus absentia, he's left his right-hand man Science in charge of keeping those wily Hydrogen atoms in line and making sure that that slacker Gravity doesn't start drinking on the job again.

Listen to the This Week In Science podcast http://www.twis.org/

On teh Nth day, G-d created Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

and on the N+1th, first post!

Sweet!

[LordKazan]

Put it in comparative religion where it belongs!

Teach all

[tonsofpcs]

Shouldn't they be allowed to teach it, so long as they teach all of the current theories?

Re:Teach all

[Mifflesticks]

Then when does the list of theories end? Teach creationism too? Hindu theories of creation? Bhudist? Aztec? Eventually the list gets too long and people learn nothing about everything.

Re:Teach all

[jandrese]

ID isn't a theory though, it's dogma. We don't teach dogma in science class for the simple reason that it is not science. It's like complaining that students aren't getting equal time for Aztek cooking in their Asian studies class.

Re:Teach all

[Rude Turnip]

It's not a theory, it's a philosophical/religious concept. Which is perfect fine to teach about...in a philosophy or world history or cultures class. Bottom line, there is a group of subversives that want to dissolve the Constitution and the U.S. and put a theocracy into place.

Re:Teach all

[Decaff]

Shouldn't they be allowed to teach it, so long as they teach all of the current theories?

No, because it is not a scientific theory. It is not testable or disprovable. Because our knowledge of nature and life and evolution is likely to remain incomplete (there will probably always be things we don't understand), the 'Intelligent Design' idea can always be brought in as an arbitrary 'explanation' for anything.

Re:Teach all

[Inf0phreak]

Fine. Then they should teach Flying Spaghetti Monsterism as well.

Re:Teach all

[Mr. Slippery]

Shouldn't they be allowed to teach it, so long as they teach all of the current theories?

ID is not a "current theory" of biology.

A scientific theory is a testable and tested statement about or model of some aspect of the observable world. "God(s) did it" is neither testable, tested, nor about the observable world.

Certainly other sorts of statements have their place. But that place is not the science classroom.

Re:Teach all

[BushCheney08]

Something I found incredibly humorous about the Kansas decision last month was someone quoted as saying something along the lines of "With this ruling, we have succeeded in removing dogma from the science classroom." Talk about newspeak...

Re:Teach all

[Tx]

It's not a scientific theory, therefore it doesn't belong in a science class, any more than teaching that babies are delivered by storks. Get some papers in peer-reviewed science journals showing that "intelligent design" is a valid science theory, and then they might have a case. Of course, that will never happen.

Re:Teach all

[TripMaster Monkey]

If you're going to do that, you'll need to also devote equal time to:

• Flying Spaghetti Monsterism
  
• The Church of last Thursdayism of Queen Maeve
  
• Discordianism
  
• The Church Of The Subgenius
  
• etc...

Re:Teach all

[Anonymous Coward]

and it's about time we got more Aztek cooking in school.

Re:Teach all

[CastrTroy]

You like all the other people in favour of ID fail to realize the difference between "Scientific Theory" and "Theory" and "Cockamamie Theory". Scientific theories have to stand up to tests, and have to match what actually happens in real life. I could say that I have a theory that the earth was built by thousands of elves. But there's no hard evidence to prove this. It's just an idea I thought up. There's lots of evidence to backup evolution. There is no evidence backing up ID. Just because we don't fully understand evolution, doesn't mean that ID is the explanation. We used to not understand how the earth orbits the sun, so we said this mercury guy dragged it accross the sky in a chariot, even though we had no proof of this either. Just because we can't explain something, doesn't mean that it is proof that God, or another inteligent being did it.

Re:Teach all

[matuscak]

Teach creationism too?
Actually, the Judge came to the conclusion that "Intelligent Design" *is* creationism.

Re:Teach all

[Dephex Twin]

No, because the absolutely most important thing that is taught in a science classroom is what science is and what the scientific method is. The specific body of knowledge that you learn in school science classes isn't all going to be considered true anymore once your children are in school. The problem with Intelligent Design in a classroom is that it is not scientific or natural, nor does the support for it follow the scientific method. This distorts some of the most fundamental building blocks of science. This can be harmful, in the same way that it would be harmful if in math classes, the teacher had to tell students that pi is up for debate because, after all, we have never even seen the whole number to its end (bad example, but you get the idea).

(That ID is even being debated in this realm is testament to the fact that people in general aren't getting a solid enough grounding in science.)

Re:Teach all

[joemawlma]

Yes, it should be taught. But it should NOT be taught in a science classroom. There's nothing wrong with teaching "all" theories in classrooms as long as they are taught in the correct classrooms. What's wrong with an "alternative theories" class?

I really don't understand why the push for these teachings needs to be in biology and other science classes.

It's simple, without the ablility to use the scientific method with hypotheses, testing, conclusions, etc, a subject cannot be allowed in a science class. This is the same reason history lessons aren't taught in science classes.

Becoming lax and allowing anything and everything to be taught in a science classroom is incredibly damaging for science and the scientific community. It will begin to discredit all the amazing discoveries and accomplishments to date because sooner or later people won't be able to tell the difference between real science and these OTHER non-scientific theories.

Re:Teach all

[SerpentMage]

Why not? Of course I would not add it all to Science. But there is nothing wrong with teaching what each faith thinks on the creation of life.

Re:Teach all

[Dhaos]

But why does that belong in a -science- class?

None of the faiths on this world have beliefs formed from the scientific method...

Re:Teach all

[Kelson]

The problem is that Intelligent design fails a number of tests for scientific theory and for general education.

For one thing it hasn't been tested thoroughly by the scientific community. I doubt natural selection made it into the equivalent of a high school curriculum in the first few years after Darwin proposed it. You don't teach the really out-there new ideas in physics or chem class, either, you teach the ones that have the most backing. You might touch on "new research suggests X" but that's about it. Of course, that's not a reason to disallow it, just a reason that it's not ready to go into the standard curriculum yet.

More importantly, Intelligent Design fails the science test. The key tenet of Intelligent Design is that certain things are too complex to be explained by natural processes. The scientific approach is to say, "We don't understand how this works yet, but we do know this part, and we're working on filling in the gaps." ID says "These gaps can't be filled, so it must be God." Instead of seeking to explain the unknown, it just stops with "God did it."

And now for the legal questions. They technically claim it's "a designer," which could be an alien or something, but that means the alien had to have been designed, and that designer had to be designed, and so on, and you end up having to assume a prime mover -- and you're back to God. Add in the fact that much of IDs philosophy and support grew out of creationist movements, and it becomes clear that it's explicitly religious. That means by teaching it, schools would be promoting a religion, and you run into the separation of church and state. (Remember, freedom of religion requires freedom from religion. If you're a Christian, and the state requires you to participate in a Muslim prayer every morning, you don't have freedom of religion.)

So ID isn't mature enough to be in a high school science curriculum. It rejects the basic goal of science. And it fails the establishment test. That's two reasons not to bother teaching it in any high school, and one not to teach it in a public school.

Re:Teach all

[laughing rabbit]

Praise Bob!

Re:Teach all

[hunterx11]

The parent is right. When I went to school, we didn't learn about astrology, or the geocentric model of the Earth, or alchemy. Clearly those dogmatic "scientists" want to impose their theories of astronomy and heliocentrism and chemistry as fact!

Re:Teach all

[Hard_Code]

Laugh now. I'm sure Huehueteotl will take your blasphemous comment into consideration in the afterlife you heathen.

As for the rest: divide into groups and choose who you will be sacrificing for today's lesson on chunky heart and brains minestrone.

Re:Teach all

[hb253]

Actually, you may have learned about those things in History class.

Re:Teach all

[Alsee]

It's like complaining that students aren't getting equal time for Aztek cooking

MMMmmmm!
Raw human heart... still beating. With a nice Chianti. Delicioso!

-

Re:Teach all

[Anonymous Coward]

ID isn't religious dogma... one can refer to God in a non-religious context (philosophers and historians do it all the time).

One must argue the ID debate at the philosophical level, because the ENTIRE DEBATE is a debate of philosophy of science, more specifically concerning methodological naturalism.

Re:Teach all

[jandrese]

The ID being shoved down Science teacher's throats is dogma. In a philsophy class you could easily avoid this because you aren't teaching ID itself, but rather debating the overall nature of ID.

Re:Teach all

[coaxial]

Because ID isn't a theory. It isn't science. There is no contraversy. Just religous zealots trying to force their false world view on others. They, and ID, is completely illegitmate.

Re:Teach all

[drinkypoo]

Hail Eris!

Re:Teach all

[tonsofpcs]

So then you teach only evolution and get sued by people who believe in ID and creationism. All of these are 'theories' from a scientific standpoint.

Well

[Moby Cock]

Thank God for that!

Re:Well

[Anonymous Coward]

Jesus Christ, how can you be so damned insensitive?

Re:Well

[Bostik]

Thank $deity they're not in Kansas anymore!

Re:Well

[Spackler]

Thank God for that!

Great comment, and funny, but I choose to thank an insightful judge who took this case for what it was, and struck down ID for what it is. Creationism in sheeps clothing. I am serious here, READ THE OPINION THE JUDGE PUT OUT. It really puts the entire thing to rest. It contains history, and the reasons he came to this conclusion. It is truly a great writing. All the arguments that folks here on slashdot make against ID were in there. He shines a VERY BRIGHT light on it, and calls it what it is. I only wish a judge could have used the word "bullshit" in an opinion, but I will settle for the way he called it that in a polite way. Nice job Judge Jones.

Re:Well

[Senior Frac]

A link to the decision paper (approx 310KB). I hope their server is up to it.

If not, maybe someone could put up a torrent?

Re:Well

[Anomylous Howard]

READ THE OPINION THE JUDGE PUT OUT

Got a link?

This sentence, which was inserted in an attempt to escape the "all caps" lameness filter should not be read by you or anyone else because it would be a waste of precoius time; which reminds me of a vingiet(sp?) from Goedel, Escher and Bach: An Eternal Golen Braid.

Re:Well

[PixelScuba]

I think you mean, "Intelligent Designer".

Re:Well

[ivano]

I've read about 50 pages of it and it looks like one of the defining documents on the topic. It also made the pro-ID (ex-)Board members look like a bunch of idiots and the Judge pretty much states that they lied in court about their actions over the last two years.

The opinion might just become the new FAQ at talk.origins. Very very lucid document.

Ciao

Re:Well

[Spackler]

My favorite part:

The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the
Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals,
who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would
time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID
Policy.

Re:Well

[MightyMartian]

My favorite part:

The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy.

It so neatly sums it up, don't it? All these protestations we hear from ID advocates, even on Slashdot, about how ID isn't a religious claim, all the "coulda been aliens" nonsense, all the wink-wink-nudge-nudge behavior of Dembski and his ilk, the whole dishonest, immoral show that these guys (half of which seem to think that science is leading to immorality) have been putting on is revealed for what it is. The Dover crowd did the best possible job (unintentionally) in revealing that ID is nothing more than a sneaky attempt to get Creationism past the Establishment Clause. Hell, the IDers couldn't even properly edit the Pandas book to better hide that it was originally Creationist propaganda, doing little more than cutting "Creationism" and pasting "Intelligent Design" in its place.

But don't worry, we'll hear the song about how Judge Jones is an activist (despite the fact that the man is a Conservative and an appointee of George W. Bush). We'll hear the same old lies about ID being secular. The Creationists are rapidly running out of room to shove their religious beliefs into, and yet I have no doubt they'll soldier on. They want a theocracy where their idiosyncratic Biblical literalism is The Theology and The Truth, and they'll compromise every meaningful Christian principle to get their way.

Touched by his noodly appendage...

[eldavojohn]

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the almighty spaghetti monster for all that He has done for me.

Not only has He used divine intervention in Dover but He has shown me the way! I await his presence in pirate heaven with the stripper factory and beer volcano.

Believe.

Re:Touched by his noodly appendage...

[TheLoneIguana]

rAmen.

Re:Touched by his noodly appendage...

[bk4u]

Ramen!

Re:Touched by his noodly appendage...

[Anonymous Coward]

Just to point out that FSM is also intelligent design....

Re:Touched by his noodly appendage...

[Inf0phreak]

Ramen.

Re:Touched by his noodly appendage...

[RatPh!nk]

Amen! Praise be to FSM.
From the book of Noodle Ch. 3 verse 17-19

Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the FSM your God must be put to death at the hands of the few pirates that are left, perhaps corellating well with the rise of global warming. Such evil must be purged. ...At the wrath of the FSM of hosts the land quakes, and the people are like fuel for fire; No man spares his brother, each devours the flesh of his neighbor, or a delicious noodley appendage, whilst the friend of the noodle can rest his weary feet in pirate heaven with the stripper factory and beer volcano.

So said FSM, so it shall be DONE.

Re:Touched by his noodly appendage...

[Tibor the Hun]

ramen to that my friend, ramen to that.

Re:Touched by his noodly appendage...

[BlakeCaldwell]

I too am a pirate -- arrrrrg!

Re:Touched by his noodly appendage...

[slavemowgli]

Arrrrrr, brother.

Re:Touched by his noodly appendage...

[AndroidCat]

Yeah, the judge is obvious an anti-pastafarian!

Re:Touched by his noodly appendage...

[Willis Wasabi]

BLASPHEMY!

It's not "amen", it's "Ramen!"

Re:Touched by his noodly appendage...

[Disort]

RAmen.

Links to more information:

[TripMaster Monkey]

Lots of additional coverage on this decision is available at The National Center for Science Education and The Panda's Thumb, and the full text of the decision can be found here (PDF warning).

From the decision:

Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Board's decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources.

Damn...what a smackdown.

Re:Links to more information:

[Moby Cock]

From the BBC's coverage: It provoked US TV evangelist Pat Robertson to warn the town was invoking the wrath of God.

Seems Pat wanted to see a smackdown of a different sort.

Re:Links to more information:

[Anonymous Coward]

The breathtaking inanity of the Board's decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial.

I guess what it all boils down to is the Judge determined that the entire argument was out of scopes.

Re:Links to more information:

[Black Parrot]

> Damn...what a smackdown.

Also:

"It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and
proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and
again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind
the ID Policy."

Re:Links to more information:

[Coryoth]

Damn...what a smackdown.

Indeed. However, given how strongly proponents of ID hold their views, and how much backing it has, presumably they won't tolerate this decision being allowed to stand. Regardless of the degree of smackdown, and the claim that the case has already been a signficant waste of time and money, I'm presuming it's going to get appealed. I'm curious as to what the dismissal of the school board in the recent elections is going to mean on that front though - exactly who would be doing the appealing? Anyone familiar with legal matters care to explain whether an appeal is likely, and how it would take shape?

Jedidiah.

Jedidiah.

Re:Links to more information:

[theodicey]

In the interest of balance, I would post a link to coverage at Uncommon Descent, the blog of Intelligent Design bubble-boy William Debski.

Except there isn't any.

Don't bother to register and ask him why, you'll get banned in seconds.

Re:Links to more information:

[Black Parrot]

> Indeed. However, given how strongly proponents of ID hold their views, and how much backing it has, presumably they won't tolerate this decision being allowed to stand. Regardless of the degree of smackdown, and the claim that the case has already been a signficant waste of time and money, I'm presuming it's going to get appealed. I'm curious as to what the dismissal of the school board in the recent elections is going to mean on that front though - exactly who would be doing the appealing? Anyone familiar with legal matters care to explain whether an appeal is likely, and how it would take shape?

I'm not familiar with legal matters, but I do know that the creationists on the school board all got voted out a few weeks ago, so it seems highly unlikely that the Dover school board will appeal. (One of the outgoing charlatans even suggested running up the surrender flag before the verdict came down, in hopes of avoiding the finiancial consequences.)

At any rate, if the school board doesn't appeal, who can?

Re:Links to more information:

[Shihar]

The smack down was pretty complete and thorough in this case. The school bored members specifically said that they wanted to teach ID for religious reasons. That in it of itself killed them. The judge then went further and called ID a load of shit. The fact that the bored members were motivated by religious convictions is undisputable. I doubt there will be an appeal.

What I imagine will happen is that they move and hope to find a challenge that they can actually defend. What is defendable? I have no idea. I will be amazed if an ID challenge gets as high as the supreme court before being smacked down in the next 10 years. Even if they managed to get it to the Supreme Court, you can pretty much guarantee that the Supreme Court would smack them down. The Supreme Court (yes, even the Republicans) take this stuff very seriously and will step on it regardless of their personal feelings.

IDs only hope is to conduct a scientifically verifiable experiment. I laugh at the prospects of ID ever getting published in Nature. If scientists record the hand of God, Zeus, UFOs, or His Noodleness spontaneously converting one species to another spices, we will all eat our words. Until then, the ID folks can expect to be laughed out of court and any scientific journal of any repute.

Personally, I hope they try again. Reading some of damning excerpts from this ruling makes the whole exercise seem worthwhile.

Re:Links to more information:

[IckySplat]

It's a pity that your joke will likely go unremarked
Well punned :)

Re:Links to more information:

[Gauchito]

I was hearing a discussion about this topic on the BBC the other day, and one of the panel members made an excellent point: the same criticism ID'ers make about evolution can be made of a ton of other scientific theories (in all sciences, not just biology), so why aren't those theories criticized as well? They aren't because evolution is the typical battleground in the cultural war between religious and secular US, not Relativity or Gravity.

Of course, ID is obviously (to us, at least) a euphemistic backdoor for the religious types, but his point, I think, is still a very, very good one. I know a lot of people who still waver in their opinion about the merits of ID (even non-religious people), mainly because they buy the attacks by the ID'ers. I've found that those people, however, accept their arguments thanks to ID's secular mask. Defending against every attack on evolution one at a time is a bad way to convince people, since you mostly just get them in that state where they stop discussing because they are tired of bringing up points they heard (or they don't remember any more) but aren't entirely convinced. Bring up a point (like the one the panel member made) that makes the ID'ers look like hypocrites, and any support for what they say quickly vanishes.

Re:Links to more information:

[Anonymous Coward]

The school bored members Yeah, I guess being a member of the board would get kind of boring...

Re:Links to more information:

[Anonymous Coward]

Pat's problem is that when he wakes up in the morning, he'll still be Pat Robertson, a total asshole.

Re:Links to more information:

[Alsee]

Bodyslam smackdown:

It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy.

He outright called them liars! I wonder if there's any chance to hit them up with perjury charges.

More:

We find that the secular purposes claimed by the Board amount to a pretext for the Board's real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom, in violation of the Establishment Clause.

And the coup-de-gras against the evolution equals atheism cranks:

Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs' scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator.

And for some in-your-face irony for anyone who attempts to attack the judge as some sort of leftwing atheist liberal pinko commie demonic-Democrat, the official US Court system website has Judge John E. Jones' biography which begins:

Judge John E. Jones III commenced his service as a United States District Judge on August 2, 2002. He is the 21st judge to sit in the Middle District of Pennsylvania. Judge Jones was appointed to his current position by President George W. Bush in February, 2002, and was unanimously confirmed by the United States Senate on July 30, 2002.

For once George Dubbya actually appointed someone competent to the job! Three cheers for President Bush! Hip-hip-Hooray! ... ... ...
Ummm... well ok... only one cheer for Bush :)

-

Re:Links to more information:

[Anonymous Coward]

ID is unconstitutional, but then again, so is the federally-funded education. The power to coerce a people into funding education for others was supposed to be left to the states to decide.

Re:Links to more information:

[necro81]

Another thing to consider, for all those who might raise the hell-cry of "Activist Judge!", is the fact that the Judge is hardly the usual candidate for a so-called activist judge. In fact, the man is probably the last person who would ever be given that title by the neo-cons. From an article in the NY Times from several days ago:

Now this political hot potato has fallen into the lap of a judge who is highly attuned to politics. He is a lifelong Republican appointed to the federal bench in 2002 by President Bush.

He ran for Congress 10 years earlier (he lost by one percentage point) and later considered running for governor. His supporters include Senators Arlen Specter and Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, and his mentor is Tom Ridge, the former governor of Pennsylvania and homeland security secretary.

Re:Links to more information:

[makohund]

>one of the panel members made an excellent point: the same criticism ID'ers make about evolution can be made of a ton of other scientific theories (in all sciences, not just biology)

Your entire post rests on this claim. But is it true? Explore and answer that question first (with examples, evidence, etc). Then you can move on to the followups you added to it.

As is, I could make a similar claim that "I heard a panel member say yellow cars rust faster and get worse gas mileage than other colored cars... so why do car companies paint some cars yellow, and why do people buy them?"

I'm not going to worry about availability and sales of yellow cars until their rust-prone gas-guzzling nature is given better credentials than "some unidentified guy on an unnamed panel said so". :)

Re:Links to more information:

[Shihar]

I was hearing a discussion about this topic on the BBC the other day, and one of the panel members made an excellent point: the same criticism ID'ers make about evolution can be made of a ton of other scientific theories (in all sciences, not just biology), so why aren't those theories criticized as well? They aren't because evolution is the typical battleground in the cultural war between religious and secular US, not Relativity or Gravity.

What theories are being taught that are like ID? Relativity? Are you joking me? You are comparing relativity with ID?

Relativity will predict the motion of almost any celestial body you can name. There are a few where (super massive particles) where relativity breaks down, but any class that teaches relativity will teach you that the combination of quantum mechanics and relativity produces impossible answers.

ID though? Ha! ID doesn't predict one single thing. ID predicts absolutely nothing. ID isn't science. When ID is able to predict a SINGLE thing, we can elevate it up to the level of hypothesis. Until then, it doesn't even achieve the level of hypothesis, much less a theory.

ID belongs at Sunday school and it should stay there. I don't care if you believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Zeus, God, Thor, or whoever the hell is the creator. Just keep your beliefs in your spaghetti bowl, Mt. Olympus, Church, warrior hall, or whatever. The science class is for science and theories.

Re:Links to more information:

[orcrist]

ummmm... I think you are attacking a post you would agree with. Read it again more slowly, he's not comparing ID to Relativity, he's pondering why ID'ers don't compare Relativity to Biology - so to speak.

-chris

Re:Links to more information:

[Pray_4_Mojo]

You know you're on the right track when Pat Robertson is damning you to hell.

Re: Links to more information:

[Black Parrot]

> > I was hearing a discussion about this topic on the BBC the other day, and one of the panel members made an excellent point: the same criticism ID'ers make about evolution can be made of a ton of other scientific theories (in all sciences, not just biology), so why aren't those theories criticized as well? They aren't because evolution is the typical battleground in the cultural war between religious and secular US, not Relativity or Gravity.

> What theories are being taught that are like ID? Relativity? Are you joking me? You are comparing relativity with ID?

I think you missed his (and the panelist's) point: the whole "it's just a theory", "you can't prove it", "teach the controversy!", "X is a religion too", argument from incredibility, etc., can be targeted at any science, but people only target them at sciences that conflict with their beliefs.

In this case, religious beliefs. I.e., biblical literalists will reject evolution, geology, the big bang theory, radioisotopic science, etc., because they all show that a peculiar set of religious beliefs is wrong, but they don't reject atomic theory, the heliocentric solar system, etc., which don't have anything to say that refutes their religious beliefs.

For that matter, they draw really fine lines even within fields: DNA based paternity tests are OK, DNA evidence for evolution must be wrong; our understanding of radiation that makes medical technology, nuclear bombs, and nuclear reactors possible is OK, but our understanding of radiation that shows things have been around for a heck of a lot more than 6000 years is wrong; etc.

If their critiques of the theory of evolution - however bogus - were truly heartfelt, why aren't they peddling the same critiques of other sciences that don't conflict with their religious beliefs.

Re: Links to more information:

[Black Parrot]

> IDs only hope is to conduct a scientifically verifiable experiment. I laugh at the prospects of ID ever getting published in Nature.

It has recently come to light that the Templeton Foundation - a group with a pro-religion agenda - has had a standing offer out to fund ID research, but they finally dropped the offer because they never got a single application.

Re:Links to more information:

[TheRaven64]

the bored members were motivated

Isn't that a contradiction?

Re:Links to more information:

[rjstanford]

If scientists record the hand of God, Zeus, UFOs, or His Noodleness spontaneously converting one species to another spices, we will all eat our words.

But that poses an unintentional ethical question of its own. If, for example, all kittens become nutmeg according to your theory, and I am a vegetarian, will He allow me to use them to season my words?

Re:Links to more information:

[skubeedooo]

I'll fill in some blanks for gp, if that's OK.

• If quantum field theory is true, then how come rest mass of an electron is not measured to be infinity? I propose a theory whereby God actually chose the value of m_e such that the universe will allow humans to exist.
• If the second law of thermodynamics is true, then how come the universe started in a state of such incredibly low gravitational entropy? Since the relevant laws of physics don't predict such a thing, there must have been some intelligent design going on. I propose that God purposely started our universe in a state with low entropy, for reasons that will only be known himself.

These were the first two that occured to me. If I.D. proponents were smart enough to understand qft and general relativity then there is no doubt in my mind they would say these sorts of things. Funnily enough, some actual scientists do say these sorts of things - and worse. Obviously they are not to be directly compared with religious nutters, but it's strange nonetheless.

Re:Links to more information:

[955301]

Which is why you're seeing federal funding cuts and tax cuts. The idea is to give people back their money and if the states see education fit to subsidize to do it themselves...

Re:Links to more information:

[tim1724]

If scientists record the hand of God, Zeus, UFOs, or His Noodleness spontaneously converting one species to another spices, we will all eat our words

I guess we will have to sit and wait for the Intelligent Designer (don't use the G word!) to turn a zebra into cardamom.

Well, I guess the FSM would most likely turn it into oregano or something similarly suited for use in tomato sauce. Yum.

Re:Links to more information:

[greg_barton]

...the same criticism ID'ers make about evolution can be made of a ton of other scientific theories (in all sciences, not just biology), so why aren't those theories criticized as well?

In a word, technology.

Most other well known fields of science have technological manifestations. Physics: engineering. Biology: medicine. Evolution of complex forms is not used in much technology yet. But that will soon change. Once it does the opponents to evolution will have about as much credibility as flat earthers have today.

Re:Links to more information:

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice, a variant on one of the best quotes ever, by old Winston Churchill.

To Churchill: You, sir, are drunk!

Churchill: I may well be drunk, but in the morning I will be sober, and you will still be ugly.

Re:Links to more information:

[Anonymous Coward]

experts testified that the theory of evolution ... in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator.

It is depressing that it was necessary to make this argument. If evolution did explicitly disprove the existence of any sort of god, that should not preclude its being taught.

Re:Links to more information:

[nanowired]

What is even more ironic in this situation, is that said judge supports ID.

Article didn't mention HOW it's unconstitutional

[Orrin Bloquy]

Not that I disagree with his judgement (which was echoed in Georgia after the sticker debacle), but...

Let me be the first to say...

[Tallon29]

Thank God!

Re:Let me be the first to say...

[zlogic]

You are not the first - http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=171719 &cid=14299846

Re:Let me be the first to say...

[mkw87]

You weren't!

Well (Score:3, Funny) by Moby Cock (771358) Alter Relationship on Tuesday December 20, @12:47PM (#14299846) Thank God for that!

There are some sane judges in this country!

[grasshoppa]

Or maybe the ID folks just couldn't hit his price.

Either way, I'll take this victory.

An important part of the ruling

[BushCheney08]

Something that the CNN article doesn't mention is that one of the judge's findings is that ID does not meet the criteria to be considered science.

From a Bloomberg article: In his opinion, Jones said the key issue is ``whether Intelligent Design is science,'' and said, ``we have concluded that it is not.''

Re:An important part of the ruling

[Anonymous Coward]

Jones said the key issue is ``whether Intelligent Design is science,'' and said, ``we have concluded that it is not.''

All opinions on the topic aside, isn't it scary that some judge, who is realistically accountable to no one and not required to have any knowledge at all of this subject (or any other), can make such a pronouncement and give it the force of law?

All you guys cheering for the ruling, what if he'd decided the other way? He'd be quickly overruled by some more politically correct (but equally qualified) judge, but still.

Re:An important part of the ruling

[Moby Cock]

I read an apt parallel for ID and evolution. It went something like this:

Intelligent Design is as scientific an explanation for the evolution of man, as Angels Bowling is as an explanation for thunder. Both are possible, but neither is science.

Re:An important part of the ruling

[LoaTao]

Oddly enough it seems that the Dover Area High School administrators agree. As part of the disclaimer on the Theory of Evolution the following line was read to the class: "A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations." ID doesn't seem to fulfill the "well-tested" aspect of thier definition IMHO.

Re:An important part of the ruling

[Anonymous Coward]

Something that the CNN article doesn't mention is that one of the judge's findings is that ID does not meet the criteria to be considered science.

That's a finding of fact, not law. There is no U.S. law that says what is science.

Re:An important part of the ruling

[Anonymous Coward]

All opinions on the topic aside, isn't it scary that some judge, who is realistically accountable to no one and not required to have any knowledge at all of this subject (or any other), can make such a pronouncement and give it the force of law?


You know, the idea that the judge couldn't possibly be right - because members of the judicial profession aren't meant to know jack shit about what they judge - is simply wrong. Any competent judge would be expected to familiarise himself with the arguments of the case (what constitutes science, say). Or is that not meant to be the case in the US judicial system?

Re:An important part of the ruling

[sickofthisshit]

He is accountable to appeals courts.

He bases his decision on the evidence presented to him in weeks of testimony by people who *do* have knowledge on the subject.

That's the best system we've got going. What alternative do you propose?

Re:An important part of the ruling

[X]

All opinions on the topic aside, isn't it scary that some judge, who is realistically accountable to no one and not required to have any knowledge at all of this subject (or any other), can make such a pronouncement and give it the force of law?

He didn't give it the force of law. As other's have pointed out, it is a finding of fact. Such facts are of course admissible in future court proceedings, but they can be challenged (although you had better bring new information to the table if you want to avoid a judge getting annoyed with you).

Either way, we don't have laws about what is science and what is not. This judge's statement merely makes the case that based on what was presented at trial, ID is clearly not science. Honestly, if we're going to let a school board in Kansas decide what is and isn't science, which has much more significant implications (since judges don't draw up curriculumns), I'm not going to get too upset about a judge making that call. Sometimes it won't go the way I want it to, but frankly I have far more confidence in the checks and balances in the judicial system than those in the school board system.

Re:An important part of the ruling

[MightyMartian]

Someone has to make the ruling, and real scientists have made their opinions known for some time. The judge clearly went with what scientists are saying constitutes a scientific theory and what does not. Behe himself admitted on the stand that if science were redrafted the way he seems to think it ought to be, then astrology would be a science.

Re:An important part of the ruling

[coolGuyZak]

I read an apt parallel for ID and evolution

apt-get install ID & apt-get install evolution

I don't know. seems like you might corrupt your system if you try that.

*ZING*

Re:An important part of the ruling

[General Wesc]

Didn't work out that way with music sharing in Canada. Apparently, when I open a filesharing program, connect to the network, respond to search queries asking for 'Modonna - Like a Virgin.mp3', and send it to requesters, I'm not distributing the file because:

• I didn't do any advertising. (Then how'd they know to ask me? No queries weresent until I connected to the network.)
• I didn't authorise them to download it from me. (Gee, did they hack my computer?)

And the US had that whole 'wiretapping' cellphones is cool, of course.

Sure, judges can research this stuff, but oftentimes they don't do a very good job.

Re:An important part of the ruling

[darkmeridian]

Science is not about proving statements but rather disproving them. ID proponents say, "Theories are just guesses. And it's the theory of evolution that we are against being taught as fact." But science requires a theory to be at least falsifiable. There has to be a way to prove it wrong. Statements that are: "Tails I win, heads you lose" cannot be science because it cannot be disproven or proven. So ID is not even a theory. It's a random guess no one can confirm or deny.

Those who moderate, can't comment.

Re:An important part of the ruling

[masklinn]

Nay, you'll get an error, ID is a virtual package and therefore can't be installed.

The only suitable package known to man is the creationism package, though.

Re:An important part of the ruling

[ClamIAm]

Angels Bowling is a JOKE, man. Well, so is ID. So I guess you're right. Never mind...

Re:An important part of the ruling

[dryeo]

I don't understand what you're saying. Its no different then if I left my door open with a sign saying welcome and a pile of CDs and CDburner inside. As long as you brought your own blanks and you're not breaking'n'entering its perfectly legal for you to make copies.
No advertising, you looked thru my pile of CDs and found something you liked.
I didn't authorize you to copy it, just gave you the means.
To me it seems the judge made the right decision even if you don't agree with it.

Re:An important part of the ruling

[General Wesc]

You may be right. I'm thinking maybe the problem is that I think of it as me using my computer when it's really them using my computer. The latter seems to be the judges position, but it just seems really weird to me. When I download something from sunsite.unc.edu, I'm _asking_ _them_ to send me the file. I'm not going onto their computer and using it to send myself the file--at least, not as I think about it. But it is automatically responding to my request, much the way a copier automatically responds to my pressing the 'Copy' button. (Actually, my copier doesn't work too well, but the point stands.)

(But are you using my CD burner without my permission? When I let people come into my house, does that mean they're allowed to browse through my hardcopy porn collection? I guess I'm authorising them to view my porn CD collection and to use the burner. (The original case the judge cited involved a lirary and copier. Probably used the library's paper too.))

Full PDF of decision here

[tpjunkie]

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2005/images/12/20/kitzmille r.pdf Also, this decision is unfortunately only binding for the dover area school district, not the rest of the state.

Re:Full PDF of decision here

[kmcrober]

That's not entirely accurate; the decision has weight in its own federal court, not school, district, which I believe is the Middle District of Pennsylvania. It would normally, and only roughly speaking, be persuasive in the rest of the Third Circuit (PA, NJ, DE, and the Virgin Islands) only. But these creationism cases are (thankfully) few and far between, so it will be read as persuasive and influential in all future cases on the topic. For instance, this judgment includes a discussion of past creationism cases outside of the circuit. That influence will be magnified by the scope of this ruling, which is more detailed than I'd have expected.

And evolution is?

[NotoriousGOD]

There is nothing to prove the fact the "man from mud" theory either. Show me evidence that I evolved from a fish or a single celled animal. You can't, therefor evolution isn't science. Not that I'm a protestant, or do I believe in a single and one god, but wasn't this country halfway founded on religion? Don't you think it should at least stick to the one theory they know instead of one they don't?

Re:And evolution is?

[miketkrw]

The fossil record provides overwhelming evidence of the the great tre of life Darwin described. Pick up a science book. To say there is no evidence of Darwinism is nothing other than total willfull ignorance.

Re:And evolution is?

[TheRealMindChild]

Relativity was never "proven". It is still a theory. It's just a theory that keeps on getting confirmed by experiment after experiment.

The difference is, I can SHOW you evidence of evolution. Walk into the Natural History Museum in Washington DC... there are plenty. Now show me ANYTHING other than babble that "proves" anything about intelligent design.

Re:And evolution is?

[Anonymous Coward]

ID is not a theory, per se. Science requires that its theories be falsifiable - that there is some measurement or experiment that may be performed to invalidate it. ID is not falsifiable, whereas Evolution is. While there is no direct evidence of Evolution, there are mountains of indirect evidence - same with the Big Bang theory, same with Relativity. All of these are falsifiable, but we've yet to make a direct observation that 'proves' them. That's science, and if you can't grasp that, then it's clear that the education system fails whether we teach ID or not.

Re:And evolution is?

[CountBrass]

Okay here's one for you: explain the eye. It either works or it doesn't. There is no evolutionary intermediate form that would function so how could it have evolved?

I don't disbelieve evolution but neither do I blindly believe everything the scientists tell me is fact That's rather the basis of science.

As an aside: did you consider that God could, by definition he's omnipotent afterall, have forged the fossil record? I think most Christians believe he's not like that and so didn't.

Re:And evolution is?

[Anonymous Coward]

Shut the fuck up you uneducated fuckwit

Re:And evolution is?

[CodeShark]

--buzz--

Wrong. Darwin's theory essentially predicts that the leaves on a given branch of the "tree of life" (your analogy, not mine, but anyway...) will change in response to outside influences such as survival of the fittest, et al. and these influences seem to account for micro-evolution 100%.

What it does not account for is macro-evolution, that is, the changing of one species into another at the chromosomal level by purely natural selection. Having not followed this very closely in the last 10 or so years, I may be out of date, but this is the missing link that would confirm all of the Origin of Species theory, and to my knowledge this link has never been found. In fact, the closest approximations to this have only occurred in laboratory settings where very intelligent designers have preset up the conditions for it, and manipulated a whole lot of variables to keep the randomness of nature from interfering and ruining the experiment(s). Which I think would constitute an "intelligent design" of a sort, though I am not embracing the whole ID philosophy by saying so.

Let me (and the rest of the /. universe) in on the secret if you have reference to any verified scientific publication that purports otherwise, would you?

Re:And evolution is?

[Anonymous Coward]

If the schools are teaching our children darwin's theories, and nothing else, it is being presented as fact. Sure, they say it's a theory, but without comparison, it might as well be fact to an impressionable youth. In essence they are teaching atheism, which is beoming a religion of it's own. Say what you will, but if they can't teach opposing views, then they should not be permitted to teach darwins theories either.

Re:And evolution is?

[Anonymous Coward]

The supposition that God is also benevolent would prevent him from doing something that only serves to trick others. (Not to mention issues with tri-omni beings).

Also, the eye isn't a great example. Cells with light sensitivity (found in some primitive animals) are thought to be the precursor to the eye.

Take it however you will, here's a snippet from Wikipedia (Do a further search on academic papers for parallel evolution of the eye):

"Despite the precision and complexity of the eye, computer models of eye evolution, developed by Dan-Erik Nilsson and Susanne Pelger, demonstrated that a primitive optical sense organ could evolve into a complex human-like eye within a reasonable period (less than a million years) simply through small mutations and natural selection.

Eyes in various animals show adaption to their requirements. For example, birds of prey have much greater visual acuity than humans and some, like diurnal birds of prey, can see ultraviolet light. The different forms of eye in, for example, vertebrates and mollusks are often cited as examples of parallel evolution, suggesting that the development of eyes through evolution might not be so improbable as it might seem. However, the development of the eye is considered to be monophyletic; that is, all modern eyes, varied as they are, have their origins in a proto-eye believed to have evolved some 540 million years ago (Mya)." (Source: Wikipedia's article on "Eye")

Re:And evolution is?

[Anonymous Coward]

Try a little research, a search for evolution of the eye turned up this link:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_0 11_01.html

...

Every change had to confer a survival advantage, no matter how slight. Eventually, the light-sensitive spot evolved into a retina, the layer of cells and pigment at the back of the human eye. Over time a lens formed at the front of the eye. It could have arisen as a double-layered transparent tissue containing increasing amounts of liquid that gave it the convex curvature of the human eye.

In fact, eyes corresponding to every stage in this sequence have been found in existing living species.

...

Re:And evolution is?

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't prove false something that is made up.

Re:And evolution is?

[rw2]

Not only is the eye not irreducibly complex, but there are many different kinds of eyes in animals today and in the fossil record. The eye most definately evolved.

Re:And evolution is?

[Nos.]

Okay here's one for you: explain the eye. It either works or it doesn't. There is no evolutionary intermediate form that would function so how could it have evolved?
Read up on evolution. Evolution is marked by periods of quick change, often considered mutations. If these mutations benefit the individual, it is more likely that the individual will prosper and produce offspring, thus passing the mutation on

Re:And evolution is?

[TripMaster Monkey]

Oh please. There are examples of intermediary steps in eye development throughout the animal kingdom, from simple eye spots all the way to mammalian eyes. Each step is fully functional and does what the organism possessing it requires it to do.

Here's a couple of questions for you:

If the eye is in fact designed, why does it suffer from the imperfection of the blind spot? Nerves in the mammalian eye actually lie on top of the retina, and where they gather together and plunge through the back of the eye to form the optic nerve, no light can be sensed. This is a design flaw any fallible human engineer would catch and correct...so what does this say about the superhuman Designer of ID fame? (And before you maintain that the eye needs to be designed in this manner, consider the eye of the octopus and squid, which is actually designed correctly (nerves lie under the retina, avoiding the problem of the blind spot).

Cats have eyes that can see clearly in what we perceive to be total darkness. Some squid have twelve different types of color sensing cells (as opposed to our three). Eagles have acuity of vision undreamt of by man. Bees and some birds can see into the ultraviolet. Pit vipers can see into the infrared by virtue of their pits (infrared-sensitive eye pits). Before you ask 'what good is half an eye, consider what good your eyes are to you, deficient as they are.

Re:And evolution is?

[beavis_kc]

'The Eye'...

There are single celled creatures still alive that demonstrate how the eye evolved. A light receptive 'eye spot' that functions on a very low level to allow the creature to orient towards light for photosynthisis.
http://ebiomedia.com/gall/eyes/primitive.html

This from a Christian who believes in 'intellegent design'... Your argument, along with the 'wings' argument, and several similar arguments don't stand up to scrutiny. Neither does the evolutionary time line stand up to mathematic propabilities. It's an open argument which neither side can prove right now. Doesn't explain how this Judge was able to make the call without proof one way or the other.

Freedom of Religeion != Freedom from Religeion

Re:And evolution is?

[IckySplat]

Ummm ...

There are many organisms that have light sensitive cells
that are not eyes, but may well evolve into them.

http://embojournal.npgjournals.com/cgi/content/ful l/21/14/3643/

Sorry,
Your next starter for 10 is ...

Re:And evolution is?

[TheRealMindChild]

The scientists you speak of set up the "perfect environment" because they don't have billions of years for certain things to "possibly" happen. Life itself is pretty hard to come by. It apparently can't be just anywhere. What is most likely is a set of criteria needs met (like the formation of amino acids) before life can begin. Maybe it failed a trillion times before getting going on earth. Who knows. The "gaps" in species (meaning the reason we can't tell what organism jumped to what) is likely two reasons... 1) Everything we see right now is a miniscule fraction of things that have been alive before. It could be that in a lot of cases the "intermediate" stages of said creature failed when an upgraded version showed up. This is certainly a strong theory of what happened when going from Ape->Man. 2) It could be part of evolution to start making radical genetic changes when the species is in danger or other circumstances. Maybe it failed a trillion times, but on the trillion and first, a good, large, genetic mutation took place.

Re:And evolution is?

[richieb]

Show me evidence that I evolved from a fish or a single celled animal.

How about the fact that fish and all single cell animals contain the same DNA that you do. Humans just have little more.

Re:And evolution is?

[Black Parrot]

> Show me evidence that I evolved from a fish or a single celled animal.

Ask your librarian for a first year biology textbook.

> You can't, therefor evolution isn't science.

Maybe you should back up and tell us what definition of 'science' you're using.

Re:And evolution is?

[pe1rxq]

Okay here's one for you: explain the eye. It either works or it doesn't. There is no evolutionary intermediate form that would function so how could it have evolved?

Classic mistake.... the 'I don't know how so it is impossible without devine intervention' excuse.
Science has already demonstrated that you need only a few modifications to allow normal brain tissue to become light sensitive.

And an eye with a few components still can give you an advantage over others that don't have it:
-Take out the muscles that move it around, you would have to turn your head to look at different things, but it would still be usefull.
-Take out the focussing stuff, you would only see a few things really clear, but when a large blob comes at you at high speed you might step aside while someone without this less usefull eye would get hit/eaten.
-Take out color, black and white tigers still look dangerous enough without the yellow.
-Take out the transparent stuff and place a thing layer of skin in its place, you would get even worse focusing but one could still see blobs moving around.
-Remove the fluid stuff and place the retina close to the skin, you could still detect sudden changes in the lighting.

Do them all and you are very close to the simple lightsensitive braincell.

I am not saying that is the way it happened, but I could think a possible path up in a few seconds without the need to drag some higher being into the picture.

The whole 'irreducibly complex' stuff is a joke, the being that is supposed to do that sort of stuff would need to be even more complex...



I don't disbelieve evolution but neither do I blindly believe everything the scientists tell me is fact That's rather the basis of science.

As an aside: did you consider that God could, by definition he's omnipotent afterall, have forged the fossil record? I think most Christians believe he's not like that and so didn't.

Don't try to use logic and omnipotent gods in the same sentence, its to easy to logically disprove an omnipotent god....
Besides the world was created last week including evidence, such as your memories, of the past.

Jeroen

Re:And evolution is?

[91degrees]

Really, ID should be quite easy to prove. All one needs to prove is spontaneous creation of a creature.

Re:And evolution is?

[pnewhook]

I find it much easier to believe in evolution than to believe that God went through this elaborate lie to trick us. I mean faking a fossil record is one thing but creating the universe with light already in transit so the stars would look like they're been there for billions of years?? Or creating the image of a supernova such that we would think that it exploded billions of years ago but didn't really?

Come on. Get a grip. I believe in God but I cant believe he's a coniving trickster that the fundamentalists seem to think he must be.

Re:And evolution is?

[NotoriousGOD]

I'm sorry, the word was "evidence" not "printed text trying to force a theory down my throat".

Re:And evolution is?

[cparisi]

Not true. Some eyes work better than others. Some creatures can only see light/shadow.
Some have eyes that don't even work. How does that make sense in Inteligent Design?

There are lots of things that seem impossible when looking at our small life span, but are possible when looking at 100s of millions or even billions of years of evolution. Lots can happen even from random mutations over that time span.

How about Cancer? Was that also Intelligently Designed? Why would a designer create cancer? Or why would they create an organism that worked in such a compilated way instead of going for a simpiler design?

Re:And evolution is?

[clonan]

You should do a pub-med search for "Ciclid" and "Lake Vitoria." They are an excellent example of evolution in action. We have directly monitored the creation of new genes in the species. The creation of more complicated life from simpler life if a very well proven observation. It is only the level of the concept of gravity in scientific evidence.

You are correct in saying that we have not triggered the spontaneous creation of life from non-living chemicals but that also isn't a surprise. It took evolution a minimum of several million years to get simple cells...we must expect a similarly long time scale to observe spontaneous bio-genesis. While we could go in and construct a living cell right now (given time and resources) that doesn't prove anything regarding evolution one way or another. All we can say for certain right now is that there are NO laws of nature or probability that prevent the creation of life from non-living chemicals spontaneously.

As for this country, most (but not all) of the founding fathers were religious, some very much so. But the constitution of the US (which is really what the country is) is actually the very first completly secular government ever concived by man. God and religion are not mentioned once in the constitution and in the amendments the only time religion is mentioned is when the government is told to butt out and leave religion alone.

This country is a SECULAR country that protects religion, NOT the other way around.

Re:And evolution is?

[Rei]

False. There are tons of intermediate eyes. From the simplest form, we have countless photosensive proteins. A simple mutation to a protein that triggers a cellular interaction can make that protein light-sensitive, and thus make the interaction that it performed before light sensitive. Thus, in a single mutation, a single-celled organism or specific cells of a multicellular organism can develop an "eyespot". Eyespots, of course, are very poor - they're omnidirectional with no resolution. Two lines of approach can improve them. For small animals, you can get multiple eyespots; as these advance, they become what we know as a compound eye. On larger animals, however, a protective sheath over it can, by thickening, begin to focus light, and thus produce different readings in different cells of the eyespot. There is a steady progression from there to a full lens. At the same time, there's a steady progression for the sensitive cells to retreat from the surface at the same time, forming a retina, and for the cells around the new "lens" (formerly just a protective outer layer) to produce more pigments to shield the retina from ambient light. Retracting pupils can then make the eye be able to handle various lighting conditions. Other evolutionary routes include adding various colors (to allow others to see what direction you're looking more easily - important for intelligent social animals), or even weird things like vibrating the eyes (useful for providing good vision in very small animals, like the jumping spider).

Every intermediate described above *exists*. It's not just theoretical, it actually exists in animals in the world. The eye's evolution has also been modelled; there is a continuous "up-slope" in visual ability by incremental mutations.

Re:And evolution is?

[seguso]

Okay here's one for you: explain the eye. It either works or it doesn't. There is no evolutionary intermediate form that would function

That claim (it either works or it doesn't) is false. And the reasoning has been disproved many times, e.g. in "The Blind Watchmaker" by Dawkins. There he explains how 1% of an eye can be useful in many ways, other than the obvious one (giving 1% sight).

Read the book, give it a try. You have clearly been exposed to sources of informations that are not impartial.

Re: And evolution is?

[Black Parrot]

> I'm sorry, the word was "evidence" not "printed text trying to force a theory down my throat".

Fortunately for you and your ilk, the judge didn't rule it illegal to deny reality.

Re:And evolution is?

[BorgDrone]

What it does not account for is macro-evolution, that is, the changing of one species into another at the chromosomal level by purely natural selection.

The macro/micro evolution distinction is no more than a human contruct, there is no difference between the two in nature.

Having not followed this very closely in the last 10 or so years, I may be out of date, but this is the missing link that would confirm all of the Origin of Species theory, and to my knowledge this link has never been found.

This has been observed, e.g. several new mosquito species have evolved in the London subway.
see here for more info.

Re:And evolution is?

[MightyMartian]

Try the molecular evidence, my friend. You fit in the same nested hiearchy as any fish or any single-celled organism you care to name. The evidence is overwhelming.

Re:And evolution is?

[sigzero]

The fossil record proves what exactly? It sure doesn't prove "macro" evolution. Not by a long shot and not by any stretch of the imagination. There is no fossil record supporting "macro" evolution. That is the "evolution" people argue about.

Will a species adapt its color (micro-evolution) to prevent itself from being eaten? Sure. Will that same species (or any species) radically mutate itself into a different species (macro-evolution)? Absolutely not! And there is no fossil record of that happening.

Re:And evolution is?

[NotoriousGOD]

Agreed on all points except that when the government mandates that a certain theology or theory be taught regarding science, or anything else, that is a direct rebuttal to religion, isn't the government getting in the business of religion anyway? My kid will learn that we are just animals, that we evolved from monkeys and never think a thing about himself spiritually. To me, that's the government getting ALL up in my grill on religion.

Re:And evolution is?

[Delirium Tremens]

Okay here's one for you: explain the eye. It either works or it doesn't. There is no evolutionary intermediate form that would function so how could it have evolved?

That's the argument of Michael Behe, author of Darwin's Black Box (The Free Press, 1996).

Here is somebody else's counter-argument (one amongst many).

"Behe's colossal mistake is that, in rejecting these possibilities, he concludes that no Darwinian solution remains. But one does. It is this: An irreducibly complex system can be built gradually by adding parts that, while initially just advantageous, become - because of later changes - essential. The logic is very simple. Some part (A) initially does some job (and not very well, perhaps). Another part (B) later gets added because it helps A. This new part isn't essential, it merely improves things. But later on, A (or something else) may change in such a way that B now becomes indispensable. This process continues as further parts get folded into the system. And at the end of the day, many parts may all be required."

-- H. Allen Orr
-- The latest attack on evolution is cleverly argued, biologically informed - and wrong.
-- Boston Review, December/January 1997.

Re:And evolution is?

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't try to use logic and omnipotent gods in the same sentence, its to easy to logically disprove an omnipotent god....

Lol. Are you serious? It's "easy" to logically disprove an omnipotent god? I'd like to see you attempt that logical argument. Sorry, man, it's as hard to logically disprove an omnipotent god, as it is to logically prove there is one.

Re:And evolution is?

[DigitalReverend]

You are comparing apples to oranges, Evolution != Origin of the Universe

Evolution is what has happened to species over time. Even the Catholic church will admit that, but what you evolutionist keep doing is equating evolution with how things began in the first place, and of that, other than the evidence of the big bang you have nothing.

Going backward in time evolutionists believe : Humans --> Apes --> One celled organisims --> Primordial Stew -- > Big Bang

Where as many intelligent christians believe: Humans --> Apes --> One celled organisims --> Primordial Stew --> Big Bang --> Let there be light.

Re:And evolution is?

[MightyMartian]

Look, if you wish to deny reality, be my guest. The fossil record isn't the only evidence for evolution, and in fact, over the last few decades, it has been eclipsed by molecular evidence, and that is very clear. All extant organisms descend from a common ancestor. Even within the ape family, chimps and humans still show that commonality, right down to the retro-virus insertions into our genomes that are easily explained by the fact that some virus infected a common ancestor of chimps and humans.

As to speciation, it is observed, but again, the key prediction of common descent, that the genes of all organisms would demonstrate that nested hiearchy, has been confirmed over and over again. The fossil record gives us a good idea of faunal succession, a key prediction of evolutionary theory, but you have been lied to if you think that it all ends at the fossil record. Perhaps it's time you ask the lying Creationists that you get your information from why they seem so pathetically unaware that evolutionary theory has advanced significantly in the last hundred years. Then maybe you won't come on Slashdot and look so foolish.

Re:And evolution is?

[Nos.]

But that's still not proof that ID explains how the world came into existance. Prooving something CAN be done does not prove it WAS done.

Re:And evolution is?

[Anonymous Coward]

How about Cancer? Was that also Intelligently Designed? Why would a designer create cancer? Or why would they create an organism that worked in such a compilated way instead of going for a simpiler design?

Are your questions meant to disprove Intelligent Design? Because they don't do any such thing. In fact, I'm confused by the purpose of your quesitons - they do nothing to discredit Intelligent Design... in fact, your questions are fairly ignorant... as they assume that anything that was "Intelligently" designed would always be used for good. Which obviously isn't the case - guns, atomic bombs, man-made viruses, the list goes on, and on. Just because something is not being used for good, does not discredit the fact that it could have been Intelligently Designed.

(And as a side-note, if you want to know the answer to your above questions, they are all addressed in the Bible.)

Re:And evolution is?

[Anonymous Coward]

Apart from the fact that scientists have in fact shown how a human like eye can evolve in stages (including showing animals which have an eye like each of the intermediate stages), your comment shows a total lack of understanding of evolution.

Evolved traits do not have to be advantageous, all they have to be is non disadvantageous (i.e. not get you killed). This distinction between advantageous and non disadvantageous is the heart of evolution. You can for example evolve eyes that don't work (and some animals in fact have these), as long as it doesn't kill you.

Think about it!

Re:And evolution is?

[richieb]

Lol. Are you serious? It's "easy" to logically disprove an omnipotent god? I'd like to see you attempt that logical argument. Sorry, man, it's as hard to logically disprove an omnipotent god, as it is to logically prove there is one.

Oh, come on. Too easy - proof by contradication:

If God is all powerful, can He create a rock so big that He himself cannot lift it?

So, if he can create the rock, but cannot lift it he's not all powerful. If he cannot create such a rock then he also is not all powerful.

Q.E.D.

(with apologies to George Carlin)

Re:And evolution is?

[ShortBeard]

It seems that we need to get the definitions of theory side by side.

Now let's be a little more accurate.
There is scientific theory and then there is just plain regular theory.

Why this is almost never illuminated so full understanding is attained I'll never know.

Re:And evolution is?

[ExKoopaTroopa]

they taught us that in secondary school biology class (speaking from a non-religious european country here). the eye evolved from a simple photo-sensitive membrane in worms that helped them detect openings to the surface, it then became directional and so forth (can't recall all the details)

Re:And evolution is?

[TheRealMindChild]

More like:

Humans --> Apes --> [pass millions of years... something happened but we have no idea what] --> Primordial Slop --> [Pass bunches of billions of years... who knows how many or what happened] --> Big Bang --> [We have no idea but its fun to speculate]

Re:And evolution is?

[shawn(at)fsu]

I love the Eye Argument. Like the eye is some all perfect organ. The eye, the human eye, sucks. You don't believe me? Turn off you lights at night and try to chase you cat around your house, see what one of you hits a wall first.

It's not hard to find examples where single cell organisms are found to respond to light check out this study about two ciliates. Then you can learn that their isn't one type of eye out there their are at least three different types of "eyes" Compound Eyes, Camera eyes (like the ones we have) and light sensitive cells like flat worms, so which one are we supposed to believe is the proof that ID was behind the eye's creation? It seems that these different types of eyes work for the particular organism that has it, that sounds like evolution to me.

Also good reading is this school science leason.

As an aside: did you consider that God could, by definition he's omnipotent afterall, have forged the fossil record?
Who's definition?

Re:And evolution is?

[cparisi]

LOL, good one... anybody have an serious reply?

Re:And evolution is?

[InsaneProcessor]

"thought to be the precursor to the eye" and "could have arisen as a double-layered transparent tissue" are not very scientific statements. As stated before. THERE IS NO CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE THAT THE ORIGIN OF LIFE WAS A POOL OF GOO THAT EVOLVED INTO WHAT IT IS TODAY. There is some evidence of evolution but not progressive evolution from nothing (or nearly nothing). If anyone is a real thinking person then prove that you cant throw a pile of sticks and some glue up in the air and it will come down as a glued together, perfect box. The nature of life, the structure of life, and the existance of life can only be explained as an engineering miracle that was created. PERIOD.

I will believe in any other explanation if you can show me the exact proof with an established timeline.

Re:And evolution is?

[Moby Cock]

Every change had to confer a survival advantage

Not to pick nits, but I believe that the prevailing theory is that changes that predisposed an organism to reproduce are the ones that are adopted by a species, not neccessarily the ones that aid in survival. Its a subtle point but an important one. I concede that many survival-aiding mutations may in fact imply great chance to reproduce but this is not always the case. Nevertheless, that was an interesting article on the eye.

Re:And evolution is?

[ndansmith]

TMM is assuming that a Perfect Creator necessarily will create a perfect creation. Assuming that God created the world, no creationist should claim (and few do) that the creation was perfect (as evidenced by all the crap going on in the world). It was good, not perfect. So in my opinion this whole "flawed mammalian eye" argument is really a straw-man argument.

Re:And evolution is?

[EvilMonkeySlayer]

Yeah, I remember watching a program about evolution (on the BBC I think) it included some fascinating insights into the development of the eye.
It also included one fascinating one about a fish (sorry forgot what it's called) that has eyes (lots of them) that not only can see in much higher detail than our own but also in much greater spectrums of colour than our own.
Fascinating stuff, apparently it has the best eyes around.

You'd think if (as the ID'ers and Creationists would) a greater intelligence designed us then why the heck do we get the two low resolution eyes!
I demand 8 eyes, the ability to see in more colour spectrums and greater resolution!

Re:And evolution is?

[rot26]

Every change had to confer a survival advantage, no matter how slight.

Uh, no. In general, every successful change should not confer a disadvantage, but there are a lot of mutations that are passed along that neither help nor hurt a particular species.

Re:And evolution is?

[Thangodin]

Okay here's one for you: explain the eye. It either works or it doesn't. There is no evolutionary intermediate form that would function so how could it have evolved?

Yes, there are intermediate forms.

The first is a simple photo sensor which can respond to change in ambient light, therefore detecting sudden changes which might be a predator of prey, detect whether the organism is in direct sunlight (and therefore easily spotted) and tell the difference between day and night.

The next is a photo sensor with some directional ability, which can detect movement in crude sectors. This can detect whether something is moving nearby, and give a rough direction of the movement. This is the compound eye of insects.

The next stage adds the ability to focus to some degree. Crude directional ability becomes more refined, permitting the animal to distinguish size and shape, and perhaps even color. This allows to animal to judge whether the moving creature is small enough to be easy prey, or large enough to be dangerous. It also adds a primitive pattern recognition to distinguish between different creatures. A june bug and a bumble bee are the same size, but you don't want to mess with the bumble bee.

The last stage is the type of eye that we have, which permits full pattern recognition, including depth perception with two eyes whose signals are merged to form a full three dimensional image of the world. This permits identification on sight of friend or foe, wounded animals which will make easier prey, food at a distance, and permits navigation by sight alone.

The transition from simple light sensor to the human eye is seamless. Each slight increment makes the proto-eye a better sensor, and confers a slight advantage to the animal. There is nothing mysterious about this at all.

All of this is available on the web and in books if you have the slightest inclination to look. What I so despise about these arguments is not just the ignorance they betray, but the profound dishonesty that underlies them. You can know better. You should know better. If you want to know the answer, there are plenty of people to ask. But instead of asking people who know the answers, creationists make statements like this on public forums, hoping to trick people who don't know. This is contemptible.

I was raised a Christian, and there used to be strong emphasis on honesty in Christian education. Apparently this is no longer the case. Instead, we seem to be plagued by people who think that by calling themselves Christians, they are above the very principles which lay at the heart of Christianity.

If you really want to impress people with your faith, start with a little honesty. No one is impressed by bullshit.

Re:And evolution is?

[why-is-it]

its to easy to logically disprove an omnipotent god

It is logically impossible to prove that something does not exist.

I agree with the rest of your post, although I think the PP is clearly a troll.

Re:And evolution is?

[Damek]

Every change had to confer a survival advantage, no matter how slight.

Even that isn't quite right - any change to a physical form that doesn't keep you from reproducing successfully can get carried forward and be further modified at some point in the future. Evolution doesn't require changes to be beneficial, only not harmful. However, probably due to the inefficiency of carrying around changes that don't add some benefit, you'd be hard pressed to find non-beneficial but non-harmful attributes to organisms.

Re:And evolution is?

[Fareq]

"because I lack the ability to understand an evolutionary system of a grand scale, I have therefore conclusive proof that God must have created the world... After all, everything too complicated for me to understand is just God's miracles"

Re:And evolution is?

[Anonymous Coward]

And that logical argument is the issue that most Intelligent Design supporters have with it not being taught in schools. A logical argument *just as sound* can be made for Intelligent Design. They both have circumstantial evidence (at best) and both, honestly, require faith to believe in them. There is no actual proof of Evolution, just theoretically proof and circumstantial proof - the same can be said for Intelligent Design.

Ignoring the Christian aspects, the Intelligent Design theory is just as logically sound as Evolution and if you'd be willing to research it a bit, you would find academic-debates all over the Internet that prove that both theories can be proven logically. The problem with this court case is the school district was religiously motivated, and therefore, their discussion of Intelligent Design was not being approached scientifically - but to say that ID can *not* be approached scientically is extremely ignorant and wrong.

Re:And evolution is?

[Gulthek]

Okay here's one for you: explain the eye. It either works or it doesn't.

False. Eyes can work partially, as yours and mine do when compared to those of an bird or feline or insect. Birds can see into the ultraviolet and with much greater sharpness than we can imagine. Cats can see excellently in darkness we would find blinding. Insects (and birds) actually perceive time differently than we do. What looks fast to us (say the frames of a motion picture blending into one continuous picture) they can see as separate states (frame, black, frame, black, frame, black). While we think that our fly swatter is moving too fast to see, a fly (generally) has plenty of time to see it and move.

There is no evolutionary intermediate form that would function so how could it have evolved?

There are hundreds of intermediate forms that we have cataloged and described. Do some research and you will be amazed. One could argue that our eye is a lesser form of others.

You see, evolution is not a progression to greater and greater abilities; but a reaction to environmental stress. In short, we don't have night vision, rapid time perception, ultaviolet or infrared sight because our ancestors didn't need it. We developed big huge brains instead, so we could analyze and exploit the world to our needs.

Re:And evolution is?

[Random Utinni]

To rephrase the argument of the above poster:

Okay, here's another one for you: explain gravity. It either works or it doesn't. There is no explanation in physics that explains where it comes from, so how could it exist?

I don't disbelieve gravity but neither do I blindly believe everything the scientists tell me is fact...

As an aside: I hate the logic of people who claim that just because we don't understand everything about something, that we should instead believe in magic. We can't explain what causes gravity, but all of the data says we're on the right track. Nor do we believe that God is running around, pulling objects towards other, larger objects. Evolution in biology is no different. No, we don't know some of the details about how some of the things developed. That doesn't mean that no evolutionary mechanism exists... just that we haven't found it out yet.

200 years ago, we couldn't explain electricity or magnetism either. But scientists kept studying, and kept experimenting, and they figured it out. Give biologists some time, and they'll figure out the evolution of the eye. And stop teaching kids that if something hasn't been figured out yet, it must've been God. Otherwise, the next generation of scientists won't be able to figure anything out, and we'll be back to praying for rain.

Re:And evolution is?

[CodeShark]

Correction to my original post. I used the term species, however, that is one level lower than I want, and I don't remember the word that is one step up. For example, there are multiple species of fruit flies, but they are all of the _____ fruit fly family -- that is the level in which I don't think there has been an observable shift across groups, for example, from a fruit fly to an insect that can no longer be considered a fruit fly, no matter how many generations.

Am I wrong about that?

Re: And evolution is?

[Black Parrot]

> What it does not account for is macro-evolution, that is, the changing of one species into another at the chromosomal level by purely natural selection.

No modern biologist thinks evolution is purely a matter of natural selection. If you knew the subject matter at the freshman level you'd know that lots of other stuff, such as sexual selection, genetic drift, and the founder effect, also have influence on what evolution produces.

Re:And evolution is?

[barawn]

The nature of life, the structure of life, and the existance of life can only be explained as an engineering miracle that was created.

That's not an explanation.

In fact, let's get completely specific. There's a decent amount of evidence to suggest that the planet was, in fact, created, and wasn't here at some previous time, right?

So how do you get from that ball of "stuff" (let's call it dust) to the world we have now?

Exactly how?

Saying it "just happened" isn't an explanation. Saying it "was a miracle" isn't an explanation (that answers "why" or "who", not "how").

What you actually want to say is that there is no complete explanation for how life formed. None. Nada. Zero. Zilch. Saying "it was an engineering miracle that was created" isn't an explanation. If ten million years from now, someone finds a clock lying around, and they want to explain how it was made, even if they (rightly) conclude that someone built it, that doesn't answer how it was built. Just who built it.

Likewise, knowing how something was built doesn't necessarily tell you who built it.

Stop trying to offer up "miracle!" as an explanation for "how". It's not one.

Re:And evolution is?

[pxuongl]

"If anyone is a real thinking person then prove that you cant throw a pile of sticks and some glue up in the air and it will come down as a glued together, perfect box."

What you have just described (and by context of your statement are trying to use as evidence against evolution) very exactly describes creationism.

evolution would be that every person in the world throw up a pile of sticks and glue, and then take wut fell to the ground and throw it back up in the air (some with only what fell, some with a few pieces left on the ground, some with more glue, some with more sticks)... and eventually, one of the billion people on the planet would have a perfect, glued together box.

Re:And evolution is?

[badfish99]

Actually, the evolution of the eye is one of the examples that Darwin uses to illustrate his theory in his original book. Have a look at chapter 6 of "The Origin of Species".

Re:And evolution is?

[Pode]

Last I checked, lobsters have roughly 2.5 times as many chromosomes as humans (119 vs 46) How come we eat them and not the other way round? More DNA is irrelevant.

Re:And evolution is?

[Abcd1234]

Or (a lot) less. The Amoeba dubia, a single-celled organism, has the largest known genome, at 670,000,000,000 base pairs. To contrast, humans have a mere 2,900,000,000.

Re:And evolution is?

[CodeShark]

The problem with your iterated items #1 and #2 is that no-one has found evidences of the "non-miniscule fraction" other than species identified as extinct which documents the so-called missing links in the archeological or geological record. Seeing that there are fossil evidences from the microscopic to the humongous level, it seems highly unlikely that there is this whole large body of undiscovered evidence which would demonstrate the missing link or transition into the "sudden mutation".

All I am saying is that Darwin's theory is incomplete at present, and like the theory of GR, there are problems with proclaiming it to be the be all and end all of scientific theory on the origins of life at this time.

Re:And evolution is?

[Fnkmaster]

"You evolutionists" means what exactly? I don't know any scientist who describes him or herself as an "evolutionist", this is a propaganda word used by theocratic fundamentalists who want to undermine the entire scientific method. There are two groups of people in this debate: those who believe in the scientific method, and those who don't. Those who do can have intelligent debates about the evidence, and those who don't have stooped to the lowest levels of mockery by draping their anti-scientific beliefs in the language of science to infiltrate school curricula.

There is essentially nothing any scientist can tell you about what happened before that "big bang". Or rather, before a few moments after the big bang.

So when you say that scientists stop there, all that means is they don't know what happened previously, or how it all got there, or anything about it. If you don't know anything about it for sure, and there is no way known to science to find out what happened there, then it becomes a matter of faith or belief. I'm not sure where you got the idea that many scientists don't share the beliefs that you describe as those of "intelligent Christians".

Re:And evolution is?

[m50d]

Evolutionary convergence. The way completely different species have almost, but not exactly, the same solution to a given problem. Overused example: squid eyes are almost identical to ours, they even have the not-quite-a-fixed-radius-curve shape of the lens, but they don't have a blind spot because the nerve goes in a different way. Or the fish and insects who have almost exactly the same lifestyle. That's the evidence for macro-evolution.

Re:And evolution is?

[TripMaster Monkey]

It also included one fascinating one about a fish (sorry forgot what it's called) that has eyes (lots of them) that not only can see in much higher detail than our own but also in much greater spectrums of colour than our own.

You're thinking of the Mantis Shrimp. This was the shrimp I was attempting to allude to in my parent post, but for some reason I mistyped 'squid'. (This happens to me all the time...I can't count how many times I've tried to order 'shrimp scampi', and wound up with a bowlful of tentacles... ^_^).

Re:And evolution is?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or, as I like to say, given enough dice and enough time, eventually you will roll a trillion 1's in a row.

Re:And evolution is?

[Anonymous Coward]

As Scott Adams once said:
If you have a room full of monkeys and type writers, given enough time you will have a room full of dead monkeys. Hint, it's worth feeding the monkeys once in a while.

Posted as AC because of mod points

Re:And evolution is?

[m50d]

Agreed on all points except that when the government mandates that a certain theology or theory be taught regarding science, or anything else, that is a direct rebuttal to religion,

Evolution is not a direct rebuttal to any serious religion. I personally know hundreds of genuine, serious Christians who genuinely, seriously believe in evolution. If you're going to say the government can't mandate teaching evolution because it's interfering with freedom of religion, then the government can't mandate teaching anything at all - can't teach that the world is round, people are free to have a religious belief that it is flat, etc.

Re:And evolution is?

[clonan]

The thing is I firmly beleive that religion SHOULD be taught in the classroom. Religion and spirituality are vital to creating a mature and responsible adult capable of thriving in society. That is, after all, the entier point of school.

But I balk at the idea of teaching that in a science classroom just as I would of teaching science in a language class or history in an english class.

Science is fundamentally a philosophy (Ph.D = Doctorate of Philosophy). The philosophy is that nothing can be known unless it is tested with a falsifiable test and adheres to occams razor. You must be able to prove or disprove something and when you create a theory the simplest idea that fits all the data is the correct one. Science may one day determine that god DOES exist. Because the ONLY way to explan everything we see is with god. (sound familiar?) However at that point we will be able to point to specific tests. All the current ID does is say we don't know everything therefore god did it. It is untestable and therefore not science and does not belong in a science classroom.

I am a christian, therefore by that belif I also beleive that god created the universe and us in his image...I beleive in intelligent design. However I also beleive that evolution is the best way we have found of understanding HOW god did it. I will stand right next to you shoulder to shoulder to support the creation of mandatory comparitive religion and moral philosophy classes in every school district. These are important topics and deserve their own class...we shouldn't minimize them by shoving them in with science.

Re:And evolution is?

[flosofl]

Then send your kids to private parochial (or other such) school. They will supply all the mythology you want. Don't expect me to susidize religious indroctrination with my tax dollars.

Re:And evolution is?

[AoT]

Ok, show me one experiment that can be done to prove ID.

Re:And evolution is?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's why you take the time to teach your children your beliefs instead of letting "the government" be the sole source of information.

Re:And evolution is?

[Anonymous Coward]

evolution would be that every person in the world throw up a pile of sticks and glue, and then take wut fell to the ground and throw it back up in the air (some with only what fell, some with a few pieces left on the ground, some with more glue, some with more sticks)... and eventually, one of the billion people on the planet would have a perfect, glued together box.

Or at least something closely resembling a box. Nobody's arguing that evolution results in perfection. And the human body is hardly an example of perfect engineering.

Re:And evolution is?

[jasen666]

I will believe in any other explanation if you can show me the exact proof with an established timeline.

And I'll believe it was all "created" when you do the same. Hell, you don't even have to show me a timeline. Just show me a being capable of doing it.
What's that? He's shy? Won't show himself? Well darn. I guess I'll have to stick to my fossil records then. At least they're not imaginary. SEMICOLON.

And you have obviously not done much(any?) studying of archaeology if you think there is no progressive pattern in the fossil record. One layer shows nothing. The next layer contains the smallest and simplest forms of life known. All the layers above get progressively more complex. There was no magic wand waved and suddenly we had fully formed animals. The most you could try to suppose would be that simple single celled organisms appeared from the magic wand. And even that sounds ludicrous to "real thinking people".

Re:And evolution is?

[masklinn]

Okay here's one for you: explain the eye. It either works or it doesn't.

Funny how that flawed and wrong argument rises every time ID is involved. Darwin may have said, 150 years ago, that the eye could be difficult to fit in his theory, but 150 years is a long time, and the theory of evolution has evolved a lot since Darwin, and explanations to the formation of the eye have been found for a long time.

Fact is, that statement is completely and utterly wrong, and an evolutionary path can very well be found to the current "superior" "top of the line" eye:

1. Many single-celled organisms (bacteria, flaggelates) contain tiny pigment granules that react to light by sending electrical signals able to alter the cell's behaviour.

   Some species of flaggelates are colonial, which means that they form "huge" colonies. One of these colonial light-sensitive species is Volvox. In colonies of Volvox, the individuals on the "sunny" side of the colony move at a different rate than the ones on the "dark" side, which guides the swimming of the whole colony... a colony of Volvox is a colony of eyes already...

2. Some flatworms (the most primitive worms one can find) have photosensitive cells on the top of the body. For some species, the whole dorsal surface is photosensitive. This primitive photoreceptor can be used for the worm to tell if he's (for example) partly or totally above ground, hence at the mercy of various predators. It can help him know in which direction to "flee" if he's partially above ground. Evolutionary advantage, keep the photosensitive cells if you have any.

3. Next step, pit a patch of photosensitive cells: not only are they now protected from abrasion, but the total surface of photoreceptors can increase without increasing the size of the "eyespot" (which would be the outer hole), hence precision improvement that allow for a much more sensitive light gradation (full light, shadow, night, ...). Such "eyes" can be found in a variety of mollusks such as Patella

4. If you surround the photoreceptive cells with light-insulating cells, the patches of cell become selectively sensitive to light based on the direction: ability to start discerning forms and movements. Nearly a pin-hole camera eye.

5. Although this primitive eye exists it has a poor quality and, worse than everything, the open "eye pit" is a cavity in which sand and dust can enter, as well as parasite, and the open structure may collapse. Filling the cavity with a clear gooey secretion that can keep the retina protected is an obvious evolutionaty advantage. On top of this, if the secretion has a different index of refraction than water (or air), it becomes a primitive lens and improves the precision and focus of the image, giving the animal more details and the ability to spot shorter movements. 2 evolutionary advantages in one !

6. Since a lens-like object is in place, the eye can be closed with a layer of transparent cell that covers the jelly solution and further protects the retina.

7. Then, a second (inner) layer of transparent skin may appear, trapping part of the solution with the ability to harden or contract (reshape), a full fledged variable lens is generated, not only further improving the image quality and resolution but allowing for much better focuses since the focus can be modified. The Helix snail shows such an eye.

8. The addition of non-transparent distordable cells around the center of vision becomes a diaphragm, allowing the animal to change the amount of light that reaches the retina, in order to handle from full light to complete darkness. Once again, obvious evolutionary advantage.

9. Hardening the previous variable lens into what we know as the cornea yields the eye of the Sepia cuttlefish, and a mere inches from the (very similar) human eye.

Voila, a ful

Re:And evolution is?

[Sarisar]

Download and read God's Debris by Scott Adams (free download from his website) he goes on about things like this. Major mind f*ck but a good read :)

Re:And evolution is?

[dr_canak]

"Wrong. Darwin's theory essentially predicts that the leaves on a given branch of the "tree of life" (your analogy, not mine, but anyway...) will change in response to outside influences such as survival of the fittest, et al..."

Actually,

it's more correct to say that evolution occurs as the result of genetic variation in species. Chromosomes and all genetic material don't "change" to meet the demands of the environment. Chromosomes don't magically combine in new ways because the climate gets colder. They change because biology allows changes in chromosomal mapping when one cell is "fertilized" by another. Those mappings that give an organism a better chance at survival, live to breed another day. Those mappings that don't improve survival simply die off.

This is an arguement that the ID folks use to try and incorporate darwinian evolution into their model. They have a camp that says, sure evolution is happening, but it's god's hand putting the chromosomes together in specific ways to improve survival.

No one, including Darwin suggested that genetics are "guided" or "designed" by the environment. Evolution is simply the product of the reproductive process with more specialized (albeit accidental) adaptations better able to live and survive in one environment vs. another.

just my .02
jeff

Re:And evolution is?

[Anonymous Coward]

You (and everyone else who believes in god) are retarded and should be committed at the nearest mental institution.

Re:And evolution is?

[gnasher719]

'' Don't try to use logic and omnipotent gods in the same sentence, its to easy to logically disprove an omnipotent god.... ''

Actually, it is impossible to logically disprove an omnipotent god.

Re:And evolution is?

[Anonymous Coward]

You are fucking awesome. Slashdot is for fags!

Re:And evolution is?

[Anonymous Coward]

Okay, I see the point. You can't understand how an eye evolves, so that means you can believe that there is some mystical supernatural entity who kills his son (in human form but he is still a god and thus lives on - we call that a sacrifice), won't allow himself to be seen or heard but wants all the attention, adoration and worship you can give, defeats evil with fire and brimstone, and runs the universe from a street of gold with chariots of angels as an army to defend against looters. Hmmmmm... I am going with the eye.

Re:And evolution is?

[stormcoder]

there is a class of animals that demonstrates, by itself, the evolution of the eye. many kinds lizards have a third eye on top of there heads that just sense light level changes and movement as well as a pair of very accute complex eyes. so you have a class of animals that have both complex eyes and a very simple eye.

Re:And evolution is?

[Anonymous Coward]

As a clarification, it's easy to logically disprove just about anything, as long as you've taken a graduate-level proofs course. Then again, I prefer the very simple and elegant proof of God often attributed to Leonhard Euler: "Monsieur, (a + bn)/n = x, therefore God exists!"

Re:And evolution is?

[Nicolas MONNET]

What it does not account for is macro-evolution, that is, the changing of one species into another at the chromosomal level by purely natural selection.
Here's a factoid I recently learned about.
Humans and chimps are two different species. Chimps have one more set of chromosomes. However when you look closely you realize than one of the human chromosomes looks very much (98.5% identical IIRC) like the merger of two separate chimp chromosomes.
Basically what happened is that, at some very specific point in the past, our common ancestors could not interbreed anymore. There you are, different species.
Please note that, for thousands, if not hundred of thousands of years, both species probably looked VERY similar, in fact much more similar than a poodle and a german shepherd, which are both canis familiaris.

Re:And evolution is?

[Sarisar]

Crap, should have been AC as I had mod points.

Anyway the blurb about the book and the download link are here

Re:And evolution is?

[masklinn]

And it's not a survival disadvantage but a reproductive disadvantage anyway.

As in, you know, an iron-furred invincible rat without balls won't help the next generation much.

Re:And evolution is?

[gardyloo]

I just find it ironic that you posted in response to "EvilMonkeySlayer".

Re:And evolution is?

[clonan]

silly rabbit mental institutions are for people who believe they ARE god not for people who beleieve IN god....I am sure you meant to say that :-)

Re:And evolution is?

[masklinn]

Except that a squid's eye (a fucking squid's eye for fuck's sake, that thing's only fit for being deep fried!) doesn't have the various mamalian eye issues...

Re:And evolution is?

[TripMaster Monkey]

Let me (and the rest of the /. universe) in on the secret if you have reference to any verified scientific publication that purports otherwise, would you?

Okay.

The HeLa cell.

Re:And evolution is?

[grub]

Wrong. Human and apes evolved on different branches from a common ancestor. Yours is a common mistake used by Creationists when they ask "If we evolved from apes, why are there still apes?!"

Re:And evolution is?

[richieb]

The point is that we both have DNA ....

Re:And evolution is?

[pomakis]

As an aside: did you consider that God could, by definition he's omnipotent afterall, have forged the fossil record?

If an omnipotent God does exist and has created the earth in the manner that the creationists claim, then it seems pretty clear that he must have forged the fossil record. But I figure that if he took so much care to forge so much evidence (specifically for us to find), then it's pretty obvious that he wants us to believe in evolution. He'd be a pretty mean God if he planted all of this evidence, gave us the intelligence to interpret it, and then dammed us for coming to logical conclusions about it.

Re:And evolution is?

[gcauthon]

If God is all powerful, can He create a rock so big that He himself cannot lift it?

That's a stupid argument. An omnipotent being by definition can do anything, including creating a rock with any number of characteristics. Whether or not the rock can be lifted is not a characteristic of the rock, but of the individual attempting to do the lifting. The question is a simple variation of, "can omnipotent being do X?" and "can omnipotent being not do Y?". Simple logic should tell you the answer is always no and presents no contradiction whatsoever.

Re:And evolution is?

[TrumpetPower!]

why-is-it wrote:

It is logically impossible to prove that something does not exist.

sigh

Nonexistence proofs are trivial. Perhaps the most famous is Euclid's that ``the largest prime number'' doesn't exist.

As for a proof against omnipotence, here's one:

All but God can prove this sentence true.

Omnipotence must necessarily include omniscience; an omnipotent being could just ``use its omnipotence'' to give itself omniscience. So, if we can disprove omniscience, we've also oh-by-the-way disproved omnipotence. And, it just so happens, Mr. Turing disproved omniscience with his little halting problem. Don't believe me? Then try this on for size:

Tell me God, ``yes'' or ``no,'' will you answer, ``no''?

(And do keep in mind that ``Will this program ever halt?'' can only be answered with a ``yes'' or a ``no.'')

You could also foil a supposedly-omniscient god just by asking it to tell you what you'll do next. Whatever the god tells you, do something else.

The modern theological god is essentially dependent on so many logically-impossible traits it's not even funny. First cause? Well, if everything needs a creator, then what created the creator? Omnibenevolent? Then, whence comes evil?

You might as well define ``God'' as a married bachelor and be done with it.

Cheers,

b&

Re:And evolution is?

[Anonymous Slacker]

Or, as I like to say, given enough dice and enough time, eventually you will roll a trillion 1's in a row.

That sounds correct.
One of the major factors that most of the simplistic "it happened this way because that's what I think" arguements on either side of this ID vs evolution debate fail to take into accout is scale.
Scale of time, and scale of the sheer number of organisms alive at any given time.

Here's an overly simplistic arguement to demonstrate this. Since someone above mentioned the evolution of eyes, let's just say there are roughly 10,000 steps involved in creating the modern eye. (for simplicity's sake, I'm just arguing 1 kind of modern eye)
Life has been around for a long time on this planet. Let's set an arbitrary starting point of 300 million years ago (well after the origins of life, but close enough).
Now lets say the organism we are evolving here reproduces once every 20 years (again, highly unrealistic, but close enough)
300,000,000 years
/ 20
= 15,000,000 generations
Okay, so we now have 15 million generations of the same genetic line to play with. Let's put a random eye mutation in every 100 generations.
15,000,000
/ 100
= 150,000 mutations

So, over the course of 300 million years, it is possible that 1 out of every 15 eye mutations is beneficial and carried on in one of the 10,000 steps to the modern eye.

And given the facts that most animals, humans included, rarely wait 20 years before reproducing, that life has been around more than a mere 300 million years, and that far more than a single genetic line has been carried forward since life started on this planet, I fail to see how "it's too complex" can be used in a valid arguement without being immediately followed by "...for me to understand in my short 72 year lifespan"

Most people who try to oversimplify the arguement forget one very important rule:
Never underestimate the power of entropy in large quantities.
I even fail to see why entropy/random chance, over the course of a couple billion years, would not be sufficient for even random chemicals on a dynamic planetary surface to comobine in the proper proportions to eventually find a way to reproduce itself and thus become life.

Re:And evolution is?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, but now who's being stupid?

Who said intelligent design had to create perfect creatures?
Is there such a thing as a perfect design in a changing environment?
Or would it make intelligent sense to create creatures which mutated to have a mechanism to cope with a changing environment?

Is not your argument the same as asking whether cancer evolved because it gave an advantage somehow? Is it not just a consequence of the mechanism?

I'm not jumping on either side of the fence here. I'm just saying that making stupid remarks won't prove or disprove anything.

surely this question can't be answered? Intelligent design may have simply involved creating the system on the Earth at that time and then allowing it to evolve from there. There's really no evidence against that. Or for it.

But let's get real about the science behind this and agree that there are some way-out assumptions having to be made in the science, and some huge gaps in the theories. Intelligent design is a reasonable starting point. It's just not a scientific argument.

Re:And evolution is?

[Tighe_L]

This web page expresses exactly what you just said. http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/einstein. html

Re:And evolution is?

[TripMaster Monkey]

I need not fear EvilMonkeySlayer, as I am not evil. ^_^

Re:And evolution is?

[winwar]

"Assuming that God created the world, no creationist should claim (and few do) that the creation was perfect (as evidenced by all the crap going on in the world). It was good, not perfect. So in my opinion this whole "flawed mammalian eye" argument is really a straw-man argument."

Oh, I see. All these imperfections in things too incredibly complex to have evolved is just due to an all powerful God who is just really lazy and/or indifferent and/or mean.... Saying it was good implies a tad bit more than adequate.... Sorry, but if you believe that your diety can create the universe that argument just doesn't cut it.

If creation wasn't perfect that strongly implies God isn't. That God has weaknesses. Perhaps God really isn't all that powerful. You see the logical progression here? That's the problem with using the bible as anything more than a guide. At best it is a book "inspired by actual events".

Re:And evolution is?

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with this paradox and your proof (which I don't deny is logically sound) is that it doesn't actually prove anything. A theist could respond simply by stating:

"If an omnipotent being can do what is logically impossible, then he can not only create situations which he cannot handle but also, since he is not bound by the limits of consistency, he can handle situations which he cannot handle." - Harry Frankfurt

And around the circle goes, both people using logic to prove their point, the entire time neither actually proving their point. Quite simply, when it comes down to it, neither Evolution nor Intelligent Design can be actually "proved" logically - which is why they both are scientific theories.

Re:And evolution is?

[Anonymous Coward]

"All extant organisms descend from a common ancestor."

That has never been even close to proven even with molecular science. You are spouting ignorance. He never said anything ended at the fossil record. However, that same fossil record should show at least some level of speciation via macro evolution and it doesn't at all!

I find it interesting that you lash out at anything that questions your world view. I am only pointing out the obvious. That there is no evidence at any level for macro evolution. If there were EVIDENCE it would put an end to any such debate.

Maybe you and your atheist friends need a better theory.

Re:And evolution is?

[Phurd Phlegm]

Except that a squid's eye (a fucking squid's eye for fuck's sake, that thing's only fit for being deep fried!) doesn't have the various mamalian eye issues...

Squids and octopus have very complex and specialized eyes. What "mamaliam" "eye issues" are you thinking of?

Re:And evolution is?

[MightyMartian]

I do love how you just handwaved away the molecular data and trumpted on about the fossil record. It indicates:

a) That you actually don't know what the molecular data is and why it points to common descent and

b) That you don't understand the place of the fossil record in evolutionary theory.

Some day you should actually read a book by a scientist. You might even learn something.

Re:And evolution is?

[penguinoid]

You're right. Speciation is even easier among plants (get one to double it's chromosomes, and it is a new species). However, when I think of macroevolution, I think of big changes, along the lines of gaining new body parts or cell types.

The macro/micro evolution distinction is no more than a human contruct, there is no difference between the two in nature.

Families and species are human constructs, and I daresay there is a difference between the two in nature. To take an example consider the mathematical series (1+1/2+1/4+1/8...) The series gets big enough to reach 1.1, 1.6, 1.9, but not 2.1. Just because we observe small incremental changes, doesn't mean that these changes will add up to much.

Re:And evolution is?

[cbiltcliffe]

progressive pattern in the fossil record. One layer shows nothing. The next layer contains the smallest and simplest forms of life known. All the layers above get progressively more complex.

To play devil's advocate here:

We redid the walkway at the side of our house a couple of years ago, with a patio stone walkway surrounded by gravel. At the time, the gravel was all different sizes, from tiny stuff barely larger than dust, to chunks a good inch and a half long. You could see all this stuff on the top. Since then, all the small stuff has disappeared. You only see the big stuff on top. Yet, if you dig, you'll find all the small stuff at the bottom. I haven't raked it, or anything else, it just settled because of gravity.

Now, apply this to the fossil record:

According to Genesis, there was a flood which covered the whole earth. Everything alive at the time would have been washed away, and eventually settled to the bottom. Small stuff would have fallen through the cracks between the big stuff, resulting in a layer which shows nothing (already there at the time of the flood), a layer which shows small stuff (where all the small stuff settled to) and higher layers showing bigger and bigger life forms.

Explain to me, scientifically, why your viewpoint is the right way to interpret this evidence, and mine is incorrect.

Re:And evolution is?

[Asic Eng]

but creating the universe with light already in transit so the stars would look like they're been there for billions of years?

Good point, if god went to all that trouble, he clearly doesn't want us to believe in him. ;-)

Re:And evolution is?

[hysterion]

It is logically impossible to prove that something does not exist.

Classic error. Classic counterexample (among many): a ruler-and-compass construction of the heptagon does not exist.

Re:And evolution is?

[AoT]

So if I do not believe in mathematics for religious reasons, that pi does not equal 3.14159..., then I can claim that my children are being tought LIES! and claim freedom of religion? If you really care so much take your kids out of school and teach them what you want; but you should not be suprised when they turn out in a less than intelegent way.

Re:And evolution is?

[Bazzalisk]

Ok, I wish I wasn't getting involved with this.

Your problem here is that the term "omnipotent" is not properly defined. One of the foundations of logic is a mathematical structure known as "Set Theory" (and no the word theory in this case does not mean the same thing as in "Scientific Theory" - but I digress).

The most common version of set theory (called "Naive Set Theory") is not self-consistent - it allows paradoxes, which essentialy disallow the logical idea of "The Law of The Exluded Middle" (nothing is both true and false at the same time) - and as such it is not mathematicly rigorous, and throwing around concepts like "Infinity" and "Omnipotence" is in many ways equivalent to this naive aproach. The more well-defined versions of set-theory (particularly "VonNeuman Set Theory") forbid the construction of certain "sets" (like the set of all things that can be done) and instead create the much weaker notion of "classes".

Essentialy I'm saying that omnipotence can only realy be dddefined as a limit condition, not as an actual property (ie. capable of doing anything one chooses as distinct from capable of doing anything).

Damn our imprecise human language!

Re:And evolution is?

[masklinn]

backwards retina (and photosensitive cells) yielding:

• lowered levels of light reaching the photosensitive proteines (the photosensitive cells are facing the brain, not the light)
• blood vessels and nerves on top of the photosensitive cells, further blocking light from the retina
• "black hole" caused by the blood vessels and nerves having to go through the retina
• low adhesion of the retina itself to it's substrat, leading to such thing as retinal detachment

Squids and octopus have "normal" (non backward) retinas with photosensitive cells pointing forward, which means that they maximize the available light's use efficiency, donc have any blind spot and since the nerves go through the layer under the retina to form the optic nerve behind it retinal detachment is near impossible.

Re:And evolution is?

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Just because something is explainable or natural does not remove it from being a miracle.

Re:And evolution is?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, they can even be harmful. As you said yourself, as long as said creature is alive long enough to reproduce, a trait can be passed along.

Take salmon for example. They carry a trait that requires them to find their way back to the spot where they were born to reproduce. However it requires complete self destruction to do so.

Re:And evolution is?

[Slashdolt]

As has the spelling of "definitely".

Re:And evolution is?

[cbiltcliffe]

So, if he can create the rock, but cannot lift it he's not all powerful. If he cannot create such a rock then he also is not all powerful.

Devil's advocate again:

Easy, if you consider the possibility that God can lift an infinite sized rock. You could hardly consider that creating a rock of infinite size is not good enough to be omnipotent, even if it's not "too big for God to lift."
At the same time, if God can lift the infinite sized rock, he can effectively do both.

Besides....you can hardly go using logic to disprove the existence of the God that designed logic. That's like using a car to prove that Henry Ford didn't exist.

Re:And evolution is?

[drinkypoo]

It's a stupid argument anyway. A mutation can give the ability to live in a new place and those who carry the new mutation can split off and go somewhere else. Living precursors are no counterexample to evolution.

Re:And evolution is?

[masklinn]

Just because we observe small incremental changes, doesn't mean that these changes will add up to much.

They don't have to, DNAs have coding zones and non-coding ("dead") zones separated by start/end markers. If a mutation happens that makes a non-coding zone coding or a coding zone non-coding, macroscopic modifications may be extreme.

Re:And evolution is?

[vertinox]

Okay here's one for you: explain the eye. It either works or it doesn't.

You know, I wish there was more thought put into the eye... I would really like to se Infra Red, UV, and maybe even be able to see radiation.

Re:And evolution is?

[varith]

Because the fossil record does not show "bigger and bigger life forms" in the upper layers - it shows newer ones!. In fact, your theory would require large dinosaur bones to be on the top layer of everything instead of in the middle layer - as they are.

Re:And evolution is?

[EvilMonkeySlayer]

*Looks carefully at TripMaster Monkey whilst sharpening a knife*...

Re:And evolution is?

[TubeSteak]

Didn't you RTFA?

Said the judge: "It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy."

The school board members lied repeatedly.
That would make them lying bastards.

Goes to show how strong their 'Christian' beliefs are.

Re:And evolution is?

[thesandtiger]

Here's the problem: YOU can't explain how it works. YOU didn't bother doing even a cursory search on Google or whatever to see if maybe someone else could. YOU didn't bother thinking about this beyond the "It's too complex for me, must be God!" type of crap that ID people put out there all the time.

I can't explain all kinds of things, but MY default assumption when I can't is that maybe someone else can, or, if not, maybe I can investigate the matter further. I don't just throw up my hands and say "God did it!"

Re:And evolution is?

[Alioth]

Well, firstly, who created God? If God can just exist, well, why not the Big Bang? Mainly, all attributing everything to God does is just push the explanation out a level - it doesn't actually explain anything because now you must explain how God came to exist.

The eye isn't an all-or-nothing proposition. For example, my eyes are defective. I need to wear glasses to drive - so I am proof that it is not so that 'the eye either works or it does not'.

Re:And evolution is?

[TheRaven64]

You may be thinking of the Faraday Christmas Lectures from the Royal Society[1] from 13 years ago. This series made the distinction between 'designed' and 'designoid.' An object which is 'designoid' has many of the properties of something designed, but can be explained without the need for a designer. This included a number of things, such as rock formations that resembled bowls, and one lecture in the series covered the development of the eye. It was particularly well done, since they had a camera which simulated the view an animal would have had through each stage in the evolution of the eye, and showed the evolutionary advantage at each stage by simulating the avoidance of a predator.

[1] Sadly, the lectures, along with the Society itself, seem to have diminished in quality in the last 5-10 years.

Re:And evolution is?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok... On last time for the uneducated:
Darwinian theories has seen many, many coroborating evidence over the small time they have been disected. And it is because of this overwhelming amount of evidence that we can for the duration, until completly diproven, advance that This is the theory that is the most applicable.

Id Beliefs are what they are: beliefs. And dont tell a very religious person that his belief is wrong because you will be burned at the stake (actualy happened, I believe). Thing is, beliefs differs from people to people, so you can't force them, in good conscience, to view beliefs as facts when they cannot be proven wrong.

I do beleive in some sort of god (not the christian God or the Muslim God) because I beleive there is a thing wich science cant explain : our conscience (or our soul if you wish), that thing that permit us to ponder what we are, where we are going and where we came from. To me this is the only clue i have of the existence of a god. But mind you, I wont teach that in a science class.

Re:And evolution is?

[TheRaven64]

Schroedinger's God can create a rock that he can simultaneously lift and not lift.

Re:And evolution is?

[Cro Magnon]

Unless God is really "Q" from Star Trek.

Re:And evolution is?

[Gibsnag]

Depends on the definition of a miracle... Hume, for example, would disagree with you on yours.

Re:And evolution is?

[Anonymous Coward]

What about the Trilobyte eye. It was one of the first creatures in the fossil record yet its eye is even more complex than a human eye, since it was multi lensed

Re:And evolution is?

[rahrens]

Our schools are not teaching Darwin's theories as "fact", they are teaching them as part of a continuum of scientific experimentation and discovery from ancient times to the present. Part of that education contains the definitions of scientific theory and hypothesis which should help them understand how we get from uneducated ignorance to observable theories. If there was a credible opposing theory about how species evolve, rest assured that our schools would teach it!

(Note: a hypothesis is an idea some scientist gets to explain a particular observable phenomenon. He/she then designs an experiment to test that hypothesis. Based upon the results of the experiment, the hypothesis is either upheld, or modified. Eventually, as more independant scientists test the hypothesis, it eventually gets honed to the point that it becomes repeatible experimentally. It then can be said to be a theory. Darwin proposed a hypothesis about the origin of species. Over the next hundred years, that hypothesis has been tasted, examined, modified and retested until it is at the point it is at today. So now we call it a theory, not because we don't think it's true, but precisely bacause its been tested and modified so much that we really think it is. It's just that scientists never call theories PROVEN, just tested and repeatable. There's always a change or modification that is proposed that either further refines that theory, or blows it out of the water in favor of another one that better fits the observable phenomenon.)

Re:And evolution is?

[Dread_ed]

"Young Earth Christians?"

That is what I am assuming you are talking about.

Unfortunately their position is as untenable as those of the ID crowd.

Most of them rely upon innacurate or easily misunderstood English translations of the Bible. Then they look at the geneaolgy records in the Old Testament to extrapolate unrecoreded history up to a known historical date. This gives them the age of the Earth.

Everything else falls by the wayside in their monomaniacal and myopic approach to the scriptures.

Unfortunately they don't even study their source material closely. For being such experts on the Bible, going so far as to attribute to God himself a devious nature capable of the silly things you mention in justification of thir supposed scholarly studies of the age of the Earth, the leave out completely the passages of the Bible that discuss how Satan was on Earth BEFORE the creation of the Garden. They don't get that the Earth was literally (according to the Bible) put on ice for a period of time before the creation of mankind, and that it was subsequently "cleaned up" in preparation for the garden. Not only that, but they seem to think that the state of perfection in the garden lasted for maybe a year or ten at most, though there is no literal reference to the time that Adam and Eve spent there. Being immortal at that time (before they sinned) it could have been quite a long time...

I always view anyone who is willing to attribute to God characteristics that the Bible specifically says that he does not posess (lying, deciet, etc.) with a jaundiced and circumspect eye. What do they believe in more? The Bible's characterization of God or their own mathematical calculations based
on geneaolgy that may be intentionally incomplete?

Re: And evolution is?

[Black Parrot]

> TMM is assuming that a Perfect Creator necessarily will create a perfect creation. Assuming that God created the world, no creationist should claim (and few do) that the creation was perfect (as evidenced by all the crap going on in the world). It was good, not perfect. So in my opinion this whole "flawed mammalian eye" argument is really a straw-man argument.

But it shows exactly what's wrong with ID as science: if we observe a biological feature that we think is 'good', it's because the designer wanted it to be good; if we observe a biological feature that we think is 'bad', it's because the designer wanted it to be bad.

It's utterly vacuous.

Re:And evolution is?

[cparisi]

Sounds like you are arguing for "Not-So-Intelligent Design" which implies a non-omnipotent being.

Of course, the beauty of "Intelligent Design" is that there is no way to argue against it. Any argument can be answered with "because that is the way God wanted it! Who are we to question his divine authority?"

I realize my arguments fall on deaf ears. Just having a bit of fun...

Any non-cowards care to reply?

Re:And evolution is?

[plantman-the-womb-st]

Since your post is in essence injecting religious belief into the realm of science, I'll go at this a different way than I've yet seen anyone else do it. I'll inject some science into the realm of religion

How Christianity Has Evolved

In the beginning of the Christian faith, Christians were a small sect of the Jewish faith that used the fish as their symbol.

Sometime later, a Roman Emperor adopted the faith of Christianity and help consolidate the faith's holy writ. He also helped give rise to the Papacy as a way to unite all Christians.

Sometime later, the concept of Hell (which is not a belief of the parent religion Judaism), along with many other pagan beliefs, were merged into the Christian.

Sometime later, Martin Luther decided that common people should be aloud to read the bible. This caused the first major schism from the Papacy. Many would follow.


How can you say there is no evolution? Your own beliefs are constantly evolving.

Your beliefs may no longer be relevant, if so, perhaps it is time to evolve ideas?

Re:And evolution is?

[ndansmith]

Let's shed the term "design" for a moment, because it is a distraction. "Design" is making people think of cars and other mechanical devices. If a BMW engineer knowingly designs a flaw into a vehicle, he can safely be called "really lazy and/or indifferent and/or mean."

Creation, however, is a better term. It likens the world to art rather than mechanical design. When a painter creats a work of art that is dark, distorted, and full of grotesque characters, we do not call him "really lazy and/or indifferent and/or mean." We term him a master. If an author creats a story with no conflict, no character flaws, and no danger, we rightly call him "really lazy and/or indifferent and/or mean."

I understand that the argument of the eye has a lot to do with mechanics, and seemingly less to do with design. But what I am addressing is whether or not it is valid to believe that a perfect God could create imperfect creatures. This is an issue which is meant more for philosophy and theology and less for science (I agree ID should not be taught in schools). I believe that it is possible (and indeed true) that a perfect God created imperfect creatures, and I hope that my painting/writing analogy has you understand how I can hold this belief.

He's not a tame lion, but he is good.

Re:And evolution is?

[Marxist Hacker 42]

True enough. Mine is based on a study of that definition of miracles, the Roman Catholic Church, and about 2000 years worth of tribunals naming Saints. A good example is the patron saint of children- St. Nicholas himself. While some of the miracles attributed to him have no explaination, one of the two he was named a saint for is doable by anybody with money (saving girls from being sold into slavery by throwing their dowry price through the window at Christmas time).

Miracles are very much in the eye of the beneficiary, just as beauty is in the eye of the beholder; whether the fortuneate coincidence has a natural, scientific, or supernatural explaination OR NOT makes no difference to the beneficiary of the miracle. Hume, not having experienced any miracles he could explain, simply didn't understand this.

Re:And evolution is?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, on a long enough timescale (billions of years) if you keep throwing that up in the air, eventually YES you will have that fully assembled box.

Re: And evolution is?

[ndansmith]

For the record, I do not think that ID should be taught in schools. I was pointing out that TMM's argument against ID based on imperfections in the human eye is invalid because it is a straw-man argument (few or no creationists hold that God's creation must be perfect because he is perfect) and because I question the logic that a perfect Creator must necessarily create a perfect universe. See my other post here: http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=171719 &cid=14302272

Re:And evolution is?

[Ayanami Rei]

Because then you would have bone and tooth fragments all at the bottom from the animals at the top. We don't see that currently... bits that are clearly from the same animal tend to "stay together" (some lateral deflection is to be expected... imagine an animal dying in a stream or bones moved by a glacier).

Re:And evolution is?

[affliction]

As an aside: did you consider that God could, by definition he's omnipotent afterall, have forged the fossil record? I think most Christians believe he's not like that and so didn't.

So, God's a liar now?

Re:And evolution is?

[Alsee]

species, however, that is one level lower than I want, and I don't remember the word that is one step up.

The word is Genus. Kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, species.

However the "levels" are completely artifical groupings made up by man. There is no real biological distiction between the levels. The decent of life is like a branching tree, and we simply picked out effectively random branch points that were convient. We simply picked out one semi-random branch point and called it insecta, and everything on the sub-tree below that common branch gets called an insect. We picked out another semi-random branch point and called it mammalia, and everything on the sub-tree below that common branch gets called a mammal.

from a fruit fly to an insect that can no longer be considered a fruit fly

Depending on how we interpret the question, what you are asking for is either impossible, or it would simply take a Very Long Time.

For example there is the family Felidae which covers all "cats". Lions, tigers, housecats, panthers, lynx, pumas, they are all "cats" and they can NEVER evolve into a fish or bat or insect. No matter how many generations you go a decendant of a cat will still always be in the Felidae family... wil will still be a "cat". So in that sense a fruit flay can never evolve into anything other than "fruit fly".

On the other hand given enough time any species can diverge arbitrarily far and look like anything. One branch of mammals... a squirrel-like creature... evolved into bats. Bats look and act a lot like birds, but they will never become birds. Another branch of mammals... a hippo-like creature... evolved into whales and dolphins. They look and act a lot like fish, but they can never become fish.

So given enough time a single species of fruit flies could diverge to produce the same range of diversity we new see decended from the single original species of insect. It's simply a matter of accumulating more and more "micro-evolutions". Over the course of decades or a few centuries one species can maybe split into two or three very similar species. However evolution as a whole has taken about three-and-a-half billion years to produce the current range of diversity. It takes several millions of years of spreading to reach the difference between housecats and lions and panthers.

The fossil record shows these sorts of "accumulating microevolutions" beautifully. We have fossils of feathered dinosaurs and then of dinosaurs with claws on the ends of their primative wings and with dinosaur skulls and dinosaur feet and dinosaur spinal structure and dinosaur ribcages and dinosaur jaws heavy dinosaur bones and a list of maybe a hundred specific micro-anotomical features... and we have beautiful sequences of fossils where each of those aspects undergoes "micro-change" almost one-by-one in perfect date sequence. I don't recall the exact order, but one by one microfeatures appear in a string up to modern birds. One of the first things to go was the claws on the tips of the crude wings, and naturally the wings improved. Then they evolved the single toe pointing backwards on the feet, to be able to grasp branches and perch in trees. And then there was a step where the attachment between the spine and the skull reversed direction. And they grew a special keel bone of the chest to anchor poweful flight muscles. And the teeth changes and then dissappeared. And one of the late changes in the sequence is the appearance of bird beaks.

Each change is fairly "micro", but they provide a perfect transition sequence between dinosaurs to primative birds to modern birds, and only a handful of the hundred-or-so microfeatures either appear or dissappear at each step in the fossil sequence.

The entire fossil record is laid out like that, with more sample points in some areas than in others.

But the genetic evidence of the last two decades or so is actually far more powerful than even the fossil record. All of the genetic anal

Re:And evolution is?

[Redwin]

Okay here's one for you: explain the eye. It either works or it doesn't.

Too bad I can't mod you up, so here is another one for your list, anyone here wear glasses or contact lenses?

Re:And evolution is?

[Dster76]

Explain to me, scientifically, why your viewpoint is the right way to interpret this evidence, and mine is incorrect.

I know you weren't addressing me (perhaps the second person is not the best voice for slashdot), but here's your answer:

His viewpoint has something to do with a science, whereas yours doesn't.

This is a website that, run through volunteers, has put together basic information on something called "Sedimentology" in which really smart folks, instead of staring at their driveways, lawns, etc., use a really neat method for figuring out how our planet's surface settles over time.

I know this sounds elitist, but I'd hate to think all those advanced degrees those sedimentologists could be replaced by a little home improvement.

Re:And evolution is?

[why-is-it]

although I think the PP is clearly a troll.

sed 's/PP/GPP/'

Re:And evolution is?

[Wabin]

Or, as I like to say, given enough dice and enough time, eventually you will roll a trillion 1's in a row.

True enough. But just to extend the analogy. Given a bunch less time, you could roll a trillion 1ss or a trillion 2s or a trillion 3s, or 200 million series of 12345, or 24682468, or 54321...

ID never wants to acknowledge the fact that we, as humans, are very good at finding patterns and design even in random noise. I would like to see them actually define design, and how to recognize it unambiguously. Then we can start to talk about whether things are designed. There is a much longer argument here, but I'm late to the discussion, so nobody will read this...

Re:And evolution is?

[Alsee]

did you consider that God could, by definition he's omnipotent afterall, have forged the fossil record?

Of corse it's possible.

However the initial axiom you must assume for any meaningfull communication at all, is that we are not being actively decieved by a malicious lying God. Without that axiom, there is no reason to accept that anything you see or hear is valid. No reason to accept that you are even talking to another actual person. No reason to accept even your memories - which could have been manufactured and planted a millionth of a second ago.

The moment you open your mouth to communicate with another person (or tap a key to write a post), the FIRST axiom you MUST accept for meaningfull communication and discussion of anything is the assumption that you are not being deliberately decieved by a liying malicious God.

And besides... lets assume God did plant false evidence to trick us into beleiving evolution... the usual assumption is that God supposedly has good reasons for whatever he does, so doesn't that mean we should believe whatever it is that God worked so hard to make us believe? A purely comical argument I admit, but none the less a valid one if someone really does try to claim some benevolent God planted fraudulent fossil evidence.

-

Re:And evolution is?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your analogies seem to suggest that the world is a bit of entertainment that God created to while away a lazy eternity. Sure, if that's what you believe.

Even if there's a distinction between creation and design, that doesn't mean we can't judge a creation. One grotesque and distorted artwork can be less compelling than another; one story can be more thrilling than a second. If there's something unsatisfactory in a creation, we can always conclude that either the creator had conflicting motivations, or fell short of the ideal. Looking at the world, it seems safe to conclude that any creator either wasn't guided by the most basic moral standards most people subscribe to, or was and botched it.

Re:And evolution is?

[GWBasic]

I find it disgusting that people attribute charachterists to God so that they create a false God to suit their needs.

In the past, I've been able to help creationists accept evolution with a simple sentence: "If God is all powerful, and has an infinate amount of time, certainly he can create the laws of probability such that we will evolve to be exactly what he wants us to be."

Re:And evolution is?

[DeepDarkSky]

For a small percent of the human population, they can sense 4 different types of colors - they are called tetrachromats.

Re:And evolution is?

[Anonymous Coward]

You have documentation that proves this has happened? let darwin know, since he refuted his discoveries, not to mention all the other scientists that don't know how to prove it. (a little help, find a mutation in the real world that has actually stuck.) Even in radition in biology class to modify the fruit fly, they never spread to the next generation.

Re:And evolution is?

[leabre]

Interesting, but the species are still mosquitos, they didn't become frogs or blu-jays, or grow gills or learn to spin webs, or change phylum. In the end, they're still mosquitos.

As a believer in Creationism, I will first admit, I'm firm to believe that species change and more or less, "adapt" to their environments, out of need for survival.

Think of a computer programmer. We create an object, and derive other objects from it, thus "inheriting" a certain behavior. Who's to say that God didn't create a common DNA for certain species, and derive more specific species from that base DNA, because it works so well? Why reinvent the wheel...? I've heard some point out some details about why certain design characteristics of humans are inefficient, but who's to say, if in 100 years, we actually learn that they are quite efficient for their purpose?

In any case, as I stated, the new mosquitos are still mosquitos and not some other creature.

Thanks,
Leabre

Re:And evolution is?

[SnarfQuest]

I will believe in any other explanation if you can show me the exact proof with an established timeline.

And, if you cannot show me, without any discrepencies, the evolution of the PC you used to post your message, then I will believe that it was created by giant space monkeys. These are the same giant space monkeys that created you 3:37 PM yesterday, with the belief that the world was created in 4004 BC by a hairy fairy with his magic wand.

I will believe in any other explanation if you can show me the exact proof with an established timeline. It must cover every single component used in your computer, and you must also prove that none of the information was faked by the giant space monkeys.

Re:And evolution is?

[Noehre]

You probably won't "accept" "my" "tainted" "science" "either" "but" here it is anyway. I'll leave it as an exercise to the listener to map out the increasing levels of variation among DNA sequences through the various evolutionary branches of the organismal kingdoms. Bonus points for finding highly conserved sequences that relate to core protein functionality.

BLAST Results

Sequence 1 gi 28178824 Homo sapiens isocitrate dehydrogenase 1 (NADP+), soluble (IDH1), mRNA Length 2339
Sequence 2 gi 57116681 Mycobacterium tuberculosis H37Rv, complete genome

Identities = 156/212 (73%)

Re:And evolution is?

[Dster76]

And, it just so happens, Mr. Turing disproved omniscience with his little halting problem. Don't believe me? Then try this on for size:

Tell me God, ``yes'' or ``no,'' will you answer, ``no''?

(And do keep in mind that ``Will this program ever halt?'' can only be answered with a ``yes'' or a ``no.'')

Hmm.. I'm with you on the rest of that stuff, but you lost me there. Are you supposing that God is recursive, and therefore his solving the halting problem leads to a contradiction?

Re:And evolution is?

[NotoriousGOD]

I'm not Christian and I don't believe in god. My point was that who's right is it to say that we can only teach one theory?

Re: And evolution is?

[Black Parrot]

> And, it just so happens, Mr. Turing disproved omniscience with his little halting problem.

Actually he didn't. He proved that there's no algorithm that can determine whether any arbitrary computer program will halt. The question of whether magical or oracular methods might answer the question are outside the scope of the theory of computation.

Re:And evolution is?

[Bazzalisk]

I believe in God but I cant believe he's a coniving trickster that the fundamentalists seem to think he must be.

Coyote, Loki, Eris, ... YHWH?

Re:And evolution is?

[ghost_world]

Unless of course, the rat in question is a functional female ;-)

Re:And evolution is?

[why-is-it]

Nonexistence proofs are trivial.

That might be true in the realm of mathematics, but with maths you are dealing with very well-defined sets. Elsewhere, proof by contradiction is hardly trivial.

Admittedly, I did not make that point crystal clear in my (brief) post, but I was thinking specifically about philosphical matters.

All but God can prove this sentence true.

I'm sorry, but that statement does not "prove" anything. Sophistry is useful for entertainment and scoring cheap points, but it doesn't add anything of substance to the debate.

I was thinking more along the lines of a formal proof and your example does not qualify.

Mr. Turing disproved omniscience with his little halting problem.

Actually, the halting program is undecidable over Turning machines. I don't think the example has anything to do with onmiscience or omnipotence, other than to demonstrate that a Turing machine is neither.

You could also foil a supposedly-omniscient god just by asking it to tell you what you'll do next. Whatever the god tells you, do something else.

This is not a logical argument either.

First cause? Well, if everything needs a creator, then what created the creator? Omnibenevolent? Then, whence comes evil?

Those are interesting questions, and it is reasonable to assume that people have been debating such issues for thousands of years, and we haven't reached any universal conclusions yet.

All I did was point out that it is not logically possible to prove that something (outside of the realm of mathematics) does not exist.

I cannot logically prove that hobbits do not exist. I cannot logically prove that the FSM (and his noodly appendage) does not exist. I cannot logically prove that unicorns do not exist - regardless whether any of those examples exist or not. When you get into philosophical matters, it is even more complicated because everything rides on your definitions and axioms.

That's all I wanted to point out. I do hope you feel better after having vented your spleen though.

Re:And evolution is?

[Anonymous Coward]

You could also foil a supposedly-omniscient god just by asking it to tell you what you'll do next. Whatever the god tells you, do something else.

Man: If you're so powerful, tell me what I'm going to do next!
God: You're going to do something other than what I predict.
Man: Fuck!

Re:And evolution is?

[BorgDrone]

Families and species are human constructs, and I daresay there is a difference between the two in nature.

Yes they are, and yes there is. It's all just a definition thing, families and species are different because they wouldn't have been called that way if they were the same. Meanwhile back in the real world, nature doesn't care if we call something a species or a family. The problem is, these are all abstractions, meant to make things manageble for our brains. In reality there are no species, there are no families, there is no micro or macro evolution. There's just billions and billions of individual beings, and really, they aren't really there either, they also are an abstraction made by our wonderful minds. Go find a nearby human and study him/her closely, you percieve him/her as a human being, while in reality it's just a couple of gazillion cells working together, trying to survive.

This is how we humans deal with the real world, we categorize things, we put stuff in imaginary boxes and label them. The same goes for evolution, it's just a model, a simplified representation of reality, so our brain can cope with the enormous complex stuff that happens in nature, nothing more and nothing less. There is no universal rulebook which says animals should evolve such-and-such, it's just what happends, it's an emergent property, evolution tries to describe what happens, approximately.

And you're right in saying that small incremental changes don't have to add up to much. In fact, mostly they don't. Most of the time the changes don't do much, of the changes that do something, most are harmful. But sometimes, just once in a while, a change is beneficial, and that individual might have a slight advantage over the rest of the population which makes the benificial set of genes spread slightly better than than the rest. All of this isn't really making a difference, until you repeat it a gazillion times, which nature does. A tiny chance for an improvement becomes a pretty good chance if you have a billion times a billion tries at it. A slightly better performance in reproducing if you have a certain gene starts adding up if you do it for a million years. Ofcourse, if you have a big advantage (as in the case of the 'peppered moth') you don't need a million years.

It all comes down to statistics.

Re:And evolution is?

[chihowa]

Quite simply, when it comes down to it, neither Evolution nor Intelligent Design can be actually "proved" logically - which is why they both are scientific theories.

So your definition of a scientific theory is something which cannot "be actually 'proved' logically"? That's a pretty broad and useless definition, not to mention that it is not the generally accepted one.

Re:And evolution is?

[TrumpetPower!]

Dster76 wrote:

TrumpetPower! wrote:

And, it just so happens, Mr. Turing disproved omniscience with his little halting problem. Don't believe me? Then try this on for size:

Tell me God, ``yes'' or ``no,'' will you answer, ``no''?

(And do keep in mind that ``Will this program ever halt?'' can only be answered with a ``yes'' or a ``no.'')

Hmm.. I'm with you on the rest of that stuff, but you lost me there. Are you supposing that God is recursive, and therefore his solving the halting problem leads to a contradiction?

I'm just pointing out that it's perfectly reasonable to ask ``yes'' or ``no'' questions of ``God.''

Or, if you're not sure of the significance of the ditty, think of what either answer means.

Cheers,

b&

Re:And evolution is?

[Fujisawa Sensei]

ID Proves that God does not exist.

God could, by definition he's omnipotent afterall, have forged the fossil record

Assume this is true, this is also a requirement for ID.

The Christian's bible says, do not lie. Verbage depends on translation.

Falsifying fossil records is lying.

By doing this God is exhibiting the same behavior as Satan.

The entire straw man falls apart because God is good and Satan is evil, therefore the assumption is false.

If we continue with the arguement as accept that God really is lying and creating forged fossils, (And photons, and interstellar remenants.) That proves that we can not believe that what is in the Bible is true either, because if God lies, why shouldn't his followers? This in fact turns the entire bible into false doctorine.

Re:And evolution is?

[Disoculated]

But would that be EvilMonkey Slayer or Evil MonkeySlayer...

If we had spaces allowed in usernames, only then would we know!

Re:And evolution is?

[fyngyrz]

...or a soldier that defends smarter, less physical rats, thereby promoting survival more generally than specifically. Ants and bees have plenty of non-mating participants, and I don't think you'd get very far saying this has been anti-survival for ants and bees.

Re:And evolution is?

[BorgDrone]

Interesting, but the species are still mosquitos, they didn't become frogs or blu-jays, or grow gills or learn to spin webs, or change phylum. In the end, they're still mosquitos.

There is no need for them to change into frogs, or blu-jays or whatever. They found a niche, and they are profiting from it.

In any case, as I stated, the new mosquitos are still mosquitos and not some other creature.

By that same argument, humans are still (bald) monkeys and not some other creature.

Also, you must realize that 'big' changes take time. What you are essentially doing is analog to watching a movie about race cars in a million times slow-motion and then concluding that race cars don't move.

I've heard some point out some details about why certain design characteristics of humans are inefficient, but who's to say, if in 100 years, we actually learn that they are quite efficient for their purpose?

I assume you are a US-ian ? For the last hundred years, people have become taller, this may be less noticable in the US (you guys are midgets) but go visit The Netherlands some time, our younger population is one of the tallest in the world. Our back is a really bad design for walking upright (but the very similar design of a monkey's back seems to work pretty well) especially if you're tall (the pressure on the lower vertebrae is too high, among other things). I have some quite tall friends (2 meters) who aren't too happy with this 'intelligently' designed back of theirs. This won't suddenly become 'quite efficient' in the next 100 or even 1000 years, people are getting taller, not shorter (this is caused by better nutricion and medical care while growing up), this will become a bigger problem in the future.

Another example is the 'design' of the eye, they are wired wrong (the nerves run on top of the light-sensitive cells) , resulting in the blind spot in a human's vision (they al 'poke' through the layer of light sensitive cells at the same location). There is no need for this, nor will there ever be, there are species with eyes which are wired the right way around (octopi IIRC) and they work very well.

Go look at creation, it's not intelligently designed at all. There is an alternative creationist-ish theory called 'malicious design' which seems a lot more likely than ID.

Re:And evolution is?

[Coryoth]

Interesting, but the species are still mosquitos, they didn't become frogs or blu-jays, or grow gills or learn to spin webs, or change phylum. In the end, they're still mosquitos.

Major change takes time. Speciation, as noted with the mosquitoes, is the only significant step you need - once the population are isolated and can't interbreed they can develop in radically different directions. If you want some demonstrations of signficant change in form feel free to consult the fossil record. I've gone through this once before, but lets' do it again:

Are there any intermediate forms in the fossil record? Yes. Let's take the development from reptiles to birds. Archaeopteryx is a commonly cited example (distinctly birdlike), but we can go a lot further than that in terms of intermediate forms. In practice Archeopteryx is between lizards and birds. Between reptiles and Archeopteryx are therapod dinosaurs. Between early reptile like therapods and Archeopteryx are late more bird-like dromaeosaurids and between early dromaeosaurids like Troodons and Archeopteryx are various feathered dinosaurs, which includes fossils that simply had feathers, apparently for warmth, through to later fossils that actually had clearly flight adapted feathers.

Want to try something different? How about whale evolution? We can start with a land dwelling mammal that looked fairly dog like but had certain ear structures not found in other mammals that are more suitable for hearing underwater. Then there's ambulocetus which was similar, but in practice was rather akin to a mammalian crocodile, with back legs obviously adpated for swimming, the same ear structures as our first creature, and a nose structure, similar to a crocodile, that was ideal for breathing while immersed in shallow water. Next there are things like rodhocetus which is remarkably whale like, yet still posses back legs, and still has a nasal structure placng the nostrils toward the tip as in ambulocetus. There's aetiocetus which shows the transition from snout tip nostrils toward nostils at the top of the skulls as in modern whales. Then there's basilosaurus which is decidedly whale like, but lacking in a few modern whale features, and retaining distinct, but quite useless, hind limbs similar to those of rodhocetus.

You can find similar sets of forms for the development of horses, the development of snakes from lizards, and even for the ape to man path, among many others.

Oh, I'm sure you can parse those and say "but what's between that?", but I think for most people who are not being mindlessly dogmatic that represents fairly reasonable evidence of transitions from lizards to birds, or from land dwelling mammals to whales, and, if they bothered to do the extra research and reading, the development of horses, snakes and man.

Re:And evolution is?

[Anonymous Coward]

Intelligent Design proponents would cite the same evidence in support of their theory. It is the interpretation of the natural world, not its nature, that is the crux.

Re:And evolution is?

[Alsee]

"thought to be the precursor to the eye" and "could have arisen as a double-layered transparent tissue" are not very scientific statements. As stated before. THERE IS NO CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE THAT THE ORIGIN OF LIFE WAS A POOL OF GOO THAT EVOLVED INTO WHAT IT IS TODAY.

Well lets consider glaciers. It is "thought" that the sun evaporated water from the ocean. And it is "thought" that that water fell as snow at the poles. And that snow "could have" built up over thousands of years into very deep glaciers.

And there are layers of dust and pollen and volcanic ash that are "thought" to have settled out of the atmosphere and that the layered of such particles "could have" arisen from seasonal snowfall cycles over tens of thousands of years.

And it is "thought" that the pattern and composition of volcanic dust in the glacier happens to exactly match up with the historical and prehistorical records of major volcanic eruptions becuase that dust *did* come from those volcanoes and laid down over tens of thousands of years. And it is "thought" that the patterns of pollen match up with other global records over tens of thousands of years because that pollen *did* accumulate during the steady buildup of that glacier over tends of thousands of years.

And it is thought that the presence and levels of LEAD and other trace minerals in the upper layers of glacial dust "could have" been caused by the historical and prehistorical development of human mining releasing such contaminants into the the air.

And as you say, THERE IS NO CONCLUSIVE PROOF THAT THIS IS HOW GLACIERS ACTUALLY FORMED.

If anyone is a real thinking person then prove that you cant throw a pile of sticks and some glue up in the air and it will come down as a glued together, perfect box.

If anyone is a real thinking person then prove that you cant throw a bunch of water vapor up in the air and it will come down as a glued together, complex perfect snowflake.

The argument you were attempting to make (badly) is the stupid old argument that "the second law of thermodynamics says disorder must increase and therefore proves evolution impossible".

Of course the second law of thermodynamics only apples to average disorder increasing, and it does not apply at all when there is an energy flow through a system.

As I pointed with with snowflakes, it is actually quite normal and common for nature to spontaneously greate complex order and structure out of total chaos when there is an energy flow - in particular the sun provides an energy flow through the earth to drive both snowflake formation and biology and biological evolution.

The nature of life, the structure of life, and the existance of life can only be explained as an engineering miracle that was created. PERIOD.

Statint your ignorance and your lack of understanding is not a disproof of anything.

It is quite well understood how the evolution process creates structure and complexity and information. In fact I have personally witnessed exactly how this process operates and exactly how powerful it is at creating order and complexity and information.

The information is created/added during the secotion step of the evolution process.

If you have a replication (with mutation) and then selection in a repeating cycle, the mutation step creates a bit of random noise, and the selection step converts that noise into ordered/directed information by filtering out any portion that is contrary to the selection direction.

Roll a hundred dice. Do a slection step to "kill" the half with the lowest number showing, replicate the remaining 50 back to a hudred... you will have a hundred dice showing 4's, 5's, and 6's. "Kill" the half with the lowest number showing again, replicate the remaining 50 back to a hudred again... and you have a hundred dice showing 5's, and 6's. Repeat a third time and now you "magically" have 100 dices all showing perfect sixes.

We started with perfect chaos rolled dice, and

Re:And evolution is?

[penguinoid]

Or, as I like to say, given enough dice and enough time, eventually you will roll a trillion 1's in a row.

Not anywhere in the (visible) universe, it won't. Suppose you are using a 2-sided dice (a coin). Chance of getting 10 thousand heads in a row is less than 2^-10000 (which is the expected number of times you will flip 1 million heads in a row), or about 10^-3000. At about 10^80 atoms and 10^18 seconds since the Big Bang, the probability (given 100 flips per atom per second) would be 10^-2900 (10^-300 is considered impossible). That is the point of irreducible complexity: if it must be done all at once, it effectively can't be done.

Re:And evolution is?

[penguinoid]

Blind spot? I don't see any blind spot...

Re:And evolution is?

[TrumpetPower!]

why-is-it wrote:

TrumpetPower! wrote:

Nonexistence proofs are trivial.

That might be true in the realm of mathematics, but with maths you are dealing with very well-defined sets. Elsewhere, proof by contradiction is hardly trivial.

It depends entirely on the nature of the entity in question.

Are there no naturally-occurring pink elephants? Not likely. But, to prove it, you'd either have to perform a census of all elephants, or you'd have to find something along the lines of something in elephantine DNA that prevents pinkness.

Are there any triangular circles? Nope. Perpetual motion machines? Not a chance. Married bachelors? Ha!

And hey-presto! we've just come up with some more things that even a supposedly-omnipotent being couldn't do. Therefore, ``omnipotence'' is its own self-contained oxymoron.

All but God can prove this sentence true.

I'm sorry, but that statement does not "prove" anything. Sophistry is useful for entertainment and scoring cheap points, but it doesn't add anything of substance to the debate.

I'm sorry, but hand-waving won't do shit to stave off your crisis of faith.

I was thinking more along the lines of a formal proof and your example does not qualify.

Did I claim that it was a formal proof? Is this a mathmatical journal? Did you offer a formal definition of ``omnipotence''?

You could also foil a supposedly-omniscient god just by asking it to tell you what you'll do next. Whatever the god tells you, do something else.

This is not a logical argument either.

Careful, I think your blinder might be slipping.

First cause? Well, if everything needs a creator, then what created the creator? Omnibenevolent? Then, whence comes evil?

Those are interesting questions, and it is reasonable to assume that people have been debating such issues for thousands of years, and we haven't reached any universal conclusions yet.

Unh-huh. ``Teach the controversy.'' More properly, ``Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!'' Because, like, if you use your brain, we won't be able to pull the wool over your eyes.

All I did was point out that it is not logically possible to prove that something (outside of the realm of mathematics) does not exist.

And all I'm doing is pointing out that you're worng. Sorry.

...unless you've got a working perpetual motion machine to bring out? Because that's exactly as possible as your omnipotent god.

I cannot logically prove that hobbits do not exist.

It depends entirely on how you define, ``hobbit.'' Do you mean the magical creatures of Tolkein's fantasy? Because they'd be easy to disprove. If you mean the short hominids that might have lived on an Indonesian island...well, there's a pretty darned good chance that they actually did exist.

I cannot logically prove that the FSM (and his noodly appendage) does not exist.

The Flyng Spaghetti Monster is defined as the being that created the universe. Proving that the universe is creatorless is trivial; thus the FSM as defined clearly doesn't exist. Whether or not there's some remarkable being that resembles a giant plate of spaghetti is another matter entirely, but we can be certain that it had nothing whatsoever to do with the creation of the universe.

I cannot logically prove that unicorns do not exist - regardless whether any of those examples exist

Re:And evolution is?

[llamaluvr]

As for a proof against omnipotence, here's one:

All but God can prove this sentence true.

This doesn't work for the same reason that the whole "can God make a rock so big that he cannot lift it" thing doesn't work. If a being is omnipotent in universe X, there's nothing he can't do in universe X. That doesn't mean he can do absolutely anything which is possible in any universe, just that universe which he is omnipotent over. That's not to say that God isn't omnipotent over any other possible realms other than our own universe, but our's is governed by logic which renders your statement impossible in our universe. There can't be something which all but the one person who can do anything in the universe can do, because to be omnipotent means you can do anything possible in the universe. In the same sense, there can be no rock that God cannot lift in our universe, because God is omnipotent in our universe. That rock isn't even a logically possible configuration of matter, because omnipotence entails that God can lift all rocks.

And, it just so happens, Mr. Turing disproved omniscience with his little halting problem. Don't believe me? Then try this on for size:

Turing proved that a general algorithm to solve the halting problem for all possible inputs cannot exist, not that other methods could not solve the halting problem (i.e., being able to tell the future, or knowing all possible inputs and being able to try them out instantly- things omnipotence/ omniscience could allow).

You could also foil a supposedly-omniscient god just by asking it to tell you what you'll do next. Whatever the god tells you, do something else.

This is moot if you never can be afforded the opportunity to ask.

Re:And evolution is?

[TrumpetPower!]

So...all you've done is have your god admit that it's not omnipotent. Was that your point?

Cheers,

b&

Re:And evolution is?

[Dster76]

Or, if you're not sure of the significance of the ditty, think of what either answer means.

Now you've totally lost me. What is the `ditty' you're referring to? `Ditty' is English for `a short song'.

I'm going to try to inject some sense into this part of your otherwise sensible post. Turing, from the assumption that all problems are solvable by some recursive procedure, derives a contradiction. I'm guessing, from the meagre comments you made, that you are thinking of asking God this question:

Does the machine that Turing constructs, in his reductio, halt when given its own index as an input?

Of course, either answer, yes or no, leads to a contradiction. So, we reject the assumption that all problems are solvable by a recursive procedure.

This has about as much to do with the problem of an omniscient mind as the following.

Ok, smartypants God, suppose I construct a box with the following properties: there is a monkey in it if and only if you don't exist, and there is no monkey in it if and only if you are a guy from New Jersey named Jimmy who pumps gas, is a moron, and is about as omniscient as a rock.

Well, is there a monkey in my box? Remember, God has to answer yes or no.

Oh wait - no he doesn't.

Re:And evolution is?

[krmt]

Try looking at the bibliography in that textbook for the references that the textbook authors drew from. You should be able to get easy access to the original journal articles documenting the work that provides the evidence that backs up the claims. If you don't believe the research documented in the papers, you can repeat it to see for yourself or you can try and provide positive evidence for an alternate explanation. All the printed text draws from physical evidence found by actual work done by the people who wrote the paper. It wasn't just made up to force you to think something.

Re:And evolution is?

[MightyMartian]

Any reasonable classification system, when based upon morphology and behavior, will put humans firmly within the ape clade. We aren't just descendants of a common ancestor with apes, we are apes, and it is this that will drive Creationists mad. They cannot tolerate (and probably can't psychologically deal with) the idea that humans are not some special, center-of-the-universe entity.

Re:And evolution is?

[Anonymous Coward]

On the subject of the imperfections of the human eye, many of us have eyes that can be improved by adding an extra lens in front. Without the extra lenses I can barely even make out faces from a foot away. The design of MY eyes can be improved upon even by humans.

Re:And evolution is?

[TrumpetPower!]

llamaluvr wrote:

If a being is omnipotent in universe X, there's nothing he can't do in universe X.

Stop right there. In these discussions, the only definition of ``universe'' that is any way useful is ``everything that exists.'' What Dr. Sagan called the Cosmos.

And there're plenty of things that really, truly, are impossible in any universe (assuming there's more than one) in the Cosmos. Making 1 + 1 equal anything other than 2 (using the most common definitions of those terms) would be one of them, for example.

In the same sense, there can be no rock that God cannot lift in our universe, because God is omnipotent in our universe. That rock isn't even a logically possible configuration of matter, because omnipotence entails that God can lift all rocks.

Exactly. Logic is the rock that even God can't lift. So, if even God's hands are bound by logic, then logic is stronger than God. And who created logic, thus forever defeating God? God couldn't have, for--as we see everywhere we turn--logic is greater than he is.

The only solution to these problems is to realize that the premises are faulty. Don't ask, ``Who created the universe?'' Instead, ask, ``Is there even any possibility that the universe was created?'' The answer, clearly being, ``No,'' makes the first one moot. And, at that point, the idea that there's some all-powerful entity within the universe...but that this entity didn't create it...well, it's instantly obvious just how silly the whole thing is. Might as well talk about turtles springing from the navel of a flower.

Cheers

b&

Re:And evolution is?

[Anarchitect_in_oz]

Wouldn't this lack of investigation make the make the parent Guilty of Sloth.

Re:And evolution is?

[TrumpetPower!]

Are you really this dense?

Tell me, God, ``Yes'' or ``No,'' will you answer, ``No''?

If God answers ``Yes,'' then God is telling you that he'll answer ``No.'' But that's a lie, because God clearly answered, ``Yes.''

If God answers, ``No,'' then he's saying that he's not going to answer, ``No.'' But he did.

So, there we have it. A question that even God can't answer. Something that even God can't know. Since it's part of the defintion of ``God'' that he can answer any question, that he knows everything, and since he can't do either with regard to this question, it's quite clear that God, as defined, is truly impossible and thus doesn't exist.

Now, unless you're that gas-pumping moron from New Jersey you were talking about, you should understand just exactly why your god is a married bachelor.

Cheers,

b&

Re:And evolution is?

[Anonymous Coward]

Spaces are allowed in usernames.

Re:And evolution is?

[Hope Thelps]

You know, I wish there was more thought put into the eye... I would really like to se Infra Red, UV, and maybe even be able to see radiation.

I'd settle for decent vision without having to stick glass lenses in front.

Re:And evolution is?

[TerminalInsanity]

Nobody can proove evolution. At least not yet, and that IS a known fact. The same can be said for I.D. So, while the article is very interesting, 500 /. comments is not going to get us any further towards solving this.

Down the road, not across the street. Do it right, and you'll know for sure! ... or maybe not?

In my opinion, that judge should be dropped off a cliff.
People should be allowed to belive whatever they want to belive. If someone wants to study it or discuss it in a school, THEY SHOULD! This is how people learn. Not by reading through textbooxs that 'make sense' instead of a bible. If its unconstitutional to teach ID in schools, then it is unconstitutional to teach evolution. In my opinion, niether hold any ground over the other, and people will be bickering about it for thousands of years to come. The least that can be asked is that people arnt blind to possibilitys.

You only FORCE things on others when you dont know yourself how to convince them of it. Resorting to the violent or offensive actions... not exactly the most 'evolved' thing to do, and im sure it dosent speak much of faith.

Re:And evolution is?

[penguinoid]

As for a proof against omnipotence,

Let me guess: first, you define omnipotence as the ability to do anything, even a contradiction. Then, you show that this leads to a contradiction. However, if you believe that contradicitons are possible, you cannot use proof by negation.

All but God can prove this sentence true.

That statement is false. And I am correct, I said so myself.

Omnipotence must necessarily include omniscience; an omnipotent being could just ``use its omnipotence'' to give itself omniscience.

If it wanted to...

Tell me God, ``yes'' or ``no,'' will you answer, ``no''?

An omniscient being would know that question has no "yes" or "no" answer?

Re: And evolution is?

[TrumpetPower!]

Black Parrot wrote:

TrumpetPower! wrote:

And, it just so happens, Mr. Turing disproved omniscience with his little halting problem.

Actually he didn't. He proved that there's no algorithm that can determine whether any arbitrary computer program will halt. The question of whether magical or oracular methods might answer the question are outside the scope of the theory of computation.

Pardon me for being informal, but your observation doesn't change things.

I could just as easily state that it's impossible for God to create a Turing maching capable of solving the halting problem. Or, that even God doesn't know how to create a Turing machine that solves the halting problem. Either way, Mr. Turing drove yet another stake through the heart of this God-thing...yet people still haven't realized that they're worshipping a bloody corpse.

Cheers,

b&

Re:And evolution is?

[Dster76]

Are you really this dense?

Are you really this pretentious? I really was trying to be civil and understand what the hell you're on about. As I mentioned in my first post, I'm not defending God - in fact, I said that I found most of your other comments helpful. Do you always insult people who try to engage in discussion with you?

Tell me, God, ``Yes'' or ``No,'' will you answer, ``No''?

For the last time, what question, in this scenario, is God supposed to be answering?

So, there we have it. A question that even God can't answer.

Is the existence of unanswerable questions supposed show that omniscience is incoherent?

Omniscience is concerned with knowledge, not questions.

Re:And evolution is?

[TrumpetPower!]

penguinoid wrote:

Let me guess: first, you define omnipotence as the ability to do anything, even a contradiction.

If you define ``omnipotence'' as anything at all other than ``the ability to do anything,'' then the word loses all possible meaning. Because, see? It would therefore mean that I am omnipotent.

It's impossible for me to, for example, run a one-minute mile. But, if we examine the reasons for that, at a gross oversimplification, it's because I lack sufficient energy available in a sufficient form to accomplish the feat. In essence, I'm trying to make 2 + 2 = 5.

Take any so-called ``physical'' impossibility, and it will always, and usually trivially, reduce to a logical impossibility or contradiction. So, if ``omnipotent'' means ``able to do anything that's logically possible,'' then anything and everything with some sort of power is, by definition, omnipotent. Everything that's not possible is impossible for logical reasons, and you've already ruled out logical impossibilities as something to hold against claims of omnipotence.

Really, it's much like trying to put an upper bound on the set of natural numbers. ``God is the being that's larger than the largest number'' makes just as much sense.

All but God can prove this sentence true.

That statement is false. And I am correct, I said so myself.

No, you are incorrect.

Consider, for a moment, if God actually were to prove that the sentence is true. What would he have proven? Why, that he's incapable of proving that the sentence is true. Thus, God can't prove that the sentence is true, and therefore that part of the sentence is true. And we've just proven that the sentence is true, which takes care of the rest of it.

There you have it: something that I just did--and that you yourself can do--that your god never possibly could. Hardly sounds very omnipotent, does it?

Cheers,

b&

Re:And evolution is?

[Chmcginn]

In my opinion, that judge should be dropped off a cliff. People should be allowed to belive whatever they want to belive.

Believe what you want to believe, that's fine. But if your beliefs are based on religion, all I've got to say is...

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

Re:And evolution is?

[Anonymous Coward]

The judge ruled that it shouldnt be discussed in a science class. He didnt say it shouldnt be discussed in school. Yeah it would be nice if someone wanted to study it or discuss it in school then they should be allowed. But in which class? Math, ? What if every teacher in school just stood up and started discussing or studying whatever she wanted right in the middle of math class? Screw the algebra assignment today, lets talk about the mating habits of the malaysian deer mouse! You got to have some structure, and this is what the judge was enforcing.

Re:And evolution is?

[Lifewish]

Well, that depends how you define species. The standard scientific definition of distinction between species is of two populations that can't produce fertile offspring (or any offspring, for a slightly stricter version). My dad (who used to be a biochemist) has personally observed speciation of fruitflies in the lab, by putting them in different environments.

Problem is that, when something like this is pointed out to religious folk, they just respond with "ah, but that's still small-scale stuff. We're looking at the large scale". Not unsurprisingly, I have never seen "large scale" defined in any way more rigorous than "whatever would take too long to duplicate in the lab".

Re:And evolution is?

[Zilfondel2]

Actually, god gave humans sub-perfect eyes to specifically piss you off on this very message forum - and no other reason, except to test you and your faith in the almighty himself!

I'm sorry, these arguments are so pointless due to their self-referential nature, that you can go nowhere with them!

Science shouldn't even go down this path - we argue what we see in the universe, and what we can measure. Since we can't measure God - by definition, it is something that must be taken as faith - science shouldn't touch it. That's what philosophers are for - proving the unprovable.

Re:And evolution is?

[Anonymous Coward]

My point was to provide a chuckle to those with a sense of humour. Apparently it has the side effect of encouraging idiots to jump to conclusions.

Re:And evolution is?

[TerminalInsanity]

If she wants to teach math by adding jesus heads, so be it. as long as she's not stuffing a students brain with "love jesus! Belive in jesus!" i think its fine.

If a english teacher would like to point out some kind of religious symbols in a book, why not? To be honest, i'd like to know more about the type of writing that is in the bible. I dont belive in it, but i have read a few pages and it is, without a doubt, strange!

I probably would have found school more interesting if each of my teachers was from a different religion. I do remember a particular computer sci teacher who brought up darwinisim all the time...

Re:And evolution is?

[wubboy]

I can only say,

Thank you.

Re:And evolution is?

[the_humeister]

He could have. But then again, you could also be just a figment of my imagination.

Re:And evolution is?

[Ksisanth]

You could also foil a supposedly-omniscient god just by asking it to tell you what you'll do next. Whatever the god tells you, do something else.

That begs the question, as it requires an assumption that you could limit God rather than the other way around -- an assumption at least as controversial as that which you intend to prove. Same with the statement, "All but God can prove this sentence true", the assumption being the claim itself. (In any case, if you ever had the opportunity for the conversation, God might use fuzzy logic, or smite you, or respond in any number of ways you would be incapable of anticipating because you're a puny mortal.) Verbal "paradoxes" are fun to play with, but they don't make good arguments. They prove nothing but that people are easily confused (see St. Anselm's ontological argument for an example).

"The Fool says in his heart, 'There is no God'."

"The greater Fool says, 'There is no God but mine'." (para. Joseph Campbell)

And I say, "The greatest Fool thinks he has a 'proof'." (Note: an atheist doesn't need to be a fool, either.)

You might as well define ``God'' as a married bachelor and be done with it.

Which is exactly what you're doing, declaring an omnipotent God to be impossible merely by defining it as impossible. Do you think that is rational?

Re:And evolution is?

[TrumpetPower!]

Ksisanth wrote:

TrumpetPower! wrote:

You could also foil a supposedly-omniscient god just by asking it to tell you what you'll do next. Whatever the god tells you, do something else.

That begs the question, as it requires an assumption that you could limit God rather than the other way around

It does no such thing, for you are begging the question by assuming that your god exists in the first place, and that it's not subject to the most elementary limits of logic in the second. All I'm saying is that it's impossible to know everything. And I'm backing that statement up with the well-worn technique of saying, ``If you were right, that would lead inevitably to a contradiction; therefore, you're worng.''

Which is exactly what you're doing, declaring an omnipotent God to be impossible merely by defining it as impossible. Do you think that is rational?

sigh

An omnipotent god is not impossible because I have defined it thus. It is impossible because omnipotence itself is impossible, for much the same reason that there is no such thing as a largest prime number. Both premises lead quite quickly, and most inexorably, to irresolvable contradiction.

Would you accuse me of being an irrational fool for pointing out that there's no such thing as the largest prime number? No? So, why am I an irrational fool for pointing out that there's no most-powerful being?

Cheers,

b&

Re:And evolution is?

[Anonymous Coward]

Phrased differently, "Is the answer to this question no?"

Re:And evolution is?

[pnewhook]

lol

Actually, since there is only one true God, and names serve only to differentiate between similar objects, I would argue that God has no, and needs no name.

Re:And evolution is?

[penguinoid]

Just make sure that atheism is not a religion...

Re:And evolution is?

[leabre]

You're very assertive, but did you witness it first-hand? For that matter, did I witness our creation first-hand? The answer to both questions is "no". Both require a fair amount of faith to believe in.

There's a Star Trek: Voyager episode, "Living Witness" (http://www.st-hypertext.com/voy-4/witness.html) that actually provides some though provoking parallels (well, close enough to make my point). Basically, 700 years in the future, a civilization has used fossil records and debree as a means of determining a doctrine that the Voyager crew was hostile. Their purpose for doing so was revisionist, unlike the root of this conversation. They would look at fossil records and theorize certain things and many of the details were in fact, innaccurate. Well worth the watch.

It very much applies to this conversation. We are looking at fossil records and postulating, but who knows whether we're interpreting the data incorrectly. Just recently Slashdot had a story about how some feathered dinosaurs were found fossilized, when the creature in question was previously thought more reptilian than feathered (assuming the discovery was true).

Now, I've said this before, I'll say it again: I don't know whether I believe in ID so-called, as I've never taken the time to understand it, and every reference I hear to it seems to indicate it is a bit different than Creationism. I do believe in Creationism. I do not believe Creationism is incompatible with evolotion (in general) but more specifically, I think our thoeries of evolution are incorrect and thus far, inconclusive. To the extend I think they are compatible, is the extent that I believe a species will adapt to their environment and certain conditions can cause changes, such as people growing taller or whatever. Is that species evolving into another that one day will not become compatible with humans? As far as I'm aware, all humans are compatible with each other respective to the ability to procreate, dispite any other localized differences.

We can live near a nuclear powerplant and become "changed" as well as our offspring, which can possibly become incompatible with both society and procreation with other non-changed humans, is that evolution in action? Is genetically modifying genes and other things, such as foods that we eat, that might cause unpredictable things to happen to us, also evolution in action?

The simple fact is, we don't know for sure that one creature became another. All we're doing is looking at fossils and DNA and thoerizing (is that a word?), similar to the main characteristic of the Voyager episode cited above. With the same conviction that you believe in evolution, so do I believe in Creationism. I've been told more than once that anyone with a brain can see right past the religious dogma and see the "truth". I do have a brain, I have looked at some of the details, and am not completely convinced of the current form of the thoery of evolution. It is not a life endeavor of mine to spend all my time seeking the "truth" anyway, much as it is not a life endeavor of mine to better understand quantum physics. So I make best with what I can, as do you I'm sure.

In any case, I choose to believe in Creationism for many other reasons than I can list here, but I hope I can effectively communicate that I'm not mindless or uneducated and have a fairly open mind. Open mind, not to be confused with easily persuaded or mindless (sometimes when people tell me I need to open my mind what they are really saying is I need to believe what they do). There's an element of doubt in both Creationism and evolution. Each requires faith, I choose the one over the other. Simple as that. Neither of which have been proven or disproven conclusively, and because of that, I cannot possibly be dogmatic for choosing the religious one over evolution, any more than one choosing evolution over Creationism.

Thanks,
Leabre

Re:And evolution is?

[endoplasmicMessenger]

Zoologist Dan-Erik Nilsson demonstrates how the complex human eye could have evolved through natural selection acting on small variations.

Notice the word *could*. Since when does wishful speculation replace the need for real live E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E?

Here's how some scientists think some eyes may have evolved: The simple light-sensitive spot on the skin of some ancestral creature gave it some tiny survival advantage

First of all, where did this "simple light-sensitive spot" on the skin come from? Are you kidding me? Even this much is non-trivial. Second, how would it provide some "tiny survival advantage"? Oh, you mean not only was it light sensitive, but there were already nerves running from it to whatever type of nervous system this creature had, such that it could modify its behavior according to the light level and gain a survival advantage? How convenient. Well, why don't we just stop right here and you can explain to me how all of *this* happened. No need to go any further.

And finally, just because some feature has some tiny survival advantage does not mean that this trait will be spread throughout the population. Let's say that you have a son that has six fingers which gives him a tiny survival advantage (boy, he's a real wiz at those video games!). How does this trait suddenly get propagated to the rest of the population?? Not so easily. Not every random trait gets propagated to the rest of a population.

In fact, eyes corresponding to every stage in this sequence have been found in existing living species.

Congratulations, you have just added to the proof that evolution is a fact. What you have NOT done is shown that Neo-Darwinian evolution is a fact.

Re:And evolution is?

[Anonymous Coward]

Clever lad, you've proved that "omnipotent" is a self-contradicting term (given your definition). However, we didn't need a Goedelian proof of this: the idea of "creating a mass so heavy that one cannot lift it" will suffice as a demonstration, and I think that's been around longer.

The point you've missed is that God doesn't need to be "omnipotent" in the sense you've offered; he just needs to have root access to the universe. If the universe is (for example) a simulation running on God's computer, then he's got the drop on all of us, "omnipotent" or not.

The whole "omnipotence can not exist" thing is a distraction.

Re:And evolution is?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe I'm missing something, but what's to explain?

If two populations of the same species undergo different selection pressures, different types of individuals with correspondingly different genes are going to survive and reproduce. If the populations have no breeding contact, for whatever reason, then they are going to diverge over time.

Re:And evolution is?

[endoplasmicMessenger]

"because I lack the ability to understand an evolutionary system of a grand scale, I have therefore conclusive proof that God must have created the world... After all, everything too complicated for me to understand is just God's miracles"

A good scientific theory is both coherent and elegant. Did you ever stop and wonder why the universe is both coherent and elegant?

Re:And evolution is?

[Ksisanth]

It does no such thing, for you are begging the question by assuming that your god exists in the first place, and that it's not subject to the most elementary limits of logic in the second.

When did I do that? Do you assume that anyone who doesn't accept your reasoning must be a theist? As I stated, the "assumption that you could limit God rather than the other way around [is] at least as controversial as that which you intend to prove." Premises need to be supported, too, even when they're hypotheticals.

All I'm saying is that it's impossible to know everything. And I'm backing that statement up with the well-worn technique of saying, ``If you were right, that would lead inevitably to a contradiction; therefore, you're worng.''

The "contradiction" you speak of is unfortunately wrapped in a bundle of "equivocation", much like your earlier post about unicorns as one-horned gazelles (i.e., you shifted the meaning and then applied what would be true in that case to the original term). It's impossible for *you* to be omniscient, but you aren't claiming to be God, are you? You are finite, mortal, limited. God, supposedly, is not. So what makes you think that God must fit into your (limited grasp of) logic in order to exist? There's a word for that...hubris? Chutzpah?

An omnipotent god is not impossible because I have defined it thus. It is impossible because omnipotence itself is impossible, for much the same reason that there is no such thing as a largest prime number. Both premises lead quite quickly, and most inexorably, to irresolvable contradiction.

It seems quite a different matter to me. The "largest prime number" is a limitation on what is conceived of as infinite. The limitation leads to the contradiction, not the infinity. Omnipotence might be compared to the infinity, but not the arbitrary limit you'd like to impose on it. So for you to say that omnipotence is impossible "for much the same reason that there is no such thing as a largest prime number" is like saying that infinity is impossible and therefore there must be a largest prime number. You're contradicting yourself, in other words. Interesting.

Would you accuse me of being an irrational fool for pointing out that there's no such thing as the largest prime number? No? So, why am I an irrational fool for pointing out that there's no most-powerful being?

I believe I stated that the greatest fool is the one who thinks he has a 'proof'. That goes both ways, but it has nothing to do with what anyone believes is actually the case, only what he thinks he can prove.

Re:And evolution is?

[Anonymous Coward]

Amen to that.

Evolutionists are just trying to intellectualize atheism to give
  them false hope about escaping future judgement.

insertion mutations kill information by shifting a sequence.
So how the hell did we come from single celled organisms?
macro evolution didnt happen!

Then there's bullshit about how we invented religion becuase of
our reasoning capabilities...as a placebo...

A Purely non scientific argument raised by the shivering atheist.
We aren't talking about belief systems here...just evolution and ID (scientifically)

So to all u evolutionists out there...get a life...
Or better still, get God.

Re:And evolution is?

[TrumpetPower!]

an Anonymous Coward wrote:

The point you've missed is that God doesn't need to be "omnipotent" in the sense you've offered; he just needs to have root access to the universe. If the universe is (for example) a simulation running on God's computer, then he's got the drop on all of us, "omnipotent" or not.

The nature of the universe is irrelevant; all you're doing is pushing back the boundaries. If we're all just bits in a computer, all the exact same questions apply to that universe, the one in which the computer lives. And that's granting you the notion that ``universe'' is anything other than ``all that exists.'' Perhaps you'd prefer Dr. Sagan's term, ``Cosmos.''

The whole "omnipotence can not exist" thing is a distraction.

Only if you're more interested in the flickerings on the cave wall.

Cheers,

b&

Re:And evolution is?

[endoplasmicMessenger]

Oh please. There are examples of intermediary steps in eye development throughout the animal kingdom, from simple eye spots all the way to mammalian eyes. Each step is fully functional and does what the organism possessing it requires it to do.

Congratulations. You have just demonstrated that evolution is a fact. What you have not demonstrated is that this has anything to do the Neo-Darwinism.

Here's a couple of questions for you: If the eye is in fact designed, why does it suffer from the imperfection of the blind spot?

These are called design constraints. They are found in just about every design activity you can think of.

BTW, did you know that the gene that controls eye development in both vertebrates and insects is 94% identical. That's not just two different species. That's two different phyla. 94% the same.

So, the design constraint is that you must use more or less the same gene controller for the development of the insect eye and the vertebrate eye. How's that for a design challenge?

Re:And evolution is?

[TrumpetPower!]

Ksisanth wrote:

The "contradiction" you speak of is unfortunately wrapped in a bundle of "equivocation", much like your earlier post about unicorns as one-horned gazelles (i.e., you shifted the meaning and then applied what would be true in that case to the original term).

If you had read the next sentence, you would see that I went on to discuss the original term, itself. To wit: ``It wouldn't be too hard to prove that any of the magical properties they're supposed to have are impossible; that's all you'd need to prove that they mythical variety of unicorn doesn't exist.'' I really don't appreciate people lying about my own words.

You are finite, mortal, limited. God, supposedly, is not. So what makes you think that God must fit into your (limited grasp of) logic in order to exist?

Ah, yes. The old, ``You're too dumb to understand God'' argument. Number 93, if I'm not mistraken. Or were you going more for #31? Or perhaps #328?

Just because humans have limits doesn't mean that they're incapable of understanding the unlimited. Anybody who's managed to wrap his head around transfinite math can attest to that. And it's not that hard, either--a quick glance at the graph of y=1/x should be more than enough to understand that there really is no y that satisfies the equation when x=0. It's a simple matter of extrapolation. If you're incapable of it, 'tain't my problem.

Omnipotence might be compared to the infinity, but not the arbitrary limit you'd like to impose on it.

No. ``Omnipotence'' can only have one meaning: able to do anything. Come up with even one thing that can't be done--name a ``y'' for which y=1/0, for example--and the limit becomes quite real, not arbitrary.

I believe I stated that the greatest fool is the one who thinks he has a 'proof'.

And I believe that anybody who tosses out logic for dogmatic reasons is an idiot. And if you really think that every mathematician, logician, theoretician, and scientist since before Plato is a fool, then I think you're an anti-intellectual asshole.

Cheers,

b&

Re:And evolution is?

[Anonymous Coward]

Omniscience is concerned with knowledge, not questions.

I want to hug you for this. For practical and other reasons I won't, but this is such a breath of fresh air compared to the unphilosophy that predominates here that I just wanted to express the sentiment.

Re:And evolution is?

[Anonymous Coward]

You could also foil a supposedly-omniscient god just by asking it to tell you what you'll do next. Whatever the god tells you, do something else.

That's pretty retarded. An all-powerful god has the ability (by definition) to force you to do anything regardless of your will. So if he says "You're going to clean the windows", you may think "Haha, I'll go feed the dog!" only to find that your body is already cleaning the windows.

Warning: This post is not an argument for the existence of god, as you seem to think every reply is.

Re:And evolution is?

[Laser Lou]

Think of a computer programmer. We create an object, and derive other objects from it, thus "inheriting" a certain behavior. Who's to say that God didn't create a common DNA for certain species, and derive more specific species from that base DNA, because it works so well? Why reinvent the wheel...?
That's a great metaphor, DNA as a software program of sorts; it makes it somewhat easier to understand how species can change over time.

Who's to say that God didn't create a common DNA for certain species, and derive more specific species from that base DNA, because it works so well?
The DNA in all species, from plants to bacteria to humans, is pretty much the same; it is composed of many pairs of the same 4 base molecules, and the chemical machinery to use and copy DNA is the same; all that is different between us an a rose is the actual code involved.

Interesting, but the species are still mosquitos, they didn't become frogs or blu-jays, or grow gills or learn to spin webs, or change phylum. In the end, they're still mosquitos.
If the DNA code in mosquitos change, no matter through what mechanism (radiation, chemicals, time, etc.) if the change is big enough, it can result in ANY kind of creature that's out there.

Re:And evolution is?

[Anonymous Coward]

but wasn't this country halfway founded on religion?

Actually it was founded on death and destruction. More than 50 millions of our people died
at the hands of the christians because they didn't believe in your christ.

The constitution said that every men were equal, the framers of the constitution forgot about
the rights of women and when they talked about men they didn't mean anyone who wasn't white.

Now that the courts actually apply the constitution, this pisses off the fundy christians who
talk about the intent of the framers.

The religious ones among the framers of the constitution were actually the biggest supporters
of the separation of church and state because they didn't want a king who would impose a state
religion.

The christian fundamentalists are just as dangerous as the fundamentalist muslims

In other words, what the fuck is your point?

Re:And evolution is?

[Anonymous Coward]

You write:

Tell me God, ``yes'' or ``no,'' will you answer, ``no''?

And you are making the same fundemental mistake as the
ID crowd. You propose to experiment on God. This was
the third temptation of Christ. God's answer would not be
"yes" or "no" but rather a question about you're finiteness
such as He answered Job.

Trying to pin God down as you do, or with some brittle theory
as the ID crowd does, or with nails on a cross as the Romans
did leads to new and unexpected results rather than accomplishing
your goal. And, the results are never the same so that
reproducibility is not an option. This is why it is written
you shall not test the Lord your God.

Re:And evolution is?

[RodgerDodger]

You were a single celled organism, straight after conception. This single-celled organism grew into you, passing through a stage incredibly similar to fish embryos, including gills.

Re:And evolution is?

[endoplasmicMessenger]

Okay here's one for you: explain the eye. It either works or it doesn't. There is no evolutionary intermediate form that would function so how could it have evolved?

Classic mistake.... the 'I don't know how so it is impossible without devine intervention' excuse.
Science has already demonstrated that you need only a few modifications to allow normal brain tissue to become light sensitive.

Does that also include all the necessary neurological adaptations that are necessary so that the organism can actually make sense of those light pulses? I didn't think so.

And an eye with a few components still can give you an advantage over others that don't have it:
-Take out the muscles that move it around, you would have to turn your head to look at different things, but it would still be usefull.
-Take out the focussing stuff, you would only see a few things really clear, but when a large blob comes at you at high speed you might step aside while someone without this less usefull eye would get hit/eaten.

Oh yeah, that's assuming that there is optical/motor coordination which is necessary to make that primitive eye the least bit useful. And if it is not useful, why, again, would it have selective advantage?

-Take out color, black and white tigers still look dangerous enough without the yellow.
-Take out the transparent stuff and place a thing layer of skin in its place, you would get even worse focusing but one could still see blobs moving around.

Once again, an eye is not all that useful and would have no adaptive advantage unless you also have all of the neurological wiring in place so that the organism can make cognitive sense of any light pulses that might stimulate its nervous system, and initiate any motor activities that it thinks would be useful in a response to those light pulses.

-Remove the fluid stuff and place the retina close to the skin, you could still detect sudden changes in the lighting.

Do them all and you are very close to the simple lightsensitive braincell.

An organism does not live by a simple lightsensitive braincell alone.

I am not saying that is the way it happened, but I could think a possible path up in a few seconds without the need to drag some higher being into the picture.

Good for you. But there is one other thing that science requires: E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E. Your wishful hypothesis is just that -- unless you can cough up some evidence.

The whole 'irreducibly complex' stuff is a joke,

Ha ha, I'm laughing. I'm still waiting for someone to show me how random activity can produce order. I'm all ears. For example, there are two kinds of biological reproduction: asexual (mitosis) and sexual (meiosis). Now, meiosis is the more advance form, and so therefore, presumably, mitosis somehow evolved into meiosis. But the first time meiosis (accidentally?) happened, it would not really have had any survival benefit. So there is no reason that it should be "selected" into the population. It performed the same function as mitosis. And besides, for meiosis to survive, it needs the support of two completely different but complimentary reproductive systems: one male and one female. So we have the situation where meiosis has no real survival benefit. Plus, the infrastructure needed to support it did not exist at all. So this aberrant mutation is one of the many which vanished in the fog of history, right? Well, no, apparently not. But Neo-Darwinism can't explain why it should have survived at all, let alone how two completely independent reproductive systems evolved simultaneously to support it. I would be very impressed if you could show me evidence that a random process managed all that.

the being that is supposed to do that sort of stuff would need to be even more complex...

So, you don't think there might be any aliens out there that are more advanced than us?

I don't disbelieve evolution but neither

Re:And evolution is?

[endoplasmicMessenger]

sigh Nonexistence proofs are trivial.

God is mildly amused at your clever use of logic. But he is not mocked.

Re:And evolution is?

[TrumpetPower!]

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! BAAWA!

Oh, my, that's rich.

Tell me, which Christ is it that was tempted? The one that ascended from a room near Jerusalem where the disciples were seated 'round a table, outdoors after supper at Bethany, several weeks later at Mt. Olivet, or not at all? Because, like, I'd want to make sure I wasn't tempting the worng Christ and all.

Anyway, the reason it's written that you shouldn't tempt your god has nothing to do with his wristwear. It's written that way for the same reason that the Wizard of Oz is allergic to small dogs.

Cheers,

b&

Re:And evolution is?

[endoplasmicMessenger]

I find it much easier to believe in evolution than to believe that God went through this elaborate lie to trick us.

I believe that evolution is a fact. I also believe that Neo-Darwinian theory is nonsense.

I am stating this just to let you know that not everyone who disagrees with Neo-Darwinism is a fundamentalist/creationist.

Open your mind. It's good for you.

Re:And evolution is?

[cbiltcliffe]

His viewpoint has something to do with a science, whereas yours doesn't.

Take a look at some of these definitions for "science":
http://www.google.ca/search?client=firefox-a&rls=o rg.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial_s&hl=en&q=define%3A+ science&meta=&btnG=Google+Search

You'll find I used "a process for evaluating empirical knowledge", as required by the Wikipedia definition. I also "systematically acquired knowledge that is verifiable", as required by Oregon State University. I'd say what I did had a great deal to do with science. It just didn't come to a conclusion you wanted to hear. Just because it's an observation from my driveway over a couple of years doesn't make it any less scientific than a government-funded research group digging huge holes in the desert. I admit, my chances of publication are significantly smaller, however.....

Re:And evolution is?

[endoplasmicMessenger]

The macro/micro evolution distinction is no more than a human contruct, there is no difference between the two in nature.

Ha! that's a good one. There is no evidence that micro-evolution has anything to do with macro-evolution.

This has been observed, e.g. several new mosquito species have evolved in the London subway.

And you know what? My Great Dane does not mate with my Chiuaua. So I guess those are two different species as well.

Re:And evolution is?

[Coryoth]

You're very assertive, but did you witness it first-hand? For that matter, did I witness our creation first-hand? The answer to both questions is "no". Both require a fair amount of faith to believe in.

Did the trial at Dover actually take place? Did you actually go there and witness it first hand? Or are you simply assuming it did given reasonable and sufficient evidence that it did occur, and nothing soundly verifiable to the contrary.

Did birds evolve from reptiles? Well I don't know that they did, but then I technically don't know that I wrote the comment you replied to - perhaps I was simply created a moment ago with prearranged memories of having written such a comment. Dropping pointless solipsist thinking, what do I actually know? I know that there are an awful lot of fossils that provide a remarkably rich array of intermediary forms that all fit chronologically together to make a very plausible line of descent showing slow but steady morphological changes. I know that genetically birds and reptiles share a suprising amount in common, to the point where scientists can flip a single genetic switch and produce chickens with scales instead of feathers. I know that speciation in the wild has been observed, and I know that given a sufficiently forceful and directed selection process huge morphological differences can be generated even within a single species (see dog, and pigeon breeders for instance, or rose growers for fairly significant morphological change coupled with speciation). I know that the fossil record provides plenty of other rich and detailed examples of transitional forms and series. I know that the concept of evolution makes rational sense to me. So while I didn't witness reptiles evolving, over the course of hundreds of millions of years, into birds, there is an awful lot of evidence that makes such an explanation entirely plausible, a lot of evidence that will require significant alternative explanation should something else be the case, and, as far as I can tell, very little evidence for the explanations that you seem to be forwarding. Weighing the likelihoods of the various possibilities, it seems that reptiles evolving into birds is far and away the best explanation we have on hand at the moment.

If I hold a book up and prepare to drop it then it is entirely possible that the book will simply fly up and rest against the ceiling when I do let go. Regardless of what has happened in the past the future is not written (at least, not in any script you or I are privy to), and there is no way that you or I can know what will happen when I actually drop the book - certainly neither of us have actually witnessed it; we can't see into the future. It is, then, an act of faith to assume that the book will fall to the floor, just as much as it is an act of faith that the book will fly up to the ceiling. The fact that both beliefs are matters of faith does not preclude the fact that, given all that we know, one is a far more likely explanation than the other.

Jedidiah.

Re:And evolution is?

[TrumpetPower!]

endoplasmicMessenger wrote:

Does that also include all the necessary neurological adaptations that are necessary so that the organism can actually make sense of those light pulses? I didn't think so.

Dude...we're talking about brain cells here. You know, those things that're already doing that neurological stuff that makes sense of those electromagnetic signal thingies?

Ha ha, I'm laughing. I'm still waiting for someone to show me how random activity can produce order. I'm all ears.

Okay, fill your ears with this.

Go to the toy store. Buy a bag of marbles--at least a double handful.

Go to the shoe store. Get a shoebox.

Toss the marbles into the shoebox. Be certain to do this randomly!

Observe as the marbles spontaneously arrange themselves into the exact same arrangement as a beehive, and, hey-presto! What have we got? Why, order from chaos, of course!. For that matter, just try to keep the marbles from arranging themselves in a nice, neat, orderly fashion.

This whole ``order can never arise from randomness'' thing is pure bullshit. How do you think entropy works? If an ordered state is more stable than a disordered one, then the ordered state will persist where the disordered one won't. It's why astronomical bodies are (generally) spherical, it's why crystals are so pretty, and it's why you're here. So get over it, already: your god is completely superfluous, thankyouverymuch.

Cheers,

b&

Re:And evolution is?

[yndrd1984]

If the eye is in fact designed, why does it suffer from the imperfection of the blind spot?

These are called design constraints. They are found in just about every design activity you can think of.

Every design has constraints, but none of them require the optic nerve to go where it does. Squid eyes, for example, have no blind spot, can see in very dim light, are more sensitive to color differences than ours and move the lens rather than bending it (preventing focusing problems, like the ones that lead to reading glasses) - and have no known major downside.

From a ways back: Okay here's one for you: explain the eye. It either works or it doesn't. There is no evolutionary intermediate form that would function so how could it have evolved?

I really don't understand how you could say "It either works or it doesn't". There's a huge, obvious groups of people that have partly working vision:

People that need corrective lenses or lasik surgery
People that need cornea transplants
People that use glacoma medication
People with macular degeneration and other diseases

Even if they eventually go blind (it doesn't work), they go from normal sight (it works) through a period of slowly degrading vision (it partly works). If vision was always all-or-nothing, we wouldn't have "needs corrective lenses" on driver's licenses or have distinctions between "legally blind" and "completely blind".

As for intermediate stages, any vision is better than no vision. Just knowing which way the sun or moon is helps with navigation, and freezing when a shadow falls on you can help you avoid predators - and neither one of these uses even requires a real eye.

Re:And evolution is?

[MajorJuggler]

You raised a very good point, which there was no plausible answer for until a few years ago.

I strongly suggest the book "Starlight and Time" by Dr. Russell Humphreys.

That you doubt that God would "trick" us by creating the "appearance" of a universe (i.e. light in-transit just for "show") is a very good point. It is, in fact, one of the motivations behind Dr. Humphreys's research.

He has put forth an ID theory that seems to offer a plausable answer to this particular issue. The first section is a layman's version, while the second second section is more technical. (Equations from General Relativity, how they apply, etc)

Re:And evolution is?

[bill_mcgonigle]

This won't suddenly become 'quite efficient' in the next 100 or even 1000 years, people are getting taller, not shorter (this is caused by better nutricion and medical care while growing up), this will become a bigger problem in the future.

That's why God invented tobacco, famine and poverty. Duh.

Re:And evolution is?

[bill_mcgonigle]

Blind spot? I don't see any blind spot...

Boy, you should read some of the comments in this story more carefully then.

Re:And evolution is?

[llamaluvr]

The thing is, we don't know if the exact same logic applies in all existance. We only know it applies in our physical universe. It could be a constraint willingly applied by God as he created the universe.

Re:And evolution is?

[Ksisanth]

If you had read the next sentence, you would see that I went on to discuss the original term, itself. To wit: ``It wouldn't be too hard to prove that any of the magical properties they're supposed to have are impossible; that's all you'd need to prove that they mythical variety of unicorn doesn't exist.'' I really don't appreciate people lying about my own words.

That's funny, since I was speaking specifically about your comment regarding one-horned gazelles as unicorns, made in response to another poster who was clearly referring to the common, lexical definition. Further, "magical properties" aren't essential to that definition, either. The point was that it isn't possible to prove they don't exist, although I disagree -- it's a matter of probability (and what is technologically feasible) rather than possibility, in my view.

Just because humans have limits doesn't mean that they're incapable of understanding the unlimited.

Who shall be the judge of that? You? That would be rather arrogant. This isn't a subject that can be settled with word games. Thousands of years and the greatest minds in human history has been thrown at this puzzle and it still stands. If you would claim to have done so, I would like to see your proof, not a bunch of irrelevant bs that makes you look like a school boy who, by his own misunderstanding, thinks he's come to some brilliant insight and wants to show off. I mean wow, you figured out that not only can you not find the greatest prime number, you can't divide by zero, either. I'm so impressed. *Of course* that proves God doesn't exist, simply because dividing nothing into multiple sets of nothing makes no sense. Mystery solved./SAIC

Omnipotence might be compared to the infinity, but not the arbitrary limit you'd like to impose on it.

No. ``Omnipotence'' can only have one meaning: able to do anything. Come up with even one thing that can't be done--name a ``y'' for which y=1/0, for example--and the limit becomes quite real, not arbitrary.

How is that "limit" real, much less "quite real"? It's an abstract representation of "nothing". y!=1/0 simply because y*0=0. That's it. Nothing awesome or especially perplexing, just common sense. Whether you have 1 set of zero, no sets of zero or a billion sets of zero, it's still zero. Any number of sets would be arbitrary and infinitely interchangeable. (However, if you want to divide 1 into zero sets of whatever arbitrary number anyway, you can. You'll just have 1/0 left over, so you can try again. Forever. Have fun!)

And I believe that anybody who tosses out logic for dogmatic reasons is an idiot. And if you really think that every mathematician, logician, theoretician, and scientist since before Plato is a fool, then I think you're an anti-intellectual asshole.

Tosses out logic? Anti-intellectual? Hm. That's a new one. You do realize I was referring to proofs for/against the existence of God, don't you? Well, maybe not.

Re:And evolution is?

[nutshell42]

[...] and you've already ruled out logical impossibilities [...]

He's done nothing of that sort, you're building a strawman here.

His argument was, that you're building a strawman (i.e. a being that "can do anything" becomes able to do anything that's logically possible while your argument to disprove it implies that it should be able to do things that are logically impossible) which you then proceed to burn down to prove something else. If an omnipotent being is bound by the rules of logic or the laws of nature there are things it can't do which by definition makes it not-omnipotent.

Also your "proves" against omniscience either don't account for the possibility that the many-worlds interpretation is correct, that the omniscient being needn't be omnipotent or that it could answer but the answer would take infinite time to tell you.

Re:And evolution is?

[Koiu Lpoi]

I agree with your point, but to play Devil's Advocate (or is that God's advocate?)...

Being omnipotent, God can work outside any logical constraint.

Also, don't try convincing these people they're wrong. No matter what you throw at them, you'll get nowhere. You're just wasting energy. Trust me.

Re:And evolution is?

[BorgDrone]

And you know what? My Great Dane does not mate with my Chiuaua. So I guess those are two different species as well.

No, they are not. They are able to interbreed, maybe some things don't 'fit', but you can fertilize an egg of one of them with the sperm of the other and if you'd let it come to term it will result in a fertile dog.

Re:And evolution is?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe God is gay? Some of the best set designers I know are gay and this is one hell of a set design.

Re:And evolution is?

[NotoriousGOD]

I REPEAT I AM NOT CHRISTIAN AND NOT PROTESTANT. I do not believe in Jesus or teh God. So stop telling me how stupid Christianity is because I know.

Re:And evolution is?

[Tab is on Slashdot]

God created man in His image, so unless the universal standard for perfection includes "suboptimal eye", either God is not perfect, or man was not created in His image and therefore the bible is not accurate (neither answer being acceptable to a creationist).

Re:And evolution is?

[Macdude]

According to Genesis, there was a flood which covered the whole earth. Everything alive at the time would have been washed away, and eventually settled to the bottom. Small stuff would have fallen through the cracks between the big stuff, resulting in a layer which shows nothing (already there at the time of the flood), a layer which shows small stuff (where all the small stuff settled to) and higher layers showing bigger and bigger life forms.

Explain to me, scientifically, why your viewpoint is the right way to interpret this evidence, and mine is incorrect.

Well to start with, you'd have to show evidence of the flood...

Re:And evolution is?

[Anonymous Coward]

Now there's some good 'ol fashioned common sense.

Here's something on a similar note. If god exists and is interested in human beings, then I can't imagine he is an arrogant god. More precisely, I don't believe that god would require or even suggest worship, let alone a relationship based on fear. Worship is as human a quality as they come, and fear-mongering is clearly the agenda of a con man. Both are quite obviously human inventions, and moreover, history has proved it over and over again.

So to expect or require worship is plainly arrogant. Given that god is supposed to represent peace and love, I would expect that he judge us only on our peace, love, and general respect for his creations, especially our fellow human beings.

So let me get down to the bottom of all this: Regardless of whether god exists, organized religion is a scam!

Re:And evolution is?

[Morky]

I'm continually shocked that people with your mindset are Slashdot readers.

Re:And evolution is?

[jazman]

Why is that a trick? If he didn't create the light in transit between the star and us then obviously we wouldn't be able to see the stars. Creating the light in transit doesn't have to mean that God's trying to make us think the universe has been around longer than it has; it's an obvious requirement if he wants us to be able to see stuff further away than the speed of light would allow.

Re:And evolution is?

[why-is-it]

Are there any triangular circles? Nope. Perpetual motion machines? Not a chance. Married bachelors? Ha!

It is interesting that you essentially concede my point with your pink elephant example, but then you try really hard to deny it. I'm not sure why, because the point I was originally trying to make is/was so very minor.

And hey-presto! we've just come up with some more things that even a supposedly-omnipotent being couldn't do. Therefore, ``omnipotence'' is its own self-contained oxymoron.

No, actually. The thing is, if a truly omnipotent being were to exist, it could (by definition) create any of those paradoxes you have listed. How could it do so? I have no idea but then again, neither of us are omnipotent. Just as I cannot have an internal representation of what an infinite series of objects looks like, I am also unable to comprehend the possibilities of what an omnipotent being would be able to do.

If I were to become part of the Q-continuum, I presumably could alter the fundamental nature of reality in such a way so that I could create a square-circle if that was what I really wanted to do. As an encore, I would divide by zero just because I could!

I'm sorry, but hand-waving won't do shit to stave off your crisis of faith.

Since you obviously know me so well, could you please tell me which crisis of faith it is that I am trying to stave off?

To paraphrase the Monty Python sketch, an argument is a series of linked premises designed to establish a conclusion.

Your example about all but God being able to do something is really quite pointless. This is obviously not a course in formal logic, but all the same I would have thought that you would be able to create a valid argument. If not, please feel free to continue with the ad-homenim attacks.

Careful, I think your blinder might be slipping.

Oh well, ad-homenim it is then.

I'll spell this one out a bit more clearly, since you really didn't think about the details of your "test" of omniscience. In your example, you know in advance what the predictions are, and as such the experiement is utterly compromised. Under double-blind conditions, a truly omniscient being should be able to predict with 100% accuracy exactly what you will do in the next 5 minutes, 5 hours, or whatever interval was mutually acceptable.

Unh-huh. ``Teach the controversy.'' More properly, ``Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!'' Because, like, if you use your brain, we won't be able to pull the wool over your eyes.

Straw man and ad-homenium. I think I detect a hint of "poisoning the well" too. That's one of the nice things about /. - so much variety!

Look, if you are unable to participate in, or uninterested in a rational discussion, just say so.

And all I'm doing is pointing out that you're worng. Sorry.

When are you going to do that? All you have done is indicate that you disagree with my opinions.

...unless you've got a working perpetual motion machine to bring out? Because that's exactly as possible as your omnipotent god.

An omnipotent god *could* create a perpetual motion machine, simply by virtue of it being omnipotent.

Proving that the universe is creatorless is trivial;

You are indeed a great philosopher. I'm clearly out of my league here. Please enlighten me with the details, if you can dumb them down to my level..

Whether or not there's some remarkable being that resembles a giant plate of spaghetti is another matter entirely,

Actually, it is the core issue I presented. Can you logically prove that such a being does not exist?

but we can be certain that it had nothing whatsoever to do with the creation of the universe.

Why? Because your definitions say so? What if your premises are wrong?

That's the interesting thing about logic. If you start from false premises, you can logically reach a false conclusion.

A gazelle with an amputated horn looks nearly exactly

Re:And evolution is?

[tiraid]

Tell me God, ``yes'' or ``no,'' will you answer, ``no''?

But how are you supposed to ask the question if you are unable to speak?

Re:And evolution is?

[sickofthisshit]

But seeing that "further away" stuff is exactly one of the things that makes us believe that the universe is approximately 15 billion years old, see? Light coming from the sun takes 8 minutes to get to my eyes, light coming from alpha centauri takes about 4 years, and light from the very furthest objects takes about 15 billion years to get here.

We see it today here on Earth, therefore, it appears to have been around long in the past, and presumably the universe was there to contain it.

Re:And evolution is?

[Anonymous Coward]

"You could also foil a supposedly-omniscient god just by asking it to tell you what you'll do next. Whatever the god tells you, do something else."

Well, this omniscient individual would know that you would ask that question and reply by saying that you'll do the opposite of what will be said.

"The modern theological god is essentially dependent on so many logically-impossible traits it's not even funny. First cause? Well, if everything needs a creator, then what created the creator? Omnibenevolent? Then, whence comes evil?"

I believe that this is what is referred to as a strawman argument. The creator has no creator, it is thought of as the exception to the the rule, being the first cause. When dealing with the supernatural, these are the kinds of arguments that'll come up. It most certainly isn't science, and that's why it shouldn't be confused with it. And as for omnibenevolence, then I think you need to take the concept of free will into account. The statement regarding omnibenevolence does not mean evil cannot exist. So if you're going to attack these concepts, you may want to at least make sure you get the facts right.

Re:And evolution is?

[CountBrass]

You completely and utterly missed my point re the eye. It wasn't that it was complex but rather that it either works or it doesn't.

Re:And evolution is?

[CountBrass]

I think you have a point but I'd throw in two things to consider: despite your argument there may well be a pattern. Second what people seem to forget is that we're not at the end of the process (well unless life on earth ends in the near, in evolutionary terms, future). Evolution doesn't appear to treat "now" as a special case where as creationism and ID seem to.

Re:And evolution is?

[jazman]

Well, yes of course. But you can't assume the universe is not young, take observations like this, then use them to prove the universe is not young; that's what scientists generally call invalid reasoning on the grounds of being a circular argument. All observing a star 15bn light years away proves is that that star is 15bn light years away; it requires other assumptions, or observations that themselves do not rest on the "not young" assumption because then you've still got a circular argument, before you can conclude "therefore the universe is at least 15bn years old."

IMHO since ID proponents get accused of being unscientific, it's only fair that its opponents should be required to be scientific.

Re:And evolution is?

[sickofthisshit]

I didn't start with the assumption that the universe is old.

I started (and astronomers started) with the idea that light has a consistent speed through space, and that light is produced by the same atomic processes in stars that produce light here on Earth and in the sun. Then, we make observations, and see that they are consistent with 15 billion year old quasars and whatnot emitting light that we are just seeing today.

THE OBSERVATION OF AN OLD UNIVERSE IS THE CONCLUSION, NOT THE ASSUMPTION. THERE IS NO CIRCLE IN THE ARGUMENT.

To argue that the universe was created a short time ago with the *appearance* of age requires an ADDITIONAL assumption (or MORE). That is, requires something like the change of speed of light over time (which is ruled out by other physics consideration), or the supposition that there was some "magical" event that made everything just so to look old, but happened just, say, 10,000 years ago, but otherwise everything looks exactly like an old argument.

Where is the evidence for any young age? What justifies the assumption? No credible scientific observation that I know of.

Adding these unnecessary assumptions that add NO PREDICTIVE VALUE to the model is the unscientific part. Conventional cosmologists don't make them. Young creation apologists do. That's why the first are acting scientifically, and the latter are not.

Re:And evolution is?

[Anonymous Coward]

The OP forgot to mention that while performing this experiment, he has his eyes closed, fingers in his ears, and is humming hymns.

So you can wave all sorts of textbooks at him, but he really can't see.

Re:And evolution is?

[pnewhook]

OK, what about supernovae? This is the remnants of the explosion of a star that is at the end of it's life.

Supernova SN1987A is determined to be about 170000 light years away (a recent, near supernova). That means the star exploded 170000 years ago for us to see the explosion in 1987.

So for the young earth theory to be correct, God must have created the star already exploded, then created the light of the star (that didn't really exist), and the explosion, in transit so we would *think* that the star exploded. You don't call this trickery?

Re:And evolution is?

[jazman]

There's no need to shout. This is supposed to be a (n at least semi-) scientific discussion, not a slanging match.

OK, I make the additional assumption that God created the star plus the light in transit so that we can see it straight away without having to wait for the light to get here. Doesn't your assumption that this wasn't the case also count as an extra assumption that balances out my extra assumption, and if not, why not?

Re:And evolution is?

[sickofthisshit]

No, you are absolutely and completely wrong in saying these balance out.

1) my "assuming god didn't do anything" is the same as assuming nothing did anything. I place no requirements at all on the nature of God's interaction, because I claim there is none. I do not depend on the truth or falsity of the statement. It is *not* an assumption at all! If you cannot grasp this, you are lost to all logical thought.

2) More importantly, your assuming God put everything together in exactly the right way does NOTHING to change the predictions of the theory. Just scratch it completely out, and all the observations and predictions stay absolutely the same. It is totally superfluous, and thus has no motivation to be included. This is the famous Ockham's razor.

Re:And evolution is?

[pnewhook]

what gives you the idea that my mind is closed ?

Re:And evolution is?

[Anonymous Coward]

Now that we are rejecting evolution, let's start reexamining those other so called "firmly held theories of science". I say we give this guy a shot at teaching his theory in schools as well.

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/fe-scidi.htm

Re:And evolution is?

[Lesson No. 25]

If we had spaces allowed in usernames, only then would we know!

Yes, that would help. If only..

Re:And evolution is?

[PriceIke]

One of the most impressive Slashdot posts I've seen in a long time. Skoal!

Re:And evolution is?

[PriceIke]

By removing the term "design" from the discussion, you've rendered the discussion meaningless. If you see the universe as a big creation of "art" .. then that creation needs no intelligent design. If it doesn't need intelligent design, then you've capitulated that it therefore evolved according to its own "rules".

If I ever meet the guy, I hope I remember to ask him why men have nipples.

Re:And evolution is?

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL. The parent was rated insightful?

miracle n. An event inexplicable by the laws of nature: wonder. See supernatural.

By definition, something being explainable or natural removes it from being a miracle.

Re:And evolution is?

[endoplasmicMessenger]

Go to the toy store. Buy a bag of marbles--at least a double handful. Go to the shoe store. Get a shoebox. Toss the marbles into the shoebox. Be certain to do this randomly! Observe as the marbles spontaneously arrange themselves into the exact same arrangement as a beehive, and, hey-presto! What have we got? Why, order from chaos, of course!

This whole ``order can never arise from randomness'' thing is pure bullshit. How do you think entropy works? If an ordered state is more stable than a disordered one, then the ordered state will persist where the disordered one won't. It's why astronomical bodies are (generally) spherical, it's why crystals are so pretty, and it's why you're here. So get over it, already: your god is completely superfluous, thankyouverymuch.

Here's another experiment for you. Go to the toy store. Buy a bag of white marbles and a bag of black marbles. Now, put the white marbles in your shoe box, on the left, and then put the black marbles in the shoe box on the right. Now put the cover on and shake well. Open box. Are the white marbles on the left and the black ones on the right? No? Repeat. Continue this until the marbles are segregated again. Make out your will because you will probably die before you produce this outcome.

Now, what is the difference between your experiment and mine? Well, your's depends on energy state and mine doesn't. But guess what? The information encoded in DNA does not depend on energy state. Oh yes, the DNA molecule itself depends on energy state. But not the information encoded in it. DNA is a neutral medium. It can encode anything. It can encode the Encyclopedia Britannica. The point to remember is that the information encoded in DNA does not depend on energy state.

So, in fact, my experiment more closely models the information structure of DNA. Your experiment is meaningless and irrelevant when discussing biological information.

Re:And evolution is?

[endoplasmicMessenger]

BTW, did you know that the gene that controls eye development in both vertebrates and insects is 94% identical. That's not just two different species. That's two different phyla. 94% the same. So, the design constraint is that you must use more or less the same gene controller for the development of the insect eye and the vertebrate eye. How's that for a design challenge?

Every design has constraints, but none of them require the optic nerve to go where it does. Squid eyes, for example, have no blind spot, can see in very dim light, are more sensitive to color differences than ours and move the lens rather than bending it (preventing focusing problems, like the ones that lead to reading glasses) - and have no known major downside.

Well, a squid is neither a vertebrate nor an insect. And humans do not descend from the family of squids, now do they. Next time, listen more closely to the assignment.

Evolution is a fact. Neo-Darwinism is not. You seem like a smart guy. Open your mind. It's good for you.

Re:And evolution is?

[endoplasmicMessenger]

And you know what? My Great Dane does not mate with my Chiuaua. So I guess those are two different species as well.

No, they are not. They are able to interbreed, maybe some things don't 'fit', but you can fertilize an egg of one of them with the sperm of the other and if you'd let it come to term it will result in a fertile dog.

But most evolutionists define speciation it terms of whether two group are observed to interbreed. Not if they can interbreed. This is one thing that make speciation observations somewhat controversial.

Re:And evolution is?

[TrumpetPower!]

endoplasmicMessenger wrote:

The information encoded in DNA does not depend on energy state.

Bullshit.

``Survival of the fittest'' is just another way of saying, ``reproductive efficiency,'' after all. And, if you don't believe that there's any correlation whatsoever between reproductive efficiency and dependency on an energy state, I've got a perpetual motion machine to sell you.

Cheers,

b&

Re:And evolution is?

[endoplasmicMessenger]

OK, maybe you are not closed minded.

But I would be interested in what you mean by "God went through this elaborate lie to trick us."

That certainly doesn't sound like you are giving God much of the benefit of the doubt.

Re:And evolution is?

[endoplasmicMessenger]

The information encoded in DNA does not depend on energy state.

Bullshit.

``Survival of the fittest'' is just another way of saying, ``reproductive efficiency,'' after all. And, if you don't believe that there's any correlation whatsoever between reproductive efficiency and dependency on an energy state, I've got a perpetual motion machine to sell you.

I see that you think you know something about physics but don't know much about biology. Let me see if I can educate you.

The DNA (deoxyrobonucleic acid) molecule is a polymer (a chain) whose elements (the links) are called nucleotides. One part of each nucleotide is a phosphate group (a phosphorus atom joined with four oxygen atoms). These are the same in each nucleotide and serve to hold the links together.

The main part of each nucleotide is called a nucleoside which is composed of a sugar (deoxyribose - carbon, oxygen and hydrogen) and a base. The sugar sits in line with the phosphate groups and forms the the backbone of the construction, which looks something like this:

...::phosphate group::sugar::phosphate group::sugar::phosphate group::...

So far, this is nothing but a repeating structure that contains no distinct information. And certainly, in terms of energy state, it is just a repeating molecule, no part of it having an energy state which is any different from any other part.

Now, we said that a nucleoside is composed of a sugar and a base and we have described how the sugar is part of what we so far have called the backbone. The base extends off to the side from the sugar and so is not part of the backbone proper.

There are four kinds of bases: adenine (denoted by A), thymine (denoted by T), cytosine (denoted by C), and guanine (denoted by G). Each of these bases is composed of carbon, oxygen, hydrogen and nitrogen atoms.

It is the base of each nucleoside which gives uniqueness to each link in the chain. By creating a string of nucleosides, a string of unique pieces of information is being created. The backbone is an information neutral (and energy state neutral) sequence of repeating identical sugars and phosphate groups. The information gets attached to the sugars in the form of 4 distinct bases. But these are not directly attached to each other. The bases attach to the backbone via a sugar -- the identical sugar in every case. So any difference in the molecular configuration of these bases only trivially effects the energy state of the DNA molecule as a whole which is primarily defined by the identical components of the backbone.

Each triplet of nucleotides specifies one genetic codon. This means that the string of nucleotides in the DNA molecule are interpreted in groups of three. There are 64 (4^3) different mathematical combinations of the three bases. That is, there are 64 possible codons. So individual bases do not directly contribute to the interpretation of the DNA molecule. They are only interpreted in groups of three. So if there are minor differences in energy state between the different bases, this is further isolated by the fact that the bases are not interpreted individually, but only in groups of three.

Each codon (group of three nucleotides) specifies one amino acid. But there are not 64 different amino acids. There are only 20 amino acids. So there is some redudancy in the way that codons map to amino acids. For your edification, here is histogram of mappings:

Number of Mappings/Amino Acid
6/Ser - Serine
6/Leu - Leucine
6/Arg - Arginine
5/Ala - Alanine
4/Thr - Threonine
4/Pro - Proline
4/Gly - Glycine
3/Val - Valine
3/STOP
3/Ile - Isoleucine
2/Tyr - Tyrosine
2/Phe - Phenylalanine
2/Lys - Lysine
2/His - Histidine
2/Glu - Glutamic Acid - glx - Z
2/Gin - Glutamine - glx - Z
2/Cys - Cysteine
2/

Re:And evolution is?

[pnewhook]

But I would be interested in what you mean by "God went through this elaborate lie to trick us." That certainly doesn't sound like you are giving God much of the benefit of the doubt.

Please read my other post about this here.

Also, holding the view that the entire universe was created solely for our benefit (which is what IDers are implying when they say it is 6000 years old and created according to our bible) is possibly the most arrogant thing I've ever heard. Nowhere in the bible does it say this -it is solely a human interpretation. There are countless billions of galaxies each with billions of stars. Why would all of this be just for us when we cant even see the galaxies let alone visit them? This simply doesn't make sense.

It is so much simpler and more logical to believe that God created the universe out of nothing (i.e. the Big Bang) as the bible says, and allowed the universe to evolve on its own according to a set of rules that he set up (i.e. rules we discover and call Physics, Geology, Astrophysics, etc.) You can always interpret the bible such that it does not conflict with known and accepted science - the majority of Christians and other religions take this approach, and it is the official view of their church.

Re:And evolution is?

[TrumpetPower!]

endoplasmicMessenger wrote:

That's another way of saying that the DNA molecule can encode ANYTHING.

Duh.

Or that its encoding does not depend on energy state.

Like I said, bullshit.

Look, just how do you think DNA gets propagated? Do you really think that DNA encoded in an organism's cells is going to survive if it causes that organism to expend twice the energy to do half the work? Do you really think that a stronger, faster, more efficient organism--thanks to its DNA--isn't going to create more offspring?

The way I see it, there're two possibilities. The first, and most likely, is that you just cut-n-pasted that introduction to DNA because you found it linked off of some Liar-for-Jesus's website. You don't understand more than a few words of it, but that doesn't bother you. It sounds all technical and impressive, and it all boils down to, ``DNA can encode ANYTHING.'' You like that, because it's not too hard to then make the false leap to ``Every permutation of DNA is equally likely.'' You really like that one, because the obvious conclusion is that ``Only Jesus can make sure that only good DNA winds up in your genes.

Shit, even your summary contradicts your premise, when you talk about interlocking blocks bumping into each other. Right there, in that very paragraph, you demonstrate that, in the real world, DNA cannot encode ``ANYTHING.'' What makes you think that's in any way different from my example with the marbles, or a crystal, or anything else? Just how fucking stupid does Jesus make a person, anyway?

The other possibility is that you're the Liar-for-Jesus yourself. You know that it's all bullshit, but you also realize that, the more people who believe your lies, the more power you can wield over them and the more of their money they'll give to you.

So, if you did a cut-and-paste job, you owe it to yourself to educate yourself to the point that you can actually understand it. Because, if you do, you'll realize the smoke-and-mirrors job that somebody is putting on you.

And if you wrote it yourself, fuck off, eat shit, and die. You asshole Christians are doing your damnedest to create hell on Earth just so you can be smug in knowing that you're more powerful than those who've got your boots in their faces. Meanwhile, us atheists are trying as hard as we can to turn Earth into heaven--it doesn't exist anywhere else, after all--and we're damned sick of having to put up with your crusade to tear down everything we've built.

Cheers,

b&

Re:And evolution is?

[endoplasmicMessenger]

But I would be interested in what you mean by "God went through this elaborate lie to trick us." That certainly doesn't sound like you are giving God much of the benefit of the doubt.

Please read my other post about this here [slashdot.org].

Well, I'm not sure who you're refuting. I'm not a creationist and I don't believe in a young earth. I believe that the universe is 13.7 billion years old. That the earth is 4.3 billion years old. That life started on earth about 13.8 million years ago. And that Neo-Darwinism is mostly a bunch of nonsense.

Now, if you want to convince me of something, convince me of how earth went from a ball of molten lava to a host for living creatures in only about 500 million years.

I think you are probably confused by the fact that most creationists are in some sense, IDers. But not all IDers are creationists. In the future, I would suggest that you first make sure that your audience is in fact creationist before expending too much energy in refuting creationist arguments that your audience does not hold.

Also, holding the view that the entire universe was created solely for our benefit (which is what IDers are implying when they say it is 6000 years old and created according to our bible) is possibly the most arrogant thing I've ever heard.

You seem to be confusing IDers with creationists. They are not the same thing. If I look at a mouse trap, not knowing its origin, I might conclude that it is designed, and not the result of unguided random processes. Likewise, if I look at certain structures of a cell, I might come to the same conclusion. Making observations and coming up with hypotheses does not suddenly make one a young earth creationist.

Re:And evolution is?

[endoplasmicMessenger]

endoplasmicMessenger wrote:

That's another way of saying that the DNA molecule can encode ANYTHING.

Duh.

Well, I'm glad that you agree that the DNA molecule can encode anything. Because that's the same as saying its encoding is not dependent on energy state of the DNA molecule. If encoding were dependent on energy state, then there would only be certain things that could be encoded. And the fact the DNA can encode the blueprints for every creature that has ever lived pretty much means that in can encode anything. It's up to you to demonstrate that there is something that can not be encoded by the DNA molecule.

Or that its encoding does not depend on energy state.

Like I said, bullshit.

Oh, now I'm convinced (not).

Look, just how do you think DNA gets propagated?

What does this have to do with the energy state of the DNA molecule?

Do you really think that DNA encoded in an organism's cells is going to survive if it causes that organism to expend twice the energy to do half the work?

Probably not. That's something that will be decided between the organism and its environment (maybe you've heard of Natural Selection). It doesn't have anything to do with the energy state of the DNA molecule itself. It's because the encoding of the DNA molecule does not depend on energy state that it can encode arbitrary changes that can be beneficial (or not) to the organism.

Do you really think that a stronger, faster, more efficient organism--thanks to its DNA--isn't going to create more offspring?

I don't think you even understand what the energy state of a molecule is. You originally seemed to be suggesting that what gets encoded into the DNA molecule was determined by the resulting energy state of the DNA molecule. As if a DNA molecule in a lower energy state will result in an organism with better survival characteristics. The energy state of the DNA molecule, and the resulting survival traits in the organism are to completely orthogonal concepts. It does not appear that you understand that.

The way I see it, there're two possibilities. The first, and most likely, is that you just cut-n-pasted that introduction to DNA because you found it linked off of some Liar-for-Jesus's website. You don't understand more than a few words of it, but that doesn't bother you. It sounds all technical and impressive, and it all boils down to, ``DNA can encode ANYTHING.''

As they say, Ad hominem attacks are the last refuge of the weak minded. If there is something you disagree with, why don't you engage the argument instead of slashing out.

You like that, because it's not too hard to then make the false leap to ``Every permutation of DNA is equally likely.''

Well, for the first time you are showing some evidence that you actually understand the matter at hand. Yes, that is exactly my point: Every permutation of DNA is equally likely. If you can demonstrate that this is not true, then please be my guest.

You really like that one, because the obvious conclusion is that ``Only Jesus can make sure that only good DNA winds up in your genes.

Huh? Mutations are more likely to be harmful than to be beneficial. Maybe you should check out these frogs in Minnesota. They will have a hard time producing any offspring at all.

Shit, even your summary contradicts your premise, when you talk about interlocking blocks bumping into each other. Right there, in that very paragraph, you demonstrate that, in the real world, DNA cannot encode ``ANYTHING.''

Huh? The things that are bumping into each other are called "proteins". A protein is a chain of amino acids usually several hundred long. All cells function literally by proteins bumping into each other and in doing so, modifying how the inte

Re:And evolution is?

[pnewhook]

My audience, and the people who were responding to my posts were creationists who were pushing Intelligent Design as science.

You seem to be confusing IDers with creationists. They are not the same thing. If I look at a mouse trap, not knowing its origin, I might conclude that it is designed, and not the result of unguided random processes. Likewise, if I look at certain structures of a cell, I might come to the same conclusion. Making observations and coming up with hypotheses does not suddenly make one a young earth creationist.

ID was thought up by creationists. If others have discarded the obviously stupid portions of their beliefs then good for them. Since you are using analogies. I put forward this one in rebuttal.

Re:And evolution is?

[TrumpetPower!]

endoplasmicMessenger wrote:

The energy state of the DNA molecule, and the resulting survival traits in the organism are to completely orthogonal concepts. It does not appear that you understand that.

[. . .]

Yes, that is exactly my point: Every permutation of DNA is equally likely. If you can demonstrate that this is not true, then please be my guest.

[. . .]

Mutations are more likely to be harmful than to be beneficial. Maybe you should check out these frogs in Minnesota [hamline.edu]. They will have a hard time producing any offspring at all.

Seriously, just what the fuck are you smoking?

On the one hand, you seem to be intelligent enough to realize that what gets encoded in an organism's DNA is far from random, and is, indeed, highly dependent on all the environmental pressures that have been so-well described since Darwin. In other words, an organism is what it is (and its DNA carries that particular encoding) for exactly the same reasons that a bunch of marbles is neatly organized in a shoebox.

On the other hand, you can't let go of the fact that, in laboratory conditions, DNA can be twisted into any shape you want--never mind that all but a vanishingly small number of those permutations would encode something that could never possibly result in a viable organism.

And you use this red herring to argue that evolution is impossible, that only your god's magical powers can explain the diversity of life?

Dude...you need drugs, all right. Just not the ones you're taking.

Cheers,

b&

Re:And evolution is?

[endoplasmicMessenger]

ID was thought up by creationists. If others have discarded the obviously stupid portions of their beliefs then good for them. Since you are using analogies. I put forward this one [csicop.org] in rebuttal.

From your link:

The natural question ... is who designed this marvel of complexity [modern free market economies]? Which commissar decreed the number of packets of dental floss for each retail outlet? The answer, of course, is that no economic god designed this system. It emerged and grew by itself. No one argues that all the components of the candy bar distribution system must have been put into place at once, or else there would be no Snickers at the corner store.

I was looking for the rebuttal. I couldn't find one. Someone thinks that comparing the activity of many, purposeful, creative, intelligent people is comparable to an unguided random process?? I guess he is trying to say that this marvel of complexity is "undesigned". He might as well say that the Internet was undesigned (which he basically did say in his reference to email). I have news for him. Both of them arose from the dedicated, persistent, intelligent work of countless individuals. If it is all just so random, then why is it that some countries have better economic systems then others? Shouldn't every country's economic system have randomly evolved in the same way to the same level of perfection?

And this somehow proves that complex systems arise from unguided random processes? I've heard of better arguments using genetic algorithms. But even these are not persuasive because they never model real evolution very well.

There are better arguments against ID. I encourage you to find them and intelligently engage in the issue. This is the only way we will find the truth.

Re:And evolution is?

[pnewhook]

Your problem seems to be that you think belief in evolution precludes belief in God. If you accept that God and evolution can coexist then there is no need to debate Intelligent Design.

Re:And evolution is?

[jbx]

> Then send your kids to private parochial (or other such) school.

Yeah, sure, if I could afford it.

Maybe if the government would give me the $9,000 per year (or whatever it is these days) that they would have to spend on my child's education, if I left them in public school, then I could afford to send my child to private school. As it is, they tax me enough for private school, then refuse to let that money go to my child's education - unless of course I send my child to one of *their* schools.

Anyway, this fight isn't about "mythology". This fight is about preventing the government from teaching my kids that all scientists believe that humans came about through random evolution from lower species. And when the bible-thumpers try to add even the smallest disclaimer, like beginning the evolution teaching with "by the way, this is only a theory, and it's not the only commonly-accepted theory, either", all hell breaks loose.

The government wants to take my money from me and use it to teach my children that religion is wrong about the origin of our species. That is *not* seperation of church and state - that is state-sponsored atheism.

Re:And evolution is?

[Bwian_of_Nazareth]

but I'm late to the discussion, so nobody will read this...

I did. :-) Good point.

Re:And evolution is?

[endoplasmicMessenger]

And you use this red herring to argue that evolution is impossible, that only your god's magical powers can explain the diversity of life?

I believe evolution is a fact. I think you need to reduce the intake of whatever it is that you are on.

Re:And evolution is?

[endoplasmicMessenger]

Your problem seems to be that you think belief in evolution precludes belief in God. If you accept that God and evolution can coexist then there is no need to debate Intelligent Design.

I believe evolution is a fact. What's the problem?

A critic of ID once pointed me to talkorigins.org, a mostly pro-evolution web site. Here is one thing that I found:

The literature on observed speciations events is not well organized. I found only a few papers that had an observation of a speciation event as the author's main point ... Many researchers feel that there are already ample reports in the literature. Few of these folks have actually looked closely. ... I asked about two dozen graduate students and faculty members in the department where I'm a student whether there were examples where speciation had been observed in the literature ... Everyone said that they were sure that there were. ... only three could give more than one. But everyone was sure that there were papers in the literature.

You may find that your emperor Darwin is wearing no clothes.

Re:And evolution is?

[pnewhook]

You previously stated that you rejected Darwinism, but now you state you accept evolution as a fact.

Stop screwing around and wasting everyones time.

Re:And evolution is?

[endoplasmicMessenger]

Evolution is a fact. Darwinism is a bunch of nonsense.

Re:And evolution is?

[Paradise Pete]

Do I interpret that correctly? 73% of the DNA of the tuberculosis virus is identical to that of humans? Amazing. I presume the quantities are not the same, and so then it's 73% of the TB DNA, but a lesser % of human DNA, right? Or do I misunderstand?

Re:And evolution is?

[sickofthisshit]

I would like to see them [ID'ers] actually define design, and how to recognize it unambiguously. Then we can start to talk about whether things are designed.

No, that's what they try to do. They come up with some bogus concept like "irreducible complexity", they claim it conclusively identifies "intelligent design", then identify something that has "irreducible complexity" in Nature, then claim they have evidence of ID.

In principle, that is fine. The counter-arguments would go like this

1) Natural selection can produce things that are very near optimal, and can LOOK designed. Lots of pre-Darwinian naturalists marvelled at how "well-designed" stuff is: flowers designed for bees to pollinate, one can go on and on. Darwin's HUGE contribution to knowledge essentially boils down to: things in Nature can LOOK designed, but NOT be. So if you make the slightest mistake in defining design, you get false positives.

2) Design probably can't be proven after the fact; it's really a question of motive and intent. Yes, there's "I know a watch is designed", but really, can you tell how much of the watch's workings were due to human choice, and how many were just accidental, or tradition, or trial and error?

3) "Irreducible complexity" is not equivalent to "cannot arise by natural selection." No one (except someone looking for a straw-man version of evolution to knock down) insists that evolution works only in a straight line from simple to complex. Simple can become reducibly complex *before* being reduced to irreducibly complex. Irreducibly complex generally is equivalent to "the historical evidence of development has been obscured by the process of selection."

The problems are

1) the political ID advocates and the school boards do not wait for the counter-argument to appear, or use it to justify "see there's scientific debate, we need to teach the controversy" instead of as the smackdown that it is.

2) the scientific ID people will just come up with some other example, or strained definition, without admitting that "design" in biology is just a step down the chain of theology to "First Cause".

3) There will always be particular examples (abiogenesis is a big one) where the historical evolutionary path is obscured by more recent changes, and we might *never* come up with the explanation, and the ID argument could say "here's something that was designed." That does not disprove evolution. It just means that the evidence was eaten or otherwise destroyed a long time ago, and we'll never know.

Just because I can't name my great-to-the-20th-grandfather doesn't mean I didn't have one. If he was some illiterate serf, there is probably no evidence (other than my being here) that he ever was. Requiring me to explain every branch of the family tree to disprove that I descended from Adam in the Garden of Eden is too high.

Basically, the whole ID scheme is just bad science. Either through incompetence, or bad faith. To pursue that line of argument is just fruitless, and proves nothing.

ID in schools

[Anonymous Coward]

agreed, if the ID people want ID taught in schools the only constitutuinal way to do it is to create an elective Theology class.

Re:ID in schools

[halivar]

Except theology courses are not allowed in modern public schools, unlike previous eras. Growing up unchurched, I found upon graduating high school that I knew more about Greek mythology from my public schooling than Christianity, despite the fact that Judaism and Christianity have far stronger influences in modern culture than Greek mythology does (proximity in time has something to do with this, of course).

Note that I am no arguing for an ID class; I don't want one and there shouldn't be one. But I do think the essential elements of the Christian faith ought to be taught in western schools if nothing else than for the same reason one would teach the tenants of other ancient religions: to better understand modern culture and where it came from.

Re:ID in schools

[DaveV1.0]

"Except theology courses are not allowed in modern public schools"

Actually, this is a false statement. Or at least partially false. If one is going to teach a class on religion or theology, it must be comparative and must not endorse one over the other. The reason there are no theology classes is that those that wish to have said classes want the classes to be biased in favor of their religion.

Re:ID in schools

[starwed]

But of course it would be the same people who push for ID that would be against any such class... unless it was completely biased towards their point of view.

Re:ID in schools

[halivar]

I was not aware such classes existed. They were never offered to me before college.

Re:ID in schools

[hunterx11]

It must just be your school, because I went to a public high school (in a very secular town) and learned all about not only pagan mythology, but Judaism, Christianity, and Islam as well. Of course, you could always complain that they never taught us much about Hinduism, and nothing at all about Baha'i.

Re:ID in schools

[DaveV1.0]

Yes, I am sure they were not offered.

From what I understand, when a person or group tries to get a theology/religion class going, they try to have it lean toward a particular point of view. Instead of education, it becomes indoctrination. This obviously creates a situation where the government is tacitly endorsing religion.

If someone were to suggest a class that looked at many different religions objectively, or a class that looks at faith in general, there would be no problems with endorsment. But, when one does that, one ends up treating christianity as an equal to other religions and many christians find this so offensive that they can not allow it.

The zeal that leads to the desire for the class often leads to it's destruction.

Remember, just because something does not or is not known to exsist, does not mean it can't exsist.

Re:ID in schools

[Dephex Twin]

I took a "Comparitive Religions" course in my public high school in Illinois. We not only learned about every major religion (and many minor ones), but we had three full-day field trips where we visited the places these religions are practiced. And yes, we did cover Christianity and its three major divisions as part of the course.

At least where I was, the class was completely non-controversial, and was populated with religious and non-religious people alike.

Re:ID in schools

[RsG]

I recall seeing world religion courses offered in high school. This would have been just a few years back, so it may be a matter of where and when you went to school.

The person you're replying to is right though, it's a sufficiently controversial subject that most people will tend to avoid it. The teachers who would want to teach such a course are invariably going to be the ones that won't be able to take an objective stance on the subject.

There is no law against examining religions in the public school system. There is only a law against endorsing any given religion by teaching public school students to beleive in it.

evolution VS. God

[Anonymous Coward]

it is possible that these two ideas don't have to be mutualy exclusive?

Re:evolution VS. God

[sickofthisshit]

That's completely off-topic.

The discussion is not whether Darwin's theory excludes "God", but whether "Intelligent Design" is scientific enough to be a goverment-mandated part of a science curriculum, or whether it is, instead, a creationist religious doctrine in a science costume.

If you think Darwin's theory excludes "God" in general, you are seriously obtuse. If you think the biological evidence suggests that God played any role in the development of life on Earth, you are straining credulity.

Re:evolution VS. God

[timster]

Sure it's possible, but some religions don't work that way.

In these religions, the Bible is declared True beyond human capability to determine truth from falsehood. So if we ever encounter a situation where the truth we see as human beings differs from the Truth in the Bible, then this must be due to an error on our part, no matter how strong the evidence or reasoning. Members of these religions cannot accept evolution by definition; this is the foundation of creationism.

Other religions see the Bible as a guide to justice and life and morality, not an absolute foundation of a world view, and don't care whether certain parts of it are actually true or not. Members of these religions are quite happy to accept evolution in general.

Re:evolution VS. God

[Spy der Mann]

it is possible that these two ideas don't have to be mutualy exclusive?

http://www.envoymagazine.com.nyud.net:8090/backiss ues/1.2/marapril_story1.html

From the link:
"A few years ago, a Catholic friend of mine visited a dying relative in the hospital. The old woman had led a good life, but could not see her way to a belief in God. She was not a militant atheist, simply an agnostic, like so many modern people. God, in her view, had not given enough "proof" that He exists. My friend gently tried to argue the point, but to no avail. Finally, she produced the trump card which so often ends these discussions: "But, Jim, evolution has been proved by science. So the Bible can't be true!"

The article goes on to explain how Darwin's theory was formed, and that Darwin's theory is not the only one that could define evolution. Finally, it states (and explains) the Catholic Church's point of view regarding the book of Genesis and Evolution.

Re:evolution VS. God

[Anonymous Coward]

Who said they were? I think most scientists who believe in God would agree, God created evolution so that life could adapt to a changing environment.

Or maybe God created a system like meta-evolution, which gave rise to evolution.

Or maybe God created meta-meta-evolution, and so on. Maybe God just created the laws of physics, and the rest just sorta fell out on its own (God would be like the ultimate hacker).

Keep thinking along these lines and you'll come to the following conclusion: if there is a God, He's a lot smarter than the creationists, who can't even comprehend one level.

Re:evolution VS. God

[sickofthisshit]

Non sequiturs in support of science are just as weak as the non sequiturs used to support religious doctrine.

Evolution being true (or "proven" to the extent that science can "prove" anything) is essentially separate from the truth or falsity of theology in general, though, of course, it does have some bearing on the truth or falsity of a particular creation chronology one might consider part of a religious doctrine.

Believing that finding a vague inaccuracy in the Bible invalidates all religious doctrine is a strawman argument. On the other hand, using the Bible as "evidence" for religious truth is circular reasoning, i.e. "believe in God because God wrote the Bible, and the Bible says to believe in God!"

Re:evolution VS. God

[pixelpusher220]

Is it *possible*? Sure. That doesn't make science though.

Re:evolution VS. God

[sickofthisshit]

It's hard to see how you can claim God to have "created" something as non-material as evolution by natural selection.

Anything that reproduces with the possibility of variation in an environment that cannot support an unbounded population is going to undergo evolution by natural selection. What part of that has to do with an act of creation by God?

The genius of Darwin was not to suggest a way in which God created things, but to realize that natural forces could lead to forms of life that were exquisitely adapted to their environment WITHOUT having been designed that way from the start. That is, the "obvious" conclusion of naturalists that God created all of nature, all creatures great and small, all specially designed for His purposes, etc., need not be true.

Now, if you want to say God caused matter and space and time to arise out of nothingness in the Big Bang by "creating" quantum mechanics, or that he "created gravity," then, hey, it's hard to dispute that. Because we've got no really testable scientific alternative, even including string theory.

Legal precedent?

[cytoman]

The question is, can this be used as a legal precedent in other cases like this across the country?

Good...

[SomeoneGotMyNick]

Now maybe the camera and news crews will stop driving back and forth on my street everyday. Maybe I can finally get out of the driveway without waiting...

Re:Good...

[WidescreenFreak]

Yeah, and we might as well not bother watching any of the local news broadcasts for the first few minutes -- or at all. All of the TV and radio stations in York, Lancaster, and HBG are going to be dedicating the first ten minutes of each news broadcast to this throughout the day, with of course their own introspectives on "what this means for the Dover school distrct" and the opinions of the local yokels. Ugh. (I can say all of this because I live just outside of HBG, so this is local news to me as well.)

More articles

[nahgoe]

BBC and Wired

Re:More articles

[xandroid]

and here are a lot more...

one down, a zillion to go

[192939495969798999]

Great, now all we have to do is fight it out of the other zillion little Bible-belt towns that still have dancing outlawed...

Re:one down, a zillion to go

[Shihar]

Uh... you realize that Footloose was a fictional movie, right?

Re:one down, a zillion to go

[DaveV1.0]

Footlose may be a movie, but members of my family recently moved to a small town in Alabama. It is a dry town in a dry county. In the heavily southern baptist area, they have outlawed the sale of alcohol because drinking is a sin.

Re:one down, a zillion to go

[Overzeetop]

Yah, but I'm sure that I'm at most 3 degrees of separation from Kevin Bacon, and may be as close as two, so I can overlook the fictional/nonfictional nature of the movie. Besides, this is /. It's all about piling on.

Re:one down, a zillion to go

[Viper Daimao]

outlawing alcohol is not that analogous to outlawing dancing, which I dont think is really possible to outlaw.

Re:one down, a zillion to go

[rickerbr]

The town in the movie was based on Henrietta OK, where dancing at one time was outlawed.

Re:one down, a zillion to go

[Anonymous Coward]

Then they would probably have a problem with turning water into wine then...

Re:one down, a zillion to go

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it was a real movie. I saw it with my own two eyes.

Re:one down, a zillion to go

[engwar]

It is illegal to dance in a nightclub in NYC if that nightclub does not have a license to allow dancing.

That was one of Rudy Giuliani great ideas.

Re:one down, a zillion to go

[Oligonicella]

Link, please. I searched and found nothing.

Re:one down, a zillion to go

[DusterBar]

Actually, the law is from the late 1920's and was not invented by the tight grip of Mr. Giuliani.

Now, his administration did start enforcing the law again, along with pushing many nightclubs out of business, but that is different than actually inventing the law.

So what will happen if it reaches SCOTUS?

[denjin]

Good deal on this judge. I only hope the Supreme Court upholds this if it reaches them. I honestly think they will since this is rather obvious, but you never know.

Re:So what will happen if it reaches SCOTUS?

[kmcrober]

This case won't be appealed. The school board that introduced Intelligent Design in Dover was unceremoniously dumped on its ass at the last election, and the incoming board has made it clear that it would not appeal a ruling in the ACLU's favor.

Nor, for that matter, would the main ID advocates want this case appealed. The Discovery Institute pulled its support early on, for instance. Sophisticated ID advocacy requires that the public face of the movement be very quiet about its religious motivations, for fear of exactly what happened in Kitzmiller. The old Dover school board was unsophisticated, and much too blatant about its purely religious motivations.

ID advocates have seen Kitzmiller as a disastrous airing of their dirty laundry from fairly early on; the only thing surprising about this ruling is its refreshing breadth, depth, and clarity.

Re: So what will happen if it reaches SCOTUS?

[Black Parrot]

> Nor, for that matter, would the main ID advocates want this case appealed. The Discovery Institute pulled its support early on, for instance. Sophisticated ID advocacy requires that the public face of the movement be very quiet about its religious motivations, for fear of exactly what happened in Kitzmiller. The old Dover school board was unsophisticated, and much too blatant about its purely religious motivations.

They certainly didn't want this case to go to court, but now that it has they're not going to be happy to live with a highly publicized court ruling that states in no uncertain terms that ID isn't science. I don't see how they can live with that (unless they don't have any choice). If they can find a way, they'll try to get a higher court to rule that this judge ruled too broadly, i.e. that the problem in Dover was the overzealous members of the school board, not ID per se.

Though it's not obvious to me how they can arrange an appeal, since the new school board certainly won't be interested in it.

Re:So what will happen if it reaches SCOTUS?

[Dirtside]

Sophisticated ID advocacy requires that the public face of the movement be very quiet about its religious motivations, for fear of exactly what happened in Kitzmiller.

Which is why it's important to point out every time you mention ID that ID is creationism. They're the same thing, with a new name. Always reinforce the (true) idea that ID and creationism are the same thing.

Don't go jumping up and down just yet

[WidescreenFreak]

Since I'm sure that no one is going to actually RTFA and will instead jump for joy that the evil Christians have been defeated {/sarcasm}, it must be pointed out that the reason why it was defeated - in the words of the Judge - is not because of ID itself but because the people who represented the reasons for inserting ID into the curriculum did so inappropriately.

Several members repeatedly lied to cover their motives even while professing religious beliefs, he said. "We find that the secular purposes claimed by the Board amount to a pretext for the Board's real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom," he wrote in his 139-page opinion. Jones wrote that he wasn't saying the intelligent design concept shouldn't be studied and discussed, saying its advocates "have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors."

ID itself is not the reason for the ruling as much as the deceitful practices of those who fought to have it put into the schools. So, those of you who are rejoicing might as well stop, as this was undoubtedly only a setback to the pro-ID crowd. Personally, I don't care about ID one way or the other. I just know how the Slashdot groupthink has been treating this topic lately.

Besides, we're talking about the U.S. judicial system here. Get ready for the appeals.

Re:Don't go jumping up and down just yet

[cytoman]

You quote out of context, and you should be ashamed of yourself for being so dishonest. The judge said that he is not discouraging those people who study ID, and he says they have deep beliefs in what they are doing. But, this is the most important thing, he says that ID is *not science* and therefore *should not be taught in a science class*.

Stop spinning things by taking it out of context, and be honest for once.

Re:Don't go jumping up and down just yet

[the_humeister]

He also gave a reason why ID isn't science.

(1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's; and (3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community.

Re:Don't go jumping up and down just yet

[freeweed]

the reason why it was defeated - in the words of the Judge - is not because of ID itself but because the people who represented the reasons for inserting ID into the curriculum did so inappropriately.

Yes, because there simply IS no appropriate way to try to get ID taught in Science class. You said it yourself:

the Board's real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom

That, my friend, is the end all and be all of the entire ID "debate". To get Religion taught intermixed with Science. No one has of yet put forth a way to teach ID as an actual scientific theory, because it isn't. It's religion couched in pseudo-scientific terms.

Nice use of the typical "Slashdot groupthink" line, though. It alone will probably get you modded up.

Re:Don't go jumping up and down just yet

[LordKazan]

He also said it doesn't belong in science class - it's fine in comparative religion.

Oh there won't be an appeal - the parents are happy with the decision, and the NEW SCHOOL BOARD is too - the legal counsel for the school board cannot appeal without their client's consent and who their client is changed - 8 of 9 members were up for reelection last month, they all got canned and replaced with people who said ID doesn't belong in science class (but it's fine in comparative religion)

Re:Don't go jumping up and down just yet

[WidescreenFreak]

Then you can blame CNN. The quotes came from their site. I mean, it's not like the public media would distort the news for their own purposes, is it? *blink*

Re:Don't go jumping up and down just yet

[Black Parrot]

> it must be pointed out that the reason why it was defeated - in the words of the Judge - is not because of ID itself but because the people who represented the reasons for inserting ID into the curriculum did so inappropriately. [...] ID itself is not the reason for the ruling as much as the deceitful practices of those who fought to have it put into the schools.

Sounds like you should have read more before posting.

Re:Don't go jumping up and down just yet

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm torn because the moderation of your post provides ample counter-proof to evolution. There were two aspects to the decision. The first, as you state, was the indemic deceit on the part of the pro-ID faction, including the use of a textbook from the ninties which, literally, was 'scientifically' updated by replacing every instance of the word 'creationism' with the phrase 'intelligent design'. Beyond that though the judge found no evidence from the pro-ID side which demonstrated a scientific basis for ID. Those two aspects together demonstrated a clear transgression of an existing, constitutional law and as a Bush-appointed, Republican, non-activist judge he had no option but to rule against the ID side. They lost for being unscientific and deceitful.

Re:Don't go jumping up and down just yet

[nahgoe]

The judge is right!

There's nothing wrong with teaching ID, in the right place. i.e.
1. In a science class discussing theories and how some theories (Darwin's) help provide a deeper insight into the world around us and others (ID) seek to ignore questions and stifle debate.
2. In a social science class to show how redefining language can be used to redefine peoples perception of reality.
3. In a comparative religion class to show how most religions (Catholicism possibly being an exception) believe in ID in some form or other.

Re:Don't go jumping up and down just yet

[Anonymous Coward]

The first line of your original post begins: "Since I'm sure that no one is going to actually RTFA..."

Now you're bitching about your own quotes being from CNN? Go study yourself for signs of intelligence, twit.

Re:Don't go jumping up and down just yet

[Anonymous Coward]

The CNN headline and article cleary state that the judge rejected ID in the science classroom because it's not science. You claimed otherwise in the non-quoted part of your post.

Re:Don't go jumping up and down just yet

[SengirV]

The problem is that all those sticking theor fingers in their ears with respect to ID say that it belongs in a comparative religion class. But comparative religion classes are rarely found in high school. You likely only see them in college.

With the strained relations we have in the US today, a lot of it based upon religion. IT would really benefit us to have some kind of comparative religion classes in high school. But that would take away from all the self esteem crap being pushed in all the school systems now, which in turned pushed out REAL learning.

Re:Don't go jumping up and down just yet

[Anonymous Coward]

"it must be pointed out that the reason why it was defeated - in the words of the Judge - is not because of ID itself but because the people who represented the reasons for inserting ID into the curriculum did so inappropriately."

No, I don't think so.

I've read the 139-page judgement. I'm not a lawyer, but it is pretty clear to me that, independent of the details of the questionable actions of the board members in the case, ID would be on very shakey legal grounds even if the people involved were lily-white and acting with appropriate intentions. As the judgement makes very, very plain: A) ID in its current form is not science, and B) its introduction into science curriculum in schools is inappopriate for that reason. The implementation details (which were severely botched by this board if they wanted to try to defend their actions down the line) only made the situation more obvious.

At the place where the judge made clear that he was not saying the intelligent design concept should not be studied and discussed, he was talking about *generally* -- i.e. in the broader realm of scholarly study (as in, maybe someday the ID movement will get its act together and become scientific, but the judgement implies pretty strongly that the basic philosophy/approach adopted may already bar that possibility). Public school classrooms? I don't think he was talking about that context when he makes the comment from which I think that paraphrase was derived, on p.137:

"With that said, we do not question that many of the leading advocates of ID have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors. Nor do we controvert that ID should continue to be studied, debated, and discussed. As stated, our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom."

So, basically, I think you are quite wrong that it was the people behind the message that was the main problem. The message *itself* is out of scope in the public school classroom, according to the judge's opinion.

You're probably right about the appeals, but given that the board itself has been almost entirely replaced in the interim, I can't see how that could easily happen.

Re:Don't go jumping up and down just yet

[LordKazan]

My highschool had comparative religion as part of World Humanities (senior english for most students).

I only graduated from said HS in 2002

Re:Don't go jumping up and down just yet

[Anonymous Coward]

What used to be called "social studies" is the perfect place for that kind of discussion.

Re:Don't go jumping up and down just yet

[Yewbert]

"Since I'm sure that no one is going to actually RTFA,..."

"Then you can blame CNN. The quotes came from their site."

So, um, you're saying you, um, didn't RTFA?

Re:Don't go jumping up and down just yet

[IntelligentDesigner]

This is not at all what I had in mind when I designed it all.

Re:Don't go jumping up and down just yet

[endoplasmicMessenger]

The judge said that ... ID is *not science*.

And being a *judge*, he should know!

I am offended

[the_humeister]

As a proponent of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, we in the ID community must stand up to this nonsense.

Re:I am offended

[StupidHelpDeskGuy]

The Church of the Fonz will stand with you.

aaaaaaahhhheeeeyyyyyy.

The sad part is...

[bADlOGIN]

that this sort of right-wing christian fundie crap required the ruling of a federal judge to stop. Worse thing is, I'm sure it's still not over in that we haven't had to put up with the last of this yet.

Re:The sad part is...

[Anonymous Coward]

that this sort of right-wing christian fundie crap required the ruling of a federal judge to stop.

Not true. 8 out of 9 school board members were voted out of office for voting to require intelligent design.

common sense 1 , religious fanatics 0

[Phil246]

finally , sanity prevails

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Next up....

[ericdano]

Next up is the Newdow dude's cases on the "Under God" in the Pledge and on our money.

I think that if you wanted to teach your kids the other side, you should take them to SUNDAY SCHOOL or whatever. You can't expect Public Education to do everything for you. Just look at how our educational system compares, with, say, Japan's.....

Re:Next up....

[vertinox]

I think that if you wanted to teach your kids the other side, you should take them to SUNDAY SCHOOL or whatever.

Or you could send them to a private school like Catholic School or whatever you believe in. No one has passed a law saying you couldn't do that either. (Although most of the people that I have known to go to a Catholic school aren't really well adjusted people except my Dad and he was dead set on sending me to one)

Re:Next up....

[stinerman]

See, I find that to be an interesting case. Years of jurisprudence have described what an "establishment of religion" is, much past the original intent of the constitution. I, for one, think that having "One nation under God" in the pledge of allegiance and on money constitutes a violation of such an establishment, but doesn't actually go against what the founders had in mind when they wrote that into the first amendment. Similarly, the founders did not mean to write in a right to an abortion, but I'm still glad its there.

Re:Next up....

[Anonymous Coward]

I can speak a little of the public education system in japan.
My girlfriend has been teaching english in a typical public high school for more than a year and I even had the privilege of sitting in a class while she taught. She says the situation is dismal.

The school building was in miserable condition. The kids didnt pay attention. They played with their phones and talked to each other. The teacher is powerless to enforce any discipline. And even when she could get the kids to pay attention, it was painfully obvious that they had no idea what the assignment was or how to complete it. It was pathetic, really pathetic.

Bets on the over/under for replies to this thread?

[ip_freely_2000]

Should be hundreds of nut cases with moronic opinions wading in here. I'll let all of you decide which is which. My karma is too fragile to offer an opinion :)

Rats ! global warming education setback

[Anonymous Coward]

Rats. They ruled the wrong way. Now the chance is more remote than ever that they will teach that the Heat Miser causes global warming instead of CO2-emitting pollution sources. Nobody will ever learn the evils that fiend foists upon the world!

Signed - Snow Miser

This is a defeat for pasta

[Dan the Intern]

I'd like to say to the good citizens of Dover. If there is a disaster in your area, don't turn to the Flying Spaghetti Monster, you just rejected Him from your city. And don't wonder why He hasn't helped you when problems begin, if they begin. I'm not saying they will, but if they do, just remember, you just voted Pasta out of your city. And if that's the case, don't ask for His noodly forgivness because he might not be there.

Re:This is a defeat for pasta

[zaqintosh]

preach on brother!

May his noodly appendage save us all!

Re:This is a defeat for pasta

[hal200]

And yet, the FSM is merciful. The residents of Dover may yet avert the wrath of His Noodly Appendage if they immediately renounce their wicked ways, head for the seas and take up a life of pious piracy.

Avast ye mateys! Thar be salvation and bounty on the seas!

Re:This is a defeat for pasta

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it just me, or is this whole FSM thing horribly unfunny? Don't get me wrong, I'm an atheist, and I'm 100% opposed to teaching ID in public school science classes, etc. I get the point of the satire, and I agree with the message, I just think it falls flat as humor.

Best news of the week!

[wh0me]

It's enough to give me a little hope.

Re:Article didn't mention HOW it's unconstitutiona

[Taevin]

This is my question too. I agree completely that Intelligent Design is not science and has no business in a science classroom. I'm missing the part where it's unconstitutional to lower the scientific reasoning abilities of our nation's youth even more that it already is though.

Heh :)

[Spy der Mann]

did you guys check out the image used for the article?

It looks like the teachers are laughing in the ID guys' faces with this.

Re:Heh :)

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm guessing that you don't have to CoralCache CNN.

Insert the "Ah, not this shit again" pic here

[mobby_6kl]

It's quite sad that the courts have to deal with stuff like this, where "ID is not valid science" is enough to solve the whole thing. Oh well, at least they made the correct choice ;)

Re:Article didn't mention HOW it's unconstitutiona

[LordKazan]

Establishment and Free Exercise clauses

Are quarks science?

[benhocking]

How is evolution less science than quarks, general relativity, or string theory?

Re:Are quarks science?

[Gaewyn L Knight]

We can do tests on 99% of the realm. Evolution has the problem that since we are looking at a VERY small section of it we have no way to control any expirements on it.

We already know that Carbon dating isn't the 100% that most scientists treat it as.

Re:Are quarks science?

[theCoder]

And do you want a federal judge saying that you can't teach string theory in phyisics classes? AFAICT, string theory and ID are about the same scientifically (since neither can be tested). I don't think that ID should be taught in science classrooms either, but this is rediculous. Federal judges ruling what is and is not science? Since when did lawyers get that priveledge?

Re:Are quarks science?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because all of those scientific theories can be DISproven, ID(just like FSMism) can not.

Re:Are quarks science?

[pnewhook]

Since when did lawyers get that priveledge?

You'd rather have the Church decide? When they effectively stagnated science and astronomy for hundreds of years as they insisted the earth was flat and at the centre of the universe, and threatened scientists like Copernicus and Galileo and their supporters with death? (the church position was that since God created the earth and the universe for man, then earth HAD to be at the centre and not some speck of insignificant dust orbiting a star)

Re:Are quarks science?

[Kelson]

What makes you think that scientists treat carbon dating as 100% accurate?

Re:Are quarks science?

[Kelson]

String theory doesn't promote a religion. Intelligent Design does. They may say the designer doesn't necessarily have to be God, but under their own theory -- which not only states that terrestrial life was designed, but that life, particularly complex life, cannot have arisen in any other way -- that designer had to be designed, and so did the designer's designer, until you get to a creator who was not designed. In other words, it's a long-process form of Creationism.

Re:Are quarks science?

[cbreaker]

I think it just sucks they way they've twisted ID.

I'm not a very religious person, but growing up with a Roman Catholic family and going to church, I didn't meet one priest that claimed ID as word-for-word. Generally, the idea was that evolution and ID aren't mutually exclusive. Six days could be a metaphor for six million years, and that somewhere, somehow, life is so amazing that there must have been a higher being responsible to kick starting it all.

Personally, I think it was all dumb luck. The right amino acids all got together in the right conditions and lightening struck. Or something. Who knows. But it makes a hell of a lot more sense then a god.

Re:Are quarks science?

[TheRaven64]

The ironic thing is that the creation theories presented by ID proponents tend to cast the creator in a much worse light than those of evolution. I would have a lot more respect for a god that could create a very simple system which was capable of developing into an increasingly complex one. It is a superb work of art. Saying 'let there be stuff' and it just existing, fully made, seems like a really ugly hack. If I'd done it, I'd probably have planted evidence of evolution just so I wouldn't look quite so incompetent - hardly the behaviour I'd expect from an omnipotent being...

Of course, the real point is that some people don't want to admit that they are not perfect. If you accept evolution, then you have to accept that the human race will continue to evolve (or be out-evolved by another species) and eventually there will be superior beings to you. This is not nearly as nice as believing that you were created as the image of your god.

Intelligent Design is not Hocus Pocus

[Anonymous Coward]

Please someone explain to me what's wrong with Intelligent Design as a theory? For God's sake, we intelligently designed the computer, no?

We intelligently designed tons of stuff. What if we put these 'intelligently designed' stuff into a capsule, shoot it off into space. What if the capsule lands on another planet. What if our stuff somehow create life? What if our stuff were AI machines and they somehow recereate themselves... wouldn't they be 'intelligently designed'?

Damn it, what's wrong with the Intelligent Design theory?

Re:Intelligent Design is not Hocus Pocus

[cbs4385]

Show me a falsifiable claim made by ID. How can you prove that it's not true?

Re:Intelligent Design is not Hocus Pocus

[sickofthisshit]

Uh, because your science fiction scenario has nothing to do with anything ever observed in the universe to date?

There are plenty of totally irrelevant fantasies that one could indulge in regarding the history of the universe and life on Earth. Part of being scientific is to actually limit oneself to ideas that have a basis in careful observation, and not just any fantasy that drifts into one's mind.

Re:Intelligent Design is not Hocus Pocus

[Decameron81]

"Damn it, what's wrong with the Intelligent Design theory?"

Nothing as long as you don't try to disguise it as science. Scientific theories can be tested. Intelligent design can't.

I might as well tell you that elephants can fly. The fact you can't prove me wrong doesn't make my "theory" science.

Remember, "science" is not a synonim of "truth". In fact, no-one is saying ID can't be true. Simply that it's not science.

Re:Intelligent Design is not Hocus Pocus

[CapnRob]

Ye gods.

What's wrong with it is a: it begs the question, b: it's clearly (and, originally, admittedly) a first step for Christian fundamentalists to get evolution out of the science classroom, and c: there's absolutely no evidence *for* it - remember, absence of evidence for one hypothesis is not postive evidence for another. The ID types say "You don't have any evidence for X" (ignoring, quite often, the fact that there *is* evidence for X) "so therefore OUR idea is correct" ... but that ain't the way it works, and offering teaching that says it does weakens the entire system that we call science. If Intelligent Design gets into science classrooms, then the whole idea of "offering evidence for claims" that's kind of, you know, important in science, will go out the window.

Re:Intelligent Design is not Hocus Pocus

[SebNukem]

E is science. -> Good.
ID is pseudoscience, pushed by religious fanatics. It is religion in disguise. And religion has absolutely nothing to do in a public classroom. -> Bad.

Anyone can believe in ID for all I care, but DO NOT TEACH it in CLASSROOM. It's what churches are for.

If I take your argument saying that we intelligently (one can argue just that) designed computers therefore computers must think that we are gods, if they could. Well, if computers were religious, they would be WRONG. We are not gods.

Re:Intelligent Design is not Hocus Pocus

[PitaBred]

It's not a theory in the scientific sense, as in it can't be tested or experimented on. It comes down to pure faith.
Believe it if you want, but it has no place in a science classroom.

Re:Intelligent Design is not Hocus Pocus

[oGMo]

Nothing as long as you don't try to disguise it as science. Scientific theories can be tested. Intelligent design can't. I might as well tell you that elephants can fly. The fact you can't prove me wrong doesn't make my "theory" science.

It should be pointed out that natural evolution is also a nondisprovable theory.

Re:Intelligent Design is not Hocus Pocus

[ozydingo]

Your poor grammar speaks to why you might not yet have grasped this.

As stated numerous times in previous posts, ID is not a falsifiable theory, and therefore cannot be treated as a scientific theory.

I was going to go further, but I read a few more comments and found one that says everything I was going to and more: http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=171719 &cid=14299952

Happy reading!

Re:Intelligent Design is not Hocus Pocus

[Decameron81]

"It should be pointed out that natural evolution is also a nondisprovable theory."

Says who? It would just take new evidence that the genetic coincidence between humans and apes is meaningless, or that we didn't all come from the sea, and evolution would go out of the window. If each species was found not to evolve in any way, then evolution would be proven wrong.

It is certainly disprovable.

Re: Intelligent Design is not Hocus Pocus

[Black Parrot]

> Please someone explain to me what's wrong with Intelligent Design as a theory? For God's sake, we intelligently designed the computer, no?

Sure we did. It hardly follows that "someone" designed biology.

> Damn it, what's wrong with the Intelligent Design theory?

For starts, it's not a theory. It's religious apologetics very thinly disguised as science.

Re:Intelligent Design is not Hocus Pocus

[CapnRob]

Hardly. Simply get out a camcorder and go record angels flying down and re-painting the wings of Manchester-area moths. Or take notes and watch giraffes stretch their necks to get the leaves at the top of the trees, and discover that the giraffes that stretched their necks the most had offspring with longer necks.

Or, you know, come up with an explanation that better fits the megatons of evidence that you walk on every day.

Re:Intelligent Design is not Hocus Pocus

[Anonymous Coward]

Ooooo here come the ones who can't tell the difference between Macro-Evolution and Micro-Evolution....

Lemme rephrase his sentence:

Macro-Evolution is also a nondisprovable theory.

But then again, if you want to believe you came from an amoeba- who am I to argue?

Re:Intelligent Design is not Hocus Pocus

[barawn]

It should be pointed out that natural evolution is also a nondisprovable theory.

No, it's not. What the hell makes you think it is?

The process of evolution is a fact. First off, it's idiotically simple. We've got genes. We pass them to offspring. Those of us who live, pass off our genes to offspring. Therefore future generations look like those who lived. Go fig. Humans have been doing it for thousands of years. We call it dog breeding. Second off, it's observed. We see it. We know the process happens. Regardless of what that process has done, like "the greenhouse effect", no one is challenging that survival of the fittest exists - just what role it played in the development of species.

The theory of evolution - that is, the process by which an amoeba became E. coli became a worm became a fish became a frog became a reptile became a mammal - that's the theory. And that is challengeable - both genetically, anthropologically, and hell, directly! If we really wanted to - and I mean really wanted to - we could look for the reflection of light reflected off of the Earth from distant bodies, thus looking back in time on our own planet. That information is there. It is challengeable. It makes predictions which can be tested.

Intelligent design, however, is not challengeable because it doesn't describe a process. Just a creator. And anyone who's taken journalism class should know that knowing "who" did something doesn't tell you "how" it's done.

Re: Intelligent Design is not Hocus Pocus

[Black Parrot]

> It should be pointed out that natural evolution is also a nondisprovable theory.

Au contraire. The theory of evolution is put to the test everytime a new species' genome is sequenced.

The diffence between evolutionary science and ID creationism is that the science does not allow just any outcome in the gene sequencing. ID, OTOH, can accept any sequence at all, with a glib "that they way the Designer wanted it".

Re:Intelligent Design is not Hocus Pocus

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, can I just ask this, because it just doesn't make sense to me. I know I am by no means the first person to think of this, but if we are so complex that we could not have evolved, and furthermore are so complex that some greater being must have created us, doesn't the same test apply to whoever created people? This creator is necessarily even more complex than we are... so how could he exist without some even more intelligent designer?

This came to my mind so immediately after I first heard the argument of Intelligent Design, it seems on the same level as saying googol is the biggest number there is, because numbers can't really get bigger *forever*, that's just too big.

Not only is it a wild guess and wrong, but one doesn't even have to spend time thinking before saying "googol + 1 is bigger".

I mean, at least if Intelligent Design were a compelling philosophy, let alone sound science, it wouldn't be quite so pathetic that this debate is so controversial in the US.

Re:Intelligent Design is not Hocus Pocus

[sickofthisshit]

OK, now pay attention.

"Macro-Evolution" is a nonsense term made up by people who refuse to understand Darwin's theory, even before they decide to not believe in it. It is a distinction that cannot be observed.

Re:Intelligent Design is not Hocus Pocus

[Anonymous Coward]

I might as well tell you that elephants can fly.

But elephants can fly. Haven't you seen Operation Dumbo Drop?

Re:Intelligent Design is not Hocus Pocus

[dc29A]

Damn it, what's wrong with the Intelligent Design theory?
- Simple answer, in the form of a question: If ID is true, then who created our designer?

Re:Intelligent Design is not Hocus Pocus

[Anonymous Coward]

"""
In fact, no-one is saying ID can't be true.
"""

Clearly you've not read a lot of the other comments here on /.

That said, can we balance the needs of overly-sensitive folks on all sides of the classroom with a simple preface like

"Kids, I'm going to be teaching evolution now. Many of you have been taught by religion that life came from some form of god, but god isn't available rigorous scientific testing or even a casual psychoanalysis. All we've got is what we've got. So, with that in mind, these are the most logical conclusions that we've drawn from things that we could catch and split open..."

Really, there's nothing about ID that can be "taught" because the mere mortals aren't going to be able to do anything scientifically with a taught belief. But to claim that retrospective scientific hypothesis is the same thing as fact by failing to acknowledge that it is merely believed to be fact is similarly not a correct response.

And with regards to flying elephants: "This elephant died from sudden deceleration trauma, consistent with falling out of the sky. I must conclude, in the absence of things which supernaturally drop elephants out of the sky, that the evolutionary line of flying elephants suffered a grave setback with this elephant's untimely demise..."

And if this sounds like a silly rebuke of evolutionary theory to you, please recall that Newton was very deeply interested in Alchemy.

Re:Intelligent Design is not Hocus Pocus

[MrSenile]

Actually, if you shoved an elephant into a zero-g room, and trained it to swing it's trunk around like a propeller, I would wager that you could, indeed, prove that elephants could indeed fly. Which goes to show you that even the most obsurd speculation can be proven with facts if you're so inclined and have the scientific principles and current capabilities to do so. Science and religion will always be at odds, not because of the beliefs, faith, or details between them, but because of the members of both groups.

Re:Intelligent Design is not Hocus Pocus

[MightyMartian]

Damn it, what's wrong with the Intelligent Design theory?

It ought to be obvious. It isn't a scientific theory. Inventing what-if stories about AI machines really doesn't help at all, as there is no evidence for anything like that in Earth's past. There is no data to suggest guided panspermia (which is essentially what you were referring to), and without evidence it isn't open to consideration in science. All science can do is deal with the evidence we do have, and to formulate testable theories that can explain the evidence. ID is not a scientific claim, but is, as Judge Jones recognized, a religious claim.

Re:Intelligent Design is not Hocus Pocus

[endoplasmicMessenger]

Damn it, what's wrong with the Intelligent Design theory?

I am not a fan of Neo-Darwinism. In fact, there are many scientists who are not fans of Neo-Darwinism.

According to Thomas Kuhn, in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, scientists for the most part adhere to the prevailing paradigm. In fact, lacking a paradigm -- a framework or model of the way things are -- scientific activity doesn't make much sense. So what if light bends when it goes by the Sun? If you don't have a model of mass and gravity (general relativity) that makes sense of that particular piece of information, you are likely to chalk it up to a fluke of the measurement. Only when there is a meaningful paradigm in which information can be interpreted will it be given any validity. Studies have repeatedly shown that when a person perceives something which does not fit in with their current world view, it is largely ignored. And this occurs with scientists as well. Data which does not conform to the current paradigm is largely explained away. (And certainly, you would not be able to get a sizable research grant which does not expand upon or bring greater precision to the current paradigm -- working outside of the paradigm is just not profitable!)

That is, until a serious anomaly arises with respect to the current paradigm. The classic example is of a single photon of light passing through two slits to "interfere with itself" and produce an interference pattern on the other side. This serious anomaly could just not be tossed aside. When confronted with a serious anomaly, the scientific community (those who were dependent on the validity of the previous paradigm) are thrown into "crisis". During the period of crisis, many, often conflicting, suggestions (they are perhaps not fully formed hypotheses) are put forth to explain the anomalous phenomenon. Eventually, the community selects one of these suggestions (or a hybrid thereof) as the best one with which to go forward. And this sometimes happens with meager evidence. In fact, it is not unusual for some scientists from the "old school" to never be converted to the new paradigm.

With respect to evolution, there are plenty of people who have various questions with respect to the theory of evolution. Under ordinary circumstances, this may have already led to a "crisis" in the evolution community. But this has not happened. Here are some possible reasons:

1. Evolution is a theory which touches a deep nerve in people. It is hard to be objective about it. Most people have strong feelings about it one way or anothert. Compare the reaction on Slashdot when people are discussing Evolution versus when they are discussing Dark Matter. There is very little direct evidence in support of Dark Matter. It is still very hypothetical. But even though it is leading theory, most people are willing to discuss its strengths and weaknesses dispassionately. Likewise, there is not a lot of direct solid evidence in support of Neo-Darwinism. However, this theory touches on peoples fundamental world views making it difficult or impossible to discuss dispassionately. As they say, more heat than light is usually generated by these discussions. And not only on Slashdot. So little progress is made, and the crisis point is not reached, even though it is well over due in my opinion.
2. A related issue is the "chilling effects" that people in power in the scientific community produce with respect to alternatives to Neo-Darwinism. Take, for example, the case of Richard Sternberg. He is an evolutionist who holds two Ph.D.’s. He was also managing editor of Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, a peer-reviewed journal from the Smithsonian Institute. Richard appears to have been a even-headed editor who was open to having an occasional provocative article in his journal. Unfortunately for Richard, he seems to have been unaware of the extremely violent reaction (just like on Slashdot) that can occur when ideas challenging evolution are put forth, no matter how good t

Re:Intelligent Design is not Hocus Pocus

[oGMo]

Says who? It would just take new evidence that the genetic coincidence between humans and apes is meaningless, or that we didn't all come from the sea, and evolution would go out of the window. If each species was found not to evolve in any way, then evolution would be proven wrong.

Nope. If it were found that apes and humans were unrelated, we could then say that humans evolved from something else---it's just a matter of finding what. It doesn't matter what they are or are not related to.

The problem is you cannot define a "wrong state". That is what makes something disprovable. You must be able to say that "if this happens, then evolution cannot be true". Except, this cannot be done: if one path proves false, we can pick another tenable path that fits the facts.

For instance: Say, for the sake of argument, we do prove that humans (H) did not descend from apes. (This in itself assumes a lot, namely, that such a thing can be shown.) We can then say, as above, "well, they descended from something else." We have two outcomes: we can find another sufficiently direct ancestor species (S0) to continue the existing theory unmodified (S0 -> H), or we find a less direct species (S1) such that S1->S0->H. In the latter case, we can modify our theory and say that ancestor S0 didn't survive long enough, or conditions weren't sufficient to leave a fossil record.

The problem is we can extend this indefinitely. Even if we can't find an S1, we can continue back and find an Sn, and just assume we can't find S(n-1) to S(0). At what point do we draw the line? The theory is a conceivably sound one---the stated events could possibly have happened---but you can't disprove it.

The same problem arises when we try and factor out traits. Species X inherited trait Y for such-and-such a plausible reason. But if they hadn't, we could find an equally plausible reason. There is no way to disprove either one. Even for traits that appear unlikely---take one's appendix, or something similar---we can simply say "well, it's a leftover" or "well, it's just a mutation that survived but didn't have a detrimental impact on reproducibility" or similar. There is always an excuse. Thus it is nondisprovable.

Re:Intelligent Design is not Hocus Pocus

[Anonymous Coward]

Macro-evolution occurs when evolution crosses a major boundary, such as a kingdom. Micro-evolution occurs when a minor boundary is crossed, such as a species. It's more of a continuum than a two-way distinction, but it's a perfectly fair one. Fish-to-bird is macro-evolution. Fish-to-fish is probably micro.

Re:Intelligent Design is not Hocus Pocus

[sickofthisshit]

Evolution DOESN'T "cross" boundaries between kingdoms, anymore than you can give birth to your grandparents or great-uncle.

Larger groupings contain organisms that had what appears to be common descent. If two subspecies, of frog, let's say, evolve until the individuals in each group cannot interbreed, they have become separate species. They are still frogs, but different species of frogs. If the process continued until those two subgroups evolved to supplant all life on Earth, then some future biologist (who would be descended from a frog) would probably classify life into two major kingdoms. He would look into the fossil record and possibly see that there were other non-froglike organisms in the distant past that look sufficiently different from frogs that they also deserve their own kingdom.

Today's fish does not evolve into today's bird. Instead, roughly speaking, ancient vertebrates diverged to create the ancestors of today's fishes, and the ancestors of land animals, including reptile-like dinosaurs, which diverged into birds.

Nowhere does a branch cross some magic line. The lines of classificiation are drawn BY HUMAN TAXONOMISTS around the tree of descent, not the other way around, anyway. The process you describe as macro-evolution is absolutely nonsensical.

Re:Intelligent Design is not Hocus Pocus

[Decameron81]

"Nope. If it were found that apes and humans were unrelated, we could then say that humans evolved from something else---it's just a matter of finding what. It doesn't matter what they are or are not related to.

The problem is you cannot define a "wrong state". That is what makes something disprovable. You must be able to say that "if this happens, then evolution cannot be true". Except, this cannot be done: if one path proves false, we can pick another tenable path that fits the facts.

For instance: Say, for the sake of argument, we do prove that humans (H) did not descend from apes. (This in itself assumes a lot, namely, that such a thing can be shown.) We can then say, as above, "well, they descended from something else." We have two outcomes: we can find another sufficiently direct ancestor species (S0) to continue the existing theory unmodified (S0 -> H), or we find a less direct species (S1) such that S1->S0->H. In the latter case, we can modify our theory and say that ancestor S0 didn't survive long enough, or conditions weren't sufficient to leave a fossil record.

The problem is we can extend this indefinitely. Even if we can't find an S1, we can continue back and find an Sn, and just assume we can't find S(n-1) to S(0). At what point do we draw the line? The theory is a conceivably sound one---the stated events could possibly have happened---but you can't disprove it.

The same problem arises when we try and factor out traits. Species X inherited trait Y for such-and-such a plausible reason. But if they hadn't, we could find an equally plausible reason. There is no way to disprove either one. Even for traits that appear unlikely---take one's appendix, or something similar---we can simply say "well, it's a leftover" or "well, it's just a mutation that survived but didn't have a detrimental impact on reproducibility" or similar. There is always an excuse. Thus it is nondisprovable."

Once again, science is not about truth. If you think about science from that perspective then it makes no sense to have this discussion.

Science is about the best bet we can make as to what reality is. Under this perspective, you always keep in mind that current theories may be, and probably are flawed. But each single theory always requires at least some kind of proof to back it up. It requires the ability to find further proof that it may be flawed as well.

The point if that no statement can be disproved in the way you explain. Not a single one. But if we were to take every single statement as science, then science would have no place or meaning in this world.

Re:Intelligent Design is not Hocus Pocus

[oGMo]

Once again, science is not about truth. If you think about science from that perspective then it makes no sense to have this discussion.

Science is about the best bet we can make as to what reality is. Under this perspective, you always keep in mind that current theories may be, and probably are flawed. But each single theory always requires at least some kind of proof to back it up. It requires the ability to find further proof that it may be flawed as well.

Oh totally. Science is about one thing: reproducible effect. "Truth" has no part of it. This is why science is continually wrong, yet it doesn't matter. If you can search back through my slashdot comments and find the one on "Science and Magic" you will see that I agree with this entirely.

The point if that no statement can be disproved in the way you explain. Not a single one. But if we were to take every single statement as science, then science would have no place or meaning in this world.

Actually this is not correct. For a theory to be an effective scientific theory, its hypothesis must be "disprovable," in that there must be a clear case where we can either accept the hypothesis or reject the hypothesis. A theory whose hypothesis cannot be rejected regardless of outcome is not a scientific theory, because science can do nothing to determine if it is, in fact, reproducible or not.

Good theories lead to technology and useful development. This is where science shines. The computers we use, the medicine we have, the cars we drive, most of what we use every day is some form of technological development based on reproducible effect, which is scientific in nature. You try something, and it either works consistently, or it doesn't. (You may even accidentally find some interesting effect that happens consistently, but this too is about reproducibility.)

Unfortunately natural evolution is not one such theory. (And by "natural evolution" I mean "the theory that things improve over time based on natural selection of a large population"; that species N came from species M after several generational iterations of mutation and selection.) It is not practical to experiment with: it either requires geological timescales which we can't observe, empirical evidence which cannot be used to reject the hypothesis, or experimentation which is inherently flawed, because it's not "natural" (i.e., there's someone doing the experiment, so it's immediately invalidated). Furthermore, there's no practical outcome from the proof or disproof of such a theory. There is no reproducible effect. It's almost entirely philosophical, even religious in function.

Re:Article didn't mention HOW it's unconstitutiona

[smooth wombat]

The NY times article (no reg required) has the following bit which was not in the CNN article:

"We find that the secular purposes claimed by the Board amount to a pretext for the Board's real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom," he wrote in his 139-page opinion.

The link to the NY Times article

Yes, and.....

[GmAz]

Yes, and evolution isn't real. Just a theory about how life started. So, then what do they teach?

Re:Yes, and.....

[Anonymous Coward]

Evolution is both fact and theory. Creationism (a.k.a. ID) is neither.

Re:Yes, and.....

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing is real. You are a figment of my imagination.

Re:Yes, and.....

[OhHellWithIt]

Hopefully, they'll teach this:

"[S]cience is not about truths. What science is about is making our beliefs less false." -- S. James Gates, Jr.

Dr. Gates is a U. of Md. physics professor, and I heard him say this in an interview on Speaking of Faith the other day. The full transcript is available in one of their programs on Einstein.

I hope someday the people who object to evolution on religious grounds will understand that theories is all anybody's got. (And, for that matter, also the people who object to religion on scientific grounds.)

Re:Yes, and.....

[Gregg Alan]

Evolution is NOT a theory about how life started!

Apparently they didn't teach you anything.

TalkOrigins

Re:Yes, and.....

[kennygraham]

Yes, and gravity isn't real. Just a theory about why stuff falls. Seriously though, if you think evolution is about how life started, you need to read something other than the bible.

Re:Yes, and.....

[toriver]

Just a theory about how life started.

No, it isn't about that at all. It's about what makes species evolve over time. It says nothing about how it started - those are other theories. But religious opponents generally mix them up because it suits their argument.

Also, in science, a theory is a hypothesis that overwhelming evidence says is correct. Not at all what you seem to think it means. Evolution has been observed in nature - much like gravity has been. Do you trust the THEORY of gravity, or do you always grip something solid, afraid to be tossed into the ether?

Re:Yes, and.....

[clr211]

"I hope someday the people who object to evolution on religious grounds will understand that theories is all anybody's got. (And, for that matter, also the people who object to religion on scientific grounds.)"

thats probably the most intelligent statement i've heard/read since this whole ID debate started.

Land that Time Forgot

[foolish_to_be_here]

Great! I can't wait until that sleepy hollow of a community is swallowed up by a great earth quake, hell and damnation. Just think, a damnation theme park only hours away!!!!

Just a theory?

[Dark Paladin]

Thank goodness.

And I know I'm feeding the trolls, but I'm sorry, but the comment "It's not any less scientific than evolution" is a fascinating one to me.

Let's break down the scientific method:

1. Observation
2. Hypothesis
3. Experiment
4. Results, start over at 1.

Evolution we know happens (see the changing patterns of moths around pollution, etc). However, the Theory of Evolution as originally put forth by Darwin is based on the idea of "survival of the fittest": those species who have a mutation that enables them to survive better than their competitors will breed and pass along that mutation to their descendants, who will then continue the process.

How did Darwin come up with this theory?

1. He observed the various species on the islands, and how they were all similar (birds, I believe) and how each was best fit to his environment.
2. He hypothesized that this condition arose because of his theory (see above).
3. The experiment (mainly carried out by other folks looking at fossils): See if similar species have changed over time due to environment and had mutations that allowed them to survive. Usually this "experiment" involves saying "All right, we have Fossil A which we know to be 100,000,000 years old, and we have Fossil C which is 25,000,000 years old. Fossil C shows a better ability to survive the environment, and is the same kind of creature as A except for the mutations observed. Therefore, there should be Fossil B that is like Fossil A, only it includes some of the mutations of C but not all of them as the species adapted to better fit the environment. This fossil should be between 100,000,000 and 25,000,000 years old. If we find it, then we know we're right. If we don't, then either we need a better theory or need to keep looking." (For nit pickers who will say this is not a true "experiment", you are right - but these kind of "observational experiments" are perfectly valid when talking about cosmological experiments, such as testing the Theory of Relativity or the Big Bang Theory).
4. Results: Over time, thousands of fossil records and observations of species has held up the Theory of Evolution. Adaptations have come into play (such as the "Survival of the Fittest and the Luckiest", which holds that sometimes pure chance comes into play of wiping out a dominant species, such as an asteroid, but when equilibrium is reached Survival of the Fittest is shown to work again).

This leads to a "theory": a set of rules that *currently* work in explaining a phenomena. The Theory of Relativity has been held up by experiment (such as "can we find bended light around a large gravity source. Answer: Yes.). As long as no one comes up with a better scientifically proved theory, the theory is held up.

Intelligent Design doesn't follow these rules. It goes like this:

1. Observation: There's a lot of different species out there.
2. Hypothesis: Some "intelligent designer" must of altered the species to allow them to survive in their environment.
3. Ummmm....

The "step 3" is important. With Intelligent Design, you *can't test it*. Actually, let me back up: you're not allowed to test it. The only way to prove/disprove Intelligent Design is to find a tablet between 100,000,000 and 25,000,000 million years old that says "Note to self: change DNA of duck billed platypus to make it better to survive. Love, ID."

If you do bring up a changing fossil record and say "Look, we have a changing species over time", the ID'er will say "Ah, see - the designer changed the species". Again, no proof, no experiment needed.

This is why ID is not science, or even a theory: it's a belief. It's a nice belief. Do I believe some God/Goddess/Higher Being made the Universe? Sure. Do I think that They put a hand in everything?

Who cares? Until such a being gets on the Megaphone of the Cosmos and says "Hey, dudes - check out Chromosome #15 where I spelled out 'Jesus if fucking metal", I'll trust that They wrote the universe so that we could

Re:Just a theory?

[DocKred]

Scientific method goes more like this. 1. Observation 2. Hypothesis 3. Experiment 4. Mold results to meet hypothesis 5. Publish paper Too much science is considered fact. One week the t-rex is a predator and the next he's a scavenger. Nieither evolution nor ID should be taught. They are both based on theory and faith.

Re:Just a theory?

[PitaBred]

The difference is that the scientific theory is ALLOWED, and even EXPECTED to change. That won't happen with "Intelligent" design as a theory.

Re:Just a theory?

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah, and observation lead to the belief that the world was flat.

Re:Just a theory?

[dmonder]

The problem I see here is the reason why so many people are confused. You are using the word evolution in two different ways in the same argument. Changes within a species are observable and testable within our world today. Speciation, or evolution of one species into another, is not observable and has never been found in the fossil record.

Here is what happens: people start with the assumption that the world has progressed and developed without God's intervention (Athiestic foundation). A Creationist believes the world progressed and developed as described in the 1st book of the Bible, the Book of Genesis. An Intelligent Design supporter believes God created the world but used evolution to do it, with some interventions here and there. It is possible to explain the creation of the world scientifically from a Creationist point of view. It is all about the initial assumptions.

If one knows the world was created by God a few thousand years ago, they would be able to correctly interpret the scientific findings. If the dating methods yeild dates out of range, then there must be an error in the dating method.

In order to be successful scientists, one must believe in the Creator of the world. If not, you will only be making incorrect assumptions and theories.

David Onder

Re:Just a theory?

[Seraphim_72]

Oh, I dunno, seems to me that the answer to "Who created the universe?" has been changed a number of times through history. Ptah, Odin, Yahweh, L Ron Hubbard, etc.

Seraphim

Re:Just a theory?

[Anonymous Coward]

"1. Observation: There's a lot of different species out there.
2. Hypothesis: Some "intelligent designer" must of altered the species to allow them to survive in their environment.
3. Ummmm...."

3. Form a new religion.
4. Profit!

Re:Just a theory?

[wfberg]

The more important thing to realize is that not only can you use evolution to predict things happening, it also explains why. It might be a fairly trivial theory (survival of the fittest (by-and-large), some mutation here and there, and you're there), but it has actual applications. It explains why germs become resistent to antibiotics, rather than simply saying "things change, so, well, they changed, right?". Having an explanation makes it easier to deal with real life phenomenon like these (e.g. use restraint in using anti-biotics, rather than splashing them all about; use cocktails in the worst cases, but actively discourage using a few "back-up" anti-biotics; all strategies straight from survival of the fittest).

However, experimentation does not science make. It's a bit infeasible to go out and try to recreate life in a dish, take away selective pressure, and see if it turns out in humans or not. (Anti-evolutionists will claim you need to do this to "prove" evolution.) Rather, it only shows that evolution is a pretty darn good model, and one you should consider adopting, much like the theory of gravity is pretty neat, but, as Einstein showed, not quite perfect.

What does mark non-science is simply this; non-falsifiability. You can never prove some Almighty Intelligent Being isn't behind Creation. He might even have Created evolution! He's hiding, changing the fossil record to test our faith, etc. etc. etc. The existence of an Almighty Being can never be disproven! (He could prove He exists by the usual means of a bellowing voice from the parting clouds, etc., but disprove, no.)

No way to prove it isn't so = not a theory, not science. I haven't read the judgement, but it should be in there. (Interesting aside; the word I need to type in to login is quagmire..)

Re:Just a theory?

[Dark Paladin]

I'm afraid your T-Rex example is a bad one.

True science has facts: I read the thermometer and is said "50 degrees Celsius".

The hypothesis is "I lit a fire under the thermometer and the thermometer reading changes. Therefore, if I light a fire under another thermometer it should read 50 degrees Celsius".

The hypothesis is that the T-Rex was a predator, or that he was a scavenger. Both present evidence for either side - but neither is a "fact". A fact would be "I found a bone and this is what it looked like".

That other people hold up such hypothesis and theory as fact is their own fault for not applying the scientific method. We teach in schools the theories that have the most support and the most evidence - not the ones we "have faith in". We teach the facts in school (so-and-so sat outside and look up in the heavens and wrote this book, and based on his theory we think we go around the sun, and here's the evidence of that theory), and we should teach the theory, and good science teachers will explain the difference.

A short breakdown:

A belief is something you think is true.
Faith is the believing in something and acting on that belief in the absence of evidence (aka: faith is the evidence of things unseen, as I think the scripture goes).
Knowledge is belief that has been proven.

Re:Just a theory?

[mpfife]

1. Observation: There's a lot of different species out there.
2. Hypothesis: Some "intelligent designer" must of altered the species to allow them to survive in their environment.
3. Ummmm....

What comes next? well duuuhhhhh!
4. PROFIT!

What could be more scientific than that? We did it all thru the 90's...

Re:Just a theory?

[MichaelKaiserProScri]

The universe formed from a cosmic singularity. It exploded and all sorts of complex structures arose from this. One of them was Earth. The right bits and pieces and the right events happend to come together to form live. Life evolved from simple into complex forms. At all steps along the way, more complex things arose from simpler things. This "doesn't" happen, but clearly it did since we're all here. I see the science and agree that the scientist are more or less right. They refine the theories, but the fundamental steps are right, there, and provable. Yet they also defy entroy.

Therefore I firmly believe that Evolution, the Big Bang, etc are all true. We may not fully understand all the details, but they are fundemantally true. But I ALSO believer that intelligent design, a creator, is behind all of it. I do not believe that God went "poof" and created things as we see them, but I do belive that evolution, the big bang, and processes like this are how God works.

So, in short, evolution and ID are not mutually exclusive. I'm sure there are biblical literalists that would argue the point with me, but I don't see how you can take every word in the Bible literally when the Bible itself freely admits that much of itself is parable.

Re:Just a theory?

[Anonymous Coward]

> The only way to prove/disprove Intelligent Design is to find a tablet
> between 100,000,000 and 25,000,000 million years old that says

No. It must be 6009 years and 42 days old.

Re:Just a theory?

[Anonymous Coward]

You, and most people with your (correct) mindset fail to take into account one thing. The ID proponents for the most part believe the earth to be 6,000 years old. They believe this because their interpretation of the bible says so. If evolution is correct then their belief is flawed. If their belief is flawed then there is no God. Using circular logic, since they know there is a God their belief is not flawed. Therefore evolution has to be wrong.

This is a basic synopsis of their argument. What it boils down to is that evolution challenges their core beliefs and in some cases their very reason to live. You will not be able to change their minds with any facts, scientific evidence, or logic.

Re:Just a theory?

[iyntsiannaistnyi]

If I'm not mistaken, the example of the moths in England has since been proven to be false, in that it didn't actually happen and that bad scientific method was involved in collecting data. I cannot currently offer citations for this, but I can offer a suggestion that your (one) example of observable Survival Of The Fittest may need to be further investigated before being used in debates such as this.

One of the most important precepts in a debate is that you accurately present the point of view of your opponents. In this case, since supporters of ID are demographically -and- ideologically quite diverse, then you should probably at least acknowledge the different approaches. For instance, acknowledge that not all ID supporters believe "Look, we have a changing species over time" is proof. In fact, many IDers don't (and shouldn't) present ID as science, because it's not. In fact, ID and evolution are not mutually exclusive. If I accurately recall my university readings, Asa Gray, a staunch evolutionist and correspondent with Darwin, was the one who proposed the first version of ID. What is ID really? A theory concerning the 'first cause', or the impetus behind evolution. This side of ID should be mentioned in your comments if you refer only to your opponents as "ID supporters". If you wish to specify your comments to a more narrow group, perhaps one deserving of the comments, please acknowledge that it is a narrower group and that not all IDers fit into the category. Accuracy, please, won't someone think of the children?!</gratuitous Simpsons ref>

In my mind, as someone who has objectively read some (not a lot) on both positions, the proof you're alleging is singularly unavailable in both cases. Just like we can't go back however many millions of years and see a giant finger come down and poke the platypus, we also can't observe the evolution from species to species over the same time period. In your list of the scientific method, hypothesis and proof, as they are used in laboratories, take a bit of a different shape. A scientist hypothesizes something, and then tries to recreate the scenario and achieve the same results in order to be able to call it proof. Again, this is pretty much impossible on both sides of this debate.

I do not deny the observations of the fossil record. There are definitely differences such as the ones to which you referred. However, the existence of fossil B is as much speculation as the message in a chromosome. Neither can be proven until they are found, and neither can be disproven ever. I'm sure all of us are aware that scientific cannot prove the nonexistence of something, even something as far-fetched as a message in a chromosome.

It surprised me that you said "I like my belief better. Until something better comes along..." There is as little "science" to be found there as in many of the ID arguments. Don't get me wrong, I have absolutely nothing against the blurring of the science vs. philosophy/religion boundaries. All human pursuits are mutually relevant, because everything is connected. I just wanted to point out that part of what you said.

I love science. I think it is a tremendously worthwhile pursuit, and a critically important set of knowledge for humans to possess. What I wish is that more scientists would admit where faith enters our world view. It's there, but usually we successfully ignore it. Perhaps as an experiment, look for faith jumps in your procedures and understandings, with as much skepticism as you look for faith jumps in the procedure of your opponents. Skepticism is, after all, what science requires.

I think what I'm saying is basically this: don't be any less charitable to IDers than you are to yourself, because all that demonstrates is that you are biased. Bias is dangerous to the scientific method. Acknowledge that a little faith here and there isn't a bad thing.

Re:Just a theory?

[Anonymous Coward]

...and steps 2 through 4 led to the realization that it wasn't.

Re:Just a theory?

[CAIMLAS]

The assumption where evolution falls flat is that the "changing fossil record" is just that: it's a fossil record which changes, not necessitating either evolution or simply different species in a single location over a broad period of time.

A million years from now, when an alien species comes down here and looks out our fossils after we're long gone, are they going to make these following conclusions?

Cattle are the descendants of Bison; we've found their fossils in the same region, and only a couple hundred thousand years appart. They're very similar in skeletal structure and function, so we make this conclusion.

Domestic dogs are the descendants of North American Timberwolves, as they are found in a similar geographic region and are both canines. It would appear that when humans died off, their domestic pets went wild again and pushed the Timberwolves to extinction, being the weaker of the two in terms of surviveability.

Neither would be true; yes, cattle and domestic dogs have undergone a genetic evolution since the beginning of man, but both those species have been tweaked and mutilated by the intentional intervention of man.

Don't get me wrong; I believe that microevolution occurs; it's readily observeable. I just don't think speciation has provided us with anything factual so as to be convincing. The simplest explanation is often the right one, and in this case the simple explanation is that other species moved into the same areas.

Which isn't to say I don't think speciation isn't plauseable, I just don't think it's probable.

Re:Just a theory?

[SQLz]

Speciation, or evolution of one species into another, is not observable and has never been found in the fossil record.

? Never been found in the fossil record? I recall possibly hundreds of articles involing this, and it is observable and reproducable in the lab with bacteria, and in the wild. (ever heard of a virus 'mutating'?) DNA? Try reading a science journal or just watching the discovery channel. There are literally thousands of examples right in front of your eyes know as people. Why aren't all poeple white or black? How did the different physical appearances of the different races humans come about? Why do people in warmer climates naturally have darker skin and hair? What about dogs? Fossil records show all dogs decended from the wolf....but, they all don't look like wolves. How is that possible if not for selective breeding, the same process that happens with evolution. What about gardeners who make new species of plants by crossbreeding?

Re:Just a theory?

[Dark Paladin]

And experiment proved it was not, so a new hypothesis was needed. Your point?

Re:Just a theory?

[CapnRob]

Bullpuckey. Science is considered 'the best answer we have right now'. It's done by people. Sometimes people disagree. Sometimes, people make mistakes in math (there's a lovely paper by Dan Graur and W. Martin, called "Reading the Entrails of Chickens: Molecular Timescales of Evolution and the Illusion of Precision", Trends in Genetics, Feb 2004, Vol. 20, #2, which goes through and shreds some of the math done by the molecular clock researchers. It is, in passing, one of the most entertaining papers in the history of science, even for the layperson, and I recommend it highly - it's one of the finest examples of scientific surliness ever written. The highlight is, of course, the conclusion, which is that some of the molecular clock researchers, through neglecting basic statistical procedures, should have error bars for the age-of-species results that they get which are longer than the age of the Earth. But the fact that this paper was written to show errors in math doesn't mean that the entirety of molecular dating should be thrown out.)

Does the fact that people disagree mean that it's all wrong? No. It means that we're getting closer to the truth as more research is done, which may refute certain earlier statements and confirm others.

The Tyrannosaurus example is really, really badly chosen. For one thing, almost all terrestrial predators are also scavengers, at least part of the time. Meat is meat, dammit, and if you turn up your nose at a kill just because you didn't make it, then you're not going to survive too long. For another, the conclusion as to whether T. Rex was primarily a pursuit hunter or a cursorial hunter depends on assumptions made on possibly inadequate data on the tensile strength of tyrannosaurus musculature, the mount points of those muscles on the skeleton, and the exact posture of the hips. Everybody, including the people who wrote the paper, would be willing to admit that the answer to the question of pursuit-vs-"hey, look, meat!" isn't carved in stone quite yet. The thing is, sometimes, you have to say *something*, and so you go with the best you've got right then. There are, however, other results from evolutionary research that are very well supported and can be presented as as-close-to-fact-as-we-get - it's just that you don't often see papers in Nature that go "You know that cladogram of the Rhinogradentia that Stümpke published in 1920? Yup, it's still good", and when you do, it's because new techniques (e.g., CT scanning of fossils) have come along - which means that you hear about the controversies a hell of a lot more often than the settled stuff.

Re:Just a theory?

[DocKred]

The fact that people disagree only proves that the truth will NEVER be know. It does not get you closer to the truth.

Re:Just a theory?

[jferris]

Actually, religion held it to be fact that the Earth was flat and everything revolved around the Earth, and anyone who disagreed with the church was then an enemy of the chuch. Apparently, little has changed, eh?

Re:Just a theory?

[Trinition]

Changes within a species are observable and testable within our world today. Speciation, or evolution of one species into another, is not observable and has never been found in the fossil record.

It sounds like you are comparing microevolutiona nd macroevolution. Plenty of people on SlashDot have brought the words themselves into question. You wield them well, so I'll ask for your definition. Already I infer that micro is within a species and macro from one species into another. So what is the definition of a species then?

You also state that evolution from one species into another is not observable. Why? I did some googling last time this subject appeared on SlashDot, and found plenty of examples of one species turning into a new one (or, more correctly, one specifes diverging into two). I also read earlier this year in Discover about a specifies of butterfly that diverged because of environmental separation into two valleys (the two species no longer mate together because of evolved color differentiations). So, why do you think its not observable?

Secondly, if one wants to reproduce evolution in the laboratory, all you need is:

• One primordial plabent
• 2 billion years

Those are both hard to come by. UNtil you can set such an experiment up on a grand scale, you're going to have to extrapolate from smaller experiments. You won't see a monkey evolve into a human in your labs on the small timescales we have. But instead, if you do small experiments, and combine what you know about mathematics, DNA, ecology, global climate change, etc. you can interpolate smaller hypothetses to test, and then extrapolate the bigger theory.

Re:Just a theory?

[Sheepdot]

So then, is abiogenesis science?

It has been tested during the experiment phase several times. AFAIK, it's been a consistent failure. Also, it's never been observed, but I keep getting told by Atheists (note, I didn't say evolution proponents, because it is just a specific subset of them that are going a bit too far) that abiogenesis happened despite evidence to the contrary.

Certainly, ID isn't science, but I'm a bit confused how the atheist form of extending evolution back to spontaneous generation is somehow science.

Re:Just a theory?

[CapnRob]

So, research has not gotten us closer to understanding, e.g, whether or not the atom may be successfully split?

My goodness. I'm sure that many physicists would be pleased to know this. Why don't you inform them?

Re:Just a theory?

[dmonder]

You have done a good job of bringing up only situations of natural selection within a species. Black humans and white humans are all humans; dogs and wolves are canines; humans in different climates are still humans.

David

Re:Just a theory?

[Peter La Casse]

You, and most people with your (correct) mindset fail to take into account one thing. The ID proponents for the most part believe the earth to be 6,000 years old.

No, you're thinking of young-Earth creationists. IDers believe in evolution over millions of years, with occasional divine intervention.

What it boils down to is that evolution challenges their core beliefs and in some cases their very reason to live.

What I find amazing in all of this controversy is that evolution doesn't actually challenge any core Christian beliefs. It's on the same theological level as baptism via immersion vs baptism via sprinkling (an obscure issue that people nevertheless form separate groups over.)

Re:Just a theory?

[Dark Paladin]

I fear you may have misread me. I wrote:

But this is a belief. Not a theory. And I will not throw out a perfectly working theory that has been held up under scientific processes just because I like my belief better.

My belief, a paragraph above, was:

Who cares? Until such a being gets on the Megaphone of the Cosmos and says "Hey, dudes - check out Chromosome #15 where I spelled out 'Jesus if fucking metal", I'll trust that They wrote the universe so that we could understand it and grow closer to Them.

My statement goes like this:

You believe until something better comes along. When I was a child, I believed that babies came from storks. When I got older, I had a better belief: babies come from bumping uglies between a man and a woman.

So I won't throw out evolution - a proven and tested theory - for my belief, because evolution does a better job of explaining how species went from fish to humans. My belief dealt with the why, and as an untestable position, it can never be a theory (until we can actually ask said Creator for ourselves - then it becomes testable.)

Faith is fine in its place, but not in the classroom nor as a method of displacing things that can be tested and proven by independent means.

As far as disproving, things are disproved all the time. It's the very system of science.

The world is flat.

Disproved: People sailed around the world and did not fall off.

Evolution could even be disproved - all you need is to provide not "Oh, it's very complex so it can't work", but a real experiment. What experiment would that be? I don't know - that's up to you to figure out. But if you can come up with a real working experiment and go to the fossil record and prove it, then we can let it into science class.

Until then, sorry - it's not even a scientific theory, but a hypothesis.

Re:Just a theory?

[m50d]

Scientific method goes more like this. 1. Observation 2. Hypothesis 3. Experiment 4. Mold results to meet hypothesis 5. Publish paper

You're not supposed to do your 4. If you don't have such scruples, you'll be caught out sooner or later by someone who does. There are plenty of people with the motivation to find results that contradict evolution if they exist.

Too much science is considered fact. One week the t-rex is a predator and the next he's a scavenger.

Treating science as fact gives you more accurate information than anything else. Of course there is enormous doubt at the edges, and that's why new, contentious theories aren't taught in schools - just look at how long it took plate tectonics to make it into the typical science classroom. (or at least the textbooks, a good teacher would probably bring up unproven new developments if the class was interested), and occasionally the foundations shift, but rarely if ever in a way that completely contradicts anything well established. But evolution is not such edge science, it is accepted by everyone in mainstream science and for a good reason. There is more than enough evidence for it, if you open your mind and look.

Re:Just a theory?

[dmonder]

I specifically avoided using the words microevolution and macroevolution, mainly because I disagree with the mainline scientists coopting the word evolution to mean both.

The butterfly example you mention above would not be speciation since the butterflies you mention choose not to mate with each other. In general, speciation occurs when a species diverges into two seperate kinds that cannot mate together.

On your last point, you point out the biggest problem with evolution as science. It is not possible to test evolution, only small parts or theories. Just because something works on a small scale in a laboratory does not mean it actually happened. Nevertheless, Creation scientists do the same thing. The difference is that we assume that God created the universe a few thousand years ago while the mainstream scientists believe the universe evolved to this point with no God over a few billion years.

David Onder

Re:Just a theory?

[m50d]

The problem I see here is the reason why so many people are confused. You are using the word evolution in two different ways in the same argument. Changes within a species are observable and testable within our world today. Speciation, or evolution of one species into another, is not observable and has never been found in the fossil record.

It's observable - speciation in bacteria is less clear since those from different species still exchange DNA, but given a few weeks in the lab I can show you populations diverging to the point that if we discovered the two in the wild we'd consider them separate species - it's happened, and it's certainly in the fossil record as much as anything is in the record - island populations that are now a different species but the fossil record shows the same species as the one on the mainland lived there.

Re:Just a theory?

[Peter La Casse]

(For nit pickers who will say this is not a true "experiment", you are right - but these kind of "observational experiments" are perfectly valid when talking about cosmological experiments, such as testing the Theory of Relativity or the Big Bang Theory).

I am one of those nitpickers, and I disagree. These kinds of observations do not give the same amount of scientific validity as experiments that are repeatable under controlled conditions do. Just because they're the best that we have to go on in some areas does not make theories based on them as credible as theories based on better data.

Re:Just a theory?

[Anonymous Coward]

Here is what happens: people start with the assumption that the world has progressed and developed without God's intervention (Athiestic foundation). A Creationist believes the world progressed and developed as described in the 1st book of the Bible, the Book of Genesis. An Intelligent Design supporter believes God created the world but used evolution to do it, with some interventions here and there. It is possible to explain the creation of the world scientifically from a Creationist point of view. It is all about the initial assumptions.

I strongly disagree with several things here.

First, believing that the world developed without God's intervention is not atheism. Atheism is believing that God does not exist at all.

Let's pretend I peg God's last intervention as the Big Bang. That would not make me an atheist any more than believing that God doesn't intervene to actively aid me in the act of farting.

Secondly, AFAIK ID folks do not believe that God "used evolution". At any rate, almost none of the ones pushing the philosophy.

Lastly, "explaining" the world "scientifically" from a creationist POV seems to be a contradiction. Creationism uses assumptions which science explicitly cannot operate upon.

Re:Just a theory?

[smidget2k4]

Not to nitpick, but it is a common misconception that the Church thought the world was flat. From before Aristotle people knew the Earth was sphereical (you can read some of his arguments about it). I am not an expert on the Church during the middle-ages, but I cannot fathom why they thought the Earth was flat dispite huge amounts of evidence to the contrary dating back to well before the Church was even concieved of.

Evidence known at this point included - sun setting/rising at difference times related to distance, shadow of Earth showing a circle shape from various points on Earth, seeing the tops of things first on the horizon, and systematically shooting down all other possible shapes with these references.

Re:Just a theory?

[sickofthisshit]

but I'm a bit confused

I'd say more than a bit...

Science is based on making observations, generating hypotheses, making more observations, and generally trying to figure out what the hell happened, without saying "oooh, I learned in Sunday School that God did it. Well, that about wraps it up."

Not having a convincing explanation for abiogenesis which happened billions of years ago, where almost every bit of biological material around at that time has been eaten, excreted, buried, or otherwise disposed of in the mean time, does not mean that we just throw up our hands and say "God did create life, after all!"

Instead we have to say "We don't have a convincing scientific explanation. We'll keep investigating as long as we can come up with ideas for where to look next."

Naturalists had worked for a long time before Darwin to try to understand how various organisms lived, reproduced, were structured, and how they were related to one another, because it was clear that lots of things did have a kind of resemblance to each other. But until Darwin put forth his theory, they had no scientific theory to explain the "great chain of being" other than "God created each creature, special in its own way". After Darwin, it is clear that things can LOOK designed, but without having BEEN designed, that common descent can explain resemblances, and natural selection can explain why many organisms are well adapted to their mode of existence, and we don't need God's careful planning to explain it all.

Good thing those naturalists didn't give up so easily, huh?

Re:Just a theory?

[m50d]

Sorry for separate replies, forgot about the other paragraphs.

Here is what happens: people start with the assumption that the world has progressed and developed without God's intervention (Athiestic foundation). A Creationist believes the world progressed and developed as described in the 1st book of the Bible, the Book of Genesis. An Intelligent Design supporter believes God created the world but used evolution to do it, with some interventions here and there. It is possible to explain the creation of the world scientifically from a Creationist point of view. It is all about the initial assumptions.

A true scientist starts by assuming nothing. No gravity, no creator, heck, you don't even assume the existence of the world itself. You add assumptions as and when they are necessary because of the available evidence, and then you add the minimum possible assumption, and you always look for a way to reduce or eliminate your assumptions, thus for example Maxwell's work means we no longer have to assume two forces, gravity and electricity, but only need to make the single assumption of the electromagnetic field.

If one knows the world was created by God a few thousand years ago, they would be able to correctly interpret the scientific findings. If the dating methods yeild dates out of range, then there must be an error in the dating method.

That's a prime example of why this approach is not science. If it were science, you'd be questioning both the date and the assumption - and results are stronger than assumptions.

In order to be successful scientists, one must believe in the Creator of the world. If not, you will only be making incorrect assumptions and theories.

An approach based on belief in God is not science for two reasons - you're making an unwarranted assumption and then placing that assumption beyond question.

Re:Just a theory?

[DocKred]

Between evolution and ID, NO. Research will never ever prove evolution knowmader how much science wants it to. My problem is that they teach it in schools like it's fact. It will NEVER EVER be fact and thus should not be taught as such.

Re:Just a theory?

[Anonymous Coward]

So, in short, evolution and ID are not mutually exclusive.

IMO at least the brand of ID currently being pushed is.

But I agree with you on some level. There'll always be room for God, the problem is that folks with a cherished dogma don't handle it well when science lessens our uncertainty about how He manifests... and in the process invalidates their dogma.

Re:Just a theory?

[Darius Jedburgh]

Fossil C shows a better ability to survive the environment

Are you honestly telling me that by looking at fossils biologists are able to judge which organism is better able to survive in a given environment? Maybe you can cite a paper where a biologist predicts that one organism will survive and another won't followed by another paper showing how the prediction is borne out by the evidence. Good luck searching. In fact, maybe you would just like to give me a reference to a paper in which a biologist shows that one organism is 'fitter' for its environment than another without using the theory of evolution as a hypothesis? The truth is, biologists are far more likely to make deductions about an organism's environment from the fossil than make deductions about fitness knowing the environment - there are countless published papers and books that bear out this point. And either way, they make these deductions assuming the truth of evolution, not as evidence for evolution. I'm not even touching IDist arguments here, you are misrepresenting Darwinians.

We can't even begin to debate evolution on slashdot. Both the evolutionists and the IDists present a grossly misleading picture of evolution. (Of course the Darwinists are always modded up, no matter how little they understand what they are talking about or how ignorant they are of biology.)

Re:Just a theory?

[Bazzalisk]

The real problem is that you are defining species as the equivalence classes under the relation "can mate with" - which fails the requirements to be an equivalence relation, and hence has no such well defined classes.

Re:Just a theory?

[Mudd Chick]

That was the most hilarious scientific article I've read in weeks. And it included a Douglas Adams quote! Unfortunately, you're going to have to accept my undying love over mod points.

Re:Just a theory?

[Pray_4_Mojo]

Well, why stop assuming at just one creator?
After all, who intelligently designed the intelligent designer?
And who designed him? Or her?

Good science is minimal, stated assumption. If I'm assuming that mold grows on old bread because mold is sponetaneously created (as opposed to mold spores traveling through the air) then I've got to have some way of proving my assumption false.

Cardon dating instrument flaws aside, I'm wishing you luck on that one.

Re:Just a theory?

[jnana]

What about C. molestus , the London underground mosquito? They appear to be a different species at this point, and researchers have not been able to get them to interbreed with the population from which they evolved.

Re:Just a theory?

[GReaToaK_2000]

"Acknowledge that a little faith here and there isn't a bad thing."

I don't think that was ever an issue.

You have some valid points about the "choice of examples" but science is supposed to be objective and unbiased. There simply isn't a way to repeatably prove (or disprove) ID. That, in and of itself, does NOT give it credibility as "science". It's NOT, pure and simple. It's speculation based on a theology... WHICH to my knowledge, there are hundreds of thousands of theologies. This provides speculation with so many variations because most of them (theologies) believe in different ideologies.

Religion is a human built structure to promote control and organization in our society without it, it is unlikely we would have come this far as a society. (which in and of itself is a form of evolution) Politics is just the latest version of that (societal control mechanism). (There are even different "beliefs" in that area as well ergo Communism, Fascism, Democracy, etc.) Heck that may explain why in many places religion and politics intertwine so much and look what happens in those cases... (that's another discussion)

The scientific laws used to determine the validity of an experiment (hypothesis, theory) with repeatable results are universal. In most cases where there is something unexplainable a theory can be created based on the known laws, which have been proven time and time again, to explain it... It may not be testable at the current level of technology but in time we will more then likely prove or disprove it... Look at what we have proven in the past two decades since we have advanced the computer so much. In Mathematics there have been advances as well.

Nothing like that is possible in ID. It's "belief in" a higher power, or "faith that" a higher power intervened.

Now, that's all well and good, and you may believe that is the case, but how about this...

What IF "your" (plural, not YOU specifically) God is actually an Alien from another galaxy, solar system, dimension, take your pick and IT infected this planet accidentally with some "bug" from its planet and we are a possible evolution of that "bug"

OR

Maybe that Alien race decided to start an experiment with our planet to see how things turn out...

OR

You see where I am going? It's ALL speculation!!! Based one WHAT???

A BELIEF and a FAITH ... a theology... which isn't even planet or nation wide... meaning it isn't even accepted by ALL of the people of this planet.... not even 90%... not even 80%... try less then 35%...

Hell there are people in, I think it's the Philippians, which have a ritual where they spend a year cutting down this tree, clean it up, prepare it with a whole bunch of ceremony and then everyone rides it down a hill... Some people get killed, injured and other wise permanently maimed and I am not condemning it... I am simply pointing out an example of another belief which is so different from most Judeo-Christian theologies doesn't even fit within the realm of Christian peoples understanding...

In science we use laws which have been proven time and time again.

Religion uses faith, belief and fear/hope to give it parishioners "peace of mind" that there is something after death... ID is just another example that religion uses to say look, God/Whomever loves you and you will be with him because you came from Him/Her/It...

I even like to HOPE that this life isn't everything... I would hate to miss out on more conversations like this... :-D

Happy Holidays... Solstice Greetings... Merry Christmas... Saturnalia... Yule... http://www.religioustolerance.org/winter_solstice. htm

This is a beauty as well... http://www.issurvivor.com/ArticlesDetail.asp?ID=54 1

Re:Just a theory?

[mdielmann]

I agree with almost all of what you said. Although religious faith is important to me, that doesn't mean it needs to be taught in a science class.

As for evolution, I see only two potential flaws that aren't adressed by the theory.

First, at what point is evolution possible? This is one of the indirect questions often raised when people discuss Titan. What conditions are required for life to be possible, and is it possible for it to start without a push from somewhere else? Keep in mind that there a number of theories, espeically in math, where a defined starting point is required before the algorithms will function. This is the hole that ID tries to fill, and fails because it isn't scientific. Until something comes along that proves one way or the other whether we need that push, evolution is the winner in this argument.

Second, how accurate are our measurements for dating? I've heard before (I don't work in the field, so I put it on about the same level as rumour), that one of the big criteria for dating samples are where they are in the strata. This is cyclical. "It's between point A and point B, which we've dated, so it must be from between those two points chronoligically." I can think of flaws in that technique all day. If that data is to be taken into account at all, it should be noted in a separate area from measured data. Also, how much material of a specific isotope would it take to throw off isotope dating? Something that would fit into a large asteroid in reasonable proportions? Do we have any idea if the isotopic ratios we see in carbon and strontium, among others, are the norm for the inner planets, our solar system, our galaxy? Or are we just assuming that any introduction of foreign matter (which happens every day) isn't going to skew the results? I haven't bothered to look this up, I wouldn't even know the right questions to ask to search it in a reasonable timeframe, but assumptions can introduce crucial flaws in any theory. That said, even with some serious errors in fossil dating, there are no competing scientific theories to displace evolution on this basis.

I don't mind creationists or ID proponents looking for scientific evidence to prove their beliefs, but until you have it, accept that it isn't science, it's faith, and keep your arguments on firmer ground. If you really want your kids taught differently (and possibly less accurately), don't put them in public schools.

Re:Just a theory?

[DocKred]

The evidence for evolution is no more than my point 4. They just make it fit what they believe is true. There is still no, nor will there ever be, proof for it, and thus it should be treated as the theory it is. Many can say the same for evidence leading to ID. Somewhere along the way theology got mixed with real science. Real science is putting two things into a test tube and making it happen. Science is not examining evidence for something that can never be tested and excepting it as fact. It's as much based on faith as being a Christian.

Re:Just a theory?

[damoe]

If I'm not mistaken, the example of the moths in England has since been proven to be false, in that it didn't actually happen and that bad scientific method was involved in collecting data. I cannot currently offer citations for this, but I can offer a suggestion that your (one) example of observable Survival Of The Fittest may need to be further investigated before being used in debates such as this.

Actually, you've been hoodwinked by yet another creationist lie, see http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/iconob.html# moths

Re:Just a theory?

[Dark Paladin]

Are you honestly telling me that by looking at fossils biologists are able to judge which organism is better able to survive in a given environment?

Yes. If Species 1 had populations that existed for 1,000,000 years, and species 2 stopped reproducing and went extinct after 10,000 years, I think we have a clear example of which one was superior. We have that in the homo sapiens record. There were other offshoots of the hominid account - the ones that died out didn't succeed.

As Mr. Miyagi might have said about how to win: "Him that dead, don't."

Re:Just a theory?

[varith]

No David, sorry but you are way wrong here. Scientists started with no particular assumption about how and when the universe was created. In fact as the scientific method first began to be adopted most of them probably thought it to be quite young. As they investigated, they began to find things that invalidated their initial hypotheses and they then modified them to fit in line with the facts. There was no document they to which they had to refer to make sure that the new theories did no contradict. Fundamentalists, such as you, reject the scientific method. You start with the assumption that there exists a book with unchallengable truths in it. That places you outside science. So to even claim that there are "Creation Scientists" with your views ridiculous. Your view rejects science so there can be no scientists holding those view. A "Creation Scientist" is no more realistic than a "Fundamentalist Christian Atheist". Finally, I find it very arrogant of people like you who assume that *only* your view of the universe can be the correct on. I highly doubt that any supreme being has made you co-partner in holding the secrets of the universe or that your entirely human mind could even comprehend the entire universe.

Re:Just a theory?

[Dark Paladin]

This is one of the indirect questions often raised when people discuss Titan. What conditions are required for life to be possible, and is it possible for it to start without a push from somewhere else?

Not the area of evolution. Evolution studies how species evolve, not how life originated. For that one, ask a different kind of biologist. The answer so far is "considering it was 4 billion years ago, we have some ideas but nothing that pans out. Maybe we'll know in another hundred or a thousand years or something." So as far as Titan is concerned, most people would say "too cold", as far as Venus "too hot", and the Earth "just right". But other than that, we don't know much else, so other scientists are working on it - with testable, provable or disprovable experiments. If you want to pitch ID for the creation of life, then have it be testable, not just "Well, something must of done it - it was God."

I think God's smart enough to make things happen without having to "course correct it", but that's just me.

Second, how accurate are our measurements for dating? I've heard before (I don't work in the field, so I put it on about the same level as rumour), that one of the big criteria for dating samples are where they are in the strata.

This is simplified, but most of the ideas revolve around knowing how things age. For example, carbon dating. We know the decay of carbon, so we can say with certainty "This is X years old because when it was set and not renewing its carbon content, X amount of carbon went through change, so it's this old. Therefore, the thing inside of it should be the same age."

I'll let you go look it up, but that's the premise: knowing how long it takes item A to age and then going backwards from there, then extrapolating the items around it. Perfect? No - but for within a few hundreds or thousands of years against millions of years, it's "close enough" until something better comes along.

Re:Just a theory?

[DocKred]

And how do they know that their so called evidence is even related to evolution? If you can't make it happen, it will never be more than a bunch of scientists/thologists believing in something they can't prove. Hmmm, sounds like acting on belief in the absence of evidence to me. Parts of science are just as much a religion as any other, and that's the garbage I don't want being taught as fact. You can teach kids about biology, chemistry, astronomy, etc. as much as you want, but keep both evolution and ID out of it. Don't except one as fact simply because scientists think they have some evidence that they believe(based on faith)is realted.

Re:Just a theory?

[Anonymous Coward]

This "doesn't" happen, but clearly it did since we're all here. I see the science and agree that the scientist are more or less right. They refine the theories, but the fundamental steps are right, there, and provable. Yet they also defy entroy.

Why can't this happen? It does not "defy entropy" as you said: the only thing the second law of thermodynamics says is that "the entropy of any isolated thermodynamic system cannot increase over time".

Our planet is not even closed, let alone isolated, so please stop using that same old argument to dismiss the possibility of emergent phenomena (like abiotic and biological evolution). There _are_ non-enzymatic chemical systems of inorganic and organic compounds which have similar kinetic/thermodynamic proprieties as certain living processes (see belousov-zhabotinskii reaction): in far-from-equilibrium systems (involving self-catalysis and other feedback chemical pathways) as are all life processes, thermodynamics doesn't apply in that linear fashion.

This kind of arguments just makes me laught, really.. it is trivial to understand that, thermodynamically, it is _much_ more simple to assume that we just appeared from thin air that to assume that an omnipotent (or at least "far more complex than life as we know it") entity appeared from thin air, right? :\

Re:Just a theory?

[varith]

Ok, a couple of things:

1) If micro but not macro evolution occurs, how does microevolution *prevented* from becoming macroevolution. That is something that ID has never answered.

2) If the fossil record was simply species moving around, where did all these species come from anyway? And where have they all gone? Was there some insane number species at the creation of this planet, gradually dwindling as they traipsed about the earth?

Re:Just a theory?

[Darius Jedburgh]

I'm asking for an a priori prediction of which organism is better suited to survival in its habitat. All you're doing is making the trivial observation that if something survived it survived. This is a tautological observation. If the only prediction your theory can make is that things that survived have survived then it's not much of a theory.

Re:Just a theory?

[SQLz]

Are you looking for examples where a fish turns into an elephant? Humans have not been around that long to witness it, but fossil remains do link dinasaurs with birds for example.

Dogs and wolves are not the same species, they are in the same family. The Canidae family includes dogs, wolves, foxes, coyotes, and jackals. Canis familiaris is the domestic dog ,Canis lupus the grey wolf. Totally different species with similarites, scientifically linked through fossil remains. Thats evolution in action within a small time scale. I learned that at a Catholic schoool. If you want to see fish walking on land and evolving into a horse, your missing the whole point. Evolution is the gradual and continual change of a species DNA makeup through natural selection. New species are constantly being created and destroyed every day.

Re:Just a theory?

[cr0sh]

One could say (transhuman philosophy approaching):

• That which is evolving is not life, but intelligence - life is merely the substrate of intelligence
• Computers are the beginning of a "speciation" jump (of intelligence) from a carbon-based substrate to a more robust silicon-based substrate

Please note that not all transhumanists believe in the above two points - some may believe one or the other, neither, or both. Furthermore, the above points have been heavily simplified. For those interested, there is plenty of information out there regarding them...

Re:Just a theory?

[dmonder]

We can stop this vicious rumor now. The Bible makes specific references to the earth being round - long before the flat earth problems. See Isaiah 40:22 "He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in." (NIV) See also Job 26:10 "He described a circle upon the face of the waters, until the day and night come to an end." You may go to http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c015.ht ml for more information. David Onder

Re:Just a theory?

[Anonymous Coward]

Additionally, chimpanzees and humans are still primates. Dogs and cats are still eukaryotes.

Re:Just a theory?

[endoplasmicMessenger]

Evolution we know happens (see the changing patterns of moths around pollution, etc).

There are two kinds of evolution: micro-evolution (changes within a species) and macro-evolution (changes from one species to another). Micro-evolution has never been shown to lead to macro-evolution. Your example of the changing patterns of moths is micro-evolution. This proves absolutely nothing about macro-evolution. Which is what Neo-Darwinism is all about.

However, the Theory of Evolution as originally put forth by Darwin is based on the idea of "survival of the fittest": those species who have a mutation that enables them to survive better than their competitors will breed and pass along that mutation to their descendants, who will then continue the process.

Natural selection is a negative force. It removes variety. It you can't survive in a particular environment, you die. Nothing shocking there. I don't know anyone who disagrees with that.

How did Darwin come up with this theory?

1. He observed the various species on the islands, and how they were all similar (birds, I believe) and how each was best fit to his environment.
2. He hypothesized that this condition arose because of his theory (see above).

So is this how he came up with his theory? Then how is it that his theory already existed before he came up with it? Oh never mind. I am amazed that this post got modded up.

3. The experiment (mainly carried out by other folks looking at fossils): See if similar species have changed over time due to environment and had mutations that allowed them to survive.

It is very easy to read too much into fossils. Have you heard the tail of two pandas? In China there are two panda bears: the Giant Panda and the Red Panda.

• they look similar
• they live near each other
• the muzzle or snout of each has a similar shape and is shorter than that of bears
• their upper jaws are similar
• the jaw bones of both widen sharply toward the back of the head
• both have massive pre-molar teeth and enlarged chewing muscles
• both have an enlarged radial sesamoid bone in their wrists, although this is greater in the Giant panda
• neither one hibernates
• there are even some unique similarities in their stomachs and livers

Biochemical studies have revealed that the Giant Panda is part of the bear family and the Red Panda is part of the raccoon family. (And no, there aren't any other raccoons in China. They are otherwise exclusively from North America.)

If it is that difficult to figure out the relationships between two living creatures, how can we be sure that our guesses about the connections between fossils are correct? If we only had fossil evidence of these two creatures, we would surely have decided that they were related.

Usually this "experiment" involves saying "All right, we have Fossil A which we know to be 100,000,000 years old, and we have Fossil C which is 25,000,000 years old. Fossil C shows a better ability to survive the environment, and is the same kind of creature as A except for the mutations observed.

Neo-Darwinists have this very bad habit: (1) they make an observation, (2) they conclude that this observation suggests that evolution took place, (3) they offer this as supporting proof that Neo-Darwinism is true. Hey, guess what? Just because evolution is a fact does not make Neo-Darwinism true.

Neo-Darwinism states that ever since the first primordial organisms, tiny changes have been accumulating which over time have resulted in the vast variety of organisms that we see today. The problem is that this suggests that we should see fossils fanning out like a continuous cone from the initial primordial organisms. The (big) problem here is that there are both vertical and horizontal discontinuities that Neo-Darwinism doesn't predict.

The "horizontal" discontinuities ar

Re:Just a theory?

[CapnRob]

Really.

So, um.

How do you explain antibiotic-resistant bacteria? The development of new strains of avian flu? How do you explain Darwin's finches, the phylogeny of artiodactyls, and the rise of C4-based grasslands in the Miocene?

Oh, wait, right. You wouldn't know about that. You haven't looked at the evidence. Man, ignorance lets you make such interestly sweeping statements, doesn't it?

Re:Just a theory?

[CapnRob]

Nope. Sorry, you lose.

I suggest that you go have a look at a good dictionary definition of 'science'. Also, of 'theory', and of 'fact.'

There is such a thing as observational experimentation: it's what astronomy is based on, as well as evolutionary biology. Plus, in case you didn't know, there are mechanisms involved in evolution which *are* testable in the laboratory. We can test atomic decay rates, we can test vitrification and ossification mechanisms, we can examine the molecular clock data, we can go out and find magnetically oriented strata in the shorelines of Africa and South America, we can run phylogenetic analyses, and so on and so forth.

So, no, No, it's not faith-based at all. But thanks for playing.

Re:Just a theory?

[Prophet of Nixon]

"Knowmader" is officially my word of the day, thanks!

Re:Just a theory?

[DocKred]

And these are proven to be related to evolution how? By observation you say? Observation is still biased. Here's an examples of flawed observation: A cave in Springfiled Missouri has tour guides that would have you believe that everying in that cave took millions of years to form. In that cave is a sewer pipe that was accidentaly drilled through the cave in the 1950's. That pipe is covered with an inch thick layer of the same material that everything else in the cave is made out of. Millions of year huh, but that's what scientists would have you believe. Now that's observation. The Grand Canyon has anomolies that go against it's believed orientation as well and those get swept under the rug to suit scientists. Bottom line is that it CAN'T and will NEVER be fact until someone invents a time machine to got into the past(which will never happen) or God himself speaks from the heavens. Thank you for playing.

Re:Just a theory?

[m50d]

The evidence for evolution is no more than my point 4. They just make it fit what they believe is true.

Like I said, if that were the case there's more than enough people with the will to present the evidence against - this case we're discussing shows that.

There is still no, nor will there ever be, proof for it, and thus it should be treated as the theory it is.

There can never be proof for any scientific theory. It's as solid and supported as any other scientific theory, if you believe in teaching kids any science they should be learning it.

Many can say the same for evidence leading to ID. Somewhere along the way theology got mixed with real science.

There never was any evidence leading to ID. It was theology right from the start.

Science is not examining evidence for something that can never be tested and excepting it as fact. It's as much based on faith as being a Christian.

Evolution can and is tested. Adaptation and natural selection are demonstrable in the lab and represent a plausible mechanism for speciation. That's far from all the evidence we have, but it's all that's necessary - until you find something that doesn't fit, we accept the explanation we have rather than introducing anything else.

Re:Just a theory?

[Anonymous Coward]

idiot :-)

Re:Just a theory?

[CapnRob]

Actually, it is millions of years, if you do the analyses on the rock. The stuff on the pipe is ... and this may stun you ... the dissolved remnants of the rock around there being left behind when the water that's in that rock runs out.

Wait, I know, this may boggle your mind, so we'll go through it slowly:

You have water-soluble rock.

You run water through it.

You stick something else in there.

Water runs onto the something else.

Some of the minerals that formed that rock are left behind.

Oh, lawsy! How shocking! Rock gets left behind!

But, you know, that has very little to do with the price of beans. Rock can be deposited quickly. Rock can be formed very slowly. Rock can do a lot of things. It can melt. It can be ground up and sort of squeezed. It can just sort of sit there. It can do lots of things ... and, oddly enough, geologists have a pretty good idea of what happens to rock in each case, and ... wow, this may shock you ... how long it takes for it to happen.

By the way, do you understand the term "deposition rate"? I'm just asking.

However, your point about the speed of deposition of rock is still ludicrous and wrong. Do you know how we get fossils? In many cases, we get fossils through the extremely quick formation of rock, as when a volcano blows out a heavy load of ash that falls onto lifeforms nearby, who, upon being covered with hot ash, tend to die right there, at which point the ash compacts around them, and in a reasonably short time, forms something we could call 'rock'. The key thing is that the resulting rock is then left alone by erosion for a very long time (for various reasons) until Mr. Paul Sereno and His Wacky Madcap Undergraduates come along with pickaxes and shovels.

No, wait. Let me rephrase that in a manner you might possibly understand.

"It not matter how fast rock form. It matter what happen then. Ugh."

See, this is where you're being an ignoramus: You don't even understand enough about the situation to bring up *relevant* counter-arguments.

No, I'm sorry, you're still wrong, because you don't understand what you're talking about. I'd be happy to recommend a few books on the subject so that you might possibly be able to discuss the issue without being a complete buffoon.

Re:Just a theory?

[Anonymous Coward]

Bzzt! Both of the passages you quote describe a disk shape. Flat circle. There's no spatial meaning to "above" a sphere, but above a disk makes sense. Spreading a tent over a sphere is insipid. Spreading a tent over a FLAT CIRCLE makes physical sense. Apologist sites love to use the intentional confusion introduced in 1611 (in the interest of not getting their heads chopped off by James I).

Re:Just a theory?

[DocKred]

Ah yes, human arrogance. It takes a serious amount of it to believe that you can explain and have control over everything. I can admit that what I believe is based on faith and should not be taught in schools. Scientists, and obviously you, cannot because they think they have a factual explanation for everything. I hope for your sake that you change your mind some day.

Re:Just a theory?

[Dachannien]

1. Observation:
2. Hypothesis:
3. Conclusion:

And therein lies the problem. In actual science, predictions based on the hypothesis are made and tested before any conclusion is drawn.

Besides, your meiosis/mitosis example is flawed in the "observation" stage. Lots of organisms have multiple phases in their life cycle, and it isn't unreasonable to think that sexual reproduction may have stemmed from a longer life cycle phase where a meiosis-produced cell had a significantly longer lifespan than the average egg or sperm, where the combination of two cells with half the chromosomes formed one cell. Sexual reproduction is so widely seen, among both plants and animals, that it most likely arose very early in evolutionary history, probably with few- or single-celled organisms.

Now, am I saying this is what happened? No. This is a hypothesis. The next step is to try to come up with predictions based on this hypothesis (predictions that I honestly lack the expertise to make, but I could see genetic comparisons among organisms as being a basis for at least some tests, especially if we know what genes control meiosis). Based on the results of such a test, we can conclude whether my hypothesis is possibly right or definitely wrong.

But what you're saying is this: given the observations of mitosis and meiosis, the hypothesis is that the evolution hypothesis is wrong. The prediction is that any test of evolution will bear out that the evolution hypothesis is wrong, ergo, intelligent design is right.

That's not science. It's sophistry. This is what people mean when they say ID can't be tested (perhaps it would be more accurate to say that ID proponents don't test ID) - every supposed test of ID is actually a test of evolution combined with the (flawed) assertion that ID and evolution are mutually exclusive.

This stems from a fundamental misunderstanding (on the part of the churchgoing masses who are told about ID as "scientific support" for creation) or misappropriation (on the part of ID's authors and primary proponents) of the scientific method. Tests of predictions rarely provide "positive proof" (meaning we can conclude that a hypothesis is right if the prediction is tested true) of a hypothesis, because it's usually a question that, if not impossible to answer, is orders of magnitude more difficult. Rather, the survival of a hypothesis through many, many tests of "negative disproof" (meaning, we can only conclude the hypothesis is not wrong if the prediction is tested true) is what leads to a hypothesis becoming accepted as a trustworthy basis for further science. But ID proponents turn this on its head, requiring evolution to pass some test of positive proof, rather than survive many tests of negative disproof (which it already has). They use the lack of such a positive proof test as evidence that evolution is wrong, and because of their assumption of mutual exclusivity, conclude that ID is right.

Instead, why don't the ID proponents let ID stand on its own merits, and come up with testable predictions that result from the ID hypothesis - predictions that, if they were to test false, would show that the ID hypothesis is wrong? This is what's necessary for ID to become true science, but instead of taking this necessary step, the ID proponents instead skip right to making conclusions, either because they cannot formulate such testable predictions or they fear the possibility of their predictions turning out false.

Of course, their other tactic is to skip scientific discussion altogether and leverage political arguments rather than scientific ones to ramrod ID into schools.

Re:Just a theory?

[DocKred]

There are as many scientists that will disagree with the evidence that supports evolution as those that agree with it, therfore, it will always be theory. All the circumstantial evidence in the world can't prove it. Either teach both evolution and ID in school or leave both out. I would rather they both be left out and left to be taught by parents.

Re:Just a theory?

[Liam Slider]

Don't get me wrong; I believe that microevolution occurs; it's readily observeable.

Ah, the "microevolution" fallacy. There is no such thing as "microevolution", only evolution.

Re:Just a theory?

[scotch]

Does the "Kred" in "DocKred" stand for "Kredulous"? Why do I feel like you are represent the median output of today's schools?

Re:Just a theory?

[scotch]

There are as many scientists that will disagree with the evidence that supports evolution as those that agree with it ....

Not even close to being remotely true, from what I understand, but I don't have reference to surveys handy.

Re:Just a theory?

[CAIMLAS]

1) If micro but not macro evolution occurs, how does microevolution *prevented* from becoming macroevolution. That is something that ID has never answered.

No, it's been answered; nobody cares to listen, though, as it tends to punch a hole in their beliefs.

Straight-dope evolutionists like to say that "evolution can be proven". That argument, as thin as it is, can not be proven, however. There has not been a single instance of macroevolution, or even macroevolution through continued microevolution; every such attempt made by man to do so through selective breeding for their specific environment has resulted in dysfunctional breeds that are anything but "fit". They're more prone to sickness, have more genetic mutations, often have birthing problems, and die younger.

2) If the fossil record was simply species moving around, where did all these species come from anyway? And where have they all gone? Was there some insane number species at the creation of this planet, gradually dwindling as they traipsed about the earth?

Yes.

Re:Just a theory?

[Dimensio]

There are as many scientists that will disagree with the evidence that supports evolution as those that agree with it,

Support this assertion. Reference only scientists who could be reasonably versed in the relevant subjects (ie, presenting someone who only deals in physics would not be support for your claim).

therfore, it will always be theory.

You seem to think that explanations in science can go beyond "theory". They can't. Theories are end-points. They can not graduate to anything "higher". Theory is the highest that an explanation in science will ever get.

All the circumstantial evidence in the world can't prove it.

Theories in science are never proven. It is fundamentally dishonest of you to single out the theory of evolution as though it were unique amongst theories in being unprovable.

Either teach both evolution and ID in school or leave both out.

How, exactly, would ID be taught? What evidence supports ID? What predictions does ID make? What hypothetical observation would falsify ID?

If you can't answer ALL of those questions then ID is not science and has no place in a science cirriculum.

Re:Just a theory?

[Dimensio]

The butterfly example you mention above would not be speciation since the butterflies you mention choose not to mate with each other. In general, speciation occurs when a species diverges into two seperate kinds that cannot mate together.

Actually, "species" barriers are a fuzzy definition because of the nature of speciation. Typically it is used to refer to sets of genetically distinct organisms that no longer interbreed. Physical limitations between species are often used as the defining barrier, but it's perfectly acceptable to define two different species when a member of one group of organisms will not normally choose to mate with a member of another group of organisms, even if they have ample opportunity and could potentially produce viable offspring.

On your last point, you point out the biggest problem with evolution as science. It is not possible to test evolution,

Evolution can be tested and is tested all the time. Each fossil find is a test of evolution. DNA sequencing across species tests evolution.

only small parts

Everything in science is tested in "small parts". That's how you keep things manageable. Singling out evolution and using the "small parts" aspect of testing as an excuse to dismiss it as testable is intellectually dishonest.

or theories.

Um, evolution is a single theory. That's all that gets tested, when the "small parts" are tested.
You do know what "theory" means in the context of science, right?

The difference is that we assume that God created the universe a few thousand years ago

What physical evidence provides the basis for this assumption regarding the age of the universe and the means by which it came to exist? And to which "God", out of the thousands of deities worshipped and acknowledged throughout human history do you refer? And why do you exclude all other possible deities? Be specific.

while the mainstream scientists believe the universe evolved to this point with no God over a few billion years.

The universe did not "evolve". Evolution applies to living organisms (things that reproduce imperfectly). The age of the universe and the mechanisms behind its formation are founded in actual documented physical evidence and real observations. The claims regarding the origins of the universe are not mere "assumptions", as you dishonestly imply, they are founded in research and such claims about the formation of the universe would not be made if the observed evidence were not as it is.

Re:Just a theory?

[dmonder]

Fossil finds are not evidence of evolution, they are interpreted assuming evolution occured. This is a common argument used by those that support evolution and is circular reasoning. You do know what circular reasoning is, don't you?

The physical evidence I have that God created the universe and everything in it is the Bible. It contains a thorough account of the beginning of time. The God I refer to is the only God that exists. It is the God of the Bible. The Jews have known this God for centuries. Now we can know this God through Jesus Christ. I exclude all other possibilities because God said 'For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse' (Romans 1:20). That is, the world (no, the universe) declares God's existance each and every day in everything you see. I recommend reading the many available resources that can be found at http://www.christiananswers.net/.

Lastly, my use of assumption is not dishonest - it is absolutely correct. You (or those who believe what you are arguing for) believe (i.e. assume) that the universe and all of life came about through natural forces. God has told use differently. I can choose to believe God, the giver of truth, or I can choose to believe man, a fallen being with a sin-nature. To me this is easy. Maybe you are still struggling with this. I pray that you will one day accept Christ as your personal Lord and Savior and that you will know the Truth! David Onder

Re:Just a theory?

[DocKred]

I understand your point about ID not being science and not belonging in a science cirriculum. My beef is that they teach way to much science as fact. My daughter doesn't come home from school with a study sheet that says test theories, it says test facts. I don't believe that theories have any place is the science cirriculum of a fourth grader. She went through an entire unit on evolution and it was taught and tested as if it was fact. There are plenty of science topics that can be taught in public schools without including theories that go against some beliefs. Leave theoritical science topics at the college level where they belong, and allow classes that look at all possibilities.

Re:Just a theory?

[mdielmann]

About isotopic dating. First, I believe strontium dating is used as well, since different isotopes with different half-lifes will have different windows in which they're accurate, and I understand the general about radioactive isotopic dating. This doesn't address the unknown quantity on my part (and possible assumption on scientists' part) that no new isotopes were introduced to the system which would skew the results over certain time periods. That and the circular reference for where the item was found (which I put on the level of rumour) are the two issues I have with dating.

Re:Just a theory?

[Dimensio]

My beef is that they teach way to much science as fact.

Yeah. I remember gravity being taught as fact. And the structure and nature of the atom, too. We need disclaimers on physics and chemistry textbooks stating that the basis behind gravity and atomics are both theories, not facts, and should be carefully considered with an open mind.

There are plenty of science topics that can be taught in public schools without including theories that go against some beliefs.

So we should censor science because observed reality happens to contradict someone's religion? Sounds like a bunch of PC bullshit to me.

Leave theoritical science topics at the college level where they belong, and allow classes that look at all possibilities.

There are no other scientific "possibilities" when discussing evolution. Thus far no one has presented an "alternative" explanation that actually passes muster as science. That's why evolution is the only thing taught, despite the ranting and whining of creationists for affirmative action style "equal time".

Re:Just a theory?

[Dimensio]

Fossil finds are not evidence of evolution, they are interpreted assuming evolution occured.

No, fossil finds were the first things that led people to start to hypothesize about common descent of diverse life from single ancestry. There were direct observations that fossils existed at layers that did not resemble any existing organisms, and that no fossils of existing organisms were found in certain layers, which led people to believe that 1) there were organisms in the past that do not resemble any organisms today and 2) that organisms today did not exist in their present-day form in the past. Common descent was the explanation used to explain this find. This was before Darwin. If you'd atually studied the issues you would understand this and not make bogus claims that an "assumption" of evolution is behind every interpretation of evidence in biology and palentology.

The physical evidence I have that God created the universe and everything in it is the Bible.

That's not physical evidence, that's a religious story. It's no more physical evidence than Greek myths are physical evidence of the Olympian pantheon.

It contains a thorough account of the beginning of time.

So do the Greek creation stories. Why should I choose your God over theirs?

The God I refer to is the only God that exists.

This is known as an "assertion". You need to substantiate it with something called "evidence".

It is the God of the Bible. The Jews have known this God for centuries.

What about Brahman? The Hindus have known that God for centuries also. Why should I believe your claims over theirs?

Now we can know this God through Jesus Christ.

And I can know Brahman through Vishnu OR Shiva. Or one of the countless other gods of the Hindu pantheon, for all Gods -- and indeed, all things -- are merely an extension of Brahman.

I exclude all other possibilities because God said 'For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse' (Romans 1:20).

So you assume the God that you accept over other Gods because of something that the God that you accept said. But you have to accept your God to accept that your God said anything in the first place. That's circular reasoning.

Do you have an argument that isn't based on a logical fallacy?

That is, the world (no, the universe) declares God's existance each and every day in everything you see. I recommend reading the many available resources that can be found at http://www.christiananswers.net/.

That's great. I can get the same level of intellectual discourse from a devout Hindu. Can you give me an argument that does not appeal to logical fallacies and actually relies upon objectively observable evidence rather than a preexinsting assumption that you are already correct?

Re:Just a theory?

[varith]

So, what's the answer? You still haven't given it. You just claimed (once again) that evolution isn't proven. You didn't answer anything. Let me guess...you have no answer.

Re:Just a theory?

[Dark Paladin]

I guess I still don't get your problem.

From your perspective, it would appear that archeology is a useless science, since it can not "predict" what civilizations will do. Oh, it can tell you "without water, food, etc a group of people will die out", and can recommend possible solutions - but each civilization has made their own way in ways that people can't predict (or, at least not accurately, since we're talking about living organisms.)

The same would be true of evolutionary studies. You can say "Well, based on what we've seen in the past, since this area is dying out, the creatures will need to evolve to deal with less water", but what that solution will be is simply not predictable with current methods (and, if they were, then they could be testable). For example, the solution for some fish dealing with water was to evolve a lung. Other fish survived by a mutation that let them migrate to other streams. Other fish might simply hibernate.

Like an archeology, you can say "We know how someone did it in the past, so these solutions would work", but we can't state what organism will gain a mutation that will let them survive better - at least not with our current tools. Perhaps as we gain a greater understanding of genetics and tie that into raw computing power, we can say "Well, if we put this alligator species *here* it should evolve like this. Let's see if it does!"

I think the confusion is how you're trying to measure this science. Evolution is about *history*, and *why* that history came to be, and what forces triggered it. Using this basic tool, we've been able to see what happens as something like bacteria evolves to deal with new antibiotics: evolve. So from that point of view, it's very accurate in how it predicts. The bacteria that evolve will survive. *How* they do it is area of molecular biologists and geneticists to show what mutations arose, and then evolutionary biologists can match in how those mutations helped them survive and maybe chart what they'll do next.

Sorry if this seems overly argumentative, but there's something about your viewpoint that I'm just not getting. Are you saying the Theory of Evolution is useless because it makes no predictions (which it does, as in my example of the 100,000,000 year old fossil versus the 25,000,000 year old fossil, and "predicting" that there should be a fossil 50,000,000 years old with characteristics of both), or because you think it's all a bunch of rubbish so who cares?

Re:Just a theory?

[m50d]

There are as many scientists that will disagree with the evidence that supports evolution as those that agree with it, therfore, it will always be theory.

Where? I don't see any serious scientists opposing evolution, I really don't.

Re:Just a theory?

[Copid]

2) If the fossil record was simply species moving around, where did all these species come from anyway? And where have they all gone? Was there some insane number species at the creation of this planet, gradually dwindling as they traipsed about the earth?

Yes.

So why are there no rabbit fossils in the same strata as dinosaur fossils? Is there some geological phenomenon that causes rabbits to float to the top?

Re:Just a theory?

[Cremlian]

Evidence. The reason Evolution is "just a theory is because the concept has not been hammered out completely yet. It's constantly evolving with new evidence that is decovered. For example did you know there is a mathematical formula that can help you see how many mutations a speices is seperated from each other depending on certain mutations in genes. http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyP ages/M/Mutations.html Using Genomics you can infer with the data how many years ago for example different primate speicies had a common ancestor. Obviously this is not 100% certain but nothing in science is. But the body of evidence keeps growing for evolution. the evidence for ID has not.

Re:Just a theory?

[Cremlian]

Oh god. It's like when you've pushed the evil person a certain amount and they finally show there evil nature. Dude, it's science's role to explain the unexplained as fully as we can. The information we have gleemed from evolution has led to medicines and technology that helps people. If you think Science shouldn't try and find answers then we should go back to the stone age and live in caves and sacrifice heretics to the gods to stop the drought. (Instead of analyzing the fields and plotting out water usage and stuff.)

Re:Just a theory?

[DocKred]

Yeah. I remember gravity being taught as fact. And the structure and nature of the atom, too. We need disclaimers on physics and chemistry textbooks stating that the basis behind gravity and atomics are both theories, not facts, and should be carefully considered with an open mind.

And the theory that the earth was flat was taught as fact.

So we should censor science because observed reality happens to contradict someone's religion? Sounds like a bunch of PC bullshit to me.

Observed reality? You were there to witness evolution? LOL!

Re:Just a theory?

[Dimensio]

And the theory that the earth was flat was taught as fact.

"The earth is flat" (and, in fact, "the earth is round") is not an explanation, it is a statement of fact (whether true or false). It is not a theory.

Observed reality? You were there to witness evolution? LOL!

Evolution has been observed. Laughing about it doesn't change that.

Re:Just a theory?

[endoplasmicMessenger]

Besides, your meiosis/mitosis example is flawed in the "observation" stage. Lots of organisms have multiple phases in their life cycle, and it isn't unreasonable to think that sexual reproduction may have stemmed from a longer life cycle phase where a meiosis-produced cell had a significantly longer lifespan than the average egg or sperm, where the combination of two cells with half the chromosomes formed one cell. Sexual reproduction is so widely seen, among both plants and animals, that it most likely arose very early in evolutionary history, probably with few- or single-celled organisms.

I'm glad that you used the term "most likely". Unfortunately, "most likely" doesn't count as E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E. And besides, I wasn't really talking about meiosis, I was talking about the independent evolution of two complementary (male and female) reproductive systems. Repeatedly. Which experiment was it that showed that these evolved according to the Darwinian model? Where is the E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E?

But what you're saying is this: given the observations of mitosis and meiosis, the hypothesis is that the evolution hypothesis is wrong. The prediction is that any test of evolution will bear out that the evolution hypothesis is wrong, ergo, intelligent design is right.

This is most certainly NOT what I am saying. I believe that evolution is a fact. I do not believe that the Darwinian model is a fact. What I am asking is: where is the E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E that irrefutably supports the Darwinian model? Where is the evidence that forces me to support the Darwinian model and nothing else?

This stems from a fundamental misunderstanding (on the part of the churchgoing masses who are told about ID as "scientific support" for creation) or misappropriation (on the part of ID's authors and primary proponents) of the scientific method. Tests of predictions rarely provide "positive proof" (meaning we can conclude that a hypothesis is right if the prediction is tested true) of a hypothesis, because it's usually a question that, if not impossible to answer, is orders of magnitude more difficult. Rather, the survival of a hypothesis through many, many tests of "negative disproof" (meaning, we can only conclude the hypothesis is not wrong if the prediction is tested true) is what leads to a hypothesis becoming accepted as a trustworthy basis for further science. But ID proponents turn this on its head, requiring evolution to pass some test of positive proof, rather than survive many tests of negative disproof (which it already has). They use the lack of such a positive proof test as evidence that evolution is wrong, and because of their assumption of mutual exclusivity, conclude that ID is right.

Your explanation certainly sounds sincere, but is simplistic. You might be interested in Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions for a more insightful discussion of the scientific process. With my apologies to Thomas, an extremely simplified version goes something like this.

• normal science: scientists work inside of a prevailing paradigm. In fact, lacking a paradigm -- a framework or model of the way things are -- scientific activity doesn't make much sense. So what if light bends when it goes by the Sun? If you don't have a model of mass and gravity (general relativity) that makes sense of that particular piece of information, you are likely to chalk it up to a fluke of the measurement. Only when there is a meaningful paradigm in which information can be meaningfully interpreted will it be given any scientific validity. Studies have repeatedly shown that when a person perceives something which does not fit in with their current world view, it is largely ignored. And this occurs with scientists as well. Data which does not conform to the current paradigm is largely overlooked -- or explained away. (And certainly, you would not be able to get a sizable research grant which does not expand upon or bring greater precision to the current paradigm -- working outsi

Re:Just a theory?

[sickofthisshit]

And the theory that the earth was flat was taught as fact.

When? What century? By whom?

No educated person since ancient Greek times, or even earlier, has believed the Earth was flat.

Certainly, no one since the development of modern science (around the time of Galileo), that is, no one who had the concept of "theory" in the modern sense, believed in anything other than a spherical Earth.

The idea that Christopher Columbus was fighting some sort of flat-earth orthodoxy, if that is what you are basing this on, is completely non-historical. In fact, Columbus was scoffed at because his belief in the size of the Earth and of Asia were inaccurate. Which they WERE; Columbus had no chance of making it to Asia; he barely made it over the Atlantic, not to mention that little puddle called the Pacific.

What about?

[vgaphil]

Was there any mention of Intelligent Falling?

The difference

[LainTouko]

Evolution is a theory, and it's the only theory we have. Intelligent design is a mere hypothesis.

Re:The difference

[noamsml]

That's what I said too, until someone explained to me that an hypothesis is an educated guess. As such, ID is now classified as "baseless speculation".

Bad Example

[Anonymous Coward]

I think ID deserves a place in the classroom as a theory, much like the evolutionary theory. They're both theories. The school district in the case was trying to downplay evolution, this was a bad move.

Frankly, I don't care. Religious people know about ID anyway, and teaching it as a theory in class won't convert anyone to Christianity so why does it matter?

Re:Bad Example

[dorkygeek]

Because it's NOT a theory. It can't even called a hypothesis. In my eyes, it's plain BS!

Re:Bad Example

[Anonymous Coward]

Honestly, it doesn't matter what is in your eyes. Can you disprove it? Of course just because you can't disprove something doesn't make it true. But how unscientific is it to say something is BS with no proof?

Re:Bad Example

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't have to disprove a theory. The burden is on the one putting forth the theory to prove that it is true, not on anyone else to disprove it.

I could state that there are some bright pink penguins and you could never prove me wrong. But until I produce a bright pink penguin to prove me right, then the statement is false.

You see, this is what we like to call "science."

Let the games begin!

[Irvu]

I am thrilled ecstatic over this decision. This judge clearly has brains and a willingness to use them. I am going to be happy.

I am not, not going to assume that the fight is over. Keep in mind that it was a loss in the Scopes Monkey Trial that galvanized scientists to fight ever harder for strong science (read no religion) in the biology classroom, and the school as a whole.

While I as a scientist am thrilled by this I also know that the people who oppose science are right now doing 2 things: 1) pasting this decision into a circular or 2 along with the choice words "activist judge" to raise more money/attention/support for their 'cause', and 2) digging in for another, longer fight.

I will celebrate this, and keep vigilant at the same time.

Summary misleading

[kansas1051]

To be fair, the judge (in his 123 page opinion) didn't rule that "intelligent design cant be taught in Dover" as stated in the summary. Instead, the judge ruled that the school board had no non-religious reason for requiring the teaching of intelligent design, and thus the school board was effectively forcing Dover students to be taught religion (as intelligent design has no non-religious purpose). Although this is all semantics, the judge didn't ban intelligent design, and I'm sure teachers could still discuss intelligent design should they be so included. All the judge did was state that the school board (which was voted out of office) had violated the 1st amendment in requiring public schools to teach intelligent design.

Re:Summary misleading

[Guuge]

In fact, the article directly contradicts the summary, which states that the judge "ruled that Intelligent Design cannot be discussed in Dover, Pennsylvania biology classes."

From the article:

Jones wrote that he wasn't saying the intelligent design concept shouldn't be studied and discussed, saying its advocates "have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors."

But, he wrote, "our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom."

Intelligent Design Does Not Belong In Biology

[aquatone282]

It belongs in Philosophy.

Re:Intelligent Design Does Not Belong In Biology

[exa]

Actually, it should not belong in Philosophy.

Philosophy is not some bag that collects every foolish idea that does not belong in science.

In fact, it is not supposed to contain foolish ideas.

We have had enough of ignorant philosophy. Dump that to the wastebin, please.

Re:Intelligent Design Does Not Belong In Biology

[aquatone282]

IANAP, but I was under the impression that many of the great philosophers used logic to argue for or against the existence of a Creator. It would seem logical then that Intelligent Design, which asserts the existence of a Creator through observable phenomena, but who's existence cannot be proven with the scientific method, would be better discussed in a Philosophy class than a Biology class. Or will the study of philosophical arguments for the existence of a Creator in American public schools soon be ruled unconstitutional too?

Re:Intelligent Design Does Not Belong In Biology

[KiloByte]

At least here in Poland, we have "religion" lessons in school (and it's "religion" as in "Christianity", not as in "religions at large"). Do you have such lessons in public schools in the US as well? Considering what I hear, it would be a natural thing.

And this is where ID _may_ belong, as long as you add clear remarks that the Catholic Church and most protestant churches shun ID as nothing but trying to bend the bible.

Re:Intelligent Design Does Not Belong In Biology

[nathanh]

It belongs in Philosophy.

It's a waste of time in Philosophy as well, especially at the introductory level that a high school would teach. There is plenty of real work to get on with - logical fallacies, logical construction, logical proofs - without wasting time on a half-baked thinly veiled piece of religion.

I would say it's not even worthy for the Mythology class. There are too many other myths with history and prior analysis worth discussing. The Creationist myth might have a place due to its venerability, but the ID myth does not, despite their obvious similarities.

Re:Intelligent Design Does Not Belong In Biology

[Castar]

Actually, a number of great philosophical thinkers have considered the teleological argument, or "Argument from Design" in reflections on the existence of God. In fact, prior to Darwin it was very difficult to answer the argument - our only experience with the creation of complex things was manmade items.

I discussed the argument many times in my philosophy classes, and I don't think you could teach Philosophy of Religion or History of Philosophy without touching on it.

Re:Intelligent Design Does Not Belong In Biology

[cr0sh]

In our public schools, we do not. In some of our private schools (mainly those affilliated with the Jesuits and the Catholic Church), I believe there is such a similar class, but I don't believe it strays far outside the teachings of the sponsor church (although the Jesuits are a wacky lot).

Most of this revolves around the separation clause of the first ammendment of our Constitution. For public schools, it is a very touchy issue, so nobody approaches (even in an "all inclusive, non-demoninational, let's discuss everything " manner) it lest their government funds get cut off. Can't blame them. Look at this mess. Multiply it by 1000 if a class was taught to kids discussing religious topics like paganistic practices, witchcraft, Hinduism, Jainism, etc.

You see, in the western world, the idea that there might be other means to enlightenment and knowledge beyond an "invisible dude in the sky", is something that is taught as being taboo at best, heresy at worst. You mention that in your own country of Poland, the supposed "religion" lessons are actually not lessons on religion at all, but lessons on Christianity. Doesn't it make you question the whole concept if the teachers and administrators themselves aren't resolved and sure enough to call it what it is, and instead hide behind generalizations? In a way, this is the same thing ID'ers are attempting with Creationism - slap a new name on it and hope nobody notices.

There are other things that aren't typically taught in public schools (and rarely in private schools), that I wish were taught (of course, if they were, the populace would be educated then, and probably could see through the lies as they grew older and voted): Philosophy, and Reason/Logic. Both of these topics, at least here in America, are not things that are taught in our public schools. If you manage to gain any of it, you gain it from the little you learn in your Science and Mathematics classes. Only there do you learn anything about logic and deductive reasoning, and really only in the more advanced math and science classes (geometry, calculus, chemistry, and physics - in learning mathematical proofs and scientific method).

Things get better after public school, if you move on to university (public and private), where you do find classes on these topics. However, due to the lack of teaching them at the elementary level during earlier years, you don't tend to find students clammoring for such lessons, either.

Yes, the United States' educational system is very underfunded, very messed up, and sucks donkey balls - probably more so than any other western education system. Is it any wonder we have these issues that make us the laughing stock on the world stage...?

Re:Intelligent Design Does Not Belong In Biology

[Sithgunner]

When it gets some facts and theories, put that in science.
Otherwise... it's about the same as we're in Matrix.

if intelligent design is true .....

[El Cabri]

Then all biologists should be charged with violating the DMCA, shouldn't they ?

Re:if intelligent design is true .....

[noamsml]

That depends, if we are talking about aliens, or some other mortal designer, most chances are they were dead for more than 70 years, and as such their works are now public domain. However, if we are talking about an immortal God, then the answer is yes, we are violating copyright by manipulating DNA.

Re:if intelligent design is true .....

[dorkygeek]

Looks like we have finally identified the reason why so many biologists are leaving the US then.

As a christian...

[Spy der Mann]

Thank God!

I second the motion. Indeed it is a gift from God that kids are now protected from those looneys.

In other words: Just because you claim to follow God, doesn't necessarily mean that God agrees with you. Fundamentalists like those put God's name to shame.

Intelligent design ISN'T SCIENCE...BUT...

[Anonymous Coward]

What bothers me is that Evolutionists base so much of their "science" on a leg bone or a tooth found somewhere with NOTHING else around, you claim "here is the missing link. You call that trash science. What are you people so afraid of? Why do you so degrade those that want equal time for their opinions about Intelligent Design? As your flawed theories (as in THEORY of Evolution) are proven false, I expect all of you to come right here and say "I was wrong..." Not that I am holding my breath, because well know scientists have already admitted that some of these "discoveries" were indeed NOT what they had hoped for...but you don't see that on Slashdot. Wonder why? What are you people afraid of?

Re:Intelligent design ISN'T SCIENCE...BUT...

[NumenMaster]

What bothers me is that Evolutionists base so much of their "science" on a leg bone or a tooth found somewhere with NOTHING else around, you claim "here is the missing link. You call that trash science. What are you people so afraid of? Why do you so degrade those that want equal time for their opinions about Intelligent Design? As your flawed theories (as in THEORY of Evolution) are proven false, I expect all of you to come right here and say "I was wrong..." First, it is quite obvious you took very little science in college, if you actually went to college. Such statements are exactly what we're 'afraid' of hearing in science classrooms. To simply state that anthropology is something as simple as finding a leg bone or tooth screams ignorance. Perhaps a class in physical anthro would do you good. Secondly, we're 'afraid' of a small group of uninformed school council members telling teachers that they must also teach a religious, non-scientific concept in a science classroom. We're 'afraid' they'll misinform students that 'theory' is not fact. Theories ARE fact. Calling something a 'law' will rarely, if ever, happen again. Why? Because one can always improve upon a theory and not alter the result. Calculus is a method to do things that would take mounds of work in algebra. Algebra is still a reality even though there is an improved method to do things. Unfortunately, the word 'theory' is overused by everyone in almost every sense. "My theory is she's going to call in sick tomorrow." That, my friend, is not a theory. It's a hypothesis. But this was just one small example. Why do we degrade? We don't. ID is meant to be taught in church, dinner table, religious class, sociology, or Sunday School. ID is not meant to be taught in science class. Why? Because it is anything but science. And by the way, there is absolutely no threat of evolution being proven wrong. There is FAR too much phenotypical and genotypical evidence to prove otherwise.

Re:Affect In Kansas?

[taustin]

No. It isn't even usable as case law in the same federal district at this point, though it can be cited to support a particular line of thought. If it were to be appealed, and upheld, then it could be used as binding case law in the same district. The only way it can affect courts outside that district if if the Supreme Court rules on it.

Rejoice!

[phuked]

This is good.

But I still think that they *should* be allowed to discuss the existence of "Intelligent Design" since being quiet about it only makes the conspiracy theorists rear their heads.

The opinion that the darwinistic view is "only a theory" should be explained at length to students (and possibly some adults too by the look of it) as being a scientific theory, which is quite different from me having random theories about for example hand-knitted socks, a subject I confess to having no real knowledge of and that I haven't scientifically studied.

Re: Affect In Kansas?

[Black Parrot]

> Since this is a federal court ruling, does it affect the ID stuff going on in Kansas?

Not legally, since it's in a different federal district.

If Kansas goes to court the judge may or may not look to the Dover case for precedent. Fairly often we get conflicting rulings on an issue in different districts, and no one knows where things stand until the supreme court takes a side on it.

OTOH, I'm sure this will "affect" Kansas to the extent of having the creationists on the state board of education call a strategy meeting...

Evolution is a mechanism

[rdean400]

It is not exclusive of intelligent design. Most right-thinking individuals realize that an *INTELLIGENT* Creator would either a) include genetic adaptation in the set of biological rules that govern life or b) create an environment in which there is no need for adaptation.

Re:Article didn't mention HOW it's unconstitutiona

[Anonymous Coward]

It's unconstitutional for contradicting the "respecting an establishment of religion" clause in the first amendment. It would be constitutional if it was found to have a scientific basis, but as its basis was found to be religious, then it cannot be supported by federally funded schools.

Sadly

[Anonymous Coward]

You deserve a trip to the executioner.
 
  Good Day, Sir!

Re:Article didn't mention HOW it's unconstitutiona

[Anonymous Coward]

IANAL, but, I'd imagine it has something to do with:

Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

Religious Freedom Section 3.

All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences; no man can of right be compelled to attend, erect or support any place of worship or to maintain any ministry against his consent; no human authority can, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience, and no preference shall ever be given by law to any religious establishments or modes of worship.

It's consequences in practice are very similar to the First Amendment of the US Constutition's establishment clause which is what prevents federally funded teaching of creationism in a science class as as an inapproprate public act in support of religion.

Re:Article didn't mention HOW it's unconstitutiona

[TripMaster Monkey]

From the decision:

To preserve the separation of church and state mandated by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Art. I, 3 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, we will enter an order permanently enjoining Defendants from maintaining the ID Policy in any school within the Dover Area School District, from requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution, and from requiring teachers to refer to a religious, alternative theory known as ID. We will also issue a declaratory judgment that Plaintiffs' rights under the Constitutions of the United States and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania have been violated by Defendants' actions.

finally

[SebNukem]

Finally. I was waiting for ONE good news in this so far pretty crappy day.
Religious fanatics go back in time! The Dark Ages were your time, not the 21st century.

MOD GP UP!

[Anonymous Coward]

+5, TRUE

Power struggle

[tvaananen]

Put religion in hands of people and they see it as a tool for power and control over others. Religious groups are afraid of science and scientific thinking eroding 'faith'. Faith after all is about believing in something that people do not understand and can't explain. More you learn, less is left for faith.

Intelligent design concentrates on things we do not fully understand or don't know about, and explains them with God. As curious creatures, people are seeking for answers and are ready to believe in something. Unaswered questions bother us to death.

Re:Power struggle

[czmax]

If you have enough faith it will persist no matter how much you learn. The *realy* faithful can do both. When you get right down to it the ID folks who feel threatened by science are actually doubters without enough faith.

Re:Power struggle

[dorkygeek]

When you get right down to it the ID folks who feel threatened by science are actually doubters without enough faith.

A.k.a. idiots.

Media Spin

[Lord_Dweomer]

The media spins everything...so I can only hope that this FANTASTIC news which is a huge step forward for science (when taking into consideration how far back it fell when all this ID nonsense started) gets picked up by all the major media outlets and spun to be something like:

"Judge rules ID as not being science"

so the idiots in this country to get it through their heads once and for all.

God and evolution

[El Cabri]

I'm an _atheist_ who occasionnaly uses the language expression "If God meant us to ... (fly for example) then he would have (given us wings for example)". The irony is by that form of language I actually mean that we, or any species, are more comfortable when restricted to the circumstances that we have EVOLVED to deal with better.

I am an evolutionist, but this ruling sucks

[Retired Replicant]

If I am a teacher, I think I have an obligation to at least let my students know about the debate over evolution vs. intelligent design. I would want to be able to explain both to my students, and explain why I think evolution is a far superior theory to intelligent design. But to do that, I would need to be able to explain to my students what intelligent design is. This ruling would prohibit that kind of legitimate, free discussion in the classroom. It has a chilling effect on public debate over a relevant current issue in our culture.

Re:I am an evolutionist, but this ruling sucks

[pkesel]

The ruling is about setting a curriculum, not about dialogue.

Re:I am an evolutionist, but this ruling sucks

[What is a number]

Teach it in social science class, not biology.

Although, I do agree to some extent - I learned about "spontaneous regeneration" as an example of a failed theory in science class, and learned about the scientific method in general, so I could see teaching ID in that light.

Re:I am an evolutionist, but this ruling sucks

[Retired Replicant]

OK, I guess you're right. Should have read the whole article :) The headline and lead paragraph sure make it sound like talking about ID in the classroom was banned completely.

I still think any biology teacher who decides to ignore the evolution vs. ID debate is an idiot. It's a great opportunity to discuss the evidence in support of both theories. The evidence in support of evolution is so much stronger I don't understand why some people are even afraid to mention that ID theory even exists.

Re:I am an evolutionist, but this ruling sucks

[Thorsten Timberlake]

Evolution is not an ism, you've let yourself be caught up in the rethorics of people who want to equalize creationism and evolution.

No

[katharsis83]

From what I remember of my one semester law class, only Supreme Court rulings set precedent for the rest of the country. Other cases may reference this one for arguments/contents, but this is in no way precedent for any other jurisdictions.

The pending cases in Georgia & the Kansas school board policy are unlikely to be directly affected.

Re:Article didn't mention HOW it's unconstitutiona

[CountBrass]

IMNAB (I'm not an American But ;-) I understand you have separation of church and state and that your supreme court previously ruled creationism could not be taught in public schools (which I believe for a constitutional point of view is more important than it being taught as science) lessons because of that. I assume this judge is either equating ID with Creationism (which it is) or applying it directly to ID.

Just my 2 pence worth.

OK, I'm curious.

[Astatine210]

Apparently the judge said a number of the school board had 'repeatedly lied to cover their motives even while professing religious beliefs'. Are any sites out there going into further details about what these particular lies were?

Re:OK, I'm curious.

[cytoman]

Read all about it here: http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/12/waterl oo_in_dov.html

Re:OK, I'm curious.

[jjohnson]

I believe the lies to which the judge referred had to do with the defendents sitting in court claiming that ID was not religiously motivated science, and then making public statements outside of court saying that it was, and that their actions were for the greater glory of God, and that the source of their material was think tanks directly offering ID as a Christian-safe theory of how we all came to be here.

Re:OK, I'm curious.

[wanerious]

These are remarkable and strong statements for the judge to make, and you might suppose that he'd back them up in his decision. All the answers are there:

Judge's Decision

It's a great read.

Think about this and tell me you aren't crying....

[Rooked_One]

Who would have thought this would have actually worked? The "off their rocker extremists" thats who - and they happen to be the base of the US's government. Don't get me wrong now - i'm not saying there aren't wackos on both sides, its bad when either one starts getting their way.

This is an attack on Free Speech

[ATeamMrT]

Science is all about theories. There are no facts when it comes to how the universe was created. Why can't a teacher tell his students that many people believe God created the universe?

This is not like telling students some new theory that someone thought up 5 minutes ago. People have believed in Christ for over 2000 years. It seems like it should be mentioned in the biology class.

Many people believe God created everything, and as people, we're doing our best to describe and measure what he created. I'm not advocating replacing science text books with the bible. But to leave out something that a majority of people in the USA believe is wrong.

Re:This is an attack on Free Speech

[Dephex Twin]

You see? If you'd had a better grounding in science, you wouldn't be confused about this. EVERYTHING isn't taught in science class... SCIENCE is taught there-- natural explanations supported by evidence using the scientific method!

I sure didn't have a problem in high school learning about "what a majority of people in the USA believe"... when I took a *comparitive religions* course.

A majority of people also believe that George Washington was our nation's first president... oddly, I don't recall ever learning that in my science class.

Re:This is an attack on Free Speech

[Kierthos]

Yeah, many people believe in Jesus. Lots of others believe in Mohammed. Some believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

None of that is science. It is religious belief. It should not be taught in science class.

IMAO, even if the majority of people believe something, it doesn't mean that something is right, accurate, or worthy of respect.

Kierthos

Re:This is an attack on Free Speech

[smooth wombat]

Why can't a teacher tell his students that many people believe God created the universe?

Why should someones belief in a supernatural being be included in a science class? If they mention God (a Christion god) why not mention Zeus, Odin, Vishnu, etc? Science isn't about beliefs, it's about testing the natural world.

People have believed in Christ for over 2000 years.

And the Earth has been in existence for what, 4.5 billion years? Besides, what does Christ have to do with it? Christ isn't God (at least not from what I remember of my catechism classes).

Many people believe God created everything, and as people, we're doing our best to describe and measure what he created.

Whoa! Hold on thar pardner. You just made a huge leap of false logic. First you say that many people believe that God created everything yet provide no evidence for this belief. Then you suggest that we are trying to measure what he created. If you haven't provided any evidence to further the claim that God exists how can you say that God created everything?

Also, who says God is a he? Why not a she? Why not an it? A supernatural being able to create matter from nothing most likely doesn't have a gender.

Many people believe in lots of things. Some people even believe they are Jesus. That doesn't mean they are correct.

Re:This is an attack on Free Speech

[hunterx11]

Science is all about theories.
Indeed it is.

There are no facts when it comes to how the universe was created.
Well, we're talking about evolution here, not cosmology; even if that weren't the case, while we obviously don't know how the universe started, empirical observations which can give us insight into the beginning of the universe, such as the cosmic background radiation, are facts.

Why can't a teacher tell his students that many people believe God created the universe?
Because it isn't a scientific belief. This isn't a matter of teaching about how people believed in geocentrism, or phlogiston, or the ether; it is a non-falsifiable claim.

This is not like telling students some new theory that someone thought up 5 minutes ago. People have believed in Christ for over 2000 years. It seems like it should be mentioned in the biology class.
You're right; it isn't some new theory. It isn't even a theory at all; it's an untestable model.

Many people believe God created everything, and as people, we're doing our best to describe and measure what he created. I'm not advocating replacing science text books with the bible. But to leave out something that a majority of people in the USA believe is wrong.
What people believe is a subject for an anthropology class, not a science class.

Re:This is an attack on Free Speech

[laughing rabbit]

If so...

...then teach more creation thoeries than just the one pushed by Chri$tianity.

These poeple are johnny come latelies.

Re:This is an attack on Free Speech

[Pray_4_Mojo]

Science is all about theories. There are no facts when it comes to how the universe was created. Why can't a teacher tell his students that many people believe God created the universe?

No, science ISN'T about theories. Its about ascertaining repeatable, provable facts of our material world. Supernatural theories (e.g. one that involves the existance of an entity, when there is no repeatable, provable existance of said entity) are not dealt with science. By definition, they are unscientific.

This is not like telling students some new theory that someone thought up 5 minutes ago. People have believed in Christ for over 2000 years. It seems like it should be mentioned in the biology class.

Bhuddists believe the universe may not have a beginning. I'm not an expert in Bhuddist belief's, but I remember reading one Bhuddist's recollections of a conversation with Dali Lama. The Universe could've been created just moments ago, and created to appear to have a past. And they've been believing in ideas like this before Christ was in diapers. Yet neither idea is provable and repeatable. Science is the search for truths in a material world. Period.

Many people believe God created everything, and as people, we're doing our best to describe and measure what he created. I'm not advocating replacing science text books with the bible. But to leave out something that a majority of people in the USA believe is wrong.

To every idiot that says "Evolution is JUST a theory.", I respond with, "The Bible is JUST a book." Its funny how so many people get upset when you trivialize their dogma. ID never had a leg to stand on, unless you count Creationism, which was banned from being taught in schools in 1987. Now please stop hurting science.

Re:This is an attack on Free Speech

[deadline]

This is not like telling students some new theory that someone thought up 5 minutes ago. People have believed in Christ for over 2000 years. It seems like it should be mentioned in the biology class.

I'm all for it. As long as they teach my religion as well. And by the way, although my religion is new to me, it has existed in since the beginning of time. It was created "new" only recently.

It also answers some of the more fundamental physics questions better than the bible.

Re:This is an attack on Free Speech

[Loki Giggling]

Evolution does not preclude the 'existence' or 'non existance' of God.
Even the Vatican endorses Evolution.

I don't mind Biology teachers saying that Evolution is a theory. I do mind my children being told that ID is an alternative theory (without any crediable pear reviewed publications).

ID is a great course to be tought in a 'Religous Studies' class (probably not available in America). I have no idea why Cristianity (or any other religous belief) should be mentioned in Biology which is a science (that is based on Experimental verification [sorry testing] of theories).

Re:This is an attack on Free Speech

[DrFrob]

I've said it before and I'll say it again, science doesn't give a rat's ass about truth. Science is about seeking out explanation, understanding, and prediction. A scientific theory can simultaneously be absolutely wrong (e.g., classical physics) but entirely usefull if it allows one to make predictions and explain behavior reproducibly.

Re:This is an attack on Free Speech

[Gulthek]

Would you be comfortable with the Hindu or Buddhist worldviews being taught in a biology class? They are both older and practiced by more people than Christianity.

Many people believe we are manifestations of the same consciousness and that this world is a dream that you must strive to wake up from (Hindu/Buddhism). If you aren't comfortable with that being taught in biology class, then Judaic dogma has no place there either.

Deciding on where to draw the line on what religious worldviews to include is exactly why we have decided to leave religion to the parents, and the explanation of the world as our minds understand it to scientific education.

Re:This is an attack on Free Speech

[KDN]

Science is more than theories. Theories must conform to known observations. And no you can't say "it was a miracle" for everything that does not fit. One of the acid tests of a theory is that it must predict something that has not been observed, and then when people look for it, they find it. This has happened many times with evolution. People are always digging up fossils that are intermediates. And you know, sometimes things don't fit, sometimes things need to be rearranged to fit the evidence. THAT IS SCIENCE. Just because someone can't explain something does not mean we need to get the mystics involved. Over a hundred years ago they worked out the rate that the earth was cooling and worked out a very short number, something like a few million years. That did not jive with the fossil record. Later on people discovered the heat released from radioactive decay, reworked the numbers, and found the billion year estimate we use today. No supernatural phenomona required.

PS: you will find the heat decay theory amongst the creationist literature as "proof" that the earth is really young. I explained to the creationist that his "science" was about a hundred years out of date.

Re:This is an attack on Free Speech

[MightyMartian]

Sigh. Public schools are governed by the Establishment Clause. What's more, wouldn't you rather have your child learn a little about science, and leave the religious indoctrination to you and your preacher?

Re:This is an attack on Free Speech

[PenguinBoyDave]

John 10:30 clears this up..."I and the Father are one."

Also, when you say "A supernatural being able to create matter from nothing most likely doesn't have a gender" you could be correct. Genesis 1:26 says "Then God said, 'Let us make man in our image, in our likeness' "

God said "Let us make MAN" so he created Adam.

THEN...

Genesis 2:13 "The LORD God said, 'It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.' "

So...God apparently has a gender...male.

Of course, all of this is dependant on FAITH. If you don't have any and you think the Bible is nothing more than a neat story, then I have wasted my time.

Let the flaming and the mod-down begin (as with anyone who dares to be a Christian on this board)

Re:This is an attack on Free Speech

[smidget2k4]

This is not entirely true. It depends on the scientist. For example, Ptolemy viewed his diagram of our solar system strictly as intrumental, it wasn't really how it was an he knew that, but it was an accurate model for predictions. Copernicus did the same thing.

Now, along comes Keplar with his eliptical orbits. His view of our solar system was from a realist perspective. Not only were his predictions slightly better (perhaps just due to better technology developed in the couple hundred year time lapse) but they also predicted how the planets really orbited.

Einstein also started his career off as an intrumentalist, but became more of a realist by the end. Some scientists are only interested in creating predictable, working models (instrumentalists) and others are more interested in finding the Truth (realists).

Re:This is an attack on Free Speech

[stormcoder]

What people believe is a subject for an anthropology class, not a science class.

actually, anthropology is a science. the study of people and cultures.

Re:This is an attack on Free Speech

[Anonymous Coward]

But to leave out something that a majority of people in the USA believe is wrong

Like what, that Bush did serve his national guard duty?
Or that Bush actually won either election
or that Iraq had WMD
or Saddam was gunning for the US
or supporting AQ
or the Gulf of Tonkin
or any of the other completely idiotic things that "the majority" of the American population believes. Based on that rule, you can stop teaching about the Pacific ocean as well, since 80% of Americans can't locate the FUCKING OCEAN on an unmarked map.

Basing what gets taught in schools, based on the beliefs of the "majority" of Americans, is just begging for stupidity to be the defining characteristic of your population.

Re:This is an attack on Free Speech

[Parity]

"Christ isn't God (at least not from what I remember of my catechism classes)."

You weren't paying good attention then; in Catholic doctrine, Christ -is- God made flesh. (The whole three-are-one mystery of the trinity) Of course, not all Christians believe this, and indeed, a number of people have been killed over the question at various points in history.

The story of Jesus Christ also bears a remarkable resemblence to the stories of any number of other died-and-resurrected saviour gods, so it is not surprising that Christians treat him as a diety (even those sects that reject the doctrine of divine incarnation.)

This nitpick does not, of course, invalidate anything in your argument which was otherwise well made.

Re:This is an attack on Free Speech

[drinkypoo]

Besides, what does Christ have to do with it? Christ isn't God (at least not from what I remember of my catechism classes).

You're a heretic. Congratulations; so am I. One of the things hammered out at the Council of Nicea was the nature of the holy trinity. In order to make it work, Jesus had to be declared fully both human and divine. Thus, Jesus is God, as you cannot be fully divine without such. Also, Jesus is the only element of God to be fully human (since he was born of woman.) If you don't believe this, you're a heretic! Welcome to the black-and-white world of Christianity.

Re:This is an attack on Free Speech

[Doctor Memory]

pear reviewed publications

Is that where they compare the apples and the oranges?

Re:This is an attack on Free Speech

[Wizzy Wig]

One of the things hammered out at the Council of Nicea was the nature of the holy trinity. In order to make it work, Jesus had to be declared fully both human and divine.

You're literate. Congratulations. And you've read The DaVinci Code. It's a work of fiction, you know. Nicea was simply a meeting of Church Fathers where Christian doctrine was finally formalized and unified. Gospel texts from various sources predating Nicea by up to 400 years refer to the Trinity, as an above post quotes.

Re:This is an attack on Free Speech

[DarKnyht]

This is the same science that dates the lava from the last Mount Saint Helens eruption as being 1 million years old. Science is not perfect. History shoes that science one stated that the sun revolved around the earth. That is why we have scientific theories.

Every "THEORY", yes let's stress that again "THEORY" has holes in it, if it did not have those holes it would not be a "THEORY" but a Law, fact, whatever they want to call it these days. The point is that Evolution is just as unprovable as ID, Creationism, or my personal "I pulled it out of my butt last week" theories.

That is the part of all this that bothers me. Evolutionist tend to approach this issue with a "We are absolutely right" attitude, and the fact is you have no more of a clue as the rest of us.

Re:This is an attack on Free Speech

[Anonymous Coward]

Refer to the trinity, yes, but what the Council did was formalise the belief structure as to what the nature of the trinity was. Since the beginning of language we have referred to water, but it took until very recently to know what water was.
Not the best example, granted, but I hope you can see the distinction.

Re:This is an attack on Free Speech

[smooth wombat]

I'm certainly not going to flame you. At least you provided some evidence to support your claim. What's interesting about Gen 1:26 is the phrasing:

"Then God said, 'Let us make man in our image, in our likeness' "

Does that mean that there is more than one God or that God was talking to the angels and other higher beings? Having reread the portions of Genesis before 1:26 no mention is made of any other god or being.

This is more a rhetorical question so don't feel obligated to answer. Having had catechism oh so many years ago we went over this part but as far as I know no one has come to a definitive answer.

However, another issue arises from your second part. If God is a man, how would he know how to make a woman? He would have no basis for how she should be constructed. Ok, he's omnipotent.

As far as the faith thing goes, I follow, above all, the Golden Rule. If my not going around stomping on kittens and puppies or raping 90 year old women isn't good enough, tough. If there is a god I'm more than willing to defend my actions and suffer whatever the consequences. Just like in real life I admit my mistakes and take my lumps.

Re:This is an attack on Free Speech

[drinkypoo]

You're able to read. Congratulations. Unfortunately you are given to making unfounded assumptions. I have not yet read The DaVinci Code (though it does seem like a fun read) and learned about this in my Western Humanities class, which turned out to basically be a Western Religion class because everything was tied to religion. I also learned that women used to be the most common priests in the early Christian church, because the churches were based on households and the priest was the head of household. They took that away from women, though, when the priests looked like they'd have a little power.

The trinity was talked about before then, but the majority of the fighting over christianity at the time was over the nature of Christ. Was he human, or divine? If he's human but not divine, then saying he's divine is blasphemy. hence, the major split in the Jehovah-worshippers. The decision at the council of Nicea (I forget if it was the first or second council, I don't have my notes handy) on the basis of the Holy Trinity was the major step taken towards healing this separation.

Want to make any other stupid attacks?

Re:This is an attack on Free Speech

[PenguinBoyDave]

I think that is goes to the whole Trinity thing...Father Son Holy Spirit, three in one, that kind of thing.

I think you and I could have some good debates and still walk away as friends. Thanks for a thought-provoking post.

Re:This is an attack on Free Speech

[Anonymous Coward]

> People have believed in Christ for over 2000 years

Have they? over 2000 years? well, even by the current calendar (which has been recalibrated several times over) thats only 2005 years, 12 months and 20 days away from HIS BIRTH! and I'm sure his parents believed in him then as he was IN THE CRIB IN THE MANGER!

its gonna take a good few years before he's stopped blowing bubbles and started telling people maybe it would be great if we all tried to get along.

Re:This is an attack on Free Speech

[Anonymous Coward]

Zeus didn't create the universe. He wasn't even the first of the gods--he was actually the youngest of that first generation of gods that defeated the titans and took over.

And of course, don't forget to thank the titan Prometheus for creating man and giving us fire.

Re:This is an attack on Free Speech

[smooth wombat]

Heh heh. Of course we'd be friends. Don't let my sig fool you. I like a good debate so long as one or both of us don't become so intransigent that neither wants to hear what the other says. I like to say that I'm very open minded with firm opinions.

Here's a question I'll leave you with which should give you that 'empty mind' feeling that buddhism tries to teach. If the everything in the universe is expanding outwards, what is it expanding into? Another way of phrasing the question might be, if everything in the universe started as a ball of matter, what was the matter sitting in before the Big Bang?

Take care.

Re:This is an attack on Free Speech

[Dread_ed]

Starting with the New Teastament for the nature of Christ is a faulty and intellectually ill-fated idea.

It is akin to reading the dictionary before you know the language.

The nature of Christ is fully explained and established earlier on in the Old Testament. In direct words and more importantly the basic ideas, mechanics, and characteristics of who the Lamb of God is supposed to be, Christ is explaind as God and Man. Even the attacks of Satan in an attempt to prevent the sacrifice of Christ on the cross have attacked the humanity and the Divinity of Christ.

"...because the churches were based on households and the priest was the head of household""

This ia a non-sequitur because the Bible constantly declares the male to be the head of household. This is established from the beginning of the Bible and obvious in its prevalence. Maybe contemporary Christians of the early scriptures had social conventions that made women the head of household, but the scriptures hold a different position. It was not "taken away" per-se, as males have had the sole responsibility of the priesthood from the Old Testament to the New.

If you had read the New Testament you would have also learned that many early churches were filled with people that were comitting sinful acts like incest, bestiality, thievery, etc. Does the presence of these activitivities make them right according to the Bible? When these prectices were condemned in a letter to the Church was Paul "taking away" the ability of these people to practice procreation with animals, children, and same sex partners? Of course not; however they were practiced. Just because some people in the early centuries misunderstood things dosen't mean that in retrospect we cannot make things clear. Just because some people in the early centuries believed certian things (the Gnostics for example) doesn't mean that they are consistent with the Bible.

I think what you have is a secular viewpoint that is infused with historical happenings, and very little understanding of the doctrinal side of the Bible. There is no other way to explain your obvious, and seemingly contradictory, depth of knowldege about the historical happenings with regard to the early church combined with your absolute lack of knowledge of the doctrinal tenents of the Bible itself.

Re:This is an attack on Free Speech

[Dephex Twin]

The point is that Evolution is just as unprovable as ID, Creationism, or my personal "I pulled it out of my butt last week" theories.

It doesn't have to be *provable*... it needs to be *disprovable*. Nothing in science is "proven", and thus totally immutable from then on. It is always "this is the best natural explanation" until it is disproven. Evolution can be disproven, and likely there are more minor aspects of evolutionary theory that will be honed, altered, or tossed out. But it was developed through a scientific process, and it will live or die by that same process. And that is what children in these schools (as well as you) need to understand.

Science is about the natural, not the supernatural. Theories in science are about the scientific process, not philosophy. That is how science is defined. If you consider ID to be science, you are actually thinking of some thing other than science that discusses the supernatural.

Re:This is an attack on Free Speech

[PenguinBoyDave]

The Big Bang is just what happened when I read your last post about the Universe expanding. There is so much that man does not know, and may never know. That is one reason I don't have a problem with science, and in fact think more Christians SHOULD look at science instead of trying to poo-poo it. I want to know what is out there...where is the Universe going, are there really little green men, etc.

Happy Festivus!

Re:This is an attack on Free Speech

[DarKnyht]

And that is the problem. Most teachers don't bother to state that theories are developed by scientific process and is not set in stone. In fact, when I was still in high school I was taught that it was fact, period. It wasn't the Theory of Evolution, it was Evolution. Furthermore, the textbooks used experiments that were disproved years before as proof of evolution, and stated that they were scientific fact. Just like now, when I questioned these things I got anger in response and was called an idiot for not blindly believing the textbook.

I don't deny that evolution could happen, but I have yet to read in 4000 years of recorded history an example of macro-evolution. As I have said before, I don't believe radio-active carbon dating due to what happens when applied certain places. I also see far too often the drawings and sketches of dinosaurs and decendants are too often more from the artist's mind than from anything that has been found. For all I know a dinosaur breathed in one nostril and out the other in a continual flow of air, since there is not a dinosaur around to see all we have is what we believe. These are questions that I have had for years regarding evolution, and have yet to hear someone supply a real answer to them.

Re:This is an attack on Free Speech

[Anonymous Coward]

um because outside of a book there is no reason to believe it?

faith is another way of saying, "im gonna believe this although there isnt a reason why"

that is counter to everything science is. therefore why should that be tought in science

Re:This is an attack on Free Speech

[Kazoo the Clown]

Science is not about teaching the majorities beliefs. If it was we'd still all be taught that the world is flat in science class...

Re:This is an attack on Free Speech

[dustywill]

You are mistaken about the belief that Jesus is not God. In John 1:1-3 the Bible says "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. " it goes on to say in John 1:14 "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth." So the belief is that Jesus was there in the begining and through Him all things were made.

Re:This is an attack on Free Speech

[drinkypoo]

This ia a non-sequitur because the Bible constantly declares the male to be the head of household. This is established from the beginning of the Bible and obvious in its prevalence. Maybe contemporary Christians of the early scriptures had social conventions that made women the head of household, but the scriptures hold a different position. It was not "taken away" per-se, as males have had the sole responsibility of the priesthood from the Old Testament to the New.

However, Christianity existed before the bible. Otherwise, it could not tell the story of the Birth and Death (but not life) of Jesus. Before that was written into the bible — before the bible was WRITTEN — women were often the heads of Roman households. Christianity sprung up in the Roman empire, during that particular round of Jewish persecution. It wasn't until Christianity gained currency as a religion that they decided they didn't want women to be the head of a household. It's a petty, sexist idea, and defending it as "being in the bible" is pathetic.

I don't have much knowledge of the doctrine of the bible (besides what's immediately useful) because I recognize Christianity for what it is — a splinter cult of an irrational religion that grew to its own prominence and now serves primarily as a platform from which some hypocrites can shout condemnation at others. I am interested in Christianity only as a study in mass delusion and so that I can figure out how to be minimally harassed by Christians and the like.

What I find most ridiculous about Christianity is that it is orthodox and not orthoprax. You don't actually have to do anything, or live a certain way, to reach "god's kingdom". All you have to do is believe in Jesus and the holy trinity (and the several other things you have to believe in order to not be a heretic) and bang! You get the Eternal Reward. Personally, I think that religion is counterproductive to humanity, because it tells people that it doesn't matter what happens here, you have something else to look forward to. Thus, all those who preach an afterlife are the enemies of those who want to make this life better, whether directly or indirectly.

Re:This is an attack on Free Speech

[griann]

This is not like telling students some new theory that someone thought up 5 minutes ago. People have believed in Christ for over 2000 years. It seems like it should be mentioned in the biology class.

Maybe I dropped off for a moment. Where does Christ come into this?

Oh yeah. That's the Christian religious agenda that this ID stuff is supposed to be spearheading. But didn't you get the memo? You're not supposed to say that out aloud. It's still in the infiltration phase.

Re:This is an attack on Free Speech

[gottabeme]

That's not exactly true. In I Corinthians 7:19, Paul said, "Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God's commands is what counts." In John 14:15, Jesus said, "If you love me, you will obey what I command." Clearly if one is faithful to the Lord, he will do his best to obey the Lord's commands.

However, we are not perfect beings; as it says in Romans 3:9-10, "We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin. As it is written, 'There is no one righteous, not even one.'" Obviously, even after we have been baptized into Christ and have received the Holy Spirit, we will continue to sin. But our faith in our salvation through the sacrifice of Jesus's blood justifies us, as it says in Romans 3:21: "But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and Prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus."

You say that religion is counterproductive. I think that if I had no faith in a life after this one, there would be little point in living this life at all. Why go through all the pain that this life has if there was nothing at the end but death? Might as well go jump off a bridge right now and get it over with. Who cares if it makes someone else a little unhappy? They can do the same thing. And so on, and so on. Do you see what I mean?

But I know that when I leave this life, I will go to be with my Father in Heaven, because of my faith in Him through his Son. I'm not perfect; I still sin. As it says in Romans 7:19, "For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do--this I keep on doing." But I keep trying, and I know that my faith in Jesus's blood continually cleanses me, as it says in I John 1:9.

That knowledge, that God loves me, and my love for Him, gives me hope, and a mission to love others and spread the Good News, as Jesus commanded in Matthew 28:18-20. As far as I know, loving your fellow human beings makes this life better, so I don't think I'm an enemy of those who want to make this life better. :)

Re:This is an attack on Free Speech

[Lifewish]

If I recall correctly, the age given for the Mount St Helens lava was "1 million years, plus or minus a couple of mill". This suggests that the dating is in no way wrong, just not sufficiently fine-grained. When you consider that that's the same dating we use to trace backwards for billions of years, this is not surprising. And it's not the same dating as is used for the majority of fossil record stuff (I think).

Re:This is an attack on Free Speech

[drinkypoo]

You say that religion is counterproductive. I think that if I had no faith in a life after this one, there would be little point in living this life at all. Why go through all the pain that this life has if there was nothing at the end but death? Might as well go jump off a bridge right now and get it over with. Who cares if it makes someone else a little unhappy? They can do the same thing. And so on, and so on. Do you see what I mean?

Right, but if you kill yourself, you're going to hell, right? Which amounts to bullying. But, why go through all the pain that this life has to offer if there is nothing at the end but death? Because in such a system, you'd better look for your happiness here on earth, and do all you can to maximize it, because this is all you can get! "Karma", or in the real world, the embodiment of the reactions of others to your behavior, will keep you in line to some degree. But, if you do something wrong here on earth, god will still forgive you so there is much less motivation than in an orthoprax religion to do good. And, you can see this at work in churches. They spend the big buck$ to build this big fancy building and outfit it with all kinds of neat shit instead of spending that money to improve people's lives. It doesn't matter whether you worship in a church or in the street, ostensibly, because god is everywhere. Right? There is no "house of god". Instead, there is only a house of cards.

More and more people are being turned on to atheism, or my personal favorite agnosticism, every year. In a per capita sense, religion is waning in educated countries. People are realizing that they don't need religion to live their lives. It's not necessary to be religious to have a moral code, in spite of the assertions of many to the contrary. It's enough to be smart enough to know that if you create a world of shit, you'll live in it. Or, put more simply and even more crudely, you don't shit where you eat. It's the reason that you don't [as a rule] date people from work — that's the canonical use anyway — and it's the reason you treat people well whether it has a bearing on whether you go to heaven or not.

Re:This is an attack on Free Speech

[TimeForGuinness]

It's refreshing to see discussion instead of a yelling match. I commend both of you. I wish more people would stop yelling and start listening. More would get done...on both sides.

Re:This is an attack on Free Speech

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, there are more professed Christians than Hindus and Buddhists globally. Consider that you have to include the Churchs of Rome, Greece, Byzantium and Russia, as well as all the Protestant denominations.

The figures for 1986 were:

Christian:

Roman Catholic: 900,546,000
Protestant: 326,552,000
Orthodox: 158,353,000
Anglican: 69,602,000 (includes Episcopalian)

Total Christian: 1,455,053,000

Non-Christian:

Islam: 840,221,000

Hinduism: 647,895,000
Buddhism: 307,416,000

Total for these 2: 954,113,000

Chines Folk Religion: 202,756,000 (includes Taoism and Confucianism)
Judaism: 17,981,000
Shintoism: 3,427,000

I'd like to point out that the Lameness Filter won't let me format this nicely btw.

However, even though your numbers are incorrect, I (a practising Christian and Sunday School Teacher) see no reason why ID should be taught as Science (it's not Science), and given that ID detracts from God (others have pointed out how ID implies an imperfect, malicious God) I see no reason why it should be taught in Church, other than as a part of "Heresies that Christians should avoid".

To briefly get back to the court case, one of the reasons that the judgement was made as it was was due to the lies and deceit that the ID proponents had used to get their agenda through.

I am personally offended that so called "Chritians" would deliberately lie to get what they want. They might try excusing themselves by claiming that they didnt exactly lie, but they know they're not fooling God. I for one do not want to stand before God's Throne in the afterlife and explain to Him why I lied to promote Him.

Re:This is an attack on Free Speech

[endoplasmicMessenger]

You see? If you'd had a better grounding in science, you wouldn't be confused about this. EVERYTHING isn't taught in science class... SCIENCE is taught there-- natural explanations supported by evidence using the scientific method!

And did you know that science is rooted in natural philosophy?

If you drop a stone and it falls to the ground five times, will it fall to the ground the sixth time?

Logically speaking, the answer is "no". That would be because you cannot reason logically from the specific (five instances) to the general (the sixth instance). This is the fallacy ofinduction. You can only reason logically from the general to the specific (deduction).

If there is no logical reason reason that the stone will fall the sixth time, then what reason is there?

There is only a philosophical reason. We see that the universe behaves in an orderly way, and we assume that it will continue to behave this way because it was somehow constructed this way. This is natural philosophy and it is the only justification we have in putting any faith at all in the scientific method.

Maybe folks should be required to study a little philosophy before they are allowed to study science.

Re:This is an attack on Free Speech

[jd_esguerra]

But to leave out something that a majority of people in the USA believe is wrong.

Half the people in the USA are below average in intelligence. (Shit, that's US average intelligence, too.) And, not to be rude, a person of average intelligence probably isn't as intelligent as a trained scientist.

But to leave out something that a majority of people in the USA believe is wrong.

Who the hell cares what most people believe? Science isn't about believing. It is about reproducible quantifiable observation. If it doesn't belong in a science curriculum, as indicated BY scientists, then it shouldn't be part of the science curriculum. By the way, as far as science is concerned, 2000 years ago, I bet most people were wrong in their understanding of almost all things science.

Re:This is an attack on Free Speech

[Tab is on Slashdot]

With the assumption being that after enough trial and error, eventually we arrive at a point where all explanations fully predict observations. At this point, if we have not arrived at "truth", then we have at least arrived at something so practical as to make "truth" irrelevant.

Re:This is an attack on Free Speech

[Anonymous Coward]

Some people even believe they are Jesus. That doesn't mean they are correct.

Close - I prefer the more scientific way the Dire Straits put it (Industrial Disease, Love over Gold): two men say they're Jesus, one of them must be wrong...

Re:This is an attack on Free Speech

[Anonymous Coward]

All indoctrination is good, unless it's by those goddamned godless commie LIEberal advocate judges!

Re:This is an attack on Free Speech

[Maxo-Texas]

Looks like your numbers are a little off but the percentages are roughly correct. Perhaps you are using older figures?

http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.ht ml

Shows this...
# Christianity: 2.1 billion
# Islam: 1.3 billion
# Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist: 1.1 billion
# Hinduism: 900 million
# Chinese traditional religion: 394 million
# Buddhism: 376 million
# primal-indigenous: 300 million
# African Traditional & Diasporic: 100 million
# Sikhism: 23 million
# Juche: 19 million
# Spiritism: 15 million
# Judaism: 14 million
# Baha'i: 7 million
# Jainism: 4.2 million
# Shinto: 4 million
# Cao Dai: 4 million
# Zoroastrianism: 2.6 million
# Tenrikyo: 2 million
# Neo-Paganism: 1 million
# Unitarian-Universalism: 800 thousand
# Rastafarianism: 600 thousand
# Scientology: 500 thousand

Now, personally I think this is a little bit tricky since christianty ignores some fundamental differences which some branches would say other branches are going to hell (which would indicate to me that they don't think they follow the same reliigion).

Re:This is an attack on Free Speech

[DrFrob]

Exactly.

Re:This is an attack on Free Speech

[Copid]

You say that religion is counterproductive. I think that if I had no faith in a life after this one, there would be little point in living this life at all. Why go through all the pain that this life has if there was nothing at the end but death? Might as well go jump off a bridge right now and get it over with. Who cares if it makes someone else a little unhappy? They can do the same thing. And so on, and so on. Do you see what I mean?

This position has always perplexed me. With or without religion, I live a very fulfilling life. I am married to a wonderful woman who shares my interests and challenges me intellectually. I have a fascinating job that gives me the opportunity to solve interesting problems and explore areas that are at the cutting edge of mankind's knowledge. I live in a place where knowledge is plentiful and readily accessible, so I can spend my life learning about great discoveries. Life offers so many amazing things to do and learn that I could never live long enough to appreciate them all. The idea that life is miserable and it's all just a march to a better end boggles my mind.

Let me put it this way: Eating a delicious meal is not just about being full at the end. Maybe death will be a great adventure. I don't know. What I know is that life is more of an adventure than anybody could really take in completely.

Re:This is an attack on Free Speech

[Copid]

This is the same science that dates the lava from the last Mount Saint Helens eruption as being 1 million years old. Science is not perfect.

Yes, but this isn't a good example of it. Read up on the background of this particular example and you'll find that it is a completely unsurprising result that has been painted to make it look like the dating method used somehow gave a definitively wrong date and imply that all data acquired from this method is suspect. This is false, and it's an awful example of the type of dishonesty used by the ID team to make evolution smell untrustworthy.

Re:This is an attack on Free Speech

[gottabeme]

I'm glad that you have such a fulfilling life. :) I didn't mean that life is completely miserable; perhaps I exaggerated a bit. But if somehow you haven't already, I can assure you that you will go through difficult, painful times in your life. Loss, disease, and death are inevitable.

Really, you're right, this life is just a march to a better end. After all, this life will end, but eternity will not. But this life is really an opportunity. It's an opportunity to serve God by serving others. Philippians 2:3-4 says, "Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves. Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others." And we are to do this out of love. In Matthew 23:37, Jesus said, "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." I Corinthians 13 explains love in detail: "...If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing. ... Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part, but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. ... Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known."

The point is, when this life ends, what will you have left? You can gain knowledge, gain power, gain fame, do great things, earn lots of money, have lots of fun...but when you're on your death bed, what will it matter? You will leave this world, and remember none of it. Time will pass, and the world will not remember you.

You're right, it's not just about being full at the end. But what if, at the end, you're not full, but empty?

Death will indeed be a great adventure for all. But whether it's an adventure with a happy or unhappy ending is up to each person. If one believes in the Lord, confesses their faith, and is baptized, calling on his name, and lives faithfully to their death, they will have great joy when they die.

"When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: 'Death has been swallowed up in victory. Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting?' The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. But thanks be to God! He gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ." I Corinthians 15:54-57

Re:This is an attack on Free Speech

[Dread_ed]

"before the bible was WRITTEN -- women were often the heads of Roman households"

The point is that when the Old testament was written there were no Romans yet and the idea as males as heads of the household and as priests was established then. The New testament merely echoes the sentiments when it writes about making men the head of the church and the household. Your stating that they had to change things is ridiculous when the Biblical doctrine on this subject was written hundreds of years before Rome existed.

"It wasn't until Christianity gained currency as a religion that they decided they didn't want women to be the head of a household"

Historically and factually incorrect. This is like saying that it wasn until Christians gained currency as a religion that they didnt want their congregation killing people for money. Again, the doctrine of male head of household, priesthood, even primogenicy was established by the Old Testament before Rome even existed. You cannot use a modern change in social structure to say that the past dosen't exist. It dosen't even make non-logical sense.

Furthermore, claiming that the reason for this is sexism merely proclaims your complete and utter misunderstanding of the Bible. Women are consistently declared to be better then men in almost every aspect in the Bible. They are revered for their characteristics. The idea of the greater individual being submitting themselves and serving a lesser being (for the right reasons mind you) is Biblical as well. For example, Christ washed people's feet. This does not mitigate the fact that there is a heierarchy that was established by divine fiat. It also does not mean that it was done for sexist reasons. You have to go a bit deeper than your unfounded accusation of sexism to get the real answer.

"from which some hypocrites can shout condemnation at others."

I wont argue that many people who classify themselves as Christians fall quite short of the ideal. I will also not argue that some will condemn others for what they see as evil, wrong, or contradictory to their best interests. I wont justify their actions either. The Bible is clear on how a Christian should act and the mental attitudes and motivations they should posess. That individials do not live up to perfection is expected. The Bible discribes two types of degeneracy. There is immoral degeneracy, the one that everyone identifies easily. This is drug use, sexual promiscuity, anti-establishment activity, etc. Then there is moral degeneracy. This is the one you likely encounter that turns you off to Christians in general. Some people become assured of their holiness and become self-righteous and legalistic. These are the people that unbelievers look at and say to themselves "if THAT is what it is to be a Christian I don't want any part of it!" The fact still remains that what the Bible says about how to interact with people is violated continually by people that call themselves Christians. You may call them hypocrites for doing this, however by condemning for not being perfect you hold yourself up to ridicule from others if you are not perfect yourself.

"You don't actually have to do anything, or live a certain way, to reach "god's kingdom"

This is a central part of the character of God as discribed in the Bible. Man cannot, under the power of the flesh, attain purity of character on par with God. God, in his purity, cannot associate with mankind. Therefore it was incumbent upon God, as the greater and capible party, to devise a way for makind to posess the attributes of God that would allow Him to have fellowship with Man. The mechanism that allowed this was Christ's substitutionary punishment and death on the Cross that atoned for the entirety of the sin debt of all mankind for all time. If the price was paid by Christ what else is necessary? The one thing required is faith in Christ; belief based on the merit of Christ Himself, not the rational or empirical gesticulations of the

Re:This is an attack on Free Speech

[Dread_ed]

"Right, but if you kill yourself, you're going to hell, right?"

Wrong. All sins were paid for by Christ on the Cross. Those who believe in Christ go to heaven regardless of thir method of death, self imposed or otherwise. Remember in your other post where you lamented how Christians just had to believe and they went to heaven? It still applied to Christians. As for everyone else, it dosent matter how much you sin. Your entrance into the lake of fire is determined at the judgement seat of Christ (Rev 20 if you want to look it up). Your good deeds are measured and compared to the good character of God. If you measure up you can get into heaven. Sin is not an issue, again, because Christ suffered and died for all mankind, not just those who believe.

"But, if you do something wrong here on earth, god will still forgive you so there is much less motivation than in an orthoprax religion to do good"

Your statement here would be true if we omitted about three quarters of the Bible. Unfortunately for your ill considered viewpoint, most of the Bible is the testament of people who chose to do the wrong things and had to pay the price for it during their lifetimes and sometimes even longer as their children inherited some of the backlash. The idea of forgiveness is definitely there, but I cant see how you miss the massive amount of content that concerns judgement and punishment for sin on Earth. The idea of Karma is not so far from the Christian idea.

What is discribed in the Bible is that when we engage in sinful or evil actions or modes of motivation and thought we engender punishment. This punishment can be for good or ill. It is like when we are chastised by our parents in childhood; God can attempt to correct us in the same way. What the Bible then says is that your attitude toward God and the sinful behavior will determine the outcome of the punishment. It can be punishment for cursing, in the case of the sinner who continues int eh wrong mode of behavior. It can also be punishment for blessing and correction for the believer who admits their mistake and repents (literal definition: change your mind) of that sin and returns to the correct mode of action.

Either way, your idea of the Christian believer getting off scott free for anything they want to do is at least simplistic and verges on being an intentional mischaracterization. In the case of the latter I would assume that you are either carrying a grudge or you are trying to convince yourself. Either way it makes you look kind of foolish when the evidence contrary to your opinion occupies the majority of the pages of the Bible.

"...shit instead of spending that money to improve people's lives"

1: its their money, they can shove it up their asses in fistfulls if they want and they shouldn't face condemnation from you, as you didn't contribute any. As long as the congregation gets to determine what they spent their money on that is fine.

2: Teaching the word of God is, in the minds of Christians, the best way to help them help themselves. If they have a large place to teach from that people want to go to all the better.

3: You have no idea what Churches spend their money on. My father is handicapped, bedridden even, and on a ventilator 24-7. One of these so called "big fancy" churches has paid his electrical bill every month for a year. "Not a big deal you'd say", I'm sure. But, because of all the ventilation, ac bills, air purifiers, etc. his electric bill is $700/month. Of course you don't see that. All you see is a big building and you mock and ridicule it. What I see is people who have that big guilding because they have the blessing of God himself because they DO contribute to the health of society in ways that go beyond even the money that you would so love to see spent in a "better" fashon.

"and it's the reason you treat people well whether it has a bearing on whether you go to heaven or not. "

As you mentioned before, Christians go to heaven because they believe in Christ and nothing else. This statement contradicts what you stated in your ealier post. Not trying ot be mean, just pointing out an inconsistency in your evalution of Christians motivation and behavior.

Re:This is an attack on Free Speech

[drinkypoo]

The point is that when the Old testament was written there were no Romans yet and the idea as males as heads of the household and as priests was established then.

This statement almost caused me to decide not to read the rest of your comment, because it is utterly wrong. The Jews were under Roman rule when Jesus started his preachin' and Christianity began as a splinter cult of Judaism. It would likely not exist today if not for Roman oppression. See this document for more info on rome. Note that the dates fall between about 100 BCE, and 200 CE. Now, if you are paying attention, you know that the date of 1 CE corresponds roughly with the existence of Yeshua of Nazareth (although of course that date is widely disputed.)

Why is it that religious types often hide behind scripture, but don't know a damn thing about the history of their religion? It only serves to prove that they don't know shit about what they're talking about.

Try reading this. Maybe it will open your eyes just a tad? Jesus preached for a year or so. He got busted for bitch slapping the money changers (take a good look at the famous painting sometime) and hung up to drip dry. Some years later, some documents were written by the Essenes, arguably the most strict cult of Judaism. They became the basis of the bible and after much revision, expurgation, and translation, we ended up with the mismash garble that we call the Bible today. Well, actually, we have a whole bunch of different bibles, because Jehovah-worshippers can't agree on a damn thing.

Women are consistently declared to be better then men in almost every aspect in the Bible. They are revered for their characteristics. The idea of the greater individual being submitting themselves and serving a lesser being (for the right reasons mind you) is Biblical as well.

That, sir, is a pile of horseshit. Women are expected to honor and obey their husbands in all things, but it's a one way street. If women are so great, why do they have to be subject to the will of men? Also, let's not forget that Original Sin entered the human race through woman. Granted, from what I've heard, that particular part of the bible is Paul's doing...

The Bible discribes two types of degeneracy. There is immoral degeneracy, the one that everyone identifies easily. This is drug use,

"And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat."

sexual promiscuity, anti-establishment activity, etc.

Sexual promiscuity is banned because it is a tool of other religions which were stamped out around this time; several of them featured "temple prostitutes" who hung around and fucked people for donations. (Just because it's in Snow Crash doesn't mean it's not true...)

And I sure am glad that anti-establishment activity is against God's will! I guess that explains why the fundies do what their president tells them?

If followed to their conclusion the individual becomes an industrious, law abiding, charitible, and wholesome citizen. Tell me how that dosen't help society and make this life better.

Like the silly Apple commercials say, it's the cracked ones that let the light into the world. Christianity's goal is the same as that of public schools - to turn out legions of easily controlled sheep who will question nothing. This, of course, guarantees the mediocrity of our nation (the US) since we now have a bunch of students who don't even know what science is, let alone a theory. Hence, the continuing

Re:This is an attack on Free Speech

[Dephex Twin]

I know it's over a week later, but I didn't get back on Slashdot till now. Nonetheless, what you have written is incredibly wrong, and I wanted to point this fact out.

If you drop a stone and it falls to the ground five times, will it fall to the ground the sixth time?

Logically speaking, the answer is "no". That would be because you cannot reason logically from the specific (five instances) to the general (the sixth instance). This is the fallacy ofinduction. You can only reason logically from the general to the specific (deduction).

If there is no logical reason reason that the stone will fall the sixth time, then what reason is there?

After you wrote this comment implying that there was an ignorance of philosophy that led me to say what I said, I hate to reply by saying that you, in fact, just don't understand science. But, well... you don't.

The problem with what you are saying is that your example where "logic" seems to fail does not use the scientific method. A scientist would not do an experiment by dropping a stone 5 times and then drawing a conclusion about the sixth. Furthermore, a scientist wouldn't stop there and deem the situation a job for philosophy! So, you have yourself created a fallacious argument by attacking this strawman.

A scientist would first look at other important laws and theories in this area, including the law of gravity, as well as mass and friction, to determine what would happen. From these general principles, he would in fact be predicting a specific situation based on more general principles. If the stone did not behave as predicted from this information, and this could be repeated and tested, affected theories would potentially be revised.

Or, assuming that there was no body of knowledge concerning gravity etc. from which to draw, a scientist in this situation might form a hypothesis that the stone would fall the sixth time, and possibly anytime in similar conditions. He would then test his hypothesis, which would likely lead to other experiments. To make a long story short, he would carry out these experiments using the scientific method, draw his conclusions, and then share his results for others so that they could review and verify the results. This would happen over and over, with the theories becoming more and more grounded as they were refined.

Having consistent, predictible results for scientific theories is necessary because *that is what science was created for*. Science is not a thing that we discovered and we must have faith in it truly being what we think it is. We defined it. Just because, before the scientific method, the best thing people had was philosophy, doesn't mean that science now must include philosophies-- natural philosophies science without the rigor, or hypothesis without proper scientific testing. Any philosophy may in fact be correct, but in order to be included in science, it must be tested in a certain way, and it must be capable of being tested in this way.

A strong argument for being consistent in science classes, and not teaching philosophies, is because we want to have less people who, like you, do not seem to understand the differences between science and philosophy, not more.

Re:This is an attack on Free Speech

[sickofthisshit]

You've just argued in a circle.

This issue dates all the way back to David Hume, who realized it was insurmountable; Kant thought he had overcome it, but I don't buy it.

Those scientific laws you depend on---on what are they based? A finite number of observations. Those observations are, in principle, isolated events. You can't watch the Earth & planets forever to verify that they keep moving as they do. You watch them for a minute, or an hour, or a year, you still can't be *logically* sure that they will keep doing the same thing. All you can say is that, all the observations that people have happened to make, within experimental error, agree with these laws.

You cannot *logically* deduce scientific laws. That's exactly the fallacy of induction that the original poster was referring to. You can logically assume them as axioms, but you can assume *anything* as an axiom without it being objectively true.

Basically, there is no way to be certain of *anything* in the physical world, and I would extend this to the metaphysical as well, although religious types can claim you can ask God to explain things to you, and you can be sure his answers are true---I consider these to be isolated observations as well, that could turn out to be false, but that's the difference between religion and logic, isn't it?

Religious types stop here and say that because you can't be sure of anything, believing in evolution is the same thing as believing in Genesis, so we're all being religious, aren't we?

The real answer, in my opinion, is that we have to take a pragmatic stance, and assign some provisional level of certainty to our speculations. "3 is a prime number" is very certain, although five minutes from now, the integers could (in a barely conceivable way) change their properties. Gravity rates pretty highly on that scale, as well as other physical laws, because they are based on relatively few, simply understood, basic assumptions, which I give a high level of certainty to. Darwinian evolution would have a high degree of certainty as well, based on the huge amount of observations of so many biological and fossil specimens, the basic logic of Darwin's argument.

The level of certainty I give the Genesis account is very low; it shows very little reason to be objectively distinguished from comparable creation myths of similar age; it makes no concrete claim that shows access to privileged information (as opposed to, say, Jesus explaining quantum mechanics in the Gospels, two thousand years before any experiments had raised the possibility...that would be strong evidence for a direct connection to an omnipotent Creator, as opposed to a philosophy and outlook compatible with first century Judaism.)

Obviously, not everyone agrees with my choice of certainty values, which is why these fucking Slashdot threads go on so long.

Re:This is an attack on Free Speech

[Dephex Twin]

Those scientific laws you depend on---on what are they based? A finite number of observations. Those observations are, in principle, isolated events.

Right, and this is why science is always evolving. The closest science comes to "this is true" is "this works thus far". Your proposal about assigning likelihood to different theories and principles is... exactly what is done in the scientific community now.

Newton's theories were refined, altered, and expanded upon by scientists like Einstein. But even if you teach kids about Newton's work as part of a science class, you can teach how the scientific method was used, and how his work formed the basis for new conclusions that were more accurate than what he came up with.

The thing you don't get is, if you think science might potentially be fundamentally wrong in how it is defined-- that the universe really doesn't allow for things to be consistent and repeatable-- whatever you would (theoretically) think is right still doesn't belong in a science classroom, because it isn't science, it is something else.

Your example of the actual creation story IS something that supposedly happened in the natural world, and as such *can* be tested to a certain extent. And it doesn't jive with what scientists believe about the history of earth. However, we aren't talking about people trying to get the creation story in schools, we're talking about the "Intelligent Design" philosophy. And that philosophy does not hypothesize anything that is testable or natural, so it just doesn't belong in a science classroom.

What I'm saying is, science doesn't have to be *right*. It works right now, and has allowed us to do a lot of great things, using the scientific method. Maybe it is how the universe works and maybe it isn't. But, in a basic science class, you want to teach kids how "science" works, not some other thing that you think might be better. Otherwise, they come out not knowing what science *is*.

If there is some other way of looking at the universe that is more useful than science, then tell people about it. In that case, it should probably replace science in schools. Until that time, however, teaching non-scientific philosophies in a science class (unless you use them to contrast science with non-science), only because we have no way of absolutely knowing what will happen for all time, isn't going to help all the scientific advances we've made over the past century, it can only hinder it.

Yes, science may not be "true". Perhaps the laws of physics *can* change. Perhaps everything that has happened up to this moment that we perceive to have actually happened in our minds was just placed in there 3 seconds ago, and we actually just came into existence at that time. Maybe I'm the only being who actually exists, or maybe I don't exist. And so on. Any of that could be true, but introducing all of that into science isn't going to help treat cancer or help us explore other planets in the solar system, it is going to confuse people.

Re:This is an attack on Free Speech

[sickofthisshit]

You are essentially agreeing with me; I think the important thing to maintain in discussing "truth" is the crucial distinction between an absolute logical truth and a pragmatically "true" basic assumption, which you seemed to be blurring. Especially because religious types often don't maintain the same distinction.

The "physical universe being a sanely consistent place" assumption is almost impossible to avoid once you agree to be pragmatic. Otherwise, you get scared to breathe because, you know, maybe oxygen is bad for you now. From that, you pretty easily get that scientific investigation is the most pragmatically valuable method for gathering additional knowledge.

The other conclusion that is important is that you never claim even basic scientific laws like general relativity to be "true", just "true enough that life is too short to avoid believing it", which scientists shorten to "proven", or if it is their field of active inquiry "currently accepted".

Re:This is an attack on Free Speech

[Dread_ed]

Let me break this down for you once again.

The Biblical idea that males were the head of the household, and also that only males were to be priests, was established in the Old Testament. It is explicitly implied in Genesis and is amplified with the Levitical priesthood and the responsibility of Abraham for his family. Just to remind you, Old Testament means books like Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, etc. These books range in dates but you can consider that many of them were written around 500BC. Oral traditions are reported to begin around 2000BC by some historians as well.

HERE IS THE CRUCIAL PART: The passages you see in the New Testament that talk about women not being priests and men being the spiritual and authoritative head of household merely echo these sentiments that were first stated a couple of thousand years before.

To be fair, the Roman kingdom was probably started around 700BC; however if you study that era it was patriarchal in the extreme and wouldn't help your argument. The Roman Empire, generally stated to begin in 27BC, is more what you were referring to. It was definitely hundreds of years after the writing of the Old Testament and again, thousands of years after the inception of oral traditions and events that compose the Torah.

Your definition of Christianity as a "splinter religion" may be correct in your view, however the fact remains that other than the rituals of the Jews, the content of the beliefs of modern Christians are inclusive of Jewish beliefs. This means that things like the nature of who and what God is, the beginning of life, the historical figures, and, yes, even the authoritative structure and positions of males and females written about in the Old Testament are directly inherited by the Christian faith. We revere these teachings of the Old Testament in the same way we revere the red letters in the New. Therefore it stands to reason that if in the Old Testament there was a prohibition against women pastors for doctrinal reasons it will continue into the New Testament unless there is a dispensational reason for change.

It's almost as if you believe that Christianity is an independent entity and has no reference to the Old Testament. Nothing could be farther from the truth. In fact the very point of contention we are discussing is proof of the fact that Christian doctrine is consistent with Old Testament doctrine.

"Women are expected to honor and obey their husbands in all things, but it's a one way street"

So the passage where it says for men to love their wives as Christ loved the church is actually a misprint in every Bible on Earth? Seriously though, if you consistently take things out of context you can make the Bible say anything you want it to. Even things that is specifically does not say.

"If women are so great, why do they have to be subject to the will of men?"

The authority structure was established in the garden. Adam was given dominance in a mirroring of the authority structure in heaven. According to the Bible God the Father has the same characteristics, essence, and character as the other members of the trinity. You could have asked why Christ or the Holy Spirit subjects himself to the will of the Father when he is just as powerful as the Father.

"Also, let's not forget that Original Sin entered the human race through woman."

Romans 5:12: "Sin entered the world through Adam." If you cannot even understand this simple thing how can you feel competent enough to comment on the more complex things in the Bible? Eve was deceived. Adam sinned through volition. The Immaculate Conception was designed to make sure that the sin present in all MEN was not present in Christ. Paul wrote Romans by the way.

"Sexual promiscuity is banned because it is a tool of other religions"

Sexual promiscuity didn't start in Rome. In the Old Testament it was condemned as well. Interestingly enough the book Snow Crash refers these much more ancient practices an

Re:This is an attack on Free Speech

[drinkypoo]

The Biblical idea that males were the head of the household, and also that only males were to be priests, was established in the Old Testament. It is explicitly implied in Genesis and is amplified with the Levitical priesthood and the responsibility of Abraham for his family. Just to remind you, Old Testament means books like Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, etc. These books range in dates but you can consider that many of them were written around 500BC. Oral traditions are reported to begin around 2000BC by some historians as well.

None of those writings made it into the bible without severe editing, which many believe was mostly done by Saul of Tarsus, based on analysis of writing styles.

Just because the subjugation of women is a time-honored tradition doesn't make it okay, no mattr what your excuse is.

Finally, none of that shit has anything to do with Christianity during the life of Christ, nor shortly after, because there wasn't a bible when Christianity was young. Therefore the bible could not tell people not to allow women to be heads of churches - it didn't even exist! It had yet to be compiled. Otherwise the Old Testament could not say anything about Yeshua. In Roman times the woman often acted as the head of household, while the man worried about all the matters outside the house. When Christianity started to gain currency, it was seen that this would give women power and some documents which may or may not have been 500 to 2000 years old at the time may or may not have been applied to the decision to disenfranchise them.

You have yet to produce any useful or significant argument to the contrary. Let's face it; it was done out of sexism. Your religion is sexist. You can argue it all you want but it won't make you right! The fact is that the bible says that women should do what their menfolk tell 'em to and there's simply no basis in reason for that. The only basis is male sexist arrogance.

Re:This is an attack on Free Speech

[Dephex Twin]

I think what appeared to seem like something I was saying was true, I only meant was concrete in the sense that it is science as far as *we have defined it*. So, while the law of gravity may or may not be 100% accurate, I can say that the law of gravity is testable and natural, and thus does fit into our definition of science.

I tried to express the latter part more concretely because it is a human construction, and so if "science" were found to be something different, or something more, then what actually happened is that there is something else entirely that should be given a new name, because we already called science this specific thing (flawed or no).

That is why I feel I can say "that is or is not part of science", although I can't say "that is true/false because of science".

Sorry that I am beating this one point to the ground-- yes we do agree on "truth", and in fact I would say that any remotely credible scientist absolutely would agree with you as well about pragmatic truth in science, even for fundamental things such as gravity. I just want to distinguish that those scientists stating something "is/isn't science" aren't disagreeing with that concept either. Saying our word "science" might include the supernatural or philosophical is like saying the word "red" might be talking about other colors that no person or creature can see or detect. There may be such a color, but it isn't "red".

I keep beating at this minute distinction only because I see this bit of grey area as the place where the "ID as science" fallacy gets its foot in the door.

(Unforunately, not all science teachers are good scientists, but that's another problem entirely...)

Re:This is an attack on Free Speech

[endoplasmicMessenger]

If you drop a stone and it falls to the ground five times, will it fall to the ground the sixth time?

Logically speaking, the answer is "no". That would be because you cannot reason logically from the specific (five instances) to the general (the sixth instance). This is the fallacy of induction. You can only reason logically from the general to the specific (deduction).

If there is no logical reason reason that the stone will fall the sixth time, then what reason is there?

...you, in fact, just don't understand science. But, well... you don't.

Let's see what I don't understand about science: that it uses independent repeatable observations to confirm hypotheses about the measurable world. But can you explain to me why the scientific method should work? It's not because of "logic".

The problem with what you are saying is that your example where "logic" seems to fail does not use the scientific method.

We are talking about why the scientific method works. You can't use the scientific method to explain why the scientific method works.

A scientist would not do an experiment by dropping a stone 5 times and then drawing a conclusion about the sixth.

Really? So when Galileo was performing his original experiments on the inclined plane and he saw the same result 5 times, he would, of course, not expect to see them a sixth time??

Furthermore, a scientist wouldn't stop there and deem the situation a job for philosophy!

You're really not following me, are you. Science works. But can you explain why science works? Although science uses logic, you can't explain why science works by logic alone. Science goes beyond logic. If science was purely logical, then it would use only deduction. Please explain how Einstein came up with the Theory of Relativity using deduction alone.

So, you have yourself created a fallacious argument by attacking this strawman.

No, this is not a straw man. This has to do with a fundamental understanding of what science is and why science works.

A scientist would first look at other important laws and theories in this area, including the law of gravity, as well as mass and friction, to determine what would happen.

What if you are Galileo and have only Aristotle to fall back on? What if you are Einstein and have only Newton to fall back on?

From these general principles,

And where did these general principles come from? Who defined them? Why should I put my faith in them? How do I know that these principals are eternal and universal and will work as well tomorrow as they did yesterday and in the Andromeda galaxy as well as the Milky Way galaxy?

he would in fact be predicting a specific situation based on more general principles.

You're talking about previously establish scientific paradigms. I'm talking about the principles on which science itself is established.

If the stone did not behave as predicted from this information, and this could be repeated and tested, affected theories would potentially be revised.

Let me recommend to you The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn. It gives a slightly more realistic description on how the scientific process works.

Or, assuming that there was no body of knowledge concerning gravity etc. from which to draw, a scientist in this situation might form a hypothesis that the stone would fall the sixth time,

Who says? Your problem is that you are so entrenched in The Way Things Are, that you don't even understand WHY things are the way they are. And you think that logic explains everything. Let me also refer to you Godel's Incompleteness Theorem. In it he PROVES that in a formal system, there are TRUE statements about that system which CANNOT BE PROVED from within that system. In othe

Re:This is an attack on Free Speech

[Dephex Twin]

Dude. Take a step back. I'm not trying to prove science "right", partly because it is unnecessary here and partly because it may be impossible. I'm just reiterating what *is* or *isn't* within the realm of what is considered science by definition. Science is a thing we defined. The topic was about ID entering the science classroom. You don't have to prove science is "right" or that it will hold for all time.

Don't you see that it doesn't matter if there was some supernatural god or not? I mean, your closing paragraph is basically trying to get at the possbility for it. If you understood my point, you would realize that may well be true, but it doesn't matter in a *science* classroom.

A bit of mischaracterization ...

[jc42]

I noticed that the coverage seems to play fast and loose with the distinction between "forbidden to teach Intelligent Design" and "not required to teach Intelligent Design".

So I went looking for some quotes from the decision or the judge. And I found that the judge wrote "[O]ur conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom."

So the judge himself seems to agree that this isn't just tossing the school board's requirement that ID be taught; he actually forbids the teaching of ID.

So we can imagine a science teacher saying something like "There are religious people who seriously suggest that life on Earth was the result of a god's 'Intelligent Design' rather than Darwin's evolution by Natural Selection. But there's no scientific evidence to support Intelligent Design, while there is a great deal of evidence that supports Natural Selection."

This statement would appear to be in violation of the judge's explicit order, since it presents ID as an alternative to evolution (which science rejects).

We should hope that this isn't how the courts will actually view the decision. It could be a serious blow to the teaching of science history. Contention with religion is an important part of the history of science. Darwin put off publishing his theory for decades, partly because (as a trained minister) he fully understood the reaction he would get. The power of religious people to suppress teaching evolution has led directly to such things as the overuse of antibiotics and the subsequent evolution of resistance in many disease organisms. We have a raging malaria epidemic in parts of the tropic because of such evolution. These are not trivial consequences, and they should be taught in the schools as part of the history of the biological sciences.

This judge seems to have outlawed such teaching, along with tossing out the attempt to require teaching ID as a valid scientific theory.

I suppose we can look forward to some more court cases over this topic.

Re:A bit of mischaracterization ...

[theodicey]

No, you're wrong about all this. The decision applies to science classes, not to history or religion classes. Also, teachers can still explain what Intelligent Design is.

The only thing a science teacher is forbidden from doing in the classroom is exactly what the decision says: presenting Intelligent Design as an alternative [explanatory framework] to evolution.

Still not the end of the matter

[WidescreenFreak]

He also gave a reason why ID isn't science

...which is exactly why this issue will not go away. Oh, sure, here in south central PA it's probably a dead issue (thankfully), but all that it will take is a more creative group with less zealotry to find a way to interweave ID while avoiding the pitfalls that the Judge pointed out. Clearly, the judge was put off by the lies and zealotry of the previous Dover school board. A less ambitious group of people might still be able to pull it off in the future, regardless of whether we want it to be or not.

Re:Still not the end of the matter

[Shihar]

Certainly in Alabama there might be a judge he will rule in favor of ID. The problem is that all roads lead away from Alabama in terms of courts. Everything stops at the Supreme Court. Those guys take their job seriously and will not think twice to murder ID (yes, even the Republican justices). ID has no legs. If they ever get a legal victory, it will almost certainly be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court where it absolutely will be struck down.

ID is dead. The only thing that can bring it back to life is if ID gets some credit in some serious scientific journals. Unless a scientist catches said intelligent designer in the act of designing, it will never be taken seriously.

The ID folks can continue to fight this stupid battle, and the courts can continue to offer damning verdicts. The ID folks should stay at church. Trying to bring this shit into federally and state funded schools is a battle they will never win.

Re:Still not the end of the matter

[NialScorva]

The judge was put off by the lying of the defense's expert witnesses as well. It's a 139 page decision. Pages 18-36 or so discuss how ID is nothing more than a recasting of creationism as an attempt to bypass earlier SCOTUS rulings. Pages 36 to 64 is a summary of why a hypothetical objective observer, both juvenile and adult, would assume that the disclaimer is a religious endorsement. Pages 64 to 89 is a three part summary of why ID is not science, cannot be science, and is a masquerade of creationism. Page 89 starts the section on the religious motivations of the board. I'm currently on page 94, but it only gets worse for ID from what I've read.

Basically, the judge documents the ever changing face of creationism through scientific creationism to ID as it constantly presents the same unconstitutional ideas. This doesn't hold as a precedent elsewhere, but can be considered in other jurisdictions as influencial. The judge makes it clear that there's a pattern of recasting creationism to avoid the pitfalls that judges point out. That's what is really going to hurt the ID crowd.

Re:Article didn't mention HOW it's unconstitutiona

[Taevin]

From the First Amendment (emphasis added):

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

While (as I've said) I completely agree with rejecting ID from the science classroom and generally have a very strong disapproval of organized religion, I still don't see how a school district allowing ID to be taught violates the first amendment. No law has been created and it neither specifically endorses a religion nor prohibits anyone from practicing their own.

Re:Affect In Kansas?

[kmcrober]

True, but creationism cases are uncommon and therefore have higher-than-usual fluidity. This ruling discusses a Fifth Circuit case, for instance, because there aren't many precedential cases other than Edwards v. Aguillard. I think it's safe to say that Kitzmiller will be a serious factor in almost any future creationism case, even if it doesn't have precedential or traditionally persuasive weight.

Common sense: 2, Religious fanatics: 2

[benhocking]

Don't forget Scopes and Scopes II (Hawkins County, TN) on the other side and the GA decision on our side. At least we've tied the score, though. (No doubt, others can come up with even more "points" for either side.)

Question to religious freaks

[HangingChad]

The ones trying to drag their small-minded dogma into the nations classrooms. Which part of...

My kingdom is not of this world; (John 18:36)

isn't clear?

Re:Question to religious freaks

[Anonymous Coward]

That's exactly what's wrong with anti-ID /.ers. Take one little bible quote out of context and mod Insightful.

mod -1 Ignorant.

Re:Question to religious freaks

[Anonymous Coward]

Um... so what is the correct context? Yours?

Re:Question to religious freaks

[Anonymous Coward]

The correct context obviously depends on the phases of a moon orbiting some planet in another galaxy. Or greed.

Re:Question to religious freaks

[Anonymous Coward]

They won't bite, nice try as it is, they can claim a million reasons why that statement should not be taken at face value, or is the wrong translation, etc.

But score one for the err..intelligent among us!

Re:Question to religious freaks

[Hektor_Troy]

Well, that was written about 1,400 years before the NEW world was discovered by Columbus ... new world.

Re:Question to religious freaks

[tiraid]

You are right, but you used the wrong scripture. Try this one.

Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you. (Matthew 7:6)

Go ahead. Flamebait me. Believers have about as much place at slashdot as ID has in a science classroom.

Re:Question to religious freaks

[tiraid]

addendum:

The proof is in the pudding, so they say. The subject of the grandparent's post is "Question to the religious freaks". And as of now, it is modded 70% insightful and 30% troll. Try substituting "religious" with anything else. Try, female, chinese, black, old, crippled, fat, addicted... It's open season on the religious. Kind of like in ancient Rome. Only problem is, the Romans are gone, but the Christians are still here. It's a problem for some people, anyway.

I admit it, I'm off topic. This post isn't about ID and science class. ID isn't science, even I know that. I don't think it should be taught in science class. But the posts about this artical really show the true colors of this community. The judge said everything there is to say about the matter. Most of what has been posted is just hate. Slashdot is biggoted. I don't care about your answers to me, just answer to yourself, is this what you want?

Re:Question to religious freaks

[Redwin]

Thou shalt have no other gods before me. -- First Commandment

Were the other Gods Intelligently Designed as well as everything else?

Re:Question to religious freaks

[spac3manspiff]

intelligent design == christianity

No.

Re:Question to religious freaks

[WilliamCotton]

Wait wait wait... are you for real? Because this is a pretty cool little bit of dogma and propoganda that I hadn't thought about...

So there are all these Christians out there in the hinterlands of America, buying plastic Santas and milkshakes and riding lawnmowers, who have this idea in their heads that this is the New World, as crytptically predicted by the Bible and elucidated by their preacher/politicians.

Until the Left can start crafting such amazing stories about our origins and our destinies, I don't think we've got a chance in hell. Seriously, how can we compete? This is LoTRs type mythology here, folks.

The biggest fault of modernism was that we abandoned our simple myths. Raw science, raw math, raw art, while very stimulating, are extremely alienating to the general public. Most people don't get things. The Right has been taking advantage of this for awhile.

Well, us geeks got sick of this serious modernist BS as well, and we have our myths. Star Wars, LoTR, The Simpsons... we quote from those bibles all the time in times of stress or in order to quickly sum up a thought, ironically, of course.

People are sick of freaking irony. Sick of all this pomo playtime. They want some seriously kickass myths to beleive in, they want to feel part of something big, and they're not smart enough to get in to something like an Open Source Software movement or particle physics. We need to face the facts, that most people are just not smart enough to cope with a post-modern circus like America... they need to turn to some ancient fairytale with present day tie-ins and storylines.

The Right is freaking amazing at what they do...

Re:Question to religious freaks

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of what has been posted is just hate. Slashdot is biggoted. I don't care about your answers to me, just answer to yourself, is this what you want?

Just look at the damage religion has done and continues to do. It deserves nothing better than hate.

Re:Question to religious freaks

[Anonymous Coward]

Religion raped my mother.

I'm serious.

Re:Question to religious freaks

[Anonymous Coward]

Poor persecuted Christians. My heart weeps for you.

Re:Question to religious freaks

[Koiu Lpoi]

You seem to be rambling emotionally (your post is hard to follow), so I am probably making a mistake answering to it...

Slashdot is read by geeks. People who are logical minded often follow the internal logic of "Since there is no proof of God, God therefore does not exist."

Intelligent Design has been shown, many times, to be an attempt to insert religious dogma into fields which have nothing to do with religion.

Remember, these are fundamentalists who are giving your religion a bad name. Any poster who has said "all christians are this way" (such as grandparent) are usually misguided and had bad experiences with Christians in the past. I know that, in my hometown, there are many loud people proclaiming that my beliefs are wrong (I'm Buddhist). I have since learned that a large majority of Christians are very good, tolerent people.

However, geeks, by their nature, love to be right. Telling a geek he is wrong is a dangerous thing to do, as they take it very personally. So, yes, their is hate coming from our peers. But when you come to understand it, you find you shouldn't take it personally.

I hope my 2:30 AM rant helps something...

Re:Question to religious freaks

[tiraid]

If you can't see the good religion has done and continues to do, you are trying not to see it. Just look at the damage the unreligious have done and continue to do. You are supposed to be a geek. You are supposed to look at things without bias (which is impossible, I know). Before you argue with me, take the other side and answer the argument yourself. Embrace your schizophrenia. You're smart, you can do it. If you really can't, maybe someone here can help you. Doesn't it seem a good thing that people meet together often to contemplate and discuss how to be better people? That's what I do at church.

Re:Question to religious freaks

[tiraid]

Alright. You're serious, and I'm confused. At least we understand one another. Except... I'm confused, and I don't understand you... which is no one's fault, not even the Romans...

Re:Article didn't mention HOW it's unconstitutiona

[chadruva]

Isn't Education free of religions on USA?, well in my country it is by law, it's only natural that ID teached on the class room whould be inconstitutional unless as part of a theology class.

Today's ruling is proof

[dotmax]

...that there IS a God.

Thank You! .max
try the veal

In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

A first grade teacher [was,is] being sued because she told her class Santa Claus wasn't real... Proving once again that it IS meet, right, and salutary to tell kids about "imaginary" characters, as long as [he,she,it]'s the "correct" one.

PS -- Santa Claus is based on Saint Nicholas, a Turkish Christian Bishop.

ID breakdown

[deathguppie]

For those of you not familiar with this argument. The basis of ID comes from a book written by Micheal Behe called "Darwin's black box". In that book he argues that at a certian level an organism cannot be reduced any more and still be a functional organism. It's basically like saying 'If I take an engine out of a car. It's not a car anymore... and that means there's god'

As a side note, I must add that this decision may also mean that if I go to court for a ticket I won't be conviced of murder.

I rarely say this, but

[benhocking]

MOD PARENT UP!

(Since he posted as Anonymous Coward - for whatever reason - his response will likely be hidden to many. Which, of course, is why you should browse at -1 when moderating.)

evolution of the eye

[hb253]

How about this as a start? http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_0 11_01.html/

Son of a Diddly!

[SlashAmpersand]

Judge says "Shut up, Flanders!"

"Unintelligent" design...

[digitaldc]

...would be a little more appropriate terminology judging on the number of political, financial, and natural disasters we are seeing everywhere these days.

We can't even make computers (arguably very intelligently designed) fool-proof.

The question is not WHAT to teach but WHO decides

[srussia]

Dismantle the Department of Education already. Let the parents decide what they wish they chldren to learn.

Some Points to Consider

[Gallenod]

1. This particular "activist judge" was appointed by President G.W. Bush in 2002.

2. It's unlikely that the current Dover school board will appeal the decision, making it unlikely that this particular case will ever get to the Supreme Court.

3. That leaves the "sticker" case in Georgia, with it's more narrowly expressed disapproval of evolution as the case most likely to get to the Supremes. At last report, it appeared the appeals court might be inclined to overturn the Federal court decision against the stickers (http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/12/16/evolution .debate.ap/index.html).

4. Some ID proponents advised against the former Dover school board pressing this case, as they felt it didn't have a good chance. Other school boards, however, will now simply become more careful about how they attempt to introduce ID into the classroom.

While Dover was a slam dunk for science, this particular fight is far from over.

Re: Some Points to Consider

[Black Parrot]

> Some ID proponents advised against the former Dover school board pressing this case, as they felt it didn't have a good chance. Other school boards, however, will now simply become more careful about how they attempt to introduce ID into the classroom.

The problem for ID is, it was designed to give political cover to religious zealots, but it requires those same zealots to keep their mouths shut about their religious beliefs.

That's why it failed in Dover, and that's why it's ultimately going to fail anywhere else. The kind of people who want it in the classroom are precisely the kind of people who feel compelled to insist on having their way with their religious views. The cool intellectuals at the Discovery Institute forgot to consider the nature of their customers, and it blew up in their faces.

Re:Some Points to Consider

[kmcrober]

That's a good summary. I'd only add that the 11th Circuit's questioning at oral argument wasn't quite as bad as it's been made out to be. Carnes definately seems to be leaning towards the "theory not a fact" crud that's unfortunately so persuasive to legal minds, but the bulk of his antagonism towards the appellees was over his misunderstanding of the facts; I think there was a mixup over the order of events, and the appellees' attorney was unable or unwilling to correct the judge. They had a chance to make a submission in writing correcting the timeline, so that entire line of questions should wind up being totally irrelevant.

Re:Some Points to Consider

[samschof]

The root problem is our public school system. This fight will continue and become increasingly ugly. It is incredible that a court has to decide what our children will or will not be taught in schools. Ultimately, the educational decisions should be made by parents, not judges or activists. Unfortunately, the most vocal groups can force the entire community to be educated of their beliefs. In my opinion, ID has no place in a science class, but I'm not going to be calling the school board to let them know. In the future, the court rulings may go the other way. The only way to prevent these sort of battles is to change the system. Until parents have the freedom to choose among several schools, curriculum battles will go on. Sam

Re:Some Points to Consider

[acroyear]

more importantly, the Judge wrote this decision with the inevitable Kansas case in mind. he makes it very clear in his findings that "science can not be defined differently" (pg 70) from a definition based on "the scientific method" (pg 65) (i.e., methodological naturalism and the emphasis on physical evidence and causality).

Re: Some Points to Consider

[Coniptor]

Your so full of shit.

Re:Some Points to Consider

[spindizzy]

I have to disagree, what is taught in public schools is not for the parents to decide but society as a whole. The parents do not own their childrens lives and should not solely be making decisions based in part on their own ignorance. That will just perpetuate ignorance and ultimately have the potential to reduce their childrens quality of life. The reason systems have evolved (there's that word) into the current basis is due to old systems where this was the rule having fallen by the way due to their entrenched short-comings.

Re: Some Points to Consider

[Dimensio]

Thank you for rational and reasoned argument against the parent poster's statement. It will be given all of the consideration it is due.

national public interest law firm

[Anonymous Coward]

Jehovah and Messiah got me 1.2 million!

How it should be

[cyberbob2010]

Good, as has been said many times before ID is not science. A scientific theory can be tested. ID can not be tested. As a child, the scientific method is one of the first things we learn in science classes. How can we justify throwing it out the window because it disagrees with religion. I am all for teaching religious beliefs (after all it is something that touches more people deeper than art ever could and we have classes for that) but teach it in a class about religion. Teach christian's creationist views, the Hindu's views on creation, the Muslim's etc...

This is one step in the right direction for a country whos science and math scores have been slipping ridiculously considering the amount of money that we have compared to the other nations of the world to throw at education.

Of course there are intermediate forms of the eye!

[hpulley]

By the eye, what do you mean? A device to detect light? Or a device with an iris, cornea and retina? Light-sensitive cells exist in many simple forms and have evolved to more and more efficient versions of vision. There exist forms of life with simple and complex vision today. See this article about a PBS show on the subject. "The first animals with anything resembling an eye lived about 550 million years ago. And, according to one scientist's calculations, only 364,000 years would have been needed for a camera-like eye to evolve from a light-sensitive patch."

Here is more at this press release about the evolution of the human eye. '"It is not surprising that cells of human eyes come from the brain. We still have light-sensitive cells in our brains today which detect light and influence our daily rhythms of activity," explains Wittbrodt. "Quite possibly, the human eye has originated from light-sensitive cells in the brain. Only later in evolution would such brain cells have relocated into an eye and gained the potential to confer vision."'

And lots more links here. so please let's stop using the eye as an example. What next, bacterial flagella? That one is explained too. Next question?

Is it all figured out? No, but in science when we don't know it all we say that we are still looking, we don't say things we don't know must be explained by supernatural means, which is what ID does. It cops out with, "it must be something intelligent that designed it" instead of trying to understand the real reasons. Science may never find all the answers, it doesn't promise that it will but at least it doesn't have the answers BEFORE it has the QUESTIONS.

No victory

[oDDmON oUT]

As all this will do is enable the religious right to galvanize their base against "radical judges legislating from the bench", as much a non-issue as gay marriage was in 2004, and this despite the Judge Jones declaration "that he wasn't saying the intelligent design concept shouldn't be studied and discussed, saying its advocates "have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors."".

We live in the strangest of times, where intangibles matter more than observable facts and spin supplants truth as a means to grasp and maintain power.

Before the ID'ers come and dipsute evolution...

[The_Rippa]

I invite you to help yourself to last year's flu vaccine.

Re:Before the ID'ers come and dipsute evolution...

[raygundan]

Ah, a farker! I hereby vote for you to win this thread, as well.

Brilliant.

Re:Before the ID'ers come and dipsute evolution...

[darkmeridian]

Believers in DNA believe in evolution. Humans share many essential genes with fruit flies. It's called conservative homologues. So if you do believe in DNA and all the wonders it has produced for conservatives, such as using DNA evidence to put those criminals on death row.

Re:Before the ID'ers come and dipsute evolution...

[Darius Jedburgh]

Believers in DNA believe in evolution.

Most IDists believe in DNA. Do you actually have a point you're trying to make?

Sane judgement

[3.14159265]

Good to see that facts and testability (sp?) of theories still mean something in the land under god.

So, we can talk about STUPID design?

[Anonymous Coward]

Okay, so intelligent design is out... can we discuss STUPID design instead? Classic topics are: Who's the moron who put this DNA thing together? ,etc..

Double standards

[Darius Jedburgh]

Why is evolution considered a science when ID is not? Evolution fails the most basic test for being a science: it fails to make falsifiable predictions. In fact, it doesn't make predictions at all. It doesn't even make retrodictions - just about the weakest thing we can expect of a body of belief that we call a science. It simply says that the fittest will survive. But nobody is ever able to say a priori what is fit. Instead evolutionists find fossil records that purportedly show A evolving into B and then declare by fiat that B must have been fitter than A and hence that B was selected by natural selection. This operation is completely tautologous. Even in the simplest of environmental changes it is hard to predict the impact of a tiny change. So there is no way for anyone to predict what is likely to be a 'fitter' adaptation. Evolutionists protect their beliefs itself by surrounding them in tautologous and unfalsifiable hypotheses exactly the way evolutionists accuse IDists. It seems quite clear that quite different standards are being used to judge evolution and intelligent design.

Re:Double standards

[Retired Replicant]

This is not quite true. Testing evolution as a theory is extremely difficult (or practically speaking, impossible). However, I can imagine experiments which could be conducted to test evolution as a theory. For example, you could theoretically evolve a new variety of taller horses, or horses with longer necks by housing a random herd of horses in a place where the only available food was high up off the ground. The taller horses and the horses with longer necks would be able to reach the food better and would survive better than the short horses and the horses with short necks. Eventually the descendants would all be able to reach the food easily.

Re:Double standards

[Darius Jedburgh]

It's all fine and dandy in your hypothetical situation. But evolution is a hypothesis to explain things in the real world and it's much more complex there. There are many places in the world where food is available in high treetops and yet giraffes don't exist there. Can you predict where the giraffes will appear and where they won't? Of course there's no point discussing this as any kind of dissent from evolution gets modded down into oblivion as 'flamebait'.

Re:Double standards

[east coast]

Nyarlathotep saved me. He can save you too.

Nyarlathotep? hahaha! Wait until you meet with a real God, not the avatar of some blind idiot god.

Re:Double standards

[Darius Jedburgh]

There's only so much a beginner can do. Maybe you could introduce me?

Re:Double standards

[Darius Jedburgh]

Anyone care to explain why this post is modded flamebait? Is it flamebait to present an unfashionable viewpoint in a civilized manner?

Evolution is bad science

[kid_oliva]

Darwin's only degree was in theology. He's definitely not a scientist. In fact us scientist are placing our theory in the hands of a man that on his death bed said evolution is a farse, he made it up because he was mad at God. We need a better theory because a non-scientist made it up ignoring the laws of thermo-dynamics. It is time we used our scientific reasoning and stop relying on a man that was upset at God.

Re:Evolution is bad science

[Rei]

Myth.

Re:Evolution is bad science

[Mr. Vandemar]

The first part of your comment is just plain dumb. I'm curious though as to why you think that evolution doesn't obey the laws of thermodynamics. Willing to explain?

Re:Evolution is bad science

[Rei]

More concisely and with less cheesy apologetics here.

Re:Evolution is bad science

[Dan Ost]

I know lots of theologians who correctly apply the scientific method in lots of what they do.

You may not realize it, but you're equivocating. A degree in theology in Darwin's time is very different from such a degree today. Nowadays, Darwin's training would very likely have been called philosophy instead of theology.

Make no mistake, Darwin could rationally observe the natural world with the best of them.

Re:Evolution is bad science

[MightyMartian]

Darwin's only degree was in theology. He's definitely not a scientist.

Be so good as to tell the class just how many science degrees were available in Great Britain in the middle of the 19th century.

In fact us scientist are placing our theory in the hands of a man that on his death bed said evolution is a farse, he made it up because he was mad at God.

Lady Hope's claim was almost certainly a lie, but even if it wasn't, it's utterly irrelevant.

We need a better theory because a non-scientist made it up ignoring the laws of thermo-dynamics.

Evolution no more violates 2LoT then crystal growth does. 2LoT does not forbid moves towards less entropy providing the bookkeeping works out at the end, and if evolution cannot happen, then life itself is impossible.

Ut is time we used our scientific reasoning and stop relying on a man that was upset at God.

Darwin's opinions on God are irrelevant, just as Newton's mean-spirited behavior means nothing to the Laws of Motion. What counts is the evidence.

Re:Evolution is bad science

[idsofmarch]

Darwin's only degree was in theology...
And yet, he stumbled onto an idea.

He's definitely not a scientist
You're right, the man's dead. But, he was a Naturalists and his observations led him to this new idea.

In fact us scientist [sic] are placing our theory in the hands of a man that on his death bed said evolution is a farse, he made it up because he was mad at God. I hope you're not trying to indicate you're a scientist. And, who cares what Darwin said on his death bed, his observations on the Beagle are what set off a whole new way of thinking that has led us to a very useful theory that tells us a lot about the world. His idea was just a first step, the rest of the theory has a life of its own without Darwin.

Re:Evolution is bad science

[kid_oliva]

Simply put... 1st law- matter and energy are neither created nor destroyed. 2nd law has to do with work, better known as entropy, that things go from order to disorder. Evolution as it has become, (do not confuse micro-evolution with macro-evolution) states that lower, simpler, lifeforms have some how formed into higher, complex, lifeforms. This is called macro-evolution, which is not able to be tested and reproduced. Many people confuse micro-evolution with macro-evolution and think that if one is true both are. This is however a serious lap in logic. Minor adaptations in a species does not a new species make. You have to have genetic differences on a larger scale. First you start with thousands of random proteins that some how become a complex bonding called DNA. That is the first issue that from disorder came order and not just order, but extremely complex order. Next you have single celled organisms; amoebas, bacteria, protozoan; deciding to stop acting alone and work together to form a complex multicelled organism. There has yet to be proof of these first two items. This is why evolution is bad science

Judges get to use intent

[mengel]

The judge ruled in large part on what he believed the intent of the people to be who put the (un)Intelligent Design theory forward. The judge believed that their intent was to promote religion in the public schools. I agree with him.

Re:Article didn't mention HOW it's unconstitutiona

[sickofthisshit]

Because state laws set down requirements that children attend school, and use government money to support that school.

If we fill that school with religious indoctrination, we act to create an establishment of religion. Just as if we mandated church attendance as a requirement to hold public office, or to vote.

If ID could be taught in such a way that it is not religiously-based, then it would be allowed. But that basically boils down to a contradiction.

No, it's PARENTING!

[mmell]

My wife is Catholic; I'm a non-practicing agnostic Jew, if that's possible.

We both permit and support the education our children receive in our area's public school system. IMHO, they're doing a pretty fair job.

We both teach our children what we believe. Our children know that we're speaking about our beliefs, even when we speak of them as facts.

We made sure our kids were capable of critical thought, judgement and self-determination in the area of beliefs. They have their own (for the record, two have ended up Catholic, one agnostic, one athiest - the jury's still out on the youngest two, but they're leaning toward agnostic and Jewish).

If I believe a thing to be true, wouldn't not sharing that with my children be abuse?

Re:No, it's PARENTING!

[Fulcrum of Evil]

My wife is Catholic;

or the record, two have ended up Catholic, one agnostic, one athiest - the jury's still out on the youngest two, but they're leaning toward agnostic and Jewish

Re:No, it's PARENTING!

[moranar]

Sure, that's why you should hurry and share goatse with them now, before it's too late. Or maybe one of the goatse girls? Paedophilia? Brutal assassinations?

Not all that is true, or that you believe to be true is worth sharing.

Re:No, it's PARENTING!

[m50d]

We made sure our kids were capable of critical thought, judgement and self-determination in the area of beliefs.

Which mitigates it enormously. Many people don't.

They have their own (for the record, two have ended up Catholic, one agnostic, one athiest - the jury's still out on the youngest two, but they're leaning toward agnostic and Jewish).

Yes, but can you honestly say you think they had an equal choice between all possibilities? I doubt it given you have two catholics but noone going for another religion that neither of you have.

If I believe a thing to be true, wouldn't not sharing that with my children be abuse?

No. We believe that freedom of thought and belief is a fundamental human right. Beliefs are a matter for the individual, like, say, sexual preference. Regardless of what you believe, it's not your place to tell anyone else what they should, but especially someone who isn't old enough to make their own decision.

Re:No, it's PARENTING!

[Anonymous Coward]

My wife is Catholic; I'm a non-practicing agnostic Jew, if that's possible.

What exactly does a non-practicing agnostic do?

Re:No, it's PARENTING!

[drinkypoo]

The reason this is such a thorny issue is the same reason it's not ethical for a teacher to have sex with a student (bear with me here) even if that student is of legal age; your position of authority necessarily makes you more influential in their mind. You tell them "This is what I believe" and depending on if they are currently in a phase of wanting to please you or piss you off, they will take to what you say more than they otherwise would, or reject it out of hand :)

I don't really have anything to say about whether you should share your beliefs with them or not. Personally I'm utterly against all organized religion - even if part of it is true, THAT part is simply being pimped out in order to sell a pack of lies. The jewish dietary restrictions, for example, were in part designed to promote purity of food in order to protect people from eating foods that could kill them. Yet, we can eat those foods safely now. Why not eat them? Or, how about eating fish on sundays or whatever that is? That's an example of the entrenched power structure supporting an industry! The only reason that admonishment was even made was to provide for fishermen, who lobbied religion for assistance. Religions are made by man and thus are inherently flawed.

Re:No, it's PARENTING!

[miscGeek]

I take it you don't have children?

How, do you expect to raise a child without teaching them right or wrong? I'm not trying to get into a debate about what is right or wrong. Just asking a question.

So, you're saying we should only feed and cloth children, nothing else right? I mean otherwise we would be forcing our beliefs on them.

Re:No, it's PARENTING!

[nojomofo]

So it's not okay to teach my kid that killing, stealing, etc are wrong?

Re:No, it's PARENTING!

[clear_thought_05]

"Regardless of what you believe, it's not your place to tell anyone else what they should, but especially someone who isn't old enough to make their own decision."

The mere concept of parenting requires you to instill proper beleifs into those (your children) who aren't old enough to decide on their own. If you do not, someone else will, which undermines the whole concept of parenting. Hence as a parent, you should be a parent. It is a right (parents have the right to be mistaken) as well as a responsibility (good parenting is infinitely worth more than government or judicial mandates).

Re:No, it's PARENTING!

[Anonymous Coward]

>> My wife is Catholic;

>>(for the record, two have ended up Catholic, one agnostic, one athiest - the jury's still out on the youngest two, but they're leaning toward agnostic and Jewish).

Dude, you gotta be careful! Your wife is probably secretly brainwashing them while you're sleeping.

Re:No, it's PARENTING!

[accessdeniednsp]

two, one, one, two...that's 6.

Dude, wear a condom! Pulling out didn't work did it? :)

Re:No, it's PARENTING!

[mmell]

That's non-practicing agnostic Jew.

Mostly the same thing as athiests, except we look over our shoulders a lot more!

Re:No, it's PARENTING!

[mmell]

You've never done it with a Catholic, have you?

Re:No, it's PARENTING!

[drstock]

I think it's a differense between saying "Treat others as you want others to treat you." and "2000 years ago the son of God walked the earth as a hippie carpenter, therefore you should think/do/believe so and so."

Re:No, it's PARENTING!

[nojomofo]

But that's a value judgement, isn't it? You think that it's more important to teach the golden rule. Others think that it's more important to learn that all morality comes from religion. What makes you right?

Re:No, it's PARENTING!

[m50d]

No. Teach them that there are laws against them - that's a fact - and teach them that other people are as far as we can tell basically the same of them, have the same sentience etc. - that's also a fact - and let them draw their own conclusions. Knowing what's legal will get them by until they can make up their own mind about what's moral.

Re:No, it's PARENTING!

[pkphilip]

You do realize that you are benefitting from knowledge which has been passed down to you over the generations, from your grand-parents to your parents and then to you. don't you?
One of the best signs of an intelligent animal species is its ability to pass on knowledge to the young. Only highly advanced animal species pass on cumalative knowledge from generation to generation and as this information is passed down, it gets refined.

This provides a giant headstart for the young of the species.

Coming back to your post - a Parent's responsibility does not stop with just providing a house, food, clothes and some form of schooling for the children. It goes way beyond that. It is a parent's responsibility to teach the child values, beliefs etc.. anything that will help the kid have an advantage.

To illustrate - lets say it is my "point of view" that one needs to work hard and make a living for themselves and not rely on fortune tellers / Gurus / etc to get ahead in life. Am I allowed to share this "point of view" with my child who is only 10 years old or is that violating his fundamental right?

Ofcourse, my belief may be wrong, but it is still my responsibility to:

1. Process the information passed down to me over the generations
2. Discover for myself new stuff
3. Communicate what I have seen work to my child.

I want my child to have all the advantage he can get in this cruel world. Why would I cripple him by NOT teaching what I think could be of use to him? When he is older, he is free to change his mind/beliefs, but it is still my responsibility to teach him what I know NOW. It would be grave negligence on my part if I didn't do it.

So in summary - though your post sounds smart, it really isn't.

Re:No, it's PARENTING!

[m50d]

The mere concept of parenting requires you to instill proper beleifs into those (your children) who aren't old enough to decide on their own.

You teach them how to reason - by the time they're in a position to be making decisions they should be able to do that - and you teach them other skills. You teach them facts. There's no need to teach them what to believe.

If you do not, someone else will, which undermines the whole concept of parenting.

So you teach them how to hold their own beliefs and ignore others' attempts to convert them and just consider it rationally. None of that requires teaching them your own, or any, belief.

Re:No, it's PARENTING!

[m50d]

How, do you expect to raise a child without teaching them right or wrong? I'm not trying to get into a debate about what is right or wrong. Just asking a question.

Teach them what's legal. Teach them that others are basically the same as themselves and have thoughts, feelings etc. like theirs. Let them make their own decision in the end though.

So, you're saying we should only feed and cloth children, nothing else right? I mean otherwise we would be forcing our beliefs on them.

No, teach them skills - there's no values involved in knowing how to talk, tie your shoes, etc. - and teach them facts. That should be enough.

Re:No, it's PARENTING!

[Anonymous Coward]

If I believe a thing to be true, wouldn't not sharing that with my children be abuse?

Some kids have died as a result of their parents eschewing medical help in preference to praying. By your logic stated above, that wouldn't be abuse, would it?

Whether you believe something to be true or not in no way excuses you from harming a child. If the voices in a schizophrenic's head tell him that your kids are evil and need their heads chopped off to save their souls, and the schizophrenic truly believes it, would you forgive him for carrying that out?

Granted, these are extreme examples, but the severity is only to illustrate the principle - that belief doesn't excuse harm.

Also, please bear in mind the difference between what the GP was saying and what you practice. Teaching kids about your belief is one thing; threatening them with eternal torture in hell etc is another thing entirely.

Re:No, it's PARENTING!

[m50d]

You do realize that you are benefitting from knowledge which has been passed down to you over the generations, from your grand-parents to your parents and then to you. don't you?

Yes. By all means, teach them knowledge, you'd be neglegient not to. But leave beliefs out of it.

It is a parent's responsibility to teach the child values, beliefs etc.. anything that will help the kid have an advantage.

Beliefs don't give any kind of advantage, other than possibly by knowing what they are - which you can teach by teaching them that some people have certain beliefs, when they're old enough to understand the idea of others thinking things different from them, etc. If they affect life in a way that makes them useful, they've gone beyond being merely beliefs.

To illustrate - lets say it is my "point of view" that one needs to work hard and make a living for themselves and not rely on fortune tellers / Gurus / etc to get ahead in life. Am I allowed to share this "point of view" with my child who is only 10 years old or is that violating his fundamental right?

You have grounds for this belief, presumably. Tell your child them. Don't try and pretend a belief like that is on the same level as a religious one.

I want my child to have all the advantage he can get in this cruel world. Why would I cripple him by NOT teaching what I think could be of use to him? When he is older, he is free to change his mind/beliefs, but it is still my responsibility to teach him what I know NOW. It would be grave negligence on my part if I didn't do it.

You teach what you know. You don't teach what you believe without reason.

Re:No, it's PARENTING!

[Anonymous Coward]

> So it's not okay to teach my kid that killing, stealing, etc are wrong?

This has little to do with teaching about religion, unless you think people who were raised without religion have no morals.

Re:No, it's PARENTING!

[clear_thought_05]

You talk about parenting as if it's a philosophy class for highschoolers. Quite frankly in the real world, children will want to know what to beleive and how to beleive and it is most likely they will look to their parents first at the youngest ages. ... It is far better for the parents to instill their beliefs in their children while still teaching them that in time it is okay to challenge them. Your approach seems like a theoretical wonder, but I question how it works in practice.

Oh well, I'm not questioning your parenting skills. If you care enough it should work out either way.

Re:No, it's PARENTING!

[miscGeek]

I guess I can see your argument. Don't happen to agree with it though. The problem is that while there are no values involved in knowing how to talk, there are values in how to talk to others, and how to treat others. If we choose not to teach our values to our children, believe me someone else will be more than ready to teach them theirs. Since I have a choice, I choose to teach them mine.

Tell you what. You raise your kids the way you want and I'll raise mine the way I want. Who knows maybe they will eventually meet on /. and have the same argument we are having :)

Re:No, it's PARENTING!

[nojomofo]

Young kids don't understand the difference between "legal" and "moral". What you teach them is the difference between "right" and "wrong". If I were somebody who believes in a god (I'm not), I'm going to teach my kids that worshipping this god is "right". Just like I'm going to teach them that respecting others' right to hold opinions that I don't agree with is "right".

Re:No, it's PARENTING!

[Anonymous Coward]

No. We believe that freedom of thought and belief is a fundamental human right. Beliefs are a matter for the individual, like, say, sexual preference. Regardless of what you believe, it's not your place to tell anyone else what they should, but especially someone who isn't old enough to make their own decision.

How depressing that someone would define the scope of raising children in such terms. Perhaps the experience of parenting some day will stir something inside you seem to have lost, hope.

Re:No, it's PARENTING!

[mmell]

No, in fact it's not abuse. If the parents in your hypothetical situation truly believe prayer to be more effective or more acceptable, it would be abuse for them to not put that belief in practice. I agree that (IMHO) they will have increased the danger to their young, rather than the opposite, but they will have acted in good faith to do the best they can.

Would you ask them to voluntarily choose a course of action which is not in the best interest of their child? Remember, they must base their judgement on their value set, not yours.

Re:No, it's PARENTING!

[Anonymous Coward]

Look, I know you're trying to be funny, but the Catholic chicks I've been with would rather burn in hell than carry my love child. Maybe the Pope don't wear a condom, but a lot of good Catholics think they're a good idea.

Re:No, it's PARENTING!

[chihowa]

...all morality comes from religion.

I've always wondered why people say this. What's your reasoning behind this statement?

Re:No, it's PARENTING!

[nojomofo]

Way to take my comment out of context. Please re-read my comment. My statement was that "Others think that it's more important to learn that all morality comes from religion". You'll have to find one of those people and ask him/her.

Re:No, it's PARENTING!

[m50d]

I'd hope my kids would have more of a life than that :)

Re:No, it's PARENTING!

[m50d]

I'm going to teach my kids that worshipping this god is "right". Just like I'm going to teach them that respecting others' right to hold opinions that I don't agree with is "right".

And you don't see that you shouldn't be teaching them that those are the same things?

Re:No, it's PARENTING!

[m50d]

It's not that I don't have hope. I was on the wrong end of a religious upbringing, I don't want anyone else to go through that.

Re:No, it's PARENTING!

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree that (IMHO) they will have increased the danger to their young, rather than the opposite, but they will have acted in good faith to do the best they can.

Sigh. Me: "Belief is not an excuse for harm." You: "Yes but the harm doesn't count because it's what they believe."

Did you even read my comment? Because it looks as though you just re-stated what I was disagreeing with. If a kid dies, I don't give a damn if it's because the parents chose fairytales over medicine, it's their fault.

Re:No, it's PARENTING!

[miscGeek]

You and me both :)

Re:No, it's PARENTING!

[Chris4d]

If I believe a thing to be true, wouldn't not sharing that with my children be abuse?

No. We believe that freedom of thought and belief is a fundamental human right. Beliefs are a matter for the individual, like, say, sexual preference. Regardless of what you believe, it's not your place to tell anyone else what they should, but especially someone who isn't old enough to make their own decision.

Children need guidance from somewhere, where better than their parents? You think the rest of the world would do a better job? Nothing will stop a child from changing his or her mind when they get older, but they need indoctrination of some sort in order to reach a basic level of interaction with society. Critical thought, judgement and self-determination are part of parents' indoctrination of their children, but so are basic morals and values -- often these are represented and transferred as religious beliefs. The fact that this indoctrination happens through a framework of religion does not make it harmful.

Re:No, it's PARENTING!

[nojomofo]

That's the second comment of mine in this sub-thread that's been taken completely out of context. Please don't do that. Religious people don't see the difference between those. They just don't. Someone who fully believes in god and whatnot really believes that it's a fundamental truth. Just like you might think that it's a fundamental truth that people should be free to choose as they do. You and I may disagree, but guess what? It's all subjective. I'm going to teach my kids not to steal. But guess what? It's not a "truth" that one should not steal. Whether it's "right" or "wrong" to teach that sort of thing is subjective, just like it's subjective whether it's "right" or "wrong" to teach religion to one's kids.

Again, please don't take my comments out of context. I'm an atheist. I will not teach my kids to worship some being in the sky. But people who do believe that there is one really truly believe that it's a fundamental truth that there is one. And you're not helping the situation by refusing to try to see things from their perspective.

Re:No, it's PARENTING!

[m50d]

Children need guidance from somewhere, where better than their parents?

Not as to what to believe. That's something they can decide for themselves.

Nothing will stop a child from changing his or her mind when they get older,

Then why do such a huge proportion of people have the same religion as their parents?

but they need indoctrination of some sort in order to reach a basic level of interaction with society.

You can interact with society perfectly well without religious or any other kind of beliefs.

The fact that this indoctrination happens through a framework of religion does not make it harmful.

It harmed me. Just because it isn't harmful in every case doesn't mean it isn't harmful.

Re:No, it's PARENTING!

[m50d]

That's the second comment of mine in this sub-thread that's been taken completely out of context. Please don't do that.

I was quoting the relevant part to respond to, it makes more sense than the whole thing. I didn't mean to misrepresent you.

Religious people don't see the difference between those. They just don't. Someone who fully believes in god and whatnot really believes that it's a fundamental truth. Just like you might think that it's a fundamental truth that people should be free to choose as they do. You and I may disagree, but guess what? It's all subjective.

It's in the UN charter as a right. That's not subjective.

It's all subjective. I'm going to teach my kids not to steal. But guess what? It's not a "truth" that one should not steal.

No. It's a truth that stealing is illegal, it's a truth that stealing usually costs those you steal from far more than you gain from it, and it's a truth that people are as far as we can tell more or less the same. Faced with this most people conclude that stealing is wrong.

Whether it's "right" or "wrong" to teach that sort of thing is subjective, just like it's subjective whether it's "right" or "wrong" to teach religion to one's kids.

Freedom of religion is a right, it's not something subjective.

Again, please don't take my comments out of context. I'm an atheist. I will not teach my kids to worship some being in the sky.

I'm not trying to. How does it affect the discussion?

But people who do believe that there is one really truly believe that it's a fundamental truth that there is one.

I can't believe that anyone would think that the existence or not of a God was a truth on the same level as the sky being blue.

And you're not helping the situation by refusing to try to see things from their perspective.

I'm not refusing to, I really don't understand such a perspective.

Re:No, it's PARENTING!

[nojomofo]

Let me try to put it this way: imagine that you're Joe Average with IQ 100, and a high school education. But you didn't really pay much attention in high school. You've had lots of people telling you that "There's a god. Do what this book says. Believe what I say. This is the truth". And you've also had people (in biology class) telling you "Evolution happens. It's the truth. There's all this evidence blah blah blah. Believe what I say". If you weren't brought up to be a critical thinker (and admit it, you know that lots of people weren't brought up to be critical thinkers), those sound awfully similar. Joe Average thinks that the "blah blah blah" part in biology is (a) boring and (b)incomprehensible. Given this (assumption), is it so hard to believe that Joe Average thinks that the existence of god is a truth?

I realize that I'm simplifying things here, but I think that I'm getting the general idea of it right. The average slashdot user probably has an above-average IQ with above-average critical-thinking skills. Joe Average doesn't like to think too much.

Re:No, it's PARENTING!

[m50d]

But surely there is a clear difference between "this is the truth because blah blah blah" and "this is the truth", even if you don't understand the "blah blah blah"?

Gonna be a warm afterlife

[RatBastard]

You know, I don't remember the 9th Commandment saying "Thou shall not lie, save to further my faith".

Judge doesn't understand "irony"

[jc42]

The judge in the case wrote:

"It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy."

There's no irony here at all. What these individuals were doing is properly called "perjury". In pretending to a non-religious motive, they were simply lying. This seems to have been made clear by statements they made outside the courtroom, where they were quite vocal about their religious beliefs. Unfortunately for them, the judge found them out. But he did mischaracterize their behavior as "ironic".

We will now have the usual flamewar over the meaning of the term "irony" ...

(Except within the jurisdiction of Judge Jones' court, where there is now a legal definition of the term. ;-)

Re:Judge doesn't understand "irony"

[Derivin]

I believe the 'irony' is that as devout Christians they believe in the commandment 'thou shall not lie' (bear false wittness), yet were doing just that. They want to enforce these beliefs and rules which they themselves do not follow, and don't realise their hypocrocy.

At least thats the way I saw it.

Re:Judge doesn't understand "irony"

[m50d]

There's no irony here at all. What these individuals were doing is properly called "perjury". In pretending to a non-religious motive, they were simply lying.

The point is that their motivation is a religion which is against lying. It's very much irony because the effect of their religious belief - to cause them to lie - was incongruous with the expected effect.

Re:Judge doesn't understand "irony"

[Dirtside]

I think we're witnessing an instance of linguistic evolution in action. "Ironic" is coming to mean something other than its original usage. ;)

Re:Judge doesn't understand "irony"

[jc42]

The point is that their motivation is a religion which is against lying.

Actually, as many theologians and historians have pointed out, the text says (KJV):

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.

This says little about lying in general. It just forbids lying to harm another person. It would be difficult to argue that the ID proponents are doing this, even when they lie about their motivations in court. They aren't lying about any neighbor, but about their personal motivations. Hiding your own thoughts from another isn't forbidden by the bible. You can't hide your thoughts from God, but you can hide them from other people. You aren't obligated to bare your innermost thoughts to any passerby who asks, much less to any agent of a court of law.

Some have pointed out that the bible does condone lying in certain circumstances. Consider the commandment to "Honor thy father and mother". Suppose one knew of a crime committed by a parent. This happens to some people. If you testify against them, you are certainly dishonoring them. So this commandment requires that you lie about what you know. One might consider silence, but in many circumstances, that would be taken as agreement with the charges, so that might not be an option.

It would be easy to understand a religious person thinking of this, and deciding that agreeing with Darwin (or tacitly agreeing by not speaking against his theory) would constitute dishonoring God. After all, Darwinism is a "godless" theory that explains the universe without reference to any guiding intelligence. In that case, one could easily justify lying about one's personal thoughts in a court, as people did in this case. The bible seems to condone such lying, although indirectly.

So there's really no credible irony here in their hiding their motivations from the court. They are merely doing their duty to honor their God for what they believe He did.

Re:Judge doesn't understand "irony"

[Nyrath the nearly wi]

Apparently the ID people didn't think is was science either. From the judge's ruling:

Dramatic evidence of ID's religious nature and aspirations is found in what is referred to as the "Wedge Document." The Wedge Document, developed by the Discovery Institute's Center for Renewal of Science and Culture (hereinafter "CRSC"), represents from an institutional standpoint, the IDM's goals and objectives, much as writings from the Institute for Creation Research did for the earlier creation-science movement, as discussed in McLean. (11:26-28 (Forrest)); McLean, 529 F. Supp. at 1255.

The Wedge Document states in its "Five Year Strategic Plan Summary" that the IDM's goal is to replace science as currently practiced with "theistic and Christian science." (P-140 at 6).

As posited in the Wedge Document, the IDM's "Governing Goals" are to "defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural, and political legacies" and "to replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God." Id. at 4. The CSRC expressly announces, in the Wedge Document, a program of Christian apologetics to promote ID. A careful review of the Wedge Document's goals and language throughout the document reveals cultural and religious goals, as opposed to scientific ones.

The ID people were attempting to eliminate science altogether.

Re: Judge doesn't understand "irony"

[Black Parrot]

> There's no irony here at all. What these individuals were doing is properly called "perjury".

Yet somehow I don't expect the social conservatives who jumped all over Bill Clinton for perjuring himself will be jumping all over these people.

Re:Judge doesn't understand "irony"

[jc42]

Very interesting. I'd seen parts of that document, but I hadn't read that it was introduced as court evidence.

It's also interesting that people would put this sort of admission into print. It sorta belies all of their claims to be interested in science, which is materialistic almost by definition.

Of course, they probably thought that they were just writing for their own circle. Seeing this document presented in court must have been exasperating for them.

Re:Judge doesn't understand "irony"

[maxume]

I personally do find it ironic that people who claim to be 'wholesome' and 'fighting the good fight' lied in court.

What other definition of ironic are you using?

String theory

[benhocking]

Of those theories, string theory is the weakest. However, it has much more support (both scholastically and scientifically) than ID, in that it has intrinsic features that can be disproven. Naturally, it is very much a work in progress, and will hopefully result in interesting break-throughs. Of course, it shouldn't be taught at the high-school level yet, but not for the same reasons that ID shouldn't. I'd have no problems with it being mentioned; however, which is part of what was prescribed against here.

Furthermore, the federal judge in question was not ruling off of his own understanding of what is and what is not science. Unlike the board that proposed these changes, he heard from many, many scientists before making his decision. In fact, that was part of the problem. If you followed the case, you'd know that one of the board members admitted to ignored the advice of those who did know what they were talking about, in lieu of what they themselves personally believed. As the judge stated, it is the board that was being activist, and not the judge.

To quote Sir Isaac Newton . . .

[mmell]

"The world still goes around the Sun."

Of course, we all saw how he spent the last eleven years of his life.

Re:Affect In Kansas?

[DaveV1.0]

RUAL?

I'll be...

[Billosaur]

...a monkey's uncle!

Re:I'll be...

[Dog-Cow]

If you believe in evolution, wouldn't that make you the monkey's nephew?

Re:I'll be...

[Billosaur]

If you believe in evolution...

That's the beautiful thing about the universe - no matter what anyone "believes", it keeps right on going. If evolution is the way the universe chooses to create life (or for that matter, if that's what God intended), then my belief or disbelief doesn't matter. Simple, no?

Thank You.

[Knackster]

Thank you. Now let's hope that the rest of the nation takes notice. I am not against religion, but like previously stated, it does not belong in the classroom of U.S. public schools.

Persuasive Authority Only

[Kevbo]

Decisions from another district are called "persuasive authority". This means that the lawyers can bring the decision before the court to help persuade the judge to follow that decision, but the judge has no obligation to do so.

Precedent is only when the court you are currently in has made a decision on-point, or when the circuit court (that's the next level up, assuming this gets appealed) in your jurisdiction has made an on-point decision.

When two circuits are in opposition, that is when the Supreme Court will likely accept a case to hear and make their final decision.

Evolution- Lack of Evidence? Nope

[TibbonZero]

One of the points that I have seen made is the claim that science lacks all of the information needed to back up evolution. First of all, I don't see evolution as lacking many points of information- but even if so... How much information in comparison is backing up ID? Does anyone have a single speck of proof about this "Intelegent Designer"? Nope.

We each in science what we can best prove at the time, same with mathematics, computer science, electronics, history, etc...

Just because we don't know something, is no reason to attribute that to a "Higher Power" automatically. If Aliens land on this planet and start telling us about the cells that they put on this planet a few billion years ago as an experiment and now they are just checking up on us... well then it's time to teach that the aliens made us, but until we have direct and scientifically provable (by scientific method) evidence of something else being in charge, then we should teach what science has shown us!

Science classes should teach the scientific method and things that we have observed through it. We don't have a unified theory yet, but that doesn't mean that nothing is physics works. It just means that we have figured out a few things really well, but we just haven't gotten them to all line up yet!

Philosophy and Religious Studies classes can reference ID all they want as an idea for discussion, but it has no scientific merit. Any student that doesn't get the idea of what science is and what religion are as separate subjects needs to take some remedial classes.

Re:Evolution- Lack of Evidence? Nope

[witchman]

Yes! Finally, someone who actually understands the whole crux of this farce. ID has no merit as a scientific theory and therefore, has no place in a class on or about science. It's just that simple, and the fact that the people who are in charge of debating this topic nationally don't get it, is just scary.

And for all those people who think that the judge has outlawed the teaching of ID in school at all need to read his statement closely, as he specifically identifies that "it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom." Which does not preclude it from being taught in other classes, just not in a science class.

Re:Article didn't mention HOW it's unconstitutiona

[George Tirebuyer]

The First ammendment is a restriction on Congress. Congress shall make no law... Any of the several States are free to establish the official State Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Applying the "establishment clause" to State and Local governments is the SCOTUS ruling things into it. Should they so choose they can rule that the First Ammendment gives Congress the power to outlaw religion and imprison Christians and there's nothing short of revolution you can do about it...

Precedence?

[Therlin]

Excuse my ignorance when it comes to law, but, could the people in Kansas now sue the state's school board using this case as precedence?

When Belief and Government Collide

[Anonymous Coward]

Hallejuah! Keep the Government out of my Faith! My biggest problem with teaching creationism in schools or even the hint of creationism taught in a science class or anywhere other than a relgious class, is that it puts G-d in a box, just exactly the opposite of the nature of G-d.

Bogus - My Attemp to Explain

[N8F8]

1. Observation

Physical property X can vary from Y to Z but it doesn't. Slightest variation in X would preclude life.

Ex: Boiling point of water, melting point of ice, enzymatic reactions, patterns of moulcules and crystals, etc....

2. Hypothesis

Possibly, some external stimulus is arranging the observed phenomena to ensure a suitable environment to enable life to exist.

3. Experiment

Like gravity, we are still looking for answers on how it works at the physical level and how to verify.

4. Results

...see 3.

Re:Bogus - My Attemp to Explain

[Dark Paladin]

I hate to disagree, but #3 is not an experiment. #1 isn't even a valid observation - it has large gaps. Let's rewrite this:

1. Life exists today. However, to create that life, the environment does not exist since it seems to be very specific. I observe that life will not form in:

volcanoes
pools of acid
boiling water
areas where bad Elvis impersonators are singing

In these areas, there is no life forming.

Hypothesis: Therefore, some external force must have caused life to occur.

Now, you can form your experiment. What that would be? Hey, you do your own homework. You might try to find some combination of factors that causes life (say, self replicating DNA strands) to exist, and state that that combination does not occur in nature.

So, you have the four steps - but for *what*, I honestly can not figure out.

Re:Bogus - My Attemp to Explain

[N8F8]

Just because you (and I mean you) can't fathom an experiment to prove a hypothesis does not invalidate the hypothesis. It just makes it an unproven hypothesis. But it is interresting to ponder how one would test Intelligent Design. Modify some physical constant and see what happens? How long would such an experiment last? Would looking at different periods of the history of the universe and checking for existance of like. After all, according to the BB these constants have changed. BTW:

• Aquifex pyrophilus
• Lactobacillus
• Thermophile
• 7-Eleven

Can't do ain't the best approach to science.

Re:Bogus - My Attemp to Explain

[Dark Paladin]

I agree with your post but the first sentence - I never said his hypothesis was invalid just because I couldn't think of the experiment to prove it. That was left up to him.

It's not my job to prove other people's hypothesis - it's the proposers. That's the #1 issue I have with ID. Even as a Christian, I don't like ID because there's nothing to test. If the come up with a good experiment, like "using time travel viewing technology see the Hand of God appear 12,000,000 years ago to inject a creature with DNA altering viruses", then I'll be happy to go with with it.

So until they have "We will look at the fossil record and see X to prove Y", I can't even consider them.

Re:Bogus - My Attemp to Explain

[Dirtside]

Physical property X can vary from Y to Z but it doesn't. Slightest variation in X would preclude life.

Whoa, hold on there. When has it even been observed that any of the fundamental constants of nature can vary? The boiling point of water (at a given pressure) has always been constant, and there's no indication it ever has or ever will change. Or any of the other things. Where are you getting this "observation"? We need to be sure it's a valid observation before you can start making predictions about it.

Re:Bogus - My Attemp to Explain

[BillyBlaze]

Physical property X can vary from Y to Z but it doesn't. Slightest variation in X would preclude life.

Ex: Boiling point of water, melting point of ice, enzymatic reactions, patterns of moulcules and crystals, etc....

We have no evidence that any of those physical properties can vary (and we're pretty sure they don't). Also, we don't have enough understanding to guess, and certainly we cannot experimentally verify, that life would not exist if those properties were different. And even if changes to those properties were possible and did preclude life, there would be a more simple alternate hypothesis that explains the properties being as they are: we are life, and we are not precluded, so the properties of our universe must not preclude life. Put another way, all possible universes may exist, but it's not surprising that we're in one that supports life, not because Anybody tweaked our universe, but because the barren universes would have nobody to be surprised.

Re:Bogus - My Attemp to Explain

[TripMaster Monkey]

What you are outlining is the Anthropic Principle, which is a tautology.

Certainly, the odds are against such a confluence of good fortune, but if physical property X did vary from what we observe, we would not be around to observe it. Thus, the odds of such a confluence of good fortune rise from infinitesimal to 1:1.

Re:Bogus - My Attemp to Explain

[aaronl]

The constant that I can think is the speed of light. Apparently, c has decreased over the last 100 years, as measured in the various experiments that have been performed. I haven't heard about it in a while, so it might have been disproven.

Re:Bogus - My Attemp to Explain

[smallpaul]

Possibly, some external stimulus is arranging the observed phenomena to ensure a suitable environment to enable life to exist.

Fine: this is a scientific theory if it proposes a natural stimulus and a test we can use to detect it. If the stimulus is undetectable (not testable) then it isn't a scientific theory. If you use only your initial observation as "proof" of the theory then you don't have a theory. You have an observation. A theory generalizes from data to predictions.

Re:Bogus - My Attemp to Explain

[N8F8]

Read my other comments and you'll see I agree. I don't understand why so many are ignoring interresting phenomena and patterns just because you dislike those noting them. It would be like ignoring gravity because you can't prove how it propigates and some priest is saying his god is making gravity.

Re:Bogus - My Attemp to Explain

[Dirtside]

The constant that I can think is the speed of light. Apparently, c has decreased over the last 100 years, as measured in the various experiments that have been performed. I haven't heard about it in a while, so it might have been disproven.

It was disproved probably three or four days after the "hypothesis" was proposed, in 1981. Read this. And do some other searching; the speed of light has not decayed at all. Don't take this the wrong way, but the whole idea is nothing but creationist propaganda :)

Re: Bogus - My Attemp to Explain

[Black Parrot]

> What you are outlining is the Anthropic Principle, which is a tautology. Certainly, the odds are against such a confluence of good fortune, but if physical property X did vary from what we observe, we would not be around to observe it. Thus, the odds of such a confluence of good fortune rise from infinitesimal to 1:1.

More technically, the a posteriori probability is 1.

Also, we don't have the faintest idea what the a priori probability was. We don't even know what the independent parameters of the universe are, let alone what their various probability distributions were. (For that matter, if there is in fact only one universe, does the question of "possible" values for a physical constant even make sense?)

It simply isn't possible - today - to calculate the a priori odds that the universe AWKI would exist. Anyone who offers a probability argument against it is not only offering an argument from incredulity, but an argument from incredulity based on completely made up numbers.

And as if that isn't enough... Most of the universe is hard vacuum, so it's clearly "designed" for space ghosts. We should be arguing about the probability that a universe would be hospitable to space ghosts; humans are just parasites taking advantage of an extremely small corner not useful to the space ghosts.

Re:Bogus - My Attemp to Explain

[aaronl]

I remember something more recent than that, actually. The inital bit involved a retest of the Michelson experiment, and then the readings taken from the US Shuttle over a period of time. Perhaps it was just wild speculation related to what you linked to. ::shrug:: It's my birthday, and I'm in no condition to have a coherent argument. :) I'd feel better if c was constant, regardless! I remember this coming up a few years ago.

Thank God...

[TheHornedOne]

There's no text here. Just adding a bit of junk to escape the lameness filter.

But quarks are?

[benhocking]

Are quarks 100% of what scientists think they are. Is general relativity? Is string theory?!?

General relativity might be the best comparison here. We are unable to perform controlled experiments warping time and space. We can only measure what is already warped. Similarly, evolution is usually studied by what has already evolved. Actually, we can and have done controlled experiments on evolution, but no doubt this will bring up the whole micro- versus macro- evolution debate, which of course becomes a debate of semantics and one therefore not worth having. I'll admit that I'm not aware of any controlled experiments that have evolved new species (as opposed to sub-species) - although others might be aware of some. Additionally, I perform controlled experiments all the time using evolution to create new virtual species. Currently, I have a whole population of virtual hippocampi (CA3 region only) that are raring to cogitate.

When did you start attending church?

[jocknerd]

If your parents took you as a child, you pretty much didn't make that decision on your own. It was engrained in you as a child. If you never attended church as a child, and started going on your own as an adult, then you can make the claim that you made a choice.

Re:When did you start attending church?

[Cstryon]

You are wrong. One of the things learned as a child was that I had the choice, and I make the choice. Infact, one of the things taught in Christianity is Freewill. How could I be accountable if I was never making a choice.

Re:When did you start attending church?

[EvilSS]

If a person is raised as an atheist, they cannot chose to be an atheist as an adult but they can chose to believe in religion? That is essentially what you are implying, that a person can only make a choice to go against their upbringing and cannot make a conscience choice to continue the beliefs of their parents. This simply is not true.

Re:When did you start attending church?

[grub]

Did you have the choice of attending church at a young age? If not then you didn't have freewill.

Re:When did you start attending church?

[EnderWiggnz]

so why is it that god will hold you accountable for adam and eve's sins, if you never get baptized? seems you dont have a choice there, either.

Re:When did you start attending church?

[SeattleGameboy]

Your logic is, shall we say, bit lacking...

Lack of endorsement is not an endorsement of nothing. Endorsing something is not the same as someone who does not endorse anything. A person who endorses something means, that the person has a made a choice. A person who does not endorse anything means that the person has NOT made any choice.

It is not the same thing.

Re:When did you start attending church?

[Anonymous Coward]

The logic is fine.

Being an atheist is positively believing that there is no God. Quite different from not having an opinion.

Re:When did you start attending church?

[Darth]

my family took me to church when i was a child. Now that i'm an adult, i don't go to church. How is my choice to not go to church as an adult always demonstrative of free will while another person's choice to continue going to church always demonstrative of brainwashing?

I played baseball and soccer as a child. I dont play either now. Are the people i know who still play those games brainwashed?

Maybe they just found something enjoyable or valuable in it and have chosen to continue to participate while i didnt find anything valuable and chose to spend my time in other ways.

I had a friend in college who was in her 30s and converted from being an atheist to being catholic. Is she free thinking?
A guy i used to study martial arts with converted from christianity to islam. Is he free thinking?

If you raise your children to not beleive in a god, are you brainwashing them?

The difference betweeen "brainwashed by your parents" and "made your own choice" cannot be determined by the choice you made. It is determined by the reason you made the choice.
If you continue to go to church because you enjoy it, it's a choice.
If you continue to go to church because it's what you've always done, you can call it brainwashing.

Re:When did you start attending church?

[Eli Gottlieb]

That's Christianity. Judaism doesn't hold you accountable for Adam and Eve's sins except in the sense of requiring you to live in Earth instead of Eden.

Re:When did you start attending church?

[DigiShaman]

Correct! Being an atheist is when you know for a fact there is no God. Being agnostic is one whome is not sure if there is a God or not, but also doesn't care either way.

Re:When did you start attending church?

[Dirtside]

It's useful to keep in mind that everyone is born an atheist.

Re:When did you start attending church?

[SeattleGameboy]

Obviously, logically challenged...

Again, believing in something is not believing in nothing.

Just as you cannot prove a negative, you cannot believe in nothing. It just means that you do not believe in something (basically all religion).

Re:When did you start attending church?

[EvilSS]

The flawed logic is in the parent post, not mine. The parent implied exactly what I stated. Also, if a person is raised by their parents to believe that there is no God, that is an endorsement of atheism, not a lack of endorsement for a religion.

Re:When did you start attending church?

[HunterZ]

No, everyone is born an agnostic, not knowing anything at all about this crazy place other than that it's really bright and really cold, and that you have to breathe air instead of amniotic fluid...

Re:When did you start attending church?

[Peter La Casse]

Do the people who reject their parents' beliefs also not have free will? How do you differentiate between people who embrace and people who reject their parents' beliefs? How can one have free will while the other doesn't?

Re:When did you start attending church?

[Zzesers92]

If you never attended church as a child, and started going on your own as an adult, then you can make the claim that you made a choice.

Yet.... How many of the religion bashers on Slashdot were taken to church as kids? The choice gets made either way. It's ridiculous to think that a parent who is trying to lay down some moral fabric for their child to grow up in is "engraining" anything into the child that they will not be able to then decide on once they are adults.

Another often heard bitch session on slashdot is parents neglecting their children (e.g., why aren't the parents sitting with their kid every second of every day to make sure they're not playing video games that the parents object to?)

Which should it be? Give the kids the tools they need to be moral by spending time with them (and, if you so believe, taking them to worship?), or leave the kids at home and let them play video games while you go to church, since they're not old enough to balance spirituality verse indoctrination?

Re:When did you start attending church?

[Cstryon]

God will not hold you accountable for any sins that you did not commit. God will not hold you accountable for never having the Oppurtunity to obtain Knowledge. If you have heard otherwise, it was false. That's not freewill.

Re:When did you start attending church?

[dmadole]

It's useful to keep in mind that everyone is born an atheist.

Really? Babies believe there is no God?

Are you sure you didn't mean that everyone is born agnostic?

Even that is debatable and not a known fact.

Re:When did you start attending church?

[prell]

I agree. I found it very hard to give up christianity, but I have to say it was mostly out of fear of going to hell (and it can't be any easier now, with people who don't believe in hell being labeled heretics). Few things in life can be said to be free of influence (which is why you must be mindful, which is one reason I'm Buddhist, and incidentally, Buddhism requires little or no beliefs other than faith in the goodness of your teacher and the teachings). People "think" or "believe," without ever really having made a conscious choice to do so. I think that's bad, and I worry about that when it comes time to raise kids.

Re:When did you start attending church?

[Anonymous Coward]

Adam and Eve's sin was taking the opportunity to obtain knowledge, in a tasty snack sized portion. God certainly held them accountable.

Re:When did you start attending church?

[mdielmann]

If your parents took you as a child, you pretty much didn't make that decision on your own. It was engrained in you as a child. If you never attended church as a child, and started going on your own as an adult, then you can make the claim that you made a choice.

Hmm, my parents taught me to bathe as a child. I'd like to believe I prefer being clean, but if I believed as you did, I'd have to assume it was only engrained in me. I suppose it's only the free thinkers who don't bathe (or those whose parents didn't teach them to bathe), and shame on me for promoting bathing in my kids.

This is the same kind of thinking that calls the gothic subculture non-conformity, even though all those people wear black leather/latex, black lipstick and nail polish, pale makeup, and dark hair. At least they don't dress like their parents...

Re:When did you start attending church?

[jedidiah]

Not everyone has the will to be a deviant or a heretic.

It's as simple as that.

Some people are also subject to stronger indoctrination than others. Many of us that have deviated from our parents practices likely didn't have very oppressive situations to escape from to begin with.

You would think that the whole "it's not easy to be a deviant" problem would be obvious to a cabal made up largely of OS heretics.

Re:When did you start attending church?

[prell]

I don't think you can really "choose to continue believing." I believe that you must re-choose. It's not hard to continue believing something. It's not hard to, for example, say "I choose to drive a car." This is not the case; no choice was really made. Having religion is much too deeply rooted to simply say "I choose to continue believing this." Why, just ask yourself if you choose to continue eating meat, or if you should become a vegetarian. If you're not familiar with the reasons for being vegetarian, you might respond with incredulity, and say "well, of course I eat meat! Don't even ask me again." This is, I believe, what is meant when it is said that "the unexamined life is not worth living" (Socrates).

Re:When did you start attending church?

[Caiwyn]

So, by your twisted logic, the only choice available to me is to do something different from my parents. If I make any of the same choices they made, I'm brainwashed. And this is somehow insightful?

Let's be honest with ourselves. You're saying that all religion is brainwashing, and the slashbotters modded you up because they love anything that helps them maintain their smug sense of intellectual superiority.

Those of us who have made a concerted effort to research and experience the alternatives know better.

Re:When did you start attending church?

[crlove]

Thank you. Wish I had mod points. Exactly what I was thinking.

Sorry nothing insightful of my own to add.

Re:When did you start attending church?

[EvilSS]

Actually, you can "prove a negative" when it is completely excluded by another choice. I can prove, for example, that a coin did not land on heads by proving it did land on tails. Since they are mutally exclusive, proving one automatically excludes the other.

Since no one can prove there is or is not a god, all beliefs about god become just that, beliefs. If a person is aware that other people believe in god then they at some point they must make a choice, based on whatever criteria they feel justifies it, whether or not to also believe in god. A belief that there is no god is not a belief in nothing, it is exactly what is says: A belief that there is no god.

Re:When did you start attending church?

[EvilSS]

It's possible that I may never confront myself on the choice or religion or meat-eating. If I am unaware that there is a choice then obviously I cannot make a choice. However, unless you live under a rock them most likely a person is aware that there are different religious beliefs, including beliefs that there is no god or gods at all. If I am aware that there is a choice and I continue to practice whatever it is that I practice, then I have made a choice. My choice may be naive and uninformed, but it is a choice. Any time my beliefs on, well, anything, are challenged, I have to make a choice as to whether or not my beliefs are correct. Now, granted, most times people will choose their own beliefs no matter what the opposition, but they do have the option to change their views.

Re:When did you start attending church?

[Anonymous Coward]

There's more complexity to it than that. For example, my dad was raised catholic, but didn't attend church for decades during the middle of his life. He has four sons, none of whom were raised in any religious tradition whatsoever. I don't believe I've ever discussed religion with him, so I don't know why he stopped going to church, or started going again. To the best of my knowledge he pretty much just didn't give it any thought for about 25 years. I don't know that he's given it any thought now.

Then again, he may have. I don't know, and I'm pretty sure you don't either. It's entirely possible that he has not made a conscious choice, as you claim. He may be unthinkingly returning to a familiar pattern of thought and behavior that was ingrained in him as a child. On the other hand, he may be involved in a process of self-evaluation and philosophical questioning. Again, we just don't know.

I feel fortunate in that I was raised in an environment in which I was able to begin seeking answers for myself very early on. My mother has never been happy with the answer "You have to believe." So, I was ingrained not with belief, but with the idea that I should question everything.

This questioning is what matters. The words of others, whatever belief they describe, form no justification for such belief in one's self. It is true that churches, especially christian churches, are filled with people satisfied with believing what they are told because it comes from the pulpit. But there are those who do not.

Some say that faith is its own answer; that you must have faith in faith, and make a "leap of faith". This is almost a koan, but it does not provide any reason to make the leap in the first place. Self-referential semantic trickery is very useful and powerful in its own right, but it can certainly be evaluated from an external conceptual framework and found empty. Of course, you're not supposed to do that. You're just supposed to enter the eternal mobius of faith begets faith. This might work for some, but I can't turn that part of my brain off without alchohol.

I won't stray any further from the point. Whether or not something is a choice is largely a matter of whether or not the person doing it has evaluated different possible actions and made a selection between them. This involves asking questions. I'm sure that church is routine, unquestioned habit for many, but it is also home to many questioners and seekers of personal truth.

Let this be a reminder that it's foolish to moderate blanket statements 'Insightful'.

Re:When did you start attending church?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you sure you didn't mean that everyone is born agnostic?

Agnostics believe it's impossible to know the existence of god. I'm sure babies don't think this, so they can't be agnostics. They are atheists, in that they don't have a belief in any gods.

Or rather, they believe in a warm, friendly deity who breast-feeds them :-)

Re:When did you start attending church?

[prell]

Yeah, I guess I just don't consider that a true choice; it's a tained choice that challenges nothing and enlightens nobody. It's not about being right; it's about learning.

Re:When did you start attending church?

[Hedgethorn]

Beliefs are not of objects, they are of prepositions. It is possible to believe that a given proposition is true and it is also possible to believe that the negation of that proposition is true. Also, it is possible to not hold a belief regarding a given proposition, either because you are withholding assent or because you haven't considered the proposition in question. Thus, all of the following are possible mental states regarding religion:

(1) I believe that 'There is a God' is true. (Theism)
(2) I believe that 'There is not a God' is true. (Strong Atheism)
(3) I have no belief regarding the proposition 'There is a God'. (Weak atheism)
(4) I believe that 'The truth value of "There is a God"' is not knowable. (Strong agnosticism)
(5) I believe that 'There is a God' and 'There is not a God' are equally likely and thus endorse neither. (Weak agnosticism)

Re:When did you start attending church?

[Cstryon]

There is a difference between Sin and Transgression. And if God didn't hold us accountable, and along with that, give us a chance to get in trouble, for our own sins/mistakes, we wouldn't learn. God Intended for Adam and Eve to take of the Fruit. It was a lesson, the needed to know what it was to be in trouble, and to know what they are missing. It was Transgression from Children with no knowledge to Adults.

Re:When did you start attending church?

[F_Scentura]

Absolutely. Without the cultural inertia behind Christianity, there's little logical reason to believe it. Now, if you're talking about social bonds, ritual, institutions, and the experiential, that's a whole different sociological matter.

Re:When did you start attending church?

[F_Scentura]

That's an absolute non-sequitur.

Bathing is necessary for day-to-day interactions and basic hygiene. Hygiene is stressed by any good parent, but it is learned without impetus. Breaking societal norms for dress as an identifying marker is also common among teenagers.

Associating atheists with dirty hippies and goths because they all break from convention is absolute bullshit, especially as you're using it as some pathetic attempt to denigrate.

A smelly hippie breaks from normal convention because he has a personality defect that prevents him from giving hygenic practices due priority. A RAAAGE against the mainstream goth is making the conscious effort to break social norms for attention.

An atheist does not follow christian norms because he does not require them. They do not appeal to him, and regardless of how much effort was placed into his internalizing of them by society. They do not take hold because while there may be "values" found within, he does not find there to be any evidence of a creator and can not accept the rest of the package that goes along with such "values".

Re:When did you start attending church?

[F_Scentura]

I wouldn't quite put it like that, but religious promotion, education, and ritual *is* social conditioning of the most powerful sort. I don't think it's in most cases a bad thing, but your immersion in the culture prevents you from understanding the sorts of (willful, in your case) conditioning that goes on.

Re:When did you start attending church?

[mdielmann]

While bathing has been around as a social and hygenic event for millenia, don't be so sure about hygiene in general. It was only in the mid-1800s that doctors were discovering that washing your hands between autopsies and deliveries would reduce infant mortality by 50%! And yet, nowadays, we find such ideas absurd.

I wasn't making any associations between anyone, merely the invalid concept that the only time someone is making a choice of their own free will is when they decide to go against what they were raised to believe or do. That criteria is still entirely dependant on the beliefs of another, and sounds a lot like knee-jerk rebellion. In fact, the reference I used in regards to not bathing was "free thinkers". Are you trying to say that only athiests are free thinkers? (I don't think you are, but you don't appear to have read my comment very well.)

I understand why athiests don't practice religion or beleive in a god. They've assessed it by whatever criteria mattered to them, and it didn't meet their standards. The assumption that the gp made that someone who beleived in god (and was raised to do so) couldn't do the same thing and come to a different conclusion is the part I take objection to.

Re:When did you start attending church?

[Caiwyn]

I wouldn't quite put it like that, but religious promotion, education, and ritual *is* social conditioning of the most powerful sort. I don't think it's in most cases a bad thing, but your immersion in the culture prevents you from understanding the sorts of (willful, in your case) conditioning that goes on.

It really depends on the visible impact of the parent's beliefs. My parents were Christians, and so am I, and I will admit that this is due partly to their influence. But my parents also lived happy, principled, meaningful lives. My sister and I had happy childhoods, and saw first hand the positive impact of our parents' beliefs. So of course that had an effect, and why shouldn't it? But that doesn't mean we didn't make our own decisions -- it simply means that we factored those experiences into the decision. I've known plenty of people whose parents' religion had the opposite effect, and they chose not to follow in their parents' footsteps. As is often overlooked, it has a lot less to do with the religion itself than it does with the attitudes of those who practice it.

Finally, someone is making sense about this!!

[ErichTheRed]

No matter what you believe, this is a Good Thing for science education. Science is the systematic determination of facts by rigorously testing theories.

Intelligent design may or may not be right, but it really doesn't belong in the teaching of science, especially at levels where students are easily moldable. I would be more than willing to accept intelligent design when facts emerge. This will happen in my eyes when the magical nonexistent being comes down from the sky and tells us why he started the whole ball rolling. Until then, I'm comfortable with pure science, thanks.

Re:Affect In Kansas?

[supabeast!]

"Since this is a federal court ruling, does it affect the ID stuff going on in Kansas?"

Not directly, however, it will probably make other judges more comfortable with handing down similar rulings in the future.

Fear not, for I have RTFA

[Overzeetop]

and it says:

"Jones wrote that he wasn't saying the intelligent design concept shouldn't be studied and discussed, saying its advocates "have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors."

But, he wrote, "our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom."

So you need not fear that this ruling is a gag order on creationism in the classroom. It is merely a ruling which forbids the required teaching of ID as an viable, alternate scientific theory to evolution because, well, its not scientific. Teachers are still free to dicuss alternate scientific theories, and to footnote pseudo-theories during their lectures.

I feel that this is just fine. If they don't want to teach the real ID, they can just burn in hell for their sins. I, on the other hand, am planning for the day I don my eternal pirate regalila and dring from the beer volcano and see the stripper factory with my own eyes.

Sure it does!

[Anonymous Coward]

Cretinism (most likely from the Latin Christinum, "Christian")

--Wikipedia

Full decision

[Anonymous Coward]

The judge's full decision can be read here. All 139 pages of it.

Wow, he really delivered a much needed shit kicking to ID. Here are some excerpts from the decision.

From page 29:

ID aspires to change the ground rules of science to make room for religion, specifically, beliefs consonant with a particular version of Christianity.

From page 31:

The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism.

From page 64:

We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's; and (3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community.

From page 136:

In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.

That's gold Jerry, gold!

Anyways, say goodbye to ID and say hello to the Discovery Institute's next legal strategy, "sudden emergence theory", or some such bollocks.

Is every single /. reader clueless?

[SamLJones]

Do any of you actually know what the lawsuit was about?

Dover had added a small sticker to the cover of their biology textbook, that said (approximately) this: "Evolution is under some debate. If you want to learn more, look at this other book, available in the school library."

THAT'S IT!

My understanding is that the lawsuit was specifically over the fact that introducing ID to the science classroom was a violation of the US Constitution "seperation of church and state" amendment.

The complete text of said amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Did Congress order that sticker put on? No? Then how was it unconstitutional?

Re:Is every single /. reader clueless?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like you're a slashdot reader too, you clueless troll.

Re:Is every single /. reader clueless?

[troupuant]

obviously you are a /.er therefore you are clueless, troll.

Re:Is every single /. reader clueless?

[m50d]

It's been established that "congress shall make no law" in the constitution applies to any government agency.

My reaction to the ruling...

[onwardknave]

Thank god.

ID == Alien Seeding?

[Hohlraum]

I'm not familiar with ID but I can only assume that since christians are pushing for it, it must be something about God creating everything. Well, I say if they wanna present that, that we should also include Alien Seeding theories as well. For all we know we're just some huge f**king ant farm. :D

Re:ID == Alien Seeding?

[east coast]

we should also include Alien Seeding theories as well.

Actually, in my senior year of high school we did cover a number of "life origins" theory in a humanities class including alien seeding and various religious myths. This was in a high school about 20 miles north of Pittsburgh, PA.

Re:ID == Alien Seeding?

[GeneralHorel]

Actually, in my senior year of high school we did cover a number of "life origins" theory in a humanities class including alien seeding and various religious myths. This was in a high school about 20 miles north of Pittsburgh, PA.

that's the type of class ID belongs in. not in the science class

astrology as science

[hpulley]

In university I took a Philosphy of Science course from Eduardo Wilner and it was really well done. The class wasn't getting it, most thought they'd signed up for an ethics course, "should we do genetic engineering or not?" sort of thing, and instead got a course about "what we can know, how we know we can know it," and so on. At one point Eduardo challenged us to prove that astrology ISN'T science; he said otherwise he wouldn't continue. It was harder than I thought it would be, yet simpler at the same time and requires the use of logic which most average people lack. Don't knock it until you try it.

Astrology hasn't lasted until today, indeed may be more popular than ever, just because of supermarket tabloids and it isn't just science that has tried to get rid of it: Christian religion doesn't like it either. Why does it have such staying power? What does it offer that most religions do not? The ability to predict the future, which turns out to be it's weak point but you have to know how to use that against it.

Re:astrology as science

[c_forq]

That sounds like an epistemology class (epistemology is the study of knowledge).

Re:astrology as science

[hpulley]

Epistomology was certainly part of it but also the nature of experiments, the tools created for experiments, logic, scientific method, and other areas were covered, Kuhn, et al. It has been a while since I took the course and unfortunately, I don't have cause to use it every day, thus it fades with time.

Re:Affect In Kansas?

[taustin]

There are significant differences between using a case as a reference in an argument and using it as a precedent.

Reference: "This judge rules this way on a case that is similiar in these respects, and this is his logic in doing so."

Precedent: "In this case, the appellate (or Supreme) court said this is the law of the land, and if you ignore it, you'll be overruled and look stupid."

Judges do not like to look stupid.

Re:Those last moments...

[vertinox]

Finally, she produced the trump card which so often ends these discussions: "But, Jim, evolution has been proved by science. So the Bible can't be true!"

Jim Replied, "No Trudy, the Bible isn't true because a few cultist men made it up as they went along trying to get people to justify their years of following a man who just up and died on them. I mean the whole thing about immaculent conception... Oh come on... How else do you think Mary was going to explain Joeseph her afair with a Roman Centurion! Joeseph told that to his son and he believed and he went around telling people he was the 'son o god' and some poor saps ended up believing him until they arrest him and put him to death with the thousands of other god claimants of the day. Then of course his wife Mary Magdelan had to go tells those poor saps that he resurrected so they wouldn't ask for her for their share of the money he owed so they ended up making a whole cult out of it. Then a dum dum roman dyslexic scribe misinterpeted dog and declared it a national religion when the Emperor asked to fetch the royal pet. Oh and that Darwin guy... He was just smoking pot. Everyone knows it was the Flying Spegetti monster and the universe is only 6 seconds old and that you are going to be reincarnated as a jock strap for eternity for failing to know this..."

At that point Trudy just gives a blank stare and goes "Oh..." and passed away.

How's this?

[Acy James Stapp]

A simple google search for "evidence evolution" yields numerous pages. From the very first one (I'm feeling lucky!)

Link 1: Observed Evidence of Speciation http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.htm l has eight fruity fly speciation events. Most interesting to me is the Apple Maggot fly, which originally fed on hawthorn trees, but is speciating at this very moment; there are now two different races of the fly, one of which feeds on apples and other rosacea and one on thornapples. They mature at different rates and due to this do not interbreed even though they are still able to hybridize.

Link 2: 29 evidences for macroevolution http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ This is the one I was looking for. If you read and understand this and fail to accept that evolution is occuring and can account for the diversity of species on earth then I've got a bridge to sell you.

Acy

Re:How's this?

[CodeShark]

Thanks -- I will mostly look at the second link, because although the fruit fly stuff is interesting, they are still fundamentally the same thing, a type of fruit fly.

Re:How's this?

[krmt]

The history of the horse is an old, and well understood example of a fairly drastic change over time as well. The transition from something sorta vaguely horse-like to the modern animal has been traced out.

Re:How's this?

[pkphilip]

Some of these claims of speciation are doubtful.

Based on what food is available locally animals will adapt themselves to feed on that food - for instance, if only rodents are available in a specific area, dogs in that area may start to feed on rodents. This change in the food habits will no doubt affect its lifespan, possibly cause changes in the rate of maturity etc. But this is just adaptation and not speciation. The dogs have not become a new species, they have just changed their food habits to survive. If the situation changes and the rodents become rare and are replaced by chicken or other fowl, perhaps the dogs will modify their behaviour to feed on chicken instead.

For animals/insects with very short lifespans such as fruitflies, any change in the speed of maturity between any two fruitflies will ofcourse result in reduced inter-breeding. Butu again, this is not because these two fruit flies have become two separate species altogether.

Adaptation is not necessarily the same as speciation. If both these so-called species of fruitflies are fed the same diet, it is entirely likely that in a generation of two that the maturity levels will become the same.

Example: It is fairly well documented that people in the mediteranean suffer less from heart disease because of traditional use of olive oil and wine in their cooking. Does that mean that people in the mediteranean are a different species of humans altogether?

The claims of speciation of these fruit flies is questionable. It is highly unlikely that this is a case of macro-evolution. I am not saying that macro-evolution does not occur, I am just questioning this particular case of the fruit flies being quoted as an example of that occuring.

Religious studies

[Midnight Thunder]

If it fits anywhere is in a class of religious studies. When I was at school I had class by this name, and it taught about all religions and did not try proving that one religion was better than another. It was more about trying to provide intellectual insight into the basis and beliefs of each religion.

The other places that would be suitable for teaching this is bible school, church or even private Christian schools.

BTW Don't forget that even the Catholic Church recently came out and declared their support for evolution.

Re:Religious studies

[jc42]

If it fits anywhere is in a class of religious studies.

Oh, I dunno about that. I'd think a "History of Ideas" class would be more appropriate.

Sure, it would fit in a religious studies curriculum. But that would put it off in a corner where serious science students usually don't wander.

Many scientists have suggested that a bit of knowledge of scientific history is useful. Studying the disputes and discarded theories is useful in understanding how we reached our current understanding. It could also help in handling new "theories" that repeat previous mistakes.

One of the useful example s that I've seen in several classes is the history of the "luminiferous aether". This was supposedly the substance that filled all space, which was the substrate for wave phenomena such as light. The common understanding is that Einstein showed that there was no such substance. But a correct history would show that he did no such thing. Rather, he came up with a new theoretical approach that didn't make mention at all of any space-filling substance. That is, he showed that the "aether" wasn't needed to explain the observable universe's behavior. Maybe it exists; maybe it doesn't; we don't care.

Similarly, some historians have pointed out that Darwin effectively did the same thing for biology. He didn't show that there's no God. Rather, he showed that we don't need such an intelligence to explain the biological world and the fossil record. Maybe there's a god; maybe there isn't; for scientific purposes it doesn't matter. We can explain what we see with Natural Selection; adding God doesn't improve the theory's explanatory power. (It actually makes things worse, because your universe now contains one more thing that needs explaining, but you can't observe it at all ;-)

Darwin apparently understood this. He made a few comments to the effect that what the religious people would find unforgivable was not that he had shown that there's no God, but that he had shown God to be irrelevant to understanding the world.

Too bad there's no (known) way to ask him what he thinks of the ongoing debate over his theory.

Re:Religious studies

[TheRaven64]

BTW Don't forget that even the Catholic Church recently came out and declared their support for evolution.

This is because any sensible religious person realises that there is no contradiction between evolution and ID. Evolution explains a mechanism, nothing more. It doesn't tell you why things happen, just how. Whether evolution is driven by random actions, or the FSM is the realm of philosophy, not science. Assuming the existence of an intelligent designer[1], science can tell us whether it's more likely that they said 'let there be stuff,' or if they created a simple system containing all of the necessary components to develop into a more complex one. Proponents of Intelligent-Design-as-an-alternative-to-evolution are worried that there is a God, and her final objective might not actually be them.

[1] A philosophical postulate, not a scientific one.

Re:Religious studies

[dmadole]

BTW Don't forget that even the Catholic Church recently came out and declared their support for evolution.

That's only "recently" in the historical sense, although I'm not sure "support" is exactly the right word. Basically what they say is that Evolution is compatible (not contradictory) with the Church's teachings. The Church only teaches that God created life, they do not presume to know the mechanism by which he chose to do so. Like many other things, they leave that to the discernment of the believer. That is the only position that I personally have ever known from the Church.

From a catholic.net article:

There's not much "news" there. Fifty years ago Pope Pius XII said almost the same thing in the encyclical Humani generis: "The Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, insofar as it inquiries into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter."

Re:Religious studies

[AxelBoldt]

If it fits anywhere is in a class of religious studies.

I think it should be covered in political science. It is an extremely interesting case of a campaign to get an idea into the public arena. Pretty much every week the New York Times has a major article on Intelligen Design. How did these people pull that off? After all, the Intelligen Design "theory" is essentially empty: "I can't understand how it came about, so it must have been God."

The Christians were forbidden from teaching creationism in the public schools, so they invented Intelligent Design, wrote text books, started scientific organizations dedicated to its study. A conservative law firm travelled around the country to find a school board that would buy into this, just to get more publicity. This is a wonderful case study in political science.

Re:Religious studies

[Coniptor]

God refers to him self as a he.
All your wishing he were a she won't change a thing.

Science is not scientific

[realnihilist]

Give me a test that can be done to show that the requirements of falsifiability in science can be falsified. You can't. Therefore, the current view of science is self-contradictory. Karl Popper and the so-called scientific establishment are working within a framework of absurdity.

Re:Science is not scientific

[m50d]

Give me a test that can be done to show that the requirements of falsifiability in science can be falsified.

Take something unfalsifiable, such as ID. If it were science, that would falsify things. However, it isn't science, as is clear without resorting to whether it's falsifiable.

Re:Science is not scientific

[Anonymous Coward]

One could observe pseudo-scientific disciplines that do not embrace falsifiability and observe their predictive power, e.g. astrology or homeopathy.

Largely though, the concept of falsifiability is descended from logic, not science.

Exactly my point, more or less

[benhocking]

Evolution has made many predictions that could have been disproven, but each time we look, we usually strengthen it and not weaken it. Of course, evolution isn't a single theory (just like GR or string theory isn't really a single theory anymore), so we might disprove this version of it or that version of it, but that just guides us to make minor corrections (cosmological constant, anyone?) and to make it a better theory.

ID doesn't have that ability, to the best of my knowledge. I don't want to touch FSM for fear of starting a religious war, however. :)

P.S. I think you misread my previous statement.

Re:Article didn't mention HOW it's unconstitutiona

[Taevin]

If we fill that school with religious indoctrination, we act to create an establishment of religion. Just as if we mandated church attendance as a requirement to hold public office, or to vote.

If the government were to actively promote a specific religion that would indeed be a problem. That is not the case here though... oh forget it, I'm tired of playing the devil's advocate. Everyone else tramples all over the Constitution and treat it like a tool to oppress dissenting ideas, we might as well do the same.

Hoorah for teaching religion in the science classroom being "unconstitutional"!

Majority rule in education

[belarm314]

Schools should teach what the majority of people in the district want taught. If one parent does not like what 1000 other parents want in the curriculum, than the 1 parent should educate their child on their own. The rights of the majority are being attacked.

Your belief in something does not change reality. It does not bend to your will (at least, it doesn't to mine). ID is not science, because it cannot be disproven, therefor it should not be taught in a science class. If we had comparative religion & philosophy in secondary education (and I think we should), I would not oppose to ID being taught in philosophy, nor would I object to christianity being taught about in comp. religion. But teaching kids that the scientific method is invalid in a science course simply leads to kids with no critical thinking skills. Tech companies are already saying they don't want to set up shop in Kansas, and many universities are talking about not accepting kansas HS diplomas at face value, because of this mindset against critical thinking.

I know a lot of people want to be able to call their religion science, or fear that science is destroying their religion, but neither of these things are true.

Don't like it? Start your own reality ;-)

Re:Those last moments...

[sickofthisshit]

For the millionth time, Immaculate Conception refers to MARY being born without sin.

Not that you have to believe in it, but for crying out loud, it isn't hard to look it up.

It's awesome!

[Brian Boitano]

• If you were brought up in a religious home, and you're religious, you're brainwashed and intellectually defective.
• If you were brought up in a religious home, and you're an atheist, you're an intelligent, free thinker.
• If you were brought up in an atheist home, and you're an atheist, you're an intelligent, free thinker.
• If you were brought up in an atheist home, and you're religious, you're brainwashed and intellectually defective.

...wait, that's not awesome.

Re:It's awesome!

[Anonymous Coward]

Not awesome. But realistic.

I mean, think about it: it's okay to believe in Santa and the Tooth Fairy and Unicorns when you're a kid, because that's the age of Magical Thinking. But if you still believe in those things as an adult, you're looked at as some sort of weirdo, and justifiably so. So why is it any different if you believe in a magical, mystical, invisible sky-fairy who watches everything you do, can read your mind, and can control everyone's fate? I mean *come on*. I believing in that stuff as an adult isn't a sign of some sort of intellectual defect or brainwashing, then what IS?

Excellent point

[Theovon]

You're absolutely right, and I agree that what you propose is an interesting topic that DOES have a place in science classrooms, but I feel the need to point out that what you're describing is more engineering than science. How could one design life is an excellent engineering question that would certainly be an excellent tool to teach science to students. However, science classes should focus more on science.

As with any science, Evolution ary theory is incomplete. It's evolving, you might say. But there's also a great deal of fact behind the assertions, and it has withstood a great deal of testing. Of the models we have of the development of life, Evolution is by far the most supported and the most scientific.

Although it's rare, I do sometimes see someone point out a gap in Evolution. And responsible scientists take note and add that to the common knowledge. One mistake people tend to make, however, is to think that every assertion that claims to be part of Evolutionary theory actually is. There is much we don't know, and there is much recent discovery that is still being figured out. And way too much of that stuff is being asserted as fact. But that doesn't change what has come before, those things that have survived the search for counter-evidence. Evolution isn't 100% perfect, but it's the best model we have and, it will contine to be as new discovered are made.

Technically it's maths

[Lifewish]

Sadly it's maths based on some rather dodgy premises (google "Shallit and Elsberry" for more info) so it can't be taught in a maths class either.

Oh great

[I Like Pudding]

Another class you can't use in the real world, like math and English.

Advancing science in spite of themselves

[rumblin'rabbit]

I doubt the court decision had anything to do with how stupid ID is. The only real question for the courts is whether ID is religion.

In truth, the ID'ers raise some interesting questions for science. How do complex and allegedly "irreducible" organs and systems come about? How is information preserved across generations? What are the thermodynamics of open systems?

Although biologists already had some answers to these questions, the ID'ers have forced biologists to study them more intensely.

The ID'ers have advanced science in spite of themselves. Their conclusions are mistaken, their motives are transparent, but some of the questions are interesting.

Re:Advancing science in spite of themselves

[sickofthisshit]

The examples proffered by ID advocates are certainly interesting examples, but the problem is their lack of integrity in assuming they can "prove" natural selection did not cause them. That lack of integrity threatens science by letting all sorts of sloppy discourse into the pool of scientific ideas.

They set up some arbitrary criterion (like "irreducible complexity"), claim a particular example meets that criterion, then claim that supports their alternative theory.

The flaw is that "irreducible complexity" does not imply "could not have arised by natural selection", just "could not have arisen through some *straightforward* process of evolution."

Nature is big enough and has been around long enough that there is a good likelihood that some things will exist that have not left enough evidence behind to determine their natural origins. The fact that we don't have, for instance, hard evidence of the genealogy of the Japanese emperors does not mean we accept that they arose from the Sun god. We might be able to figure out that they came from Korea because of similar customs, or whatever, but we also might never figure it out.

In a similar way, we might NEVER figure out, for example, exactly how DNA became the genetic material of choice. That's not evidence in favor of ID or against evolution, its a lack of evidence for anything. We can HOPE to get enough indirect evidence to make a compelling case, but we might not get what we want.

Re:Advancing science in spite of themselves

[clonan]

Ok, lets look at your "questions.."

irreducibly complex says that there is no way with the availible resources that the observed structures could have come about. There are two solutions to this.

#1 incomplete knowledge....there may be structures and components that we don't know about yet that allow the organ to arrise on it's own. This is the most common cause of apparent irreducibly complex systems.

#2 deleted scaffolding....did you know that every single large structure is irreducibly complex. there is no way that the egyptians could have built the pyramids with what we currently see that they had. This is what sparked so many UFO ideas in the past....aleins must have built the pyramids because we couldn't. What we found out more recently is that after the egyptian civilization peaked they began to forget what they knew. They COULDN'T build pyramids anymore. the technological scaffolding that let them do it was removed. The same thing applies to biology. There are systems that with the current genes that the organism posses could not have been evolved. But there usually is evidence that at some point in the past the organism did have the ability to evolve the feature but now has lost it and so the system APPEARS irreducibly complex.

Information is passed through DNA and lipid vessicles in the cell.

The sun provides an influx of energy. by the logic you suggest all life would be impossible regardless of intelligent design or not.

Re:Advancing science in spite of themselves

[rumblin'rabbit]

Did you read my post?

I never agreed with the ID'ers, nor claimed that what they were doing even rated as science. I said some of their questions were good, not their answers or their methods.

And I'm sorry, but the question of how complex organs, which depend on many different subsystems working together, evolve is an excellent field of study which I'm sure will yield many future results.

Go argue with someone who actually disagrees with you. Moron.

Re:Advancing science in spite of themselves

[the_furman]

Thank you for making sense.

Re:Advancing science in spite of themselves

[clonan]

I did read you post....you asked questions that I knew the answers to therefore I answered your questions.

The problem with ID is that NONE of their questions are very good. They managed to scratch the paint job and thats it. I have yet to see a single question they have asked that hasn't ALREADY been answered to about 98% complete.

Re:Advancing science in spite of themselves

[TuringTest]

Although biologists already had some answers to these questions, the ID'ers have forced biologists to study them more intensely.

Maybe ID'ers have good questions. But schools are not the place to look for the answers.

Re:Advancing science in spite of themselves

[Bodrius]

All of the interesting questions I have seen triggered by ID debate were old, interesting questions in biology that were already in intense study by scientists working in evolution.

I very much doubt ID has forced more self-analysis in these sciences than the gradualist-vs-saltationist or gene-vs-species selection debates, for example, which have been going on publicly strong (at least to untrained lay eyes) for decades.

On the contrary, I've often seen ID debates distort or silence the interesting debates in science and force researchers to play politics and present a unified front that plays to the caricature of evolution research presented by ID: the idea of darwinism as converntional wisdom that suffers no criticism or scientific analysis.

The positive change introduced by ID, I hope, is in the teaching of science, and by extension in correcting a fundamental misconception of science in the general public.

I think a significant source of the support for ID, and the accusations of hypocrisy against science, are due to a widening gap of communication and understanding on the most basic concepts between the average citizen and the people who do research. The scary thing is that this is not due to advanced concepts beyond the reach of a non-specialist, but on the very basic ideas of logic, science, objectivity, etc. The general population has a very post-modernist view of science in general, which is a concern considering current civilizations are so dependant on science, and said populations are not particularly post-modernist per se.

Based on the results, schools seem to be in the business of producing citizens trained in 'scientific facts' rathan than science as a discipline. From college and general interactions with people, I have gotten the impression that ID proponents are often quite correct complaining about evolution being taught as a 'final and complete truth' in US high-schools... the same, unfortunately, applies to practically everything else taught as science at that level too.
I don't know if this would be a problem of curriculum, methodology, or just the lack of engagements of students in the inquisitive process.

There is no fundamental difference between the way most people understand evolution vs ID. This does not mean ID is science, it means evolution is being understood as religion.

Rather than correcting a deficiency in the understanding of science by students, however, ID proponents just ask that their 'final and complete truth' be taught as well. That they do not see the fundamental difference between the two 'theories' speaks of their misunderstanding of science, but more important is that from the POV of a large and diverse demographic, they are objectively right.

Re:Advancing science in spite of themselves

[rumblin'rabbit]

I disagree. With most things in the universe, taking a copy of a copy of a copy results in severe loss of information, as the ID'ers have pointed out. The question of just how the genetic code is passed on to subsequent generations with such fidelity is a superb one, whose answer encompasses both thermodynamics and specific biological mechanisms.

Saying that answers in this area, or in the area of the evolution of complex organs, is 98% complete is a gross overstatement. I suspect research in these areas has barely begun.

The ID'ers have undoubtedly, and unwittingly, accelerated this research.

Re:Advancing science in spite of themselves

[clonan]

Absolutly, IDers DOaccelerate the research. But just like any bit of information it is cumulative.

We understand 98+% of physics. that last 2% is always the hardest to get. It is extrodinarily unlikley that something we discover in the last 2% will suddenly mean that gravity no longer pulls things down. The last bit of research will almost certainly not destroy the rest of our understanding.

ID is exactly like that. We understand almost all biology. There are just a few places that we don't know what is happening. That is what the IDers use to "prove" their theory. But if ID was corect than the rest of biology would have to be thrown out....if it came to that then honest scientists would do so but it would take a LOT of evidence to conteract all the current evidence.

When I say 98% I am actually being fairly litteral. But of course the last 2% is where all the really interesting stuff is. the real tratments and mediacl breakthroughs will come from the last bit...

Re:Advancing science in spite of themselves

[rumblin'rabbit]

Maybe ID'ers have good questions. But schools are not the place to look for the answers.

Never said it was. There's no question that religion should stay out of the science room. People seem to confuse finding some positive aspects to the ID movement with defending it.

I'm not defending the common cold either, but it may serve to boost the immune system.

Re:Advancing science in spite of themselves

[Peaker]

They set up some arbitrary criterion (like "irreducible complexity"), claim a particular example meets that criterion, then claim that supports their alternative theory.

The flaw is that "irreducible complexity" does not imply "could not have arised by natural selection", just "could not have arisen through some *straightforward* process of evolution."

The "irreducible complexity" is a valid way to disprove evolution created a certain construct. Sure, that specific construct may have arised by an unlikely large mutation, but you cannot call that evolution: Evolution is the accumulation of incremental positive changes.

In fact, without "irreducible complexity", there is really no argument to contradict evolution at all, as the definition of evolution itself is tautaulogic. The "irreducible complexity" argument is about whether or not species were created by evolution, and without it, without a way to disprove evolution - it is not a theory. Every theory must have a way of disproval, or it is worthless, as it predicts _all_ possible outcomes!

Nature is big enough and has been around long enough that there is a good likelihood that some things will exist that have not left enough evidence behind to determine their natural origins. The fact that we don't have, for instance, hard evidence of the genealogy of the Japanese emperors does not mean we accept that they arose from the Sun god. We might be able to figure out that they came from Korea because of similar customs, or whatever, but we also might never figure it out.

That is true, and we may never figure out how to reduce the complexity of some organisms, but if you can indeed prove that there is no way to reduce that complexity, then you have shown evolution did not in fact occur for that organism.

Re:Advancing science in spite of themselves

[sickofthisshit]

Evolution is NOT "accumulation of incremental POSITIVE changes" it is the "accumulation of incremental of NEUTRAL or NET POSITIVE changes." If you don't understand the difference, you don't understand the theory of evolution.

Evolution doesn't have to work in one consistent direction. That's teleology. Evolution can work by moving in one direction, conditions change, either in the environment or in the organism itself, and what was previously a neutral change becomes a negative change or a great advantage, or what was once a great advantage can become neutral or negative. Things can change again, and different changes can interact.

Look at sickle cell anemia: it is hardly a purely positive change, because it causes anemia. Yet it is a NET positive for populations living in the tropics, because it is correlated to resisting malaria.

The most obvious way that "irreducible complexity" can evolve through natural selection is analogous to a scaffold. While one builds a bridge, scaffolding is necessary because a partly-built bridge cannot stand on its own. Once the bridge is complete, the scaffolding is redundant and tearing it down is possible. Then, the bridge might be "irreducible" in the sense if you take a single brick away, the bridge falls down.

Similarly, an organism might change in ways that involve jury-rigged redundant versions of functionality. At some point, a threshold is reached where part of the redundant structure can work on its own, or is able to function in a novel way. Then, the original supporting structure no longer faces selective pressure, and can evolve away through neutral changes or through the positive advantage of saving the organism mass and/or energy. Afterwards, it is irreducible, yet it never needed intervention by an intelligent agent to come into being.

The point of evolution is that things can APPEAR designed, in the sense that they are extremely well-suited for certain purposes, without actually BEING designed. The evidence for evolution vs. an intelligent designer is the way in which structures, under close scrutiny, are related to structures that serve a quite different purpose (e.g. mammalian ear bones which are derived from what serve as jaw bones in reptilian precursors), or are actually not optimal in the design sense (nerves which take some circuituous route through the body, or the panda bear's digestive tract). These things are locked in by historical accident, namely past development of ancestors in ways which were not relevant to current conditions.

Evolution predicts that some properties are preserved from ancestors simply because there is NO selective pressure to cause them to be eliminated. It predicts that the process of adaptation is conservative, in that it makes use of borrowing and incremental change, or change of certain limited kinds (e.g., duplication of identical segments, with later divergence among the segments, single-point mutations which affect developmental mechanisms in radical ways), strongly constrained by the mechanisms of growth and development, instead of totally new invention. Intelligent designers don't do such things. This kind of unintelligent non-design is practically everywhere in nature.

Irreducible complexity is a complete red herring, an argument against a strawman version of evolution. If that's your only evidence against evolution, you lose, plain and simple.

ID should be covered

[Turn-X Alphonse]

ID should be covered VERY briefly (bare with me on this). We all know it's wrong but every view point really should be covered. Is it really going to hurt anyone if they do say 2 classes on ID showing it's negative sides and what ID supporters call evidence?

The BBC are currently doing a series on God within science. It's 99% science based, but at the same time it's trying to show that many Scientists don't think religion is the anti science. It's the religious people who quite often refuse to adknowledge science (instead of going OMG God did that!? That's cool!).

Why I don't support ID in any shape or form, it is a view point and one we should very briefly point out. The same way we should point out Neo Nazis today still support hitlers ideals. We may not like it, but if we go over it for 5-10 minutes then it's included and these nutjobs can no longer claim they're being left out in the cold. There's no need to "give in to them", but if they want ID taught why not teach it for 1-2 lessons where you point out how silly it is, but at the same time show that God can still fit the model if you want it to (many scientists against believe in deities and are good scientists).

NOTE : I'm not religious, I don't believe ID is correct, but I do feel you could reverse all this "pro ID" bullshit with a simple lesson or two on the truth. If we choose to ignore it then we'll be in a lot of trouble (note to museum going up..), but if we reveal that the people preaching it arn't the sharpest people in the world. We at least show the truth and let people judge if they wish to follow people trying to kill Science instead of embrace it.

Re:ID should be covered

[westneat]

We don't point out Neo-Nazism in science class, so why should we talk about Intelligent Design in a science class? Intelligent Design belongs in a philosophy or current events class, not a science class.

Re:ID should be covered

[Dirtside]

Is it really going to hurt anyone if they do say 2 classes on ID showing it's negative sides and what ID supporters call evidence?

If it's framed as an example of what is not science, then yes, it could be very useful. I think part of the problem in basic science education is that kids aren't really taught what science is -- they're just taught a lot of random basic scientific facts (our solar system has nine planets! woo!), and maybe given the usual rundown on observe-predict-experiment-repeat, without really coming to understand the large-scale implications of science. Maybe that stuff is too complicated for kids, but high school students should definitely be able to understand it.

Of course, I'd be wary of the anti-ID classes being corrupted to actually present ID or other crackpot theories, but... it's something to consider.

Re:ID should be covered

[morzel]

ID should be covered VERY briefly (bare with me on this).

While I agree that we shouldn't stigmatise ID and thereby empower its proponents, it just does not belong in science class. Period.

Pick any other course, be it religion (christian), philosophy, history, global geopolitics (ID seems to be nearly exclusively a US topic) or even literature (there are books on ID, even though I would hardly qualify them as literature). It just doesn't belong in science class...

Re:ID should be covered

[Turn-X Alphonse]

As would I. I don't want to see it presented as Science, but if they want it in Science classes lets give them it. We'll just point out why it's not science, how it's clearly wrong and make quite a few jokes.

As for the Science thing.. you're right. I've learnt 100 times more in my spare time than I ever did in a science class. "Oh look, we put light through the object and it makes colours wooo cool isn't it!".. well yea, it's cool and all, but spending 20 minutes to get every kid to do it really doesn't teach me much..

But then hey, we read Ye Olde English places in an English clash, so why not learn useless basic science in Science class? The school system's a joke and no use to anyone.. It's th ebiggest problem with the world today. Instead of teaching useful stuff, we teach the most useless, boring and basic stuff which intrests no ones (and get taught it by people with no passion for it). It's probably why so many kids want to be footballers or firemen, because we don't show them the guys who are discovering the world within a world, we show them the people with no clue about the world..

Re:ID should be covered

[Turn-X Alphonse]

Whatever it is, they are attacking Science with it, so we disprove it WITH SCIENCE. If we act like it's a philosophy it must sit with others, which work WITH science.. :/

Re:ID should be covered

[jjohnson]

Should we also mention Catastrophism? How about the Norse Tree of Life?

The problem with including a survey of alternatives and a discussion of their merits (or lack thereof) is that we would quickly become bogged down, wasting already precious class time on things that don't further a child's science education. Learning critical thinking and the scientific method is more than adequately served by covering the evolution of various scientific theories, like geocentrism to heliocentrism, or the triumph of germ theory over humours.

Re:Article didn't mention HOW it's unconstitutiona

[LordKazan]

It always has been, always will be, and the constitution was written so that it would be: unconstitutional for any part of the US government to promote religion.

"The Government of the United States is in no way based upon the Christian Religion" - Treaty with Tripoli (passed unopposed in the US Senate with that language)

My Opinion

[xnot]

Intelligent Design was simply created to give a name and movement behind anti-darwinism fanatics. It is no more an "alternative" then saying "We don't like Darwinism."

If a parent sends a child to school, then the parent has to accept what the school teaches. Otherwise, the child should be home-schooled.

What school teaches is not necessarily right or wrong- it's just the prevailing view. "History" is the dominant viewpoint of whoever is the historian. Just the same as science is the accepted view of how nature and the universe works.

There's a lot of evidence that proves that sending a child to school isn't even useful for helping them become a success in the real world. School doesn't teach kids socializing/conversation skills, networking, selling, finances, leadership, or pretty much any other important skill that actual makes a difference to how they go about getting a job or doing anything other then following someone else's orders.

Evolution isn't a theory either

[Dog-Cow]

How would you falsify evolution? It's a made-up explanation for a bunch of observations. Are you going to force some species to evolve to survive and see if it does? Noone understands the random factors that go into micro-evolution, much less macro. I posit there is no possible way to prove evolution as the method by which modern species came to be as they are. It is also impossible to disprove, hence it cannot be science. According to the rabid slash-holes who are more fundementalist (or is that just mental?) than any religious personage could hope to be.

Re:Evolution isn't a theory either

[Broken_Ladder]

You'd falsify neo-Darwinian theory in a vast number of ways. First and foremost is the hierarchical taxonomy of all life on Earth. This is exactly what we would expect from a process of descent with modification. We don't see gene sequences, for instance, that violate the perfect hierarchical nesting structure. Out of all the myriad ways our genes could be arranged, the fact that they perfectly fit the idea of descent with mutation from common ancestors is striking.

The ascorbic acid gene in chimps and humans shows genetic variation consistent with the idea that humans divirged from chimps some 4 to 5 million years ago. Not surprisingly, the genetic difference is greater between these two species and the orangutan, from which we diverged from a common ancestor at an earlier point. If our findings weren't like this, it would spell grave danger for Darwinian evolution.

You have enormous misconceptions about evolution to think that we must test it by "forcing" species to evolve, and seeing whether they do, whatever this is supposed to mean. We have observed that mutations happen quite regularly. Given that the variations in genes between any two organisms are the factor that accounts for radically different development, such as the case with the banana and the giraffe, we have all the data we need to show that Darwinian evolution is totally realistic, plausible, feasible, however you want to put it. Given the complete lack of any rival explanations for biology, as well as the overwhelming profusion of evidence for Darwinian evolution, we are left with nothing but one obvious conclusion. Darwinian forces brought about life as we know it from our oldest microscopic ancestors, whether we understand every single detail of how this happened or not. The remarkable transitional fossils that document the evolution of modern cetaceans from wolf-like ancestors, horses from small cat-like ancestors, and mammals from reptilian ancestors, leave no room for any serious doubt in evolution.

You are also gravely mistaken to distinguish macro and micro evolution as you do. There is nothing inherently different between the two. Macro evolution is either the change of one species into another over time, or the divergence of a species into two or more species. The latter is quite feasible, is we know that population groups can become genetically isolated. At this point all that is required is the accumulation of enough mutations to eventually cause the two groups to no longer be reproductively compatible.

The former process is vastly harder to see, because it generally requires an expanse of time well beyond the human lifespan. It's like the evolution of language. Go back in written history over time, and you'll find that language looked progressively less like it does today. If you went back in time there would be some point at which you would no longer be conversationally compatible with speakers of the ancestors of your language today. All along the way, every generation would be speaking the "same language" as its parents, yet over large spaces of time we can say that a "new language" has come about, because it is radically different and incompatible with its progenitor. You could look back at a linguistic "timeline" and pick any point, and then move a few thousand, or maybe even several hundred years, and say that two plots on that timeline represent two "different languages". But again, looking at the overall history, you would just have one continuously complete and useful language, that would always be the "same language" as whatever followed in the next generation.

People who doubt Darwinian evolution, or are even proponents of creationism, ofter have an extremely hard time grappling with this fundamentally simple concept. You could even liken macro mutation to lining people up every few meters down an extremely long flat highway, and saying that two people are in the same "species" if they can see each other. I can see the guy in front of me, and he can see the guy in front of

Re:Evolution isn't a theory either

[haapi]

Show me the Pre-Cambrian rabbit.

Re:Evolution isn't a theory either

[Dog-Cow]

You are rather confused. Random mutations and their survival in terms of off-spring is the definition of the evolutionary process. However, there is zero evidence to show that the same process yielded a human and a chimp from some common ancestor. It is *theoretically* possible, but it is neither proveable nor unproveable. I have yet to read how one could falsify evolution.

Your analogy of the line of people is flawed. There is a *gasp* scientific definition of a species. I don't know it off-hand, but I know it exists. And I know that calling the weed out in my lawn a new species doesn't make it one.

"Given that the variations in genes between any two organisms are the factor that accounts for radically different development, such as the case with the banana and the giraffe, we have all the data we need to show that Darwinian evolution is totally realistic, plausible, feasible, however you want to put it."

You are a moron. What do the genetic differences between a giraffe and banana have to do with evolution? Please explain how the banana and the giraffe, together, explain, demonstrate or somehow prove the viability of evolution.

An idiot would argue that evolution happens. An idiot would believe that evolution must explain the origin of distinct species.

Re:Evolution isn't a theory either

[Broken_Ladder]

there is zero evidence to show that the same process yielded a human and a chimp from some common ancestor.

You are gravely mistaken. The evidence for common ancestry is staggering.

1) The hierarchical taxonomy of all life, which applies well specifically to primates.

2) Comparitive anatomy -- if various organisms branched off from a common ancestor, we should expect homologous structures, and internal similarities which, outside the context of Darwinian evolution, make no sense. To take an especially noteworthy example, there is the panda's thumb, which is really just a sixth "digit" formed from one of the wrist bones. If this thumb had been intelligently placed there, we would have no reason to expect it to be formed from a wrist bone. We could expect to see all the wrist bones in place, and then a new bone added specifically for this purpose. Or we could expect to see a fundamentally different layout of the bones altogether, specifically tailored to suit the panda's niche. If Darwinian evolution is true, however, these types of structures make perfect sense. Organisms are always taking advantage of lucky "hacks" to their existing structure. Darwinian evolution is not always pretty, because it has no intelligence or foresight.

3) Comparative embryology -- despite an eventual development plan that leads various life forms to look radically dissimilar, initial fetal development between various organisms is remarkably similar. Many legless species like snakes and cetaceans, initially form leg buds in the embryological development, which are later reabsorbed before birth. These exist because of common ancestry. There is simply no other explanation for them.

4) Comparative biochemistry -- by looking at the number of synonymous differences in gene sequences between various organisms, such as the chimp and human, we can gain a reasonably good idea of when the two species diverged. It just so happens that this kind of analysis between humans and chimps yields a result consistent with the age of divergence as evinced by the fossil record. Strange coincidence! A specifically pertinent example would be the broken ascorbic acid gene in humans and chimps. It's the reason we get scurvy without a source of vitamin C. Humans and chimps both have this gene, which is non-functional, but happens to function well in other organisms. Ours is just defective. If you look at the genes of chimps and humans, there is a certain amount of mutational difference between our vitamin C genes. The fossil record shows that the orangutan is a more distance cousin of humans and chimps. Not surprisingly, there are even more variations between the organgutan's vitamin C gene, and those of the human and chimp. This all fits perfectly with Darwinian evolutionary theory, and has no other explanation.

5) Vestigial organs -- one of the most striking effects of Darwinian evolution is that of genetic remnants from ancestral organisms. Baleen whales in fetal development have teeth for a time, which are later reabsorbed before birth (the baleen is not teeth). This makes sense of course, because cetaceans evolved from wolf-like animals through a remarkably well documented series of intermediates. There are also blind cave fish and salamanders which still have non-functional eye remnants. In humans, we have wisdom teeth, which are usually problematic (they were for me!) and no longer fit in our jaws because of our decreased jaw size. Some people are born without them altogether, and do fine, if not better. We also get goose bumps, which serve no purpose to insulate us, since our hair is no longer thick as it once was. We get them often when we are cold, even though they do virtually nothing to benefit us. It should be noted that humans and chimps have about the same number of hairs, but ours just aren't as thick.

6) Biogeogra

Re:Evolution isn't a theory either

[kilfarsnar]

Dude, you're in way over your head here. And Broken_Ladder is being really patient with you.

Re:Evolution isn't a theory either

[Decaff]

How would you falsify evolution?

It is very easy. If you find a fossil with 'modern' features (such as that of an ape) in rocks that are dated as, say, 100 million years ago, then evolution is instantly falsified.

It's not science, however...

[sterno]

The notion of ID, that some things may be created by an intelligent agent, isn't invalid. An example I've seen mentioned is the notion of the roundup ready corn. Evolution does not explain roundup ready corn because it was made in a lab through, what one might describe as, intelligent design.

If one was to find a kernel of roundup ready and tried to figure out how regular corn had evolved into roundup ready you'd hit a brick wall because it didn't evolve. Does that mean evolution doesn't exist? No. Does that mean a deity made roundup ready? No. I think it's worth discussing in the context of a science classroom because it illustrates the practical limits of science, that no scientist would refute. There are some things that will forver beyond the ability of science to explain, and that's okay.

To be clear, I recognize that 99.8% of the people promoting ID are trying to find a breach through which to ram christian theological explanations for creation. These people are fools though because every time this has happened throughout history. Science has eventually expanded to understand the things that were supposedly only the realm of God before.

Re:It's not science, however...

[smallpaul]

If one was to find a kernel of roundup ready and tried to figure out how regular corn had evolved into roundup ready you'd hit a brick wall because it didn't evolve. Does that mean evolution doesn't exist? No. Does that mean a deity made roundup ready? No. I think it's worth discussing in the context of a science classroom because it illustrates the practical limits of science, that no scientist would refute.

Let me be the first to refute that you've discovered a "limit" of science. Roundup-ready corn has a scientific explanation. It was created by human beings and human beings are part of nature. You can make theories about roundup-ready corn: "if this corn was created by an intelligent being, as we suspect, then there should be a reason for it to be the way it is. Perhaps it is meant to survive contact with a pesticide. If so, then we should be able to reverse engineer the pesticide, or maybe even detect traces of it. The pesticide should be able to kill some pest that would otherwise harm the corn (otherwise why have the pesticide?). Are there such pests in nature? The society that created roundup-ready corn should have a certain level of biological and chemical proficiency. How would we detect those?" etc.

It would not be scientific to say: "we can't figure out how Roundup-ready corn came to exist and therefore it must have been created by a supernatural being outside the realm of science."

If intelligent designers are serious about their arguments then they must investigate the attributes of the designer using scientific methods. For example, the designer would have to have a very high level of biological competency and would have had to have achieved that a long time ago. The designer isn't visible in this solar system and therefore probably came from another. etc. Once you sketch out such a being and his/her motivations, evolution doesn't seem like such a bad theory.

At least give the correct citation:

[katharsis83]

"I'd like to say to the good citizens of Dover. If there is a disaster in your area, don't turn to God, you just rejected Him from your city. And don't wonder why He hasn't helped you when problems begin, if they begin. I'm not saying they will, but if they do, just remember, you just voted God out of your city. And if that's the case, don't ask for His help because he might not be there."

- Pat Robertson, Nov. 9th broadcast of the 700 Club.

It's so sad...

[giorgiofr]

... that we have to have our theories defended by a judge in court rather than by their own merits. Are we so unsure of ourselves that we need to be reassured by courts? I don't feel offended when I see all kinds of symbols painted on the streets of my city: because I know better than to trust the first fool who comes around.
I remember people on /. claiming that "those who need the state to protect their faith must lack faith in it themselves": this is so true, so now that it applies to us, what is our reaction? We do exactly the same as the ones we oppose! We whine and cry bloody murder and somebody please THINK OF THE CHILDREN! How comes that now this is a good reason to complain, but in other circumstances it's not? I am ashamed of /.
Finally. I like freedom. Even yours, even when you don't agree with me. I don't want a judje to tell you what you can or cannot do or teach, because tomorrow it will be me who will have to comply with some other stupid regulation. I say, let the market decide. If you don't want your children to learn bullshit send them to a different school or - schocking! - EXPLAIN to them something about the subject of whatever vs. evolution.
Tomorrow another law will be passed, or a sentence made, that outlaws the teaching of something we respect. And we won't be able to complain because today we are effectively maintaining that we don't know better and we need a court to guide us.

Re:It's so sad...

[edraven]

That's an interesting point of view, philosophically. I think the central point here is, what qualifies as use of the system, and what qualifies as abuse? Considering that the laws of the United States accept as a central mandate the separation of church from state, I think a strong case could probably be made to say that a state-funded institution can not lawfully be used to spread what is essentially thinly-veiled religious doctrine. Therefore the intervention of the justice system to prevent such a situation from continuing would be an example of its proper functioning.
Essentially, the point is that when a criminal injures himself breaking into your house, it makes a certain kind of sense to object to his filing civil charges in order to obtain compensation. That is no kind of argument to abandon the concept of civil court.

Yes it does - to an extent

[AnEmbodiedMind]

Debating the merits of Intelligent Design itself may not rate as decent philosophy, but there is definitely room in philosophy for debates which touch on some of its ideas. For example, first year university philosophy will often contain material on the classic debates about the "brain in the vat" (later popularised in the Matrix) and other sceptical arguments about our perceptions of the world (and epistemology).

Versions of Intelligent Design (not all versions I admit) which for example include the rejection of fossil evidence as some sort of trick by the intelligent designer raises many of the same issues - how can we know that our perceptions and measurements can be trusted?

Did God forge the fossil record and does it matter

[clonan]

I am a christian and therefore I beleive that god created the universe and man in his own image. However I also beleive that evolution is a perfect explination of HOW god did that.

Science in general only provides the how, it NEVER provides the why. You need philosophy and religion to do that.

But I am off track. We were talking about whether god forged the fossil record. I submit that is doesn't matter one way or another, we will still act the same way.

Possibility 1 (the fossil record is all a lie and was placed there by god):

To answer this we should look to the bible. There are litterally dozens of passages that instruct man and belivers in particular to explorer gods creation. The world was created for us and we are instructed to appreciate it's glory. Science is simply a structured way of exploring the universe. Even if god DID create false fossil records we should still explorer them and science is the best way we know of to explore things.

Possibility 2 (the fossil record is an accurate measure of history):

Not only does the prior paragraph still apply but now we have an added incentive. We can now begin to understand god himself through his method of creation. By studying how he did things we can begin to guess why and therby come to a better understanding of the almighty and our place in it. If the record is false than we can't derive any info like that.

Since god is all powerfull and we have no way of directly observing his power we can't PROVE he did or didn't do anything. FOr instance say the fossil record is fake....when did he actually create it? 10,000 years ago, 2000 years ago, 200 years ago or 10 seconds ago? The truth is, if you refuse to trust what you observe than nothing you observe will have any meaning.

Judges shaky reasoning

[amightywind]

Before you mod me down, I agree with the idea of evolution and disagree with ID. Having said that:

(1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation;

Yet Einstein implied as much when he said: "God does not play dice." Many scientists and mathematicians are guided by what they see as divine beauty. If that isn't supernatural causation, what is?

(2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's; and

Good point here. Non-computability (complexity) enters into many successful scientific theories and does then no harm.

(3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community.

Evolutionary theory is not derived from mathematical formalism like classical dynamics, quantum mechanics, physical chemistry, or even econometrics... So it is very hard for proponents to fend off attacks. The lack of rigor, low research standards and general aversion of the biology community to mathematics beyond elementary statistics opens them up to these attacks. Biologists don't do very well in defense. The evolution of life is such an awesome phenomenon it deserves a much better theoretical foundation than currently exists.

Re:Judges shaky reasoning

[jandrese]

You will note, however, that neither Einstein nor those mathematicians try to use god to explain their theories. Einstein was merely expressing his theory that the universe is NOT randomly chaotic and is in fact predictable once you have enough information. Mathematicians are always looking for that beautiful equastion that sometimes falls out of some horrible mess and simplifies a problem greatly.

Non-computability is never the foundation of any science. ID's fundimental flaw is that it is a formalized argument from ignorance, which is a logical fallacy. Besides, the whole point of science is to explain the nature of the universe, not presuppose some answer and stop looking.

Obviously ID and Creationism have plenty of mathematical funimentals to lean on... Saying that biologists have a lack of rigor is something you're going to have to back up with mountains of evidence. It's tantamount to calling them all cheats and liars. Also, saying that life is too cool for evolution made me do a double take. That's some A Class stuff there.

Re:Judges shaky reasoning

[alien_tracking_devic]

Yet Einstein implied as much when he said: "God does not play dice." Many scientists and mathematicians are guided by what they see as divine beauty. If that isn't supernatural causation, what is?

A quote from Einstein frequently taken out of context by defenders of creationism/ID. He was refering to uncertainties indicated by quantum theory that he refused to accept. The remark is not an invocation of religious belief at all.

Good point here. Non-computability (complexity) enters into many successful scientific theories and does then no harm.

Again, out of context; a common example of wedding a rigorous scientific or mathimatical idea and a mystical one. ID excels at this.

The evolution of life is such an awesome phenomenon it deserves a much better theoretical foundation than currently exists.

That might come to pass, but it won't be anyting as idiotic as ID.

Re:Judges shaky reasoning

[amightywind]

A quote from Einstein frequently taken out of context by defenders of creationism/ID.

Read the disclaimer in my first post. I do not defend ID. I am a geologist by training and have observed the succession of species first hand in the sedimentary record many times over. Faith and dogma have no place in science. I think evolution is real and pervasive. My point is that the judge mostly said what he was taught to say, and that the supposed defenders of evolution aren't doing a very good job, mostly because evoltionary theory is still in a nascient state after 150 years.

Re:Judges shaky reasoning

[barawn]

Yet Einstein implied as much when he said: "God does not play dice." Many scientists and mathematicians are guided by what they see as divine beauty. If that isn't supernatural causation, what is?

That's not supernatural causation. That's human opinion.

What you're missing is that Einstein was eventually proven wrong. He had an opinion, he tried to justify it, and he failed. Bohr's response is appropriate: "Albert, who are you to tell God what to do?" Which is, curiously, an appropriate response to this entire argument - who are the ID people to tell God how he created the Earth, and humans?

The scientists and mathematicians don't throw out theories based on their "beauty". They throw them out based on evidence. Ugliness is not a kiss of death for a theory, it just makes goofy scientists with an idea of how the universe is supposed to work dedicate their life to trying to figure out how to get around it.

Re:Judges shaky reasoning

[Black Parrot]

> Saying that biologists have a lack of rigor is something you're going to have to back up with mountains of evidence.

A googling for "mathematical biology" (with the quotes) turns up 558,000 hits - ten times what "mathematical linguistics" turns up. (Without the quotes it goes up to 21 million hits.) Just the first page should dispell any notion that biology is lacking in this area:

• Society for Mathematical Biology Home Page
• Centre for Mathematical Biology, University of Oxford
• Mathematical Biology Homepage
• Mathematical Biology Sites
• Elsevier.com - Bulletin of Mathematical Biology
• SpringerLink - Publication (Journal of Mathematical Biology)
• Center for Cancer Research Nanobiology Program (CCRNP) (Formerly the Laboratory of Mathematical Biology (LMMB))

"biology equation" (without the quotes) gives 3,680,000. "biology math", 25,400,000. There's also a brief Wikipedia article on Mathematical biology, with some links and literature.

Also, my personal experience with biologists is that they know lots of abstruse statistical methods as basic trade skills. ("biology statistics", no quotes, 35,900,000.)

All that to the side, saying that phyisics is rigorous and biology is sloppy is just penis swizzling. Physics, chemisty, biology, geology, meteorology, etc. are all legitimate sciences, and use the type and amount of mathematics that is appropriate to the phenomena they study. Focusing on mathematics as the measure of a science is as arbitrary as focusing on the number of Antarctic bases would be.

I think I speak for all of us mammals when I say,

[avasol]

shut the fuck up.

-Ever noticed how people who believe in Creationism look really unevolved? -Bill Hicks, the last American Hero.

Jesus!

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank God I was Praying for that to happen, Brothers.

Deciding what is science

[benhocking]

To further back up my comments about who was and who was not performing due diligence:

Witold Walczak, an American Civil Liberties Union lawyer representing the families, noted in his cross-examination of Geesey that the policy was adopted over the objections of Dover High School's science teachers.

"The only people in the school district with a scientific background were opposed to intelligent design ... and you ignored them?" he asked.

"Yes," Geesey said.

From MSNBC.

Nothing to teach

[laetus42]

There's really nothing to teach about ID. "*deity-of-choice* has made everything you see and more. It works the way it does because he/she made it that way and nobody knows why. Class dismissed"

It *poses* no questions, more to the point

[ianscot]

It's an interesting interpretation of the state of the universe, but it answers exactly zero questions about it.

The gist of the problem is, ID is unscientific more because it *poses* no questions than because it answers none.

The M.O. of Intelligent Design's advocates forever now has been to go to the edges of what science knows and identify something out there that hasn't been fully explained yet. They then claim the as-yet-unexplained area is evidence of things being so complicated there can be no explanation except a godlike "designer." When science figures out the supposedly irreducible complexity of whatever the example was, the IDers just move the goalposts to whatever's on the edge now.

Michael Behe -- author of "Darwin's Black Box" -- for example, started out talking about fossil whales. Why weren't there intermediary whale forms between mesonychids and true whales? Oops -- over the next 20 years many, many steps in between turned up. "Black Box" is the same watch-watchmaker argument, only about subcellular structures like cilia. The logic's flawed in the same way, and his book is out-of-date in several of its claims. Don't worry, ID types will move the terms of the debate out somewhere else. We're never going to be omniscient, so they'll always have something to seize on.

The trick is, if the ID vision of the universe being so complex it can't be explained by anything but a God was accepted, nobody would ever have asked *any* questions about how things work. In these people's minds, every- every- everything is so infinitely complex that the only possible response to the world is to worship its creator. They've been making this argument since well before Darwin was around, it's not specific to evolution.

It's not just that their idea doesn't answer any questions. No questions would even get asked , if these people ran the world, or your school system.

(And of course that would suit them just fine, because their religious views are about preserving their authority, not about explaining the world or helping anyone lead a moral life.)

Re: It *poses* no questions, more to the point

[Black Parrot]

> > It's an interesting interpretation of the state of the universe, but it answers exactly zero questions about it.

> The gist of the problem is, ID is unscientific more because it *poses* no questions than because it answers none.

It's even worse than that: proponents of ID argue that questions shouldn't even be interesting.

Imagine a real scientist discovering that some previously unknown force is having an observable effect on various things, publishing that claim to much fanfare, and then arguing that the nature, properties, and origin of the force aren't interesting questions and shouldn't be pursued.

Re:It *poses* no questions, more to the point

[endoplasmicMessenger]

Michael Behe -- author of "Darwin's Black Box" -- for example, started out talking about fossil whales. Why weren't there intermediary whale forms between mesonychids and true whales? Oops -- over the next 20 years many, many steps in between turned up.

Its amazing how a 10-year-old book can be 20 years out of date. And how the index has no entry under "whales".

Re:It *poses* no questions, more to the point

[ianscot]

Perhaps you misunderstood me to be saying "Black Box" starts with a discussion of fossil whales. I didn't say that.

Once burned, twice shy, Behe may be hoping to avoid the fate of his 1994 claim that there were no transitional fossils linking the first fossil whales with their land-dwelling Mesonychid ancestors (8). Less than a year after that prediction, the existence of not one, not two, but three transitional species between whales and land-dwelling eocine Mesonychids was confirmed.
--Kenneth R. Miller's review of "Darwin's Black Box"

You're right, though -- his ID goofiness was outpaced by science inside of a single year, and it's only been 11 years since he made such a total ass of himself over the whale fossils. I plead "casual internet posting."

A sign!

[Anonymous Coward]

The ad I got when I looked at this page was ThinkGeeks "Power Squid". It looked like a flying spaghetti monster. It must be a sign! An intelligent de-sign! The end is near, repent, you sinners!

Re:Article didn't mention HOW it's unconstitutiona

[MightyMartian]

From the little I've read of the ruling, the judge arrived at his decision from two different angles. On the one hand, the board members were basically liars who implicated themselves in a scheme to push a religiously-motivated curriculum into a public school (note to school boards, lying to judges is a bad idea). The second stream is that the overwhelming majority of scientists do not accept ID as science at all (I'd wager that less than one percent of all active researchers think there are any merits to ID), and thus ID doesn't even have any particular merits on its own.

The fact is that the Dover school board were immoral hypocrites, who in the name of their religious beliefs, violated basic Christian tenets. They went looking for something that could pass the inspection of someone not familiar with how science really works, and found Intelligent Design, as formulated by the likes of Dembski, Behe and the Discovery Institute. They had no interest in teaching the children of Dover about science, but simply wanted to undermine a theory they don't like due entirely to their own particular religious beliefs.

This war will be heating up again

[dlm85]

Once the "War on Christmas" is over this battle will heat up again. Many of the ID warriors have been redeployed to fight the "War on Christmas". They have marching orders from Fox News. They are trying to protect the baby Jesus. Once the holiday season is over, they will be programmed to return to the ID frontline. Just remember to tell these warriors , "Season's Greetings" if you happen to see them in front of your favorite store.

Re:This war will be heating up again

[scheming daemons]

Mod the parent, please.

and "Happy Holidays" to you too. ;-)

Maybe if they had scientists with real studies

[robix_mevdev]

We just can't ignore the hundreds of years of research. Evolution is not the real issue here, it is creationism.

I am just so thankful of the scientific method. It is just so perfectly weighted.

Make assumptions, study something, make findings, publish them, learn from them, and let everyone be more informed because of it.

Religious extreemists

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a growing movement or christian religious extreemissim in this country and the ID thing is solid evidnece of it. I've noticed that christians of late have been realy intolerant of other religions here in america where religious freedom is the law of the land. ID in schools? What about that hindu kid? Think he belives it as you do? Also freedom of religion means the freedom to have or have not a religion.

Judge's Ruling in its entirety

[kwietman]

Is available here: http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/05 1220_kitzmiller_342.pdf Of not is the care Judge Jones takes to blast the Board for their "inanity" in pretending that this issue was about science. The precedents and logic are elegant and impeccable. The judge clearly states that ID will never be science. A victory for logic!

answers in genesis

[Anonymous Coward]

To those who say ID is not science, check out http://www.answersingenesis.org/

ID is very much science, if you look at it properly.

Decision does not limit teachers

[ToSeek]

Why can't a teacher tell his students that many people believe God created the universe?

The decision says nothing, nada, zip about what teachers can say in the classroom. What it does say is that teachers can't be forced to read anti-evolutionary statements in class.

I find it ironic that a judgment against a school board requiring teachers to present certain viewpoints (to which they strenously objected - see the trial testimony) is considered hindering free speech.

Every change had to confer a survival advantage

[Trinition]

Every change had to confer a survival advantage

Why?

All that needs to happen is for a change not to cause the organism to die before it can pass its genes on. If there is a mutation, even a harmless or slightly detrimental one, so long as the organism still successfully reproduces, then it passed its genes on. Its unmutated counterparts may still reproduce at a better rate, causing its own numbers to diminish relatively.

But if that disadvantage then mutates again to something that is then a great advantage, then this organism can regain its losses and procreate even faster than its nonmutated counterparts.

Sometimes to reach a gloablly optimal path, you have to take a locally suboptimal path. So long as one mutation doesn't completely destroy an organism, the mutation, even if immediately unhelpful, can serve as a stepping stone to future, more helpful mutations or advantages in changing environments.

Imagine it like this. Suppose a mutation makes a human very nerdy looking. Girls don't like that. Their chances of reproduction drop sharply. The occasional nerd of the opposite sex may come along allowing this breed to trickle on. Then computers are invented and these nerds have anew environment in which to flourish. Their nerdy traits make them very successful, which in turns attracts a large number of mates, allowing what was a negative mutation to carry on in greater numbers!

OK, that one was a stretch :)

Re:Every change had to confer a survival advantage

[An Onerous Coward]

You're arguing counter to statistics here.

No, a gene doesn't have to confer a survival advantage in order for the gene to get passed on. But if it confers even a slight disadvantage (with no counterbalancing advantages), then the gene quickly disappears from the population. Even a 1% advantage is enough to allow a new mutation to wipe out competing genes within a few hundred generations, when the competing genes are firmly entrenched.

As a statistical matter, there need to be lots of copies of a gene in the population before you're likely to start seeing new mutations of that gene. So it's very unlikely that a disadvantageous gene is going to hang around long enough to change into something advantageous. I'm going to double check this with someone who actually knows something about population genetics (read: not me), but I'm pretty sure that, as a matter of principle, evolutionary theorists assume that locally suboptimal paths are never taken.

Now to your dilemma: how does evolution occur at all? Without the ability to traverse suboptimal paths, won't critters be stuck the way they are?

Two solutions present themselves. First, motion along the proverbial "fitness terrain" is more like quantum tunneling than standard Newtonian mechanics. Descendants don't wander away from their parent; they appear a certain distance away. So a sufficiently weird mutation will simply "appear" on the other hill.

The other possibility: The fitness terrain itself is constantly changing. Changes in the environment, changes in other species, etc., all work to constrain the sorts of traits that are useful for survival. So a seemingly imposssible jump might happen simply because the environment provided some intermediate niche at the time, which subsequently disappeared.

Finally, the whole concept of the fitness terrain may just be a useful analogy. Don't take it too seriously or it will make your head hurt.

My GF is the daughter of two evolutionary anthropologists. I'll run this by them.

Re:Every change had to confer a survival advantage

[Ayanami Rei]

...but I'm pretty sure that, as a matter of principle, evolutionary theorists assume that locally suboptimal paths are never taken.

While the rest of your post is interesting, this isn't true. Suboptimal paths are important, even if it's just for implementing that "popping on the other side of the valley" phenom. Sometimes a tolerated suboptimal condition can carry you close enough to a local extrema that you jump across and hill climb on the other side.
And it depends on what you mean by suboptimal. In a large population, all the elements which didn't score as well post-mutation than the one that was "the best" are suboptimal. Yet you keep some large subset of the population. Implictly you are taking locally suboptimal paths in a gigantic minimization/maximization problem along with some point which is following its gradient (to the best that the underlying function can be approximated by this monte carlo-ish method). Certainly you wouldn't just keep the best one. You've got to have some method of picking other not so good ones to ensure you don't end up stuck in a local extrema. And this is just simple computer modeling theory.
I would expect evolutionary theorists to have even more refined statistical/generational models than that...

Re:Every change had to confer a survival advantage

[mopower70]

Sometimes to reach a gloablly optimal path, you have to take a locally suboptimal path. So long as one mutation doesn't completely destroy an organism, the mutation, even if immediately unhelpful, can serve as a stepping stone to future, more helpful mutations or advantages in changing environments.

You're falling into the same common trap that leads to "theories" like ID. There is no goal to evolution. Evolution is not about optimization. In fact, optimization is deterimental to natural selection because it reduces the diversity of the genetic material available to the descendants. The eye did not evolve into what it is because it was the best design, nor can you accurately describe the eye as an optimal solution to the problem of sight. Sometimes things evolve and stay around for the entire lifespan of the species for no other reason than their proximity to something else that came into usefullness.

Re:Every change had to confer a survival advantage

[brit74]

> Sometimes to reach a gloablly optimal path, you have to take a locally suboptimal path. So long as one mutation doesn't completely destroy an organism, the mutation, even if immediately unhelpful, can serve as a stepping stone to future, more helpful mutations or advantages in changing environments.

(nod) Actually, you might be interested to know that the researchers on the Avida program (which does digital organism evolution) have noticed this phenomena in their work - an organism would gain a slight detrimental mutation which puts it in place to gain a much larger benefitial mutation.

Re:Every change had to confer a survival advantage

[endoplasmicMessenger]

Every change had to confer a survival advantage

Why? All that needs to happen is for a change not to cause the organism to die before it can pass its genes on.

Wrong. Let's say you have a son who has six fingers. Does that mean that the whole human population will suddenly have six fingers? No.

Does it even mean that any of his descendants will have six fingers? Maybe. Maybe not. It depends on how the mutation was introduced and what the survival rate is.

He may mate with someone and the mutation could disappear altogether since a mutation is by definition a "non-standard" part of the chromosome. Did you ever notice what happens when a horse and a donkey mate? What you get is sterile offspring. So a mutation by itself is not enough. You need a mutation whose carrier will survive into the next generation.

A steady state population means that overall, the total number of members of the population remains about the same. That means that for every two parents, about two offspring will survive. If the parents have six offspring, during the course of their lives (extremely conservative for animals in the wild) that means that four of them will die before reproducing. So, right off the bat, the chances are 4-to-2 that any mutation will not survive.

"Survival advantage" means that of all the surviving and reproducing offspring in the population, some "substantial/statistically significant number" will have the mutation. So, by definition, to have "survival advantage", the mutation must already be present in some statistically significant portion of the population. And to get this far, it must overcome the 4-to-2 death rate. And even if it survives one generation, the odds get worse and worse that it will survive multiple generations. Do the math. First generation .33 chance of survival. Second generation: .11. Third: .04. etc.

So, basically, the occasional infrequent mutation, unless it is radical in its effects, is not likely to spread into the population as a whole. In fact, the mutation rate would have to be dangerously high in order for a mutation to be able to spread to the whole population. And why is this dangerous? Because then the very life of the species is in danger. Check out these frogs from Minnesota. That's what happens when your mutation rate is too high.

So study up on your population genetics and learn why it is not so easy for a "useful" mutation to survive and spread out in to the rest of the population.

Re:Every change had to confer a survival advantage

[RodgerDodger]

The reason most successful mutations have a survival advantage is that in order to spread, it has to be passed on to more descendants than other similar patterns (such as the original). This is more likely if the mutation contributes to survival - it's purely a statistical thing.

However, not all successful mutations have a survival advantage, as you point out. Also, the nature of a "survival advantage" changes as conditions change.

Furthermore, the "survival advantage" isn't necessarily of the individual. One of the (vastly simplified) arguments for genetic pre-disposition of homosexuality is that homosexuals tend to be more creative; creative societies tend to out-compete non-creative societies; ergo, societies that spawn homosexuals tend to be more successful, thus the hypothetical "gay gene" propogates even though homosexuals themselves don't.

(Purely example - I'm not trying to say that homosexuality is or is not genetic in nature)

Re:Every change had to confer a survival advantage

[An Onerous Coward]

As promised, the response from my girlfriend's dad:

Lots of ink has been spilled on the subject of how evolution gets through
suboptimal states. Here are a couple of items:

1. When a new mutation arises, it is present in just a single copy. For
several generations thereafter, the number of copies will be small.
Because of these small numbers, the evolution of new mutants is dominated
by chance, not by selection. Even a favorable mutation is very likely to
be lost by chance during the first few generations. For example, suppose
that the new mutatant survives with a probability that is 1+s times as
large as the common type. In other words, its selective advantage is s.
Then it will ultimately become fixed throughout the population with
probability 2s. If s=0.01 (fairly strong selection), then the mutant will
ultimately be lost with probability 0.98. (This result is a classic,
derived by Fisher and Haldane.) It is not until the mutant becomes
relatively common that its fate is governed mainly by selection.

2. Sewall Wright studied the problem of evolution on an "adaptive surface",
where the horizontal dimensions represent the phenotype, and the vertical
one is fitness. Selection tends to move a population to the top of the
nearest hill. So how does it get across valleys? Wright's idea was that
large populations get stuck on little hills, and never make it across
valleys. Small populations, on the other hand, are overwhelmed by
stochastic forces and do not respond much to selection. But if a large
population is subdivided into 1000 local groups, then each group explores
the surface 1000 times as fast, and the whole population evolves a million
times as fast. Several skeptical papers on this have been published in the
past decade. I don't know where the issue stands now.

I'm sending this to you because I don't have a Slashdot account.

Re:Every change had to confer a survival advantage

[sickofthisshit]

It should be emphasized, as you noted previously, that all of these mathematical models are idealizations. In the messy, real world, there is no particular reason to believe that an "adaptive surface" exists as a nice, continuous mathematical object, if for no other reason than the genetic code is discrete.

Furthermore, even if there is such a surface, it is not necessarily static on the timescale of reproduction and speciation.

On the other hand, mathematical models allow for rigorous deduction, and are valuable as frameworks to analyze actual data from lab experiments (where conditions can be made hopefully identical to the model assumptions), and even from the field (where there is then room for discussion as to what likelihood there is that the model assumptions hold true).

A similar situation occurs in economics; people can rigorously analyze situations where there are, for example, two countries trading two goods and have two currencies, and two input factors, etc., and that's the entire world economy. The real world economy is made up of six billion often irrational actors, in a constantly changing environment where technology is developing, and traders are churning markets non-stop.

It's About Friggin' TIme!!!

[eno2001]

You see there's a lot of proof that evolution is more than "just a theory" and the ID is a steaming smelly crock. Even I can figure that out and I'm no rocket scientist!!! Check it:

1. Alcoholism is a genetic disorder that is passed along through the jeans.
2. Alcoholism is, by and large, seen as an acceptable disorder if the person is somewhat functional.
3. Gender prefrence is passed along genetically through the genes.
4. Homosexuality is, by and large, rejected as a "normal" state of being even if the person is a completely productive member of society.

So what's the problem then? Here's the problem. We can accept that alcoholism is a function of jeans but we can't do the same for gender preference because it would prove evolution. So we need to make sure that we classify gender preference as a choice so it's not affected by the genes. But we can't do that with alcoholism because there's already a large body of work that proves otherwise. This means ID is a crock. QED!

Re:It's About Friggin' TIme!!!

[SebNukem]

". Alcoholism is a genetic disorder that is passed along through the jeans "

LOL. That was funny.

Re:It's About Friggin' TIme!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

God I hate you athiest scum fuckers!

There is hope

[Anonymous Coward]

I am not an American, and dont live there. However, reading about the school board's decision a few weeks back made me not only angry, but sincerely worried about the future of the country who has lead the scientific world for a century.
This news piece made my day, cheers.
Now please dont elect another retard as president.

Well....

[mormop]

If he chokes to death on piece of pasta tonight I'm gonna convert immediately.

Beware his noodly vengeance!!

Do This To This Federal Judge & See What He Sa

[Halvy]

When dropped into the middle of the ocean, with no life preserver, and left alone to die..

He will say what has been proven that most anyone else will say.

He won't call out to; Mommy, Darwin, Bush, or any else..

But he will cry out to... God.

-- SlashDots Moderation system is NOT broken. It is 'fixed'.

My kid, my decision

[BobSutan]

Its simple really, if I want my kid to learn religion in school then I will send him to a religious school, catholic or otherwise. Faith is based on a belief, not facts, and that is not science. Since this was tought in a science class it is a just decision and our kids will be better for it.

For those that believe ID is anything but a dressed up creationist view masquerading as a science of any kind, think again. Most people capable of critical thinking aren't fooled and thankfully neither was the judge.

Re:My kid, my decision

[myz24]

+1 Has a Clue

I fully agree that ID should not be taught in public schools. It is up to the religion of the child/parent[s] to teach what they believe in.

Re:My kid, my decision

[SebNukem]

"Faith is based on a belief, not facts"

That is way it's called Faith

District Judge John E. Jones III

[MrCopilot]

FSM Bless The Honorable District Judge John E. Jones III , May he be touched by "his noodly appendages".

Evidence for Evolution

[farker haiku]

For you Darwin haters: that godless organization known as PBS has a list of about 100 links that provide evidence of evolution. All of these are supposed to be created by scientists (but don't come crawling back complaining if you find out that one of them wasn't - it doesn't invalidate the evidence, it invalidates my statement that they are scientists).

Religion and Theism

[Pfhorrest]

The opposite of "a religious person" is not "an atheist".

What makes someone religious is their blind acceptance of some dogma. Faith defines religion - belief without or even contrary to evidence or reason. Many Buddhists are atheists and yet still religious people because they follow the doctrine of their religion without question.

What makes someone atheist is not believing in God(s). As it happens this is the default position of someone who is not religious, as without observed evidence of logical proof, it is irrational to believe in God(s). I myself held this position for the majority of my life. But it's possible to be a non-religious theist, if you've got a sound argument for the existence of God.

Myself, I find that speaking of God makes perfect sense if you see it as speaking of the universe anthropomorphically. My beliefs are not fundamentally different from an atheist's, but suddenly I can understand theists statements about God in a way which not only means something, but quite often produces true statements on the theists parts. Seen in this way, a proof of God's existence is just a proof of the universe's existence, which is trivial as the universe is "all that which exists".

Re:Religion and Theism

[SpryGuy]

The opposite of "a religious person" is not "an atheist".

Not TECHNICALLY true. Since "atheist" literally means "non-theist", or a person who rejects or doesn't believe in a system of dogmatic faith. Technically "atheist" is in fact the opposite of "religious". Of course, reality is never as clear cut as labels we humans come up with, and it's true that you can, for example, consider yourself to be both an atheist and a, say, Unitarian at the same time, with really provoking much in the way of contradiction. That's why I tend to use the word 'atheist' more in a manner of "one who rejects religious dogma/religion" rather than "one who does not believe in god or a higher power or currently unknown levels of existence". I also tend to use "Secular Humanist" a lot, as it's a (marginally) less "loaded word" among those trying to demonize people who don't share their beliefs.

I agree with most of the rest of what you say.

Re:Religion and Theism

[Pfhorrest]

Not TECHNICALLY true. Since "atheist" literally means "non-theist", or a person who rejects or doesn't believe in a system of dogmatic faith.

Here is where you are mistaken. To be theist is not just to be dogmatic or religious. It is to believe in God(s). That was my entire point of my post, that "religious" does not equal "theist" (see Buddhism for an example), and therefore, "non-religious" does not equal "atheist".

Blindly believing in [whatever], and [for some reason] believing in God(s) , are not the same thing. It just so happens that most people who believe in God(s) do so blindly.

Re:Religion and Theism

[truedfx]

What makes someone atheist is not believing in God(s). As it happens this is the default position of someone who is not religious, as without observed evidence of logical proof, it is irrational to believe in God(s).

I think you're confusing atheist and agnostic, the latter being the logical default position, since there's no proof God doesn't exist either.

Re:Religion and Theism

[jeffasselin]

You cannot prove a negative from particulars. I'd have to point to everything that can exist and show you none of those corresponded to a given definition of God for me to prove there is no God. I would have to do the same thing regarding invisible pink unicorns.

Are you suddenly going to adopt a neutral position with regard to invisible pink unicorns too?

Re:Religion and Theism

[convolvatron]

actually i can recall several fundamentalist rants that directly attacked
'secular humanism' as a force of evil. which i could never understand,
there are so few people who would all themselves that. they dont prostyletize.
they beleive much of what christians are supposed to beleive, they just dont
give money to any church. i would love for a beleiver to try to explain why
these people are so damn nasty.

Re:Religion and Theism

[truedfx]

There is a way of proving something doesn't exist: assume it does exist, draw conclusions from that, and if they lead to a contradiction, either the assumption is false, or your logic is flawed. In the rather simple case of invisible pink unicorns, you could say for example that invisible means it reflects no light, pink means it reflects some light, and as these contradict, either invisible pink unicorns cannot exist, or there's a flaw in my reasoning. And if you were to take out either the "invisible" or the "pink" part, no, I have no reason to believe they exist, but I'm not about to claim I'm sure they don't unless you want to get more specific.

Re:Religion and Theism

[koko775]

"Absence of proof is not the proof of absence."
This is the core fallacy of atheism. It requires just as much a leap of faith as religion: believing in the absence or presence of a supreme being require similar facilities, and are different than believing nothing at all.

Thus, it is wrong to say that atheists don't believe in God(s), as atheists specifically believe that Gods do not exist. In essence, Agnostics are completely without dogma; atheists are not.

Disclaimer: It's the atheists' right to make the leap of faith, even though it's a pretty short and easy leap, from believing in nothing to believing there is nothing, but I believe differently.

Re:Religion and Theism

[Pfhorrest]

I think you're confusing atheist and agnostic, the latter being the logical default position, since there's no proof God doesn't exist either.

I'm not confusing them - that's my very point.

The opposite of religious is not atheist, it's agnostic. Religious people believe "[This] is so. Period. End of story." Agnostic people say "I'm not entirely certain what is so. (But the evidence suggests [this], and I think it's safe to assume [that])."

Atheism, theism, or what have you, are all words describing a type of claim about the existence or non-existence of God(s). One can be religiously theistic, religiously atheistic, agnostically theistic or agnostically atheistic. Theism and atheism describe the claim at stake, namely, about the existence of God(s): religious or agnostic describe the attitude toward those claims (or any other claims for that matter).

I find an agnostic approach infinitely more rational than a religious approach. Question everything. Nothing is ever entirely certain (though there are some things very strongly suggested by evidence, i.e. the laws of gravity, or things that are very safe to assume, i.e. the rules of logic).

The quote of mine you're responding to is simply stating that the rational, agnostic default position, for anything, is to assume that a claim is false until there is reason to believe it is so. By the principle of bivalence (that if any claim is false, its negation is true), if you don't believe something is so, you're assuming (though not as a matter of faith; just a tentative assumption) that it's not so. Since an agnostic position is not to believe anything until there's good reason, an agnostic must necessarily assume that any claim about something's existence is false until they have reason to believe it true. So unless you have good reason to believe in God, don't.

Re:Religion and Theism

[Pfhorrest]

I find an agnostic approach infinitely more rational than a religious approach. Question everything. Nothing is ever entirely certain (though there are some things very strongly suggested by evidence, i.e. the laws of gravity, or things that are very safe to assume, i.e. the rules of logic).

And before some grammar Nazi finds this, yes, I just noticed that I used "i.e." where I should have used "e.g." So sue me.

Re:Religion and Theism

[Anonymous Coward]

"Absence of proof is not the proof of absence."
This is the core fallacy of atheism. It requires just as much a leap of faith as religion: believing in the absence or presence of a supreme being require similar facilities, and are different than believing nothing at all.

Thus, it is wrong to say that atheists don't believe in God(s), as atheists specifically believe that Gods do not exist. In essence, Agnostics are completely without dogma; atheists are not.

Disclaimer: It's the atheists' right to make the leap of faith, even though it's a pretty short and easy leap, from believing in nothing to believing there is nothing, but I believe differently.

Although I agree with you, it raises some practical issues, in that you must be agnostic-EVERYTHING. You cannot specifically prove that there aren't green men living 10-feet below the martian surface, therefore u must be green-men agnostic. Replace green-men for $abitrary make believe thing and you'll see what I mean. I believe this is against the spirit of what agnosticism means, in that, agnostics believe either option is likely. Clearly in the green-men case this is not true. You should be green-men atheist.

Re:Religion and Theism

[endoplasmicMessenger]

What makes someone religious is their blind acceptance of some dogma.

May I suggest reading Faith and Reason by Pope John Paul II.

Then you might know that, at least for Catholics, it is expected that they use their reason fully in the investigation and acceptance of their faith.

It is quite analogous to the way that scientists "blindly" accept the scientific method, but are expected to use their reason fully to understand the how the universe works.

Re:Religion and Theism

[truedfx]

The quote of mine you're responding to is simply stating that the rational, agnostic default position, for anything, is to assume that a claim is false until there is reason to believe it is so.

"What makes someone atheist is not believing in God(s). As it happens this is the default position of someone who is not religious, as without observed evidence of logical proof, it is irrational to believe in God(s)."

No, you definitely said atheist.

By the principle of bivalence (that if any claim is false, its negation is true), if you don't believe something is so, you're assuming (though not as a matter of faith; just a tentative assumption) that it's not so.

This is simply not true. One simple example: take a random planet, one that you have not ever seen. Do you believe it is blue? Do you believe it is red? Do you believe it is green? Do you believe it is white? I'm guessing you'd say no to all, but that you'd not assume it's none of those colours either.

More to the point, it's possible to be agnostic and not make assumptions either way about the existence of God.

Re:Religion and Theism

[Twylite]

Damnit people. Stop trying to define things in terms of opposites.

An athiest believes there is no god. That is a much strong statement that simply not believing in a god, or not believing that there are one or more gods. It is an unprovable statement of belief (also known as "faith") in the non-existance of any form of divinity.

An agnostic believes that scientific knowledge or proof of the existance or non-existance of god (or gods) is impossible. Note that this does not preclude an agnostic from being a theist or an athiest -- it just means that the agnostic is aware that there can be no scientific evidence to back his/her beliefs. Agnosticism itself is a belief -- currently there are no proofs that scientific knowledge of god is impossible, largely because there is no definition for "god".

Agnostics are not uncertain. They have a view and they hold it firmly. But that view does not concern whether or not they believe in gods, it concerns whether scientific knowledge of gods is possible. An agnostic could be uncertain about his/her beliefs in the supernatural, but that's not inherent to agnosticism.

Religion is a belief system concerning the supernatural. A religion is, by definition, organized (a belief system); and by extension contains various doctrines (such as rituals and moral codes). Without doctrine religion would not be organised, and unorganised belief in the supernatural is termed "spirituality", not "religion".

Because of the need for organization and doctrine, and because they do not concern belief in the supernatural so much as belief against the supernatural, neither athiesm nor agnosticism are considered to be religions. This is both by definition and by convention in comparative religious studies.

The default position is neither athiest nor agnostic. It is "non-believer". A non-believer is someone who does not have a determined viewpoint on the supernatural. (Wikipedia uses the term "weak athiest").

This is different to "secularism", which holds that religion and supernatural beliefs are not paramount in understanding life and the natural world. Secularism is another ideological standpoint with specific views, and does not necessarily describe someone who simply does not have a determined viewpoint on the supernatural.

It is also different to "irreligious", which is the absence of religious belief. An irrelgious person could be spiritual (belief in the supernatural) or a non-believer, or an athiest.

You have grossly misstated the principle of bivalence. From Wikipedia: "In logic, the principle of bivalence states that for any proposition P, either P is true or P is false." You said "if any claim is false, its negation is true" (and in your examples you demonstrate that you intend "negation" to mean "opposite") which is only true when P is boolean.

If P is "I believe jam tastes good", then bivalence says that either P is true (jam tastes good) or P is false (jam does not taste good). The latter does not mean that jam tastes bad (which is the opposite of P), merely that it does not taste good. There are a whole range of tastes in between "bad" and "good". It could taste "just, y'know, okay, i suppose".

Back on agnosticism: agnostics simply believe that claims regarding the existance of god (or gods) are inherently unknowable. There is no statement of whether the gods do or do not exist, only that we can't be sure either way. Thus you get athiest agnostics, theist agnostics, and agnostics who are non-believers.

Re:Religion and Theism

[Pfhorrest]

You have grossly misstated the principle of bivalence. From Wikipedia: "In logic, the principle of bivalence states that for any proposition P, either P is true or P is false." You said "if any claim is false, its negation is true" (and in your examples you demonstrate that you intend "negation" to mean "opposite") which is only true when P is boolean.

I did not mean for negation to mean "opposite" in the sense most people think of things (capitalist vs communist, creation vs destruction, etc). I specifically chose the word "negation" to be as accurate to the principle of bivalence as possible. If "[something] exists" is false, its negation "[something] does not exist" is true, as "[something] does not exist" is equivalent to "it is not the case that [something] exists".

You seem to think I mean opposites in the sense that one would claim "if something is not being destroyed then it is being created", which is blatantly false (something being "not-destroyed" is being "preserved", not "created"), but people think of creation and destruction as "opposites" - which they are a sort of. I like to call that sort of opposite "reciprocal", as opposed to "negation", to borrow mathematical terms. The type of "opposite" I've been speaking of thus far has mostly been negation. (To take a brief tangent, I find that pretty much by definition, reciprocal-type opposites always occur together, while negation-types never do, and the confusion between them is the cause of many false dichotomies that are commonly believed, e.g. between egoism and altruism).

But to get back to the gist of things - you say that agnostics believe it is scientifically impossible to know whether or not God exists. While this may be the strict use of it in comparative religion, I have seen it used more broadly in a general epistemological sense to mean the reservation of judgement about negative claims (as in "x is not so") until reason directly dictates belief in such claims - in other words, as someone in this thread mentioned, the position that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

You also say it is possible to not make any assumptions, but the claim I am making here is that everyone is always making an implicit assumption about every possible claim - that their explicit beliefs have infinitely far-reaching implications about the rest of the universe - and that default position for such claims is usually negative, and should always be negative, unless reasonable evidence indicates otherwise. This is because, given that one is making implicit assumptions about all possible claims, it is not possible to hold all possible positive claims true at once, but it is possible to hold all negative claims true at once.

Lets take someone's height for an example. Call this person John. John may be 6'0", or 6'1", or 6'2", or 5'11", or 5'10", and so on and so forth - there's an infinite number of heights that John could be. Now, I cannot assume that John is 6'0" and 6'1" and so on, because those positions are contrary. However, I *can* assume the negations of all those claims - John is not 6'0", John is not 6'1", and so on - without ever deriving a set of contrary positions. You can assume all positive claims to be false (thus all negative claims true) and get nothing contrary, but you cannot assume all positive claims true (and thus all negative claims false) without your resulting set of claims being contrary, for John must be all heights at once, your hypothetical planet must be all colors at once, etc.

Effectively, what I'm getting at is that it is logically safe to assume "no claim is true" (the position of skepticism) until proven otherwise, but it is not logically safe to assume "every claim is true" (what would you even call that? naivety? I can't imagine anyone has ever held such a position). Since you are always making implicit assumptions about every claim, it is most rational to assume those claims false until you have evidence to the contrary - otherwise, you're picking and choosing which ones to assume

Re:Religion and Theism

[Pfhorrest]

"What makes someone atheist is not believing in God(s). As it happens this is the default position of someone who is not religious, as without observed evidence of logical proof, it is irrational to believe in God(s)."

No, you definitely said atheist.

What I said was, being an atheist is not believing in gods; and also, as a separate thing, that the default position of a person who is not religious (that is to say does not take any claim on faith, which is the same as saying a person who is agnostic) is to assume positive claims false (and thus the contradictory negative claims true) unless there is evidence in their favor. So an agnostic may make no explicit claims about the existence of God, but must implicitly, by their other beliefs, assume one way or the other. The only way out of would be if said person did not even understand the question - you could hold not even an assumption about God if you're not sure what "God" means, but given that you understand that, you're either assuming yes or no implicitly in your other beliefs, even if you're not making any explicit claims about it.

I guess it comes down to Occam's Razor. I don't know whether or not you have elves in your pockets, but given that there is no reason to think so, and such a hypothesis offers nothing in the way of explanation as nothing requires such an explanation, I'm going to assume that you do not have elves in your pockets. The default position is not to postulate a thing's existence unless there is some need to do so; to assume it doesn't exist unless there's reason to think it does. This applies to God as well as it does to anything else.

Re:Religion and Theism

[Twylite]

I did not mean for negation to mean "opposite" ... You seem to think I mean opposites in the sense that one would claim "if something is not being destroyed then it is being created"

I think this because of your statement:

... if you don't believe something is so, you're assuming (though not as a matter of faith; just a tentative assumption) that it's not so...

If I don't believe that something exists, I am not asserting or assuming the negation (or opposite) that it does not exist. The only thing I am assuming is that I should proceed as if it may not exist. The important word here is "believe".

As an example, imagine you are blindfolded, spun around a few times, and told that it's okay to walk forward ten paces. You do not believe that a wall exists in your path (because you trust the person who told you to walk), but that doesn't necessarily stop you from being cautious and feeling out for a wall. You don't believe it's there, but neither do you assume that it's not.

Since an agnostic position is not to believe anything until there's good reason, an agnostic must necessarily assume that any claim about something's existence is false until they have reason to believe it true

That is not the agonistic position. Agostics hold that proof or emperical evidence of god is impossible; thus any belief in or against the existance of god is strictly a matter of faith, and cannot be justified by empericism. No true agnostic is waiting around for proof of god -- they believe wholeheartedly that such proof it impossible. They may believe in the existance or god or be skeptical about it; but in either case they do so knowing that there is no proof of that belief.

...you say that agnostics believe it is scientifically impossible to know whether or not God exists. While this may be the strict use of it in comparative religion, I have seen it used more broadly in a general epistemological sense to mean the reservation of judgement about negative claims (as in "x is not so") until reason directly dictates belief in such claims

Yes, people use a lot of words more broadly than their meaning implies. But this is a religious discussion in which terminology is important (as evidenced by the attempts to define "athiest" and "agnostic"). Furthermore, I have most often heard the words "athiest" and "agnostic" abused in Christian circles, where they mean "undecided heathens waiting to be converted" (another way of saying "reserving judgement until they have reason"...).

You also say it is possible to not make any assumptions, but the claim I am making here is that everyone is always making an implicit assumption about every possible claim

You must be confusing me with someone else ... in fact, I didn't use any form of the word "assume" in my last post. Nonetheless, I happen to agree that every claim is an assumption.

You can assume all positive claims to be false (thus all negative claims true) and get nothing contrary ... it is logically safe to assume "no claim is true" (the position of skepticism) until proven otherwise

Agreed.

To be truly agnostic you must also be skeptical. You do not *know* that x is not-so (e.g. God does not exist) but you've got to assume that until you have reason to think otherwise.

Incorrect. To be agnostic does not deny the option of faith. On the contrary, it says that if you choose to hold a belief on the existance or non-existance of god, you do so knowing that your belief is on faith alone, and no evidence or proof can exist to support that belief.

You have to be careful with "positive" and "negative" statements. Just because something contains a "not" doesn't make it negative. "God exists" and "God does not exist" are

Re:Religion and Theism

[Pfhorrest]

You must be confusing me with someone else ... in fact, I didn't use any form of the word "assume" in my last post. Nonetheless, I happen to agree that every claim is an assumption.

Indeed I did confuse you and another post in this thread. But regardless of that, right here you're misunderstanding me in a vital way. I'm not just saying all claims made are assumptions. I'm saying that by thinking anything, you are implicitly making assumptions about all possible claims. The 'implicit' is important - maybe you haven't thought to ask yet whether there's a knife-wielding murderer directly behind you, but unless you have reason to think there might be you assume that there's not. It's essentially Occham's razor - posit as little as is needed to explain things and nothing more until something requires further explanation. (This is also what I mean be a "positive" idea - an idea which posits something). Put this way it should be obvious that we naturally do assume the negative until proven positive, but people often seem to make the jump to "proven positive" on extremely flimsy evidence. In your blindfold example, you have good reason to expect there might be a wall in front of you, from years of experience with rooms and walls and such. From what I've seen, with God, most people have no experience with God as they define it but believe that he exists simply because they've been told so.

Rather, "supernatural" pertains to that which is not physical or material or can be perceived or explained by natural laws or emperical senses; and by definition includes god(s) and divinity.

So is the study of logic supernatural then? How about analytic psychology? There are a number of "sciences" which deal strictly in the realm of human thought, but in a rational and methodical way, which do not normally fall under the domain of "supernatural" topics, and yet have no more relation to the physical world and empirical observation than does talk about God.

There are countless examples in history. Religious belief held that the earth was the centre of the universe, that the sun revolved around the earth, that the story of creation was literal (the Catholic church now accepts evolution as a mechanism used by god).

This is what I meant by implying that religion is not opposite the *realm* of science. Religions make many claims about the same subject matter that science covers; people just accept science as more authoritative in those matters now. If someday a majority of people take a natural approach to ethics, will that make religion then opposed to the realm of ethics as well? Religion and science are at odds over these topics, but they do not have exclusive and opposite domains of authority, one over physical things and one over ethical. (Although I agree that science alone per se *cannot* directly answer ethical questions, but that there is a separate science-like natural method for answering such questions, with its own axioms and processes that stand on their own equal to the scientific method; and that this method is already partially developed in the notions of human rights and due process of law).

Re:Religion and Theism

[Twylite]

will that make religion then opposed to the realm of ethics as well?

Religion is already in opposition with secular ethics and morality. In general secular morality is more permissive than religious morality (for example in the area of relationships and in particular premarital sex), which causes such a conflict. Most religions require (or at least practice) that their laws are imposed on the population, rather than allowing members of the population to voluntarily accept them. Imposing dogma is unethical by secular standards, where ethics and morality are logically reasoned.

Sometimes the opposition is more blatent: many forms of evangalism require an active effort to change the attitudes of others, something with is an onus on all Christians (according to doctrine), yet which is generally unethical according to secular reasoning.

Obviously there are large areas where religious and secular morality agree; but that doesn't prevent them from being in opposition.

Re:Religion and Theism

[Pfhorrest]

I agree with the statements of fact you've made, but I think you're once again misunderstanding what I mean by "opposed to the realm of."

My original topic, as it relates to that phrase, was the fact that that many people seem to think that what is true or false (reality) is the right topic of study for science, while what is good or evil (morality) is the right topic of study for religion. Not just that they disagree about reality, but they say that religion is not at all about what is real, it's entirely about what is moral, and that's what religion is good for. They are putting religion as a label for "stuff about morality", and science as a label for "stuff about reality".

The reason I mentioned secular ethics is because that is clearly (by definition) not religious and yet still is about morality, good and evil. So by the same reasoning that leads people to make the above-mentioned distinction - that despite many claims they make about what is real or true, that's not really the point of religious doctrines - once secular ethics is most widely accepted as a basis for determining good and evil, such people would argue that religion is not really about morality, despite making many claims about what is good or evil. But then, what is religion "about", if neither reality or morality?

My point is that defining religion by the subject matter it 'rightly' covers winds up with a constantly shifting definition of what religion is, eventually destroying any meaning the word has. Your definition that it covers 'supernatural' things (those things beyond our contemporary understanding of the natural universe) suffers the same problem, as things previously thought to be supernatural are finally understood naturally. A long time ago thunder was considered a supernatural effect, and diseases were the divine punishment of the gods, but we now understand these things naturally. The word "supernatural" is being continually marginalized and will someday be understood as the nonsense word it is, pointing at nothing at all, because anything that is, is natural.

If you define religion by subject matter, then you make that word suffer the same problem - once no subject matter is seen as the proper subject of religion, what exactly is left? What does "religion" *mean*? We can talk about religious approaches to ethics versus secular approaches, but if the "religion is about morality" definition is true, then that means that even secular ethics are religious - an obvious contradiction. Likewise, we can talk about religions vs secular approaches to 'supernatural' things (that which is beyond our current understanding) - the secular or natural approach is to seek to understand it naturally, while religious folk say things like "God did it" and leave it at that. Basically what I'm getting at is that if you define "religion" by subject matter, then any secular study of said subject matter is suddenly "religious", which is obviously contradictory and so that can't be how things are.

Which is why I'm emphasizing that religion is not defined by the subject matter it talks about. Religion makes claims of truth and goodness; it discusses things that we now understand far better than religious texts describe them, and things which even most intelligent and educated people don't understand all that well at all. Religion talks about both reality and morality, the natural universe and the 'supernatural' universe, and secular studies discuss all those same topics, so that cannot be the defining quality of a religion.

Thus why I say religion is defined by its *approach to* subject matters, not the subject matters themselves. The "God did it" religious approach is to see a question or problem and make up (or look up) an excuse to solve it for you, so you don't have to deal with any more questions or problems, sticking your head in the sand. The secular or naturalist approach is to see a question or problem and *try to solve it*. That is the distinction between religion and secular/natural studies. One is dogmatic an

Re:Do This To This Federal Judge & See What He

[edraven]

And then drown. What does that prove?

Riddle me this Batman

[r3ydium]

If ID has to be scienctificly proven . . . Then doesnt Evolution have to be scienctificly proven ? People all the time ask "Prove intelligent desing" I always always want to ask back "Well prove evolution" - There is no single, 100%, fool proof, scientific fact that supports evolution as fact . . . . Its a thoery - So why cant ID be taught as theory ? And Also - To all those who think that the "Christian extremist" are the only ones behind ID being taught - Then The same could be said about the "evolutionist extremists" wanting nothing but evolution taught . . . I dont see how thinking that ID is a credible THEORY makes me an extremists ?

Re:Riddle me this Batman

[scheming daemons]

ID doesn't have to be proven , it has to be provable . There's a big difference.

Evolution is provable/disprovable. ID is not.

ID doesn't meet the rigorous scientific standards to be called a "theory".

Re:Riddle me this Batman

[Bazzalisk]

You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.

You are making the common mistake of using the word theory when you mean hypothesis - evolution is a theory, ID is a hypothesis

Re:Riddle me this Batman

[Stalyn]

"The theory that scientific theories can be labeled provable" is one of those theories that is not provable.

Actually we do not know whether or not a specific scientific theory is indeed provable until it is indeed proven. Statements about provability are vacuous and meaningless. Is String Theory provable? We don't know. One day someone might come up with a proof saying String Theory is unverifiable. Or String Theory could one say be proved. Yet there is no argument over teaching String Theory.

Scientists aren't concerned with provability. They normally just work on whatever they are interested in. The only reason ID is so frowned upon is because it attached to the creationists. It is more political than scientific. Then again, the two at times are inseparable.

Re:Riddle me this Batman

[Wonko the Sane]

You misunderstand the term "provable" it means that an idea is capable of being tested in an abstract sense. It has nothing to do with whether the idea is ultimately correct or incorrect. A false theory can still be provable.

Re:Riddle me this Batman

[Stalyn]

Ah, the first line I made a mistake.

"The theory that scientific theories can be labeled provable" is one of those theories that is not provable.

should read

"The theory that scientific theories can be preemptively labeled provable" is...

My main point was that classifying theories as provable is meaningless. We do not know whether or not a theory is provable until someone proves it. Saying a theory is false/true but provable is redundant. Also claiming a theory is unprovable is in itself unprovable.

Re:Riddle me this Batman

[Anonymous Coward]

Not so. A theory cannot be proved if it says nothing.

In order to be true or false, a theory must make assertions. There have to be consequences to it being true or false.

There are no consequences to ID being true or false. It makes no claims about the way the world must be. The theory of evolution makes plenty of testable claims.

It's like solipsism: the idea that the entire universe is in my imagination. It's unprovable because it says nothing. If the universe is in my imagination, then it is; if it isn't, then it isn't. There's nothing more you can conclude, nothing more you can test.

Now, if ID is true, and there is a creator, then it's true that we can prove ID by finding her/him/it. You can hope for that, if you like. But it doesn't make it any more of a valid scientific theory, because if it is false, there's no way to prove it false. As such, it's meaningless.

Now, go away... you're taking up valuable space in my imagination.

Re:Riddle me this Batman

[windowpain]

I believe you are confused because you do not understand what the word "provable" means. I think you believe it means "possibly being true." That is not what "provable" means. "Provable" means "testable".

The US Army's Dugway Proving Grounds is a testing facility. The saying "the exception that proves the rule" does not mean, as many nonsensically believe, that an exception lends validity to a rule. It means that an exception tests a rule, i.e., it forces an examination of the rule to see if it is truly valid. (The use of the word "proof" in reference to the alcohol content of spirits also relates to its meaning as a synonym for "test".)

The statement "I can lift an elephant over my head" is provable. I can attempt to lift an elephant over my head. The statement "Life (or a living structure like the eyeball) is so irreducibly complex that it could only have been created by an intelligent designer" is not provable. It is not testable. Therefore it is not scientific and it has no place in a science curriculum.

Re:Riddle me this Batman

[Stalyn]

It depends on what you mean. In mathematics provable means a statement can be proved within a system. Normally in mathematics they say undecidable. In physics when they say provable they normally mean falsifiable. This means the theory has the potential to be false or it makes some empirical observation that could be false. As far as testable is concerned, it is along the same lines but not exactly.

My main concern is this idea that only theories that are scientific are falsifiable is itself not falsifiable. When you make this claim you in a sense use the same class of argument as those who support Intelligent Design.

Again String Theory as it stands now is not falsifiable, but no one screams about people teaching it. However that doesn't mean it will not be proven one day. As the theory grows it might be able to make claims that could be observed. Couldn't the same be said for Intelligent Design?

Re:Riddle me this Batman

[Anonymous Coward]

Evolution is provable/disprovable. ID is not.

Hypothetically, if evolution were disproved, would this say nothing about ID? Conversely, if evolution were proved, would this not disprove ID?

Re:Riddle me this Batman

[clbell]

Actually, string theory makes predictions about the behavior of matter which are falsifiable. Perhaps not with today's technology but once we have some more powerful colliders some of the the predictions made by string theory can possibly be tested.

ID vs Evolution is the Wrong Discussion

[ThosLives]

Hrm. The discussion here always degenerates into "is ID provable" and "there is scientific evidence for evolution" debates.

The debate should really be: "What constitutes violation of the separation of church and state clause?"

The Constitution reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Okay, then, what does "respecting an establishment of religion" mean? This is the timeless debate of constitutional lawyers everywhere. The flip side of this, though, is not considered: what about laws that expressly restrict establishment of religion? Put it this way: I believe a law that says "you must teach ID" would violate this amendment. However, I also believe that a law which says "you must not teach ID" is equally in violation of the amendment. Similarly, I believe laws that require the display of the Ten Commandments are unconstiutional but also that laws prohibiting their display are also unconstitutional. The same for prayer in schools, etc.

The reason for this is simple: the authors of the Amendment wanted to prevent the government from abusing religious power. However, in prohibiting certain religious things in the public arena, this religious power is abused. The religion being promoted here is atheism, or agnosticism, or any of a multitude of others. You see, "science" is a religion in the broadest sense (and lawyers like the broad sense).

What many people forget is that by expressly denying something, you are actively asserting the opposite philosophy (in this case, "religion X" versus "everything which is not religion X". In the case of certain religions, all belief systems which exclude that religion are themselves a form of religion. That is, "no religion" is itself a religion (contrary to popular belief).

So, talk about the technical issues between ID and evolution all you want. The issue is much larger than that one, and it is really about active oppresion of religious views under the guise of "tolerance". The only constitutionally valid stance is to make no laws at all regarding religious practices (exception: a law against murder is not usurped by "expression of religion" where said religion has human sacrifice as part of its practices.)

(Incidentally, ID vs Evolution is always looked at incorrectly. ID isn't about how life operates - which is appropriately explained by evolution - but how life originated. The nature of ID still has the logical possibility of the laws of physics being "created" to allow random molecules to join and form self-replicating systems. The discussion can never be finished, because it is unknowable if the universe was created or was always present; it is also foolishness to claim something false if it is unprovable. That is why, as the religious put it, it is a matter of faith. The debate is childishness if it does not serve anything, and the practical implications of ID vs Evolution are quite limited, and it's not really worth the effort to form public policy about somthing which, I believe, is orthogonal to how one interacts with their environment. For that, after all, is the true focus of Religion.)

Re:ID vs Evolution is the Wrong Discussion

[jjohnson]

The point you're missing is that there's a difference between "expressly denying something" and legally mandated silence on an issue. For ID to be taught in science class in a public school amounts to the government teaching ID, a religious theory. Mandating that the government remain silent on ID by not teaching it is not teaching that ID is false. Were a public teacher to teach against ID, it would be the same violation of church and state as teaching for it.

Ultimately, "separation of church and state" means that the government (and all its agents) remains silent on religious doctrine. Silence is not the same as contradicting religious doctrine.

It is not oppressive to prevent the government from endorsing your views. You're free to articulate them all you want; you just can't have official help.

And science is not religion in the broadest sense. The quality of belief in each case is fundamentally different. Science is predicated on conditional belief, faith on unconditional belief. They are inherently different.

Re:ID vs Evolution is the Wrong Discussion

[xigxag]

Hrm. The discussion here always degenerates into "is ID provable" and "there is scientific evidence for evolution" debates.

The debate should really be: "What constitutes violation of the separation of church and state clause?"

Except that the raison d'etre of ID (and similar teachings) is to achieve immunity from separation of church and state challenges. In other words, if we concede that it's ok to teach specific religious ideas as "truth" in public school, then there's no need for ID, the school could just teach right from the Bible. If we don't concede that, then we're back we're we started. We still have to determine whether ID falls under the general rubric of a religious teaching or not. That's why discussions as to the essence of ID vs. the essense of evolution are germane, although I'll admit some of them veer very much off-topic.

ID isn't about how life operates - which is appropriately explained by evolution - but how life originated.

Biology is about how life operates. Evolution is about the origin of species. ID claims the ground held by biogenesis and by evolution. It says that not only was life created primordially, but that variations in species can only be explained by supernatural causes. If ID were just about biogenesis, there wouldn't be the huge controversy that exists. The main webpage for ID states, "ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory." You can't get much more oppositional than that.

I also believe that a law which says "you must not teach ID" is equally in violation of the amendment.

You'd be right, but there is no law which says, "you must not teach ID." There is now a ruling which says, "You must not promote ID in (certain) public schools." The whole point being that a religious practice which is promulgated by THE GOVERNMENT is in violation of separation of Church and State. The same holds for the display of the 10 Commandments. Any private citizen do it. What has been opposed is for it to attain the color of public policy by being done by the Government.

Re:ID vs Evolution is the Wrong Discussion

[leabre]

Amdendment I: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

The simply truth is that if there is a true seperation of church and state, then the state would not be constantly dictating and regulating the church. Hence, there is no true seperation, but an oppression of religous practice.

Further more, the first amendment guarantees freedom *of* religion, not freedom *from* religion. The Constitution is only a contract between the people and the government, not people and private enterprises. Thus, while you may not be able to speak freely or practice religion freely on someone elses private property, the government is supposed to protect your rights on public property. Thus, when the govenment begins "cracking down" on any religious practice, excercise, or speach on public property, they are no longer protecting, but oppressing/restricting, in violation of the First Amendment.

However, there's a fine line. The government isn't supposed to endorse a religion, at the same time it is supposed to protect religious practice on public property, since it cannot on private property. The argument to keep religion out of politics doesn't hold up, either. Many (but not all) of our founding fathers were religious (despite what Wikipedia says, there's more evidence, even from their own personal journals to support that many of our founding fathers were indeed religious) and they regularily made religious statements on record in office and made decisions effected by religion... the simple fact being, everyone believes something, and that something effects that person's decision making process severely, whether religious or anti-religious. This is exactly why the First Amendment exists in the first place: if the govenment can't endorse a religion and be succumbed to it, then they shouldn't restrict it or favor one over the other, otherwise it is the same as endorsing. So they protect the right and remain nuetral. That is the contract between the people and the govenment, but like many contracts these days, is broken.

The right to free speech and privacy? Speech is a hard one. I believe we should be able to say whatever we want to say even to the offense of the listeners. Read up on early American history and you'll see that the people were sharply divided and easily angered, but free spech was considered sacred. If you offend me, so what. That's the price to pay. If I offend you, so what. Opinions differ and through those difference of opinions, mingled with blood, was this nation forged. However, to purposely slander someone falsely, should not be protected, without consequence. That, I believe, should be the extend of the limits on free speech. But these days, there is so much liability in what you say that we really don't have protected speech at all.

Privacy? For all those who want to believe that the constitution doesn't explicity prohibit or protect privacy, you may or may not be correct. But when you look at the lives of our founding fathers, it was a common practice to write letters under an alias or anonymously in order to push their political agenda. Therefore, while the Constitution doesn't mention it directly, the lives of the people who wrote the Constitution certainly reflect that the right to privacy and anonymous letter-writing (blogging/newgroups postings/etc.) are protected.

Let the flames begine

Thanks
Leabre

Re:ID vs Evolution is the Wrong Discussion

[Creechur]

So, talk about the technical issues between ID and evolution all you want. The issue is much larger than that one, and it is really about active oppresion of religious views under the guise of "tolerance". The only constitutionally valid stance is to make no laws at all regarding religious practices...

A very good point, and I happen to agree with your examples such as the Ten Commandments (although calling atheism a "religion" is misleading at best). However, I fail to see how that applies to this case. If ID is necessarily based in religion, then it should be taught in religion/theology class rather than science class. That's not a violation of the establishment clause - if it were, I could propose any wild conjecture I wanted, base it in religion, then cry foul because it doesn't get taught in science classes. If ID can stand on its own as a scientific theory, however, then the issues you state don't apply anyway. The judge ruled that the former applied rather than the latter.

Re:ID vs Evolution is the Wrong Discussion

[Maxo-Texas]

Science is not a religion.
Science is a mechanism.

Some scientific theories become religions (such as the russian's goofy genetic ideas back in the 40's and 50's). A key aspect advocate of the theory using their power to suppress data which contradicts their theory.

That means they need to be testable- so you have to be able to propose an experiment which would prove or disprove your theory.

But because science is a method, not a religion, anyone can gather data.

Unless someone else can gather the same data you can, then your experiments are not reproducible and your theory fails to be testable.

The theory of evolution is the current best fit for a huge pile of data. Some of the strongest supporting data comes from genetics (fascinating stuff).

It could be wrong. the theory of gravity could be wrong as well. Tomorrow gravity could stop for a few minutes and the survivors would then need to figure out why gravity stopped for a few minutes.

----

Let me talk to you straight Thos.

The one thing I have always appreciated about christians was that they were truth seekers, honest, and honorable to the point of dying for it.

Their belief made them happy- and it made them fairly pleasant people to have in a community. When they were in that mode, they attracted honest, honorable, and kind people to them.

As the religion has grown in numbers, it has become corrupted. Consider how many priests were protected from the consequences of all the evil they did. In my friend's small church, there was one similar incident between a senior figure and an adult member and that was -it-. He was still a member of the church but he was no longer qualified to be a moral leader

Please listen Thos- the people behind ID are liars and hypocrites. They do the christian religion no good in the eyes of non-believers. They clearly want to win at all costs. ID is not about promoting christianity- if anything it drives potential converts away.

What astounds me (and I assume other non-christians) is how the "good" christians are tolerating and getting into bed with these lying evil ID'ers over a stupid issue like "who created the earth" instead of focusing on "how can I be a good, moral and kind person and follow the beliefs of my flavor or christianity (usually just -believe that jesus was really the son of god).

If you force a bunch of religious crap down young student's heads then you only either kill the country because it can't perform good science or you lose the children when they realize how you abused their trust

---

The scientific method is NOT a religion. It's a method- just like car repair or the procedure for opening a door. Some theories may take on religious aspects for -BRIEF- periods of time (like 20-40 years) but they are always overturned by new data while good theories are continuously strengthened by new data (Evolution -currently- appears to be one of these "good" theories).

That's all I really have to say- maybe some of it will find fertile soil.

Re:ID vs Evolution is the Wrong Discussion

[Cyno]

So, talk about the technical issues between ID and evolution all you want. The issue is much larger than that one, and it is really about active oppresion of religious views under the guise of "tolerance".

Okay, I won't talk about the technical issues between ID and evolution. What about this nearly complete hypothesis that is Intelligent Design is any different than other creation myths and why should we include ID and not all of the creation myths in a biology science class?

Science is not mythology. And hypotheses rarely make it into a highschool text book. They save those for college, where students are expected to know how to think for themselves. Trying to introduce this corriculum into a highschool science class seems like a directed assult on the theory of evolution as well as an attempt to brainwash everyone's children before they can learn the difference between a fact, a theory, a hypothesis and a myth.

Explain why ID is special when you compare it with other creation myths. And explain to me why we should include hypothetical creation myths in highschool biology and maybe, just maybe, you can convince me you aren't trying to spread your gospel. I don't care what you believe. I only care what you can prove. All the rhetoric and alternative perspectives of this situation will not change that.

Re:ID vs Evolution is the Wrong Discussion

[kavau]

The debate should really be: "What constitutes violation of the separation of church and state clause?"

Just to play the Devil's Advocate here: doesn't virtually every religion have the notion of an intelligent being that created the world? Or at least some higher order that governs life, and hence its evolution?

So ID wouldn't necessarily have to be considered as connected with the Church, but as fundamental to religion per se. It would certainly pertain to Islam and Judaism; whether or not it is compatible with Buddhism could be debated.

Re:ID vs Evolution is the Wrong Discussion

[Anonymous Coward]

excellent post

Re:ID vs Evolution is the Wrong Discussion

[kilfarsnar]

"Thus, when the govenment begins "cracking down" on any religious practice, excercise, or speach on public property, they are no longer protecting, but oppressing/restricting, in violation of the First Amendment.

How does that apply to this case? The government is not cracking down on anyone here. It is merely saying that ID should not be considered along with evolution. Because it isn't a scientific theory, not because it is religious.

Re:ID vs Evolution is the Wrong Discussion

[Cyno]

Its probably not compatible with Taoism or Paganism. And what about us Atheists? Must we be subject to your religious mythology in a public biology class? I want to learn about cells and genetics and evolution and science, not theology.

Re:ID vs Evolution is the Wrong Discussion

[Noehre]

The religion being promoted here is atheism, or agnosticism, or any of a multitude of others. You see, "science" is a religion in the broadest sense (and lawyers like the broad sense). What many people forget is that by expressly denying something, you are actively asserting the opposite philosophy (in this case, "religion X" versus "everything which is not religion X". In the case of certain religions, all belief systems which exclude that religion are themselves a form of religion. That is, "no religion" is itself a religion (contrary to popular belief).

You confuse belief systems and religion. Religions are a subset of belief systems that are tied by a common denominator: the supernatural. Refutation of the supernatural does not suppose the belief in some different set of supernatural beliefs. It is perfectly possible to construct an argument against a belief in God (positive atheism) using pure logic by attacking the definition of what it is to be "God." This is not a religious argument in that it does not in any way invoke the supernatural in its arguments.

Re:ID vs Evolution is the Wrong Discussion

[ediron2]

Horsefeathers.

This SO isn't a legal opression of religion. Don't paint yourself as a martyr. It just says religion cannot be taught in *science* class. Nowhere does this preclude religious studies. Once again for the dimmer members of the Christian extreme: BIOLOGY isn't about 'and then a miracle occured'. It is about understanding life. Tautologies like Intelligent Design-- or of any kind-- circumvent the 'but-why?' part of scientific research, where we keep digging to understand the grey mysteries in between what we've learned so far.

And so some pinhead doesn't question my religious credentials, I am a deeply religious person who believes that divine nature *is* exemplified by that ever-deepening pool of mysteries. Every answer we find tends to awaken new questions.

Only an idiot fears questions like Why or How? And I'm unsurprised when that sort of limp, scared zealot seems to insist God is so mediocre at engineering universes (or whatever the deity call this craft) that God can't withstand a scientist's scrutiny.

Re:ID vs Evolution is the Wrong Discussion

[leabre]

But the judge stated the ID cannot be seperated from the roots of Creationism and thus, religious dogma. That is a paraphrase, of course.

Howevwer, something I didn't make clear in my comment, is that I'm in agreement that schools shouldn't be teaching religious materials in a scientific class. Perhaps, public institutions shouldn't even teach any religious material at all. I believe firmly in Christianity, but even so, its a can of worms to have it in a public institution. Why? Well, it's simple, really.

Most Christians would not be too happy if public schools started teaching Islam or Buddhism, and probly likewise, it wouldn't make the Muslum people happy if they were teaching Christianity, especially while their children were attending. However, each group would be perfectly happy to have their own faith being taught. This is precisely the scenario that the "seperation of church and state" doctrine is addressing, among other things.

In any case, I don't even know if I believe in ID myself, not having taken the time to understand it. Every reference I see to it indicates it is a bit different than Creationism, which I do in fact, believe in. But that is another story.

I just thought I'd clarify.

Thanks,
Leabre

Re:ID vs Evolution is the Wrong Discussion

[Macdude]

However, I also believe that a law which says "you must not teach ID" is equally in violation of the amendment. Similarly, I believe laws that require the display of the Ten Commandments are unconstiutional but also that laws prohibiting their display are also unconstitutional. The same for prayer in schools, etc.

Such a law is not a violation of the amendment because it's not a blanket law. It only applies to public schools, you are free to teach ID in private schools, churches, your home, street corners, etc. The same goes with banning religious symbolism on government property, the law does not prevent you from erecting a religious display on your property, it just stops the government from doing it on public property.

Religion a product of ignorance

[SebNukem]

Religion appeared in first civilizations to explains things that could not be explained. Ignorance and fear created religion. When science appeared and started to explain things in a scientific way, religion became a way to impose someone's will to other people and control people.

Re:Religion a product of ignorance

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod parent up! That post the most intelligent one I've read in a while. It's no flamebait.

Re:Religion a product of ignorance

[troupuant]

"Religion appeared in first civilizations to explains things that could not be explained. Ignorance and fear created religion. When science appeared and started to explain things in a scientific way, religion became a way to impose someone's will to other people and control people." Score:0, Flamebait??? Please mod parent up.

Re:Religion a product of ignorance

[kilfarsnar]

I'll third that! The parent is spot on.

I remember this

[illtron]

This sounds really familiar...Oh yeah, it's the same damn story I submitted 5 minutes after the story broke on the AP wire and it got rejected. WTF?

when you go outside and look at nature...

[scaturan]

can you fathom how all of it came about? :)

Re:when you go outside and look at nature...

[windowpain]

Nope. I sure can't. Of course my inability to fathom how the universe came about doesn't lead me to believe that it therefore must have been fabricated by an eternal personality.

Re:when you go outside and look at nature...

[scaturan]

but how else could it be? do you believe that science will always have an answer? big bang theory?

Re:when you go outside and look at nature...

[Bassman59]

"but how else could it be? do you believe that science will always have an answer? big bang theory?"

Why do you insist on limiting the extent of human knowledge?

A lack of a belief

[soupdevil]

is not a belief. Not-having-a-dog is not a type of pet, and not-believing-in-god is not a type of faith.

Re:A lack of a belief

[l3prador]

It depends on your definition of a belief. I would define a belief as anything one believes to be true enough that one is willing to act upon it, anything one isn't sure of, but acts upon anyway. I'm not sure what you're arguing, but atheism is certainly a belief. There's no lack of belief in believing a value is 0 instead of 1. One could say that "one doesn't believe in god" or that "one believes there is no god." That's the same thing. One still holds something to be true, and lives one's life accordingly. The closest one could get to a lack of a belief would be the form agnosticism where one isn't sure about anything. Such an agnostic may hold no firm convictions, but one still has to base one's life upon some assumptions in order to make decisions. Many such agnostics may claim to have no beliefs, but still live their life as if there was no god. If one sees something in the road and is not sure if it is a person or not, but runs over it anyway, one may claim not to have any beliefs whether or not it is a person or just some other object, but clearly one believed that it was not (or just didn't care if one ran someone over).

Re:A lack of a belief

[AstynaxX]

Much as I am sour on organized religions, you are not correct here. Essentially, you're comparing apples and oranges, or perhaps in this case apples and howitzers. Dog ownership or the absence thereof is a different type of thing from religious beliefs. Whether or not a god or gods exist out there is purely conjecture. It is, was, and always will be unprovable, at least to living humans. Therefore, any statement on the topic implicitly starts with "I believe..." either "I believe there is a god" or "I believe there is no god" or even "I believe my socks are tiny gods." All are beliefs.

Re:A lack of a belief

[Anonymous Coward]

"and not-believing-in-god is not a type of faith..."

Really?

Catholicism, Muslimism, Protestantism, Judaism, Buddhism, Agnosticism, Atheism. Hmmm... seems these words all have something in common...

From dictionary.com...

"ism
A distinctive doctrine, system, or theory:

ism
n : a belief (or system of beliefs) accepted as authoritative by some group or school...

Personally, I'm Atheist - but I still acknowledge that it's a belief. I mean, how can we possibly know for certain based on the information at hand?

--

Re:A lack of a belief

[Schraegstrichpunkt]

I would define a belief as anything one believes> ...

I would define "belief" without using the word "believes"...

Re:A lack of a belief

[jedidiah]

While "I believe that you're all full of shit" is a "belief" as such. Calling it a religion is just a bit of a stretch.

Re:A lack of a belief

[NMerriam]

Well, I live my life as if I wasn't going to be hit by a bus in 10 seconds, but that doesn't make my belief in not getting hit by a bus in ten seconds some kind of religious faith. I could very well get hit by a bus in ten seconds, and am well aware of that possibility, even though I'm not going to live as if it weren't true.

I really don't think it's equally an act of faith to not believe something as it is to believe it. There is both a qualitative and quantitative difference in how much you care about the issue, and how much it impacts your life (if at all). Believe it or not, most atheists/agnostics genuinely don't give a shit. They aren't out protesting churches or telling other people what to believe, they're just living their life as if there were no God and it isn't a function of belief, it's a function of not caring.

Re:A lack of a belief

[l3prador]

That's fair. You have a right to choose not to care, if you don't care. My claim was simply that to say "Since I don't care, it's wrong to care" or "All those religions that care are the same, regardless of what it is they happen to care about" is neither fair nor logical.

Re:Article didn't mention HOW it's unconstitutiona

[sickofthisshit]

It ain't being "suppressed." You can post a web site filled with creationist, or ID, or Pastafarian ideas, or whatever, without fear of prosecution.

Just don't fucking put it in school curricula and pretend it is non-religious, OK?

See the difference?

the failures of public education

[Yonder Way]

So much for the idea of presenting our young minds with a number of schools of thought, and giving them the ability to examine the evidence and choose between them responsibly.

This is yet another example of "political correctness" run amock. I put "political correctness" in quotes because it is really another way of saying polite tyranny.

Time and time again, the government justifies my decision to homeschool my children. That and the fact that my kids consistently understand concepts that the other kids they play with (their own age) haven't even been introduced to yet.

Re:the failures of public education

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm saddened to see that your children will be both arrogant moronic.

Re:the failures of public education

[nathanh]

So much for the idea of presenting our young minds with a number of schools of thought, and giving them the ability to examine the evidence and choose between them responsibly.

And you say you actually have young children? Yet you think they are capable of choosing between wildly conflicting evidence in a responsible way?

In my experience, children believe whatever you tell them. Why else would children overwhelmingly choose the religion of their parents. Why else would children believe in Santa Claus (and I mean believe in Santa Claus). It's been described that children have minds like a sponge; they absorb everything you tell them. I disagree with that analogy. I think their minds are more like clay; you can shape them however you like and the kiln of time will harden their opinion.

Choice seems like such a good thing. Give everybody all the evidence and let them choose. But it's not in their best interests to be told bullshit, at the expense of the school system, because children are far too gullible to distinguish between reality and fiction. That's why the Creationists want ID taught to children. They want to manipulate the child's mind when the manipulation will have the greatest effect.

In fact I'll go one step further and say that most people never stop being children, because most people will believe any old bullshit they read or hear or see just so long as it's dressed up in a veil of authority. Take a funny example I read on Slashdot recently: a global warming denier who quoted Frederick Seitz as evidence that scientists are largely divided on global warming. I laughed and laughed and laughed. It really doesn't take much to convince people that up is down, right is wrong, false is true.

Re:the failures of public education

[idsofmarch]

So much for the idea of presenting our young minds with a number of schools of thought, and giving them the ability to examine the evidence and choose between them responsibly.

But, that's not what is happening. Evolution, because it threatens fundamentalists, has been singled out as an idea worthy of questioning separating the theory from other scientific theories. Not all ideas are equal and it's been 'polite tyranny' that forces us to consider the laughable science of ID as equal to the well-tested, falsifiable, predictable ideas that make up evolutionary theory.

Re:the failures of public education

[Alsee]

So much for the idea of presenting our young minds with a number of schools of thought

The judge says that you cannot take non-science and present it in a government run classroom as science, and that you cannot hijack the FORCE OF GOVERNMENT for the explicit purpose of PROMOTING OR SUPRESSING AND RELIGION over any other.

These people created pseudo-science ID in direct response to the Supreme Court ruling that government schools could not be used to promote one religion's Biblical creationism, and it was explicitly created with the intent of subverting that rule to push their religion in government classrooms anyway, and the various school board members who instituted the ID policy had made numerous public statments that they were using their governmental powers for the purpose of establishing government favor for their personal religious beliefs.

presenting our young minds with a number of schools of thought, and giving them the ability to examine the evidence and choose between them responsibly.

Highschool teachers and highschool students are ill equipped to critique and compare competing theories of quantum mechanics involving extensive and detailed and complex evidence.

Highschool classrooms are NOT THE BATTLEGROUND FOR COMPETEING SCIENCE THEORIES.

The proper battleground is scientific peer review amongst the professionals and experts who actually have PhDs and expertice in the evidence and the peroper analysis of that evidence.

The purpose of highschool science class is to present an understanding of the scientific method, and to present an overview of the current state of thorought tested thoroughly supported science that has the general acceptance of the relevant professional community.

Highschool students must know the FACT that evolution is accepted by essentially 100% of professional biologists. Highschool students must know the FACT that evolution is considered the very foundation of the entire field of biology by professional biologists. Highschool students must know the FACT that evolution has made predictions and has been endlessly tested and has survived expert critical peer review for nearly one hundred and fifty years and EARNED the it's compete acceptance by expert biologists. Highschool students must know the FACT that there is a staggering quantity of evidence for evolution that has been revied and accepted by professional biologists.

And beyond those facts, students need a general familiarity with the basics of the farious major fields of science... including a basic familarity with what the professional biological community considers the fundamental theory of the filed. A basic familiarity with evolution. You don't need to believe evolution, but but a science class does need to accurately reflect the FACT that it is *the* fundamental basis of they entire field of modern biology. And students really should be presented with a sampling of the staggering evidence in support of evolution, to help understand *why* the entire biologist community accepts evolution and uses it as the foundation of their entire field.

Highschool science class is not a battleground for competing theories. It is for presenting an accurate reflection and overview of the current state of science as tested and understood and accepted by actual scientists and professionals in the various fields.

my decision to homeschool my children

I humbly suggest you add the following two items to your homeschool science curriculm:
(1) What fraction of professional biologists accept evolution; And
(2) Why?

You can reseach them yourself, or make it a research project for your kids to answer. It makes for an excellent lesson plan for teaching/learning about science. Your kids can handle that sort of free-form investigation, right?

-

Re:Bets on the over/under for replies to this thre

[Anonymous Coward]

Haha,
he who worries about his karma gets modded redundant.

Flying Spaghetti Monster Strikes Again!

[Bushido Hacks]

After reading up about Intellegent Design (ID), It is quite clear that ID is one of the most stupid theories I have ever read. Despite their huge differences, Evolution and Creation make more sense than this ID kitch.

In fact why I am even commenting on this issue. I think TacoMan can answer this one for me.

Just for arguement

[phorm]

One of the whole points of evolution is adaption to environment. Maybe the blind spot imperfection doesn't serve a purpose, but perhaps the steps that led to having such an imperfection have come out as the eye is changing from a previous state to match the needs of the current environment. Evolution (whether by ID or otherwise) is rarely a fast process by human timeline.

Re:Just for arguement

[bill_mcgonigle]

As they say, "evolution proceeds towards what works - not what's best."

A broad response to those who've answered me

[mmell]

The point I was trying to make is that our children, when exposed to our beliefs, were made aware that these were our beliefs, not facts subject to confirmation nor absolute truths to be accepted blindly.

And, no we didn't expose them to Hindu, Zen, Taoism, Buddhism, Islam, etc. Yes, this biased the likelihood of their ending up with a predictable belief set. Yes, this bias resulted from our own beliefs. I still assert that it would have been abuse to actively hide our beliefs from our children. We didn't knowingly teach them anything wrong, and we tried to be as objective as possible when dealing with matters of beief and faith.

Re:A broad response to those who've answered me

[Anonymous Coward]

Serious question: How do you maintain a stable family when one half of it, by definition, must believe that the other half will spend an infinite amount of time in Pure and Utter Torment unless they adopt the belief system of their half? It certainly rules out the idea that the Catholics are both loving and rational, right?

Re:A broad response to those who've answered me

[mmell]

Define 'stable'.

Re:A broad response to those who've answered me

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't characterize stability completely. However, it seems necessary to have everyone would have to both respect everyone else's beliefs and also have concern for everyone else's wellbeing. This does not seem compatible with Catholicism; to be concerned about another's wellbeing requires one to disrespect their beliefs, no?

I suppose this can be kept in check by intellectual doubt on the part of the Catholic, which would appear alternatingly as admirable and as dereliction of their spiritual duty. I certainly could not manage to both truly Believe in a Heaven-or-Hell religion and see my loved ones behaving or believing in a way which would put them in the latter category. Oh yes, I could imagine myself respecting them day-after-day in my words and even actions, but only insofar as I would know that attacking them outright would be a suboptimal strategy for saving their soul in the long-run. I couldn't imagine having anything but the patronizing ``respect'' necessary to upsell my faith.

On the other hand, if I did manage to some-how truly respect someone in this way, I would be an incredibly pleasant person - to the point where "pleasant" could actually be replaced with "enlightened". However, I just can't believe that the point of religion is to realize that it is, actually, a joke. (shrug)

Learning to Learn

[Ridgelift]

What bothers me is anyone telling me I can't consider a point of view. Same with my kids, I want them to learn to see things from other people's points of view, even if they don't agree with those points of view.

The old saying of don't discuss money, politics or religion is outdated. People need to learn to think critically, and schools are a good place to practice critical thinking. It bothers me when governments, corporations and courts say what can and cannot be discussed. Next they'll be telling me what type of computer I must use and what sites I'm allowed to visit.

Re:Learning to Learn

[dreamer-of-rules]

Although ID is not supported by real evidence, the court ruling does not prevent you from considering it. It does not prevent you from teaching your kids the fallacies of ID as alternate points of view, or even as the True God's Test of Faith.

The ruling prevents public schools from teaching ID as science, because the judge has correctly seen that ID is religion-in-disguise, and our Constitution is understood to prevent the "establishment of religion".

Children do need to learn critical thinking, however, it is undeniable that they are very impressionable, and not very skilled at thinking critically. Spending a half-hour listing the talking points of ID as a viable alternative to evolution and common descent, is a really horrible way to teach "critical thinking". Next up, spend a half-hour in biology class talking about the soul, and where it resides, and how much it weighs. Promote critical thinking!

Re:Learning to Learn

[timbo234]

The ruling only stops ID from being fradulently pushed as a science. The judge explicitly stated that schools were free to discuss ID in a philisophy or religion class where it belongs. I don't understand how excluding things that aren't science from a science class amounts to not 'considering points of view'. After all science classes don't teach or discuss the ancient Egyptian creation myth, flat-earth theory or any number of other non-scientific points of view.

People need to learn to think critically

Exactly, and throwing out the scientific method (which is all about objectivity and thinking critically) and debasing science lessons to be an indoctrination in whatever religious beliefs happen to be in favour at the time is exactly the wrong way to go about this.

Fill in the blanks

[Trinition]

Don't get me wrong; I believe that microevolution occurs; it's readily observeable. I just don't think speciation has provided us with anything factual so as to be convincing. The simplest explanation is often the right one, and in this case the simple explanation is that other species moved into the same areas.

Can you fill in the blanks in your belief? If the species didn't come from differentiation in prior species, where do you believe they came from? Did they just all popped into existence when God sneezed? And how, then, did Noah fit all of these onto his ark? Or were there only a few species back then, and God has sneezed the rest into existence since?

Bless you

Oh, sorry. God just sneezed. I now have a purple unicorn standing next to me. I dub it, Intelligentus Designus

Seriously, where did it all come from? Are you so all knowing that you KNOW God couldn't have invented evolution himself? God is probably quite proud of himself for coming up with such a clever solution for generating such variety. And here you insult him by saying his plan doesn't exist?

Re:Fill in the blanks

[CAIMLAS]

You've got two choices in life: deny the existence of a higher power completely, or at some point accept that there is a higher power of some sort out there.

This is that point where I sit down and say, "Causality necessitates that I believe in a creator." Denying that there was a creator of some shape or form denies the reality that something can't come from nothing.

But honestly, speaking to the childish likes of you really doesn't prove too fruitful, as you weren't even to read and comprehend what I said, as you've gone and essentially trying to pin something on me which is the opposite of what I said. Well, at least you can read. You wouldn't happen to have a career in law or politics, would you?

Re:Fill in the blanks

[Anonymous Coward]

What you said led me to believe that you don't believe the oft- cited evidence of evolution (e.g. fossil record). You instead sday that one species moved into an area while another left. If I wrongly inferred from this that you don't believe that one species can change into another, then I apologize. You did seem to be replying in rebuttal of the prior post.

So, if you do in fact believe that life evolved from simpler forms, then my apologies. If not, then I ask again, where did all of these species come from? I do not see that evolution precludes a creator. I find a creator to be in perfect harmony for what has unfolded via evolution. All too often, I hear people cite that evolution is wrong because God created everything. But the end of that very statement also means "God created evolution."

So, maybe I inferred to much from your post. That is whyt the subject of the GP was "fill in the blanks." I saw in your post a criticism of evolution's evidence, as if to say it was wrong. So, please, fill in the blanks so I Don't infer the wrong thing.

You should know better.

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. You actually expect Slashdot people not to overreact when something religious gets squashed. You've got balls, man. Say goodbye to your karma on that one.

my 2 cents

[Anonymous Coward]

First of all, I really don't think that the government should tell us what science is.

Secondly, by whatever is used to define evolution as 'science' is pretty much the same measuring stick by which to define ID as science, if people were slightly more open-minded, and actually thought things through. You can not seriously and truthfully say that evolution is provable and ID is not, in the same breath. Doing so just belies serious mental bigotry.

Re:my 2 cents

[onkelonkel]

You must be trolling, but what the hell......

"First of all, I really don't think that the government should tell us what science is."

Actually, in this case the government was telling you what religion is. ID invokes a supernatural creator, and is therefore religion.

"You can not seriously and truthfully say that evolution is provable and ID is not"

Nobody says we have "proved" evolution. It just happens to be the best theory we've got. You could maybe eventually prove evolution, if you accumulate a sufficient mass of evidence. You can _disprove_ evolution by finding one single example where it fails. This is how science works.

You can't disprove ID. This is why it is not science. OK?

If something is religion, and is not science, we don't teach it in science class.

Re:my 2 cents

[kilfarsnar]

Since you posted as an Anonymous Coward, is it really your 2 cents? How can I tell?

Re:my 2 cents

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody says we have "proved" evolution. It just happens to be the best theory we've got. You could maybe eventually prove evolution, if you accumulate a sufficient mass of evidence. You can _disprove_ evolution by finding one single example where it fails. This is how science works.

You can't disprove ID. This is why it is not science. OK?


I didn't say "proved", I said provable. There are lots of posts like the following: "Evolution is provable/disprovable. ID is not". How is evolution provable/disprovable? You just said it wasn't proved, so I guess we are working with "disprovable". So far, the adaptability factor has worked well for the theory, making it tough to disprove.

We have quotes like the following:

"The experiment (mainly carried out by other folks looking at fossils): See if similar species have changed over time due to environment and had mutations that allowed them to survive. Usually this "experiment" involves saying "All right, we have Fossil A which we know to be 100,000,000 years old, and we have Fossil C which is 25,000,000 years old. Fossil C shows a better ability to survive the environment, and is the same kind of creature as A except for the mutations observed. Therefore, there should be Fossil B that is like Fossil A, only it includes some of the mutations of C but not all of them as the species adapted to better fit the environment. This fossil should be between 100,000,000 and 25,000,000 years old. If we find it, then we know we're right. If we don't, then either we need a better theory or need to keep looking." (For nit pickers who will say this is not a true "experiment", you are right - but these kind of "observational experiments" are perfectly valid when talking about cosmological experiments, such as testing the Theory of Relativity or the Big Bang Theory).
4. Results: Over time, thousands of fossil records and observations of species has held up the Theory of Evolution. Adaptations have come into play (such as the "Survival of the Fittest and the Luckiest", which holds that sometimes pure chance comes into play of wiping out a dominant species, such as an asteroid, but when equilibrium is reached Survival of the Fittest is shown to work again)."

Trying to make evolution sound like it is provable, but where is the 'disprovability' factor? The author can make up any bull that he wants to support himself.

If I pointed out a problem in evolution that made slow changes over time unlikely, you'd say that the changes were instant. The theory adapts. It isn't provable, and it isn't disprovable, because it has no tests from which the holder will accept any contrary outcome, much like ID.

This is an outrage!

[tabatj]

I am disgusted that some activist judge such as this one has chosen to abolish faith for American schoolchildren. Yet I am even more disgusted that the Dover school board would not consider teaching my alternative to evolution, FSMism, which I hold to be an equally valid, competing hypothesis.

Could it possibly be that...

[Tighe_L]

Maybe Satan created fossils so that he would have all the scientists in Hell with him to help with his battle plans for judgement day.

Granted there would be a few scientists on God's side, but he dosen't need them, cause he knows EVERYTHING. Even what you do in your room when no one is looking.

And so what is your moral compass?

[0311]

By what yardstick of ethics do you make your own moral decisions? What form of not-mythology guides you through the moral decisions you make in life, including the decisions you make by default because you have no belief system?

A mythology is that body of stories that center on a religiously or secularly based belief system, which a given culture or homogeneous society hold to be true. What do you hold to be true? Do you believe in the Theory of Evolution? Have you no way of determining in your life what is right and what is wrong? And if you do have such a compass, how have you justified to yourself that your decisions are Absolutely Correct? Or do you go through life as a leaf on the surface of a turbulent rapids, going hither and yon at the whims of current and fate, no more in charge of your destiny than a gnat before a wind storm?

I would say that I feel sorry for you except that you might take such as pity and it is not. How does one who can see explain color to one who has been blind from birth? Or sweetness to the one born with no tongue?

Good luck, my friend! May sweet fortune smile upon you and bring you joy and happiness! You go and follow your druthers and try to find true, lasting happiness and joy in them. I will follow what has brought me joy and lasting happiness in my life and I will teach my children how to reach for and find that joy and happiness on their own. Because I know that will they grow and learn and will be happy, competent and productive people in their lives because of the belief system that has shown me a safe way through life's dangerous, reef-ridden shoals, I am truly amazed that such as you can call it child abuse.

And yet...if at the last day I am justified in my belief and all I have hope to be true is given to me to be known and proven as true, my belief system would hardly qualify as a myth, being everlastingly true.

Re:And so what is your moral compass?

[Weedlekin]

"A mythology is that body of stories that center on a religiously or secularly based belief system, which a given culture or homogeneous society hold to be true".

I always thought that a mythology was a body of stories that a given culture or homogenous society holds to be myth. The culture or society that believed those things to be true would not describe them as a mythology -- that is done by others who do not share their particular set of beliefs.

A far better description of mythology would be an elabourately-constructed series of lies that some bunch of dweebs who are/were more stupid than whoever doing the labelling are/were silly enough to believe.

Re:And so what is your moral compass?

[0311]

I googled for my definition and then paraphrased it. I was similarly under the same impression you have just given, prior to looking it up. I do not think that Google(define:mythology) is infallible. However, I am apt to use it as a closer approximation for a meaning than my own somewhat patchy memory. These days a mythology would be any set of stories (or myths) that center on an obviously invalided belief system, religious or otherwise. The post I was orginally responded to was written in a way that made me believe that the poster was calling any belief system (religious or otherwise: the poster did not make a distinction) a mythology - and the poster then equated teaching such with child abuse. I simply responded in the same vein. Almost needless to say, I hardly think of my own belief as a mythology. Far from it!

Re:And so what is your moral compass?

[Weedlekin]

A mythology is an invalid belief system to the observer who is defining it as such. It is therefore a relative term rather than an absolute one: a devout Hindu for example would see Christian beliefs as being no less mythological than ancient Norse ones or Mithraism.

explain the eye? OK!

[mangu]

There is no evolutionary intermediate form that would function so how could it have evolved?

BZZT, WRONG! There are *many* intermediate forms for the eye. One very interesting "almost eye" things one can find today is the infrared detector found in rattlesnakes. They have a pinhole camera that works in detecting infrared emissions from small mammals (mice) that are rattlesnakes victims. This "camera" is a hole found in rattlesnakes' snouts where the bottom is a thin heat-sensitive cell layer and the mouth is a small hole that focuses heat rays.

That's *exactly* the "intermediate form" that some people claim doesn't exist for the eye.

Therefore, if the "intermediate form" actually exists for the eye, can we conclude that all this "intelligent" design thing is a lot of bullshit?

MONEY IS WHY I.D. IS SHAKING IN IT'S BOOTS

[wisebabo]

"subject Defendants to liability with respect to injunctive and declaratory relief, but also for nominal damages and the reasonable value of Plaintiffs' attorneys' services and costs incurred in vindicating Plaintiffs' constitutional rights." PAGE 138 OF THE DECISION

Nothing like money to change people's behavior. If you don't think the "nominal damages" are likely to be significant, as someone who has had a few battles in the courtroom myself, "the attorneys' services and costs incurred" (like discovery) can be very significant.

Hocus Pocus

[Shihar]

Are you joking? Macro-evolution is easy to disprove. Show that the fossile record is faked would disprove it pretty handily. Having aliens appear in the sky and changing one speices into another would disprove evolution. The list is almost endless in the ways you can disprove macro-evolution. We just don't think about most of those ways because they are stupid and not going to happen. If angels float down from heaven and suddenly turn one species into another species evolution will be dead and ID will be taken very seriously. Until that happens, ID is a joke that will continue to be laughed out of courts and scientific journals.

Re:Hocus Pocus

[Conspiracy_Of_Doves]

Actually, none of the things that you mentioned would neccessarily disprove evolution. Evolution is falsifiable, but any concievable disproof has already missed the boat. If different fossils wern't found in predictable rock strata, that would disprove evolution. If DNA replication was perfect, that would also disprove evolution. If the DNA of different species bore no resemblence to each other, that would disprove evolution too.

Religious hypocrites need to be put in their place

[wshwe]

Good, religious hypocrites need to be put in their place!

Re: Affect In Kansas?

[DannyO152]

While school boards may continue to trickle out ID curriculua mandates, this ruling and the trial's record will effectively mean such mandates won't last long once they get to court. It's over as far as the public schools are concerned. I think the next battleground will be the lawsuit against the University of California for not accepting ID-inclusive biologic coursework as valid science coursework for admissions. This is about (essentially) privately educated students who want to go to good public schools and raises different issues, as I think the main summary of the plaintiff's argument is that the UC is discriminating on religious grounds.

More on ID

[amightywind]

You will note, however, that neither Einstein nor those mathematicians try to use god to explain their theories. Einstein was merely expressing his theory that the universe is NOT randomly chaotic and is in fact predictable once you have enough information. Mathematicians are always looking for that beautiful equastion that sometimes falls out of some horrible mess and simplifies a problem greatly.

No. Einstein rejected quantum mechanics on purely aesthetic, even spiritual grounds. No other justification than that. He didn't like Bohr's or Shroedinger's notion of the physics of the very small and spent the rest of his life seeking an alternative. He has been proven wrong, no doubt. But don't invoke Einstein if you want to remove God from the discussion. He is a bad example.

Non-computability is never the foundation of any science. ID's fundimental flaw is that it is a formalized argument from ignorance, which is a logical fallacy. Besides, the whole point of science is to explain the nature of the universe, not presuppose some answer and stop looking.

Look no further than weather prediction and the solution of Navier Stokes Equations. The equations are completely valid and deterministic. But scientist's ability to apply them in anything other than the short term is limited because of their limited ability to full specify initial conditions. Solution of most time differential equations are like that. I agree with your idea that ID folks have 'stopped looking for the answer'. So why to you disagree with my dissatisfaction of the state of the theory of biology?

Obviously ID and Creationism have plenty of mathematical funimentals to lean on... Saying that biologists have a lack of rigor is something you're going to have to back up with mountains of evidence. It's tantamount to calling them all cheats and liars. Also, saying that life is too cool for evolution made me do a double take. That's some A Class stuff there.

If you as a biologist wish to compare yourself with a creationist go ahead. You will stack up well. But you should be embarrassed to compare the state of your field with a mathematician or a physicist. I am not saying life is too cool for evolution. I am saying biologists use the notion of evolution without understanding deeply what it really is.

Re:More on ID

[Anonymous Coward]

No. Einstein rejected quantum mechanics on purely aesthetic, even spiritual grounds. No other justification than that. He didn't like Bohr's or Shroedinger's notion of the physics of the very small and spent the rest of his life seeking an alternative. He has been proven wrong, no doubt. But don't invoke Einstein if you want to remove God from the discussion. He is a bad example.

No. Einstein's motivations might have been religious -- though this is frequently taken out of context, and Einstein himself said he didn't mean "God" as in "The Christian God" or any kind of "personal god" -- but the scientific validity of his ideas didn't rest on religion.

The scientific method doesn't prescribe how you should arrive at your ideas or motivations. It just states how you must conduct the process of actual research and justification. Religion stays out of this, for you, me and Einsten.

Re: More on ID

[Black Parrot]

> But you should be embarrassed to compare the state of your field with a mathematician or a physicist. I am not saying life is too cool for evolution. I am saying biologists use the notion of evolution without understanding deeply what it really is.

God, that's a stupid statement even for Slashdot.

Re: More on ID

[amightywind]

God, that's a stupid statement even for Slashdot.

A slashdot style refutation: ignorant and absolute. Go back to the main page and wait for a discussion you can handle, like the next ZDnet article. Twit.

Well...

[cr0sh]

1. Alcoholism is a genetic disorder that is passed along through the jeans.

Only if you slam a 40 and overload your bladder...

Profound lack of insight there.

[RealProgrammer]

Kids don't "discover their own faith", they're indoctrinated into whatever supertition their parents force-feed them. Raising kids to believe in mythology is child abuse

That statement stands as an affront to anyone who's been truly abused.

It also display remarkable intolerance for the beliefs of others.

Denying parents the right to pass their beliefs (whatever they are) to their children is not only unconscionable, it's impossible -- unless you outlaw parenting, that is. Whoever raises kids automatically indoctrinates them with their beliefs. You can't counter with an example of a parent who has no beliefs, because there is no one like that. If you counter with a parent who tries not to indoctrinate their children, you must think a little deeper: they're still doing it.

Whether the indoctrination works is another matter.

Removing the freedom of religion is a terrible mistake. It opens the way to religious tyranny of one sort or another. The freedom of religion is an important buffer between us and tyranny. Whatever else the freedom of religion means it must include practicing it with your family.

Parents must and do have the right to teach their children whatever the parents believe, whether that's that the moon is made of cheese or what sports team to follow. It's what makes them parents, and once you have kids you realize it's the greatest joy in life. If we remove that right, the world would become a dull, dreary, oppressive place. It would also be an Orwellian nightmare.

I see that idea of criminalizing incorrect beliefs echoed on slashdot alot. It's quite troubling that our schools, in their proper effort to be agnostic, have failed to teach the basic principles which led to our nation's founding. Religious intolerance poses the danger, not religion itself.

There you go...

[N8F8]

Well, there you go. Maybe you can look at the geological and cosmological record to prove or disprove the hypothesis. As a pseudo-atheist I know that just as much good science comes from disproving a "bad" hypothesis as comes from proving "good" ones. I also know that putting blinders on to any approach to answering or asking questions is foolhardy.

But as a mostly-rational creature I find it interesting that all these physical phenomena do coincide in a system that is supposedly inherently entropic and prone to chaos. When you look at a satellite image and see a perfectly straight line in the forest in the middle of nowhere you have to at least be curious.

Re:There you go...

[clonan]

You are forgetting a fundamental component of the system....you as a living being are INSIDE the system observing it.

Therefore you have already filtered out any universe that can't support you. That is like saying my shirt is blue, therefore I have a blue shirt.

Circular logic. You cannot use the absence of proof as proof. Constant X doesn't change because if it had ever changed you wouldn't be here to ask why constant X doesn't change.

ummmm.

[Anonymous Coward]

Thou Shalt not Bear False Witness???

Guess they use the same Bible as Ollie North.

My astrology teacher would've been apalled.

[mmell]

Next, they'll be teaching astronomy, a pseudo-science if ever there was one!

Please don't make me use the <sarcasm> tags.

How

[Trinition]

How do complex and allegedly "irreducible" organs and systems come about?

First, you must have a serious definition of what irreducibly complex means. From the examples I've been given me, it's a subjective guess.

Second, you have to consider what you would accept? We can look for examples in the fossil record and "connect the dots". Is that good enough? I mean, it is when you accept that the planets are moving in elliptical orbits. All we can do is observe them every night and "connect the dots", and use other theories to back up our completed picture. But perhaps some people won't be satified until they can park their butt in a lawn chair above the solar system and observe it for thenselves.

There are also modelling techniques. Since evolution takes a lot of time, one way of observing it is to simulate it in a manner faster than natural time. Tierra is an example of digital evolution, as is a more recent simulation built at MSU. Mathematics also offers models of evolution. But will you accept these as you do for just about every other scientific field out there?

I think pleny of people are willing to answer how

Thank God!

[joelsanda]

Err, I mean ...

The false fossil record arguement

[Brushen]

Intelligent design supporters comment God could have created the fossil record, and the carbon 14 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon-14) and the telltale carbon dating it shows along with it. A fallacy in this arguement is that God could have easily, under that notion, created the world five minutes ago, with the sights, the sounds, the smells, the textures, the tastes you remember all planted inside your memories to fool you into thinking the world is older than it is. I would hold that arguement just as credible as the one they argue.

Re:The false fossil record arguement

[Elvis Impersonator]

Even though the false fossil record argument seems ridiculous at first glance, it is actually the favorite in my collection of seemingly valueless beliefs.

It posits a God with a sense of aesthetics.

This God finds the idea of presto! creation cheap and unattractive.
Any child can fashion a man from mud and then breathe on it. Even though this is the medium he must work in, he does what he can to imply the possibility of something much more elegant. A creative process which starts with molecular seeds, an intricate plan, and a dream.
Perhaps this is that God's way of telling us he, too believes in God. A God who created him/her but remains hidden.

Re:The false fossil record arguement

[telekon]

Clearly, when scientists measure Carbon-14, He is there, altering the data with His Noodly Appendage.

Re:Do This To This Federal Judge & See What He

[dorkygeek]

So how can YOU prove this?? I, for one, would rather cry for a maybe nearby ship, or save my energy for staying alive.

Apart from that, beliefs in god are only a way to prevent our minds from going insane in the light of doubt about one's role in life, and the questions of why something happened and what is going to come. I suggest you go and read some psychology textbooks.

It is perfectly legal to belief in god, when you are aware of the fact that it is only a model to keep your mind balanced. But don't go on and try to infest science by introducing ID and other BS thinkings, because it does not mentally help. As a sidenote, church isn't very useful as well. One could make religions far more lean by cutting out the church, and only limit to the basic religious principles.

as a lehigh grad...

[airdrummer]

i am totally embarassed by behe;-}

Space for the Universe, where?

[icrooks]

Speaking of...

Where did all the space for the Universe come from?

Even if it is endless, where did this vast pocket of space come from, and then where did that space come from.

Re:Space for the Universe, where?

[windowpain]

The universe doesn't take up space. The universe is space. There is no space outside of space. As the universe expanded it expanded space itself.

That having been said there are a number of theories that propose a "metaverse" in which our universe is one of many universes. The more you look at the idea the weirder it gets.

wtf? how did this get modded troll??

[katharsis83]

how did this get modded troll??

Re:wtf? how did this get modded troll??

[drinkypoo]

It's called abuse of moderation, and it always has been and always will be prevalent on slashdot. Actually, I've been abused much less lately; mostly I just don't get modded up for things I think I should get modded up for, which is fair. I still get occasional "Troll" mods from people who don't even know what trolling is. (Is it just me, or should knowing that be a requirement to be a mod on /. at all?)

Re:wtf? how did this get modded troll??

[Anonymous Coward]

how did this get modded troll??

Because you stepped on a joke, you retard.

Re:wtf? how did this get modded troll??

[Anonymous Coward]

Because you are trying to ruin a good joke? Meets the definition of trolling since you know the original post was not meant to be taken seriously.

Misuse of Theory

[Ontain]

I'm okay with ID in science class only if it is used as an example of the difference between a theory in science and the laymens term.
both evolution and ID might be theories but only evolution is a scientific one.

No.

[YesIAmAScript]

And especially not in science class.

When Saudi Arabia teaches religion in school curriculum, we have a fit. We cannot sink to that level.

All learning isn't done at school. If people want to know about a theory of evolution that explains everything by explaining nothing, let them do so outside of science class and outside of school.

Re:No.

[Turn-X Alphonse]

So that means we can't mention people believed the world is flat at one time and their theories behind it?

We don't support it, we just point out it's an alternative view that doesn't stand up to science.

Re:No.

[AnotherBlackHat]

  So that means we can't mention people believed the world is flat at one time and their theories behind it?

"people believed the world is flat" is a myth made popular by Washington Irving.
The anchient greeks not only thought the world was round, they had really good estimates of it's overall size.

Re:No.

[Turn-X Alphonse]

I know that already. But people still teach lies just as you've pointed out and I did before you. Isn't it better to show it's fake?

Re:No.

[AnotherBlackHat]

I know that already. But people still teach lies just as you've pointed out and I did before you. Isn't it better to show it's fake?

As I read your previous post, you state that "people used to believe the world was flat" as if it were a fact.
I object to the hidden assertion "people used to believe the world was flat".
I assert that (most) people have always believed the world was round.

It's certainly possible to construct a theory about what people used to believe, but you'd need to define terms like "used to" and "people" a lot better if it's going to end up as science classroom example of a wrong theory.
It didn't seem to me that that was what you had in mind.

but can we still raise questions about evolution?

[dustmachine]

Executive Summary: Teach evolution but ask questions about it.

I remember my 8th grade biology text (1986ish) showing some guy's drawings of various animal embryos and how similar they are. Now I find out it was an exaggeration.

And the peppered moths? I come to find out they were dead moths pinned to the trees.

I'd like to know why that was handed down as fact.

Okay, now tell me how blood clotting works and doesn't turn ALL my blood into one big clot. How does something like that evolve? Doesn't the "turn-clotting-off" mechanism have to be there at the same time as "turn-clotting-on"? One without the other is gonna kill me. It's when they both have to be there at the same time that leaves me puzzled as to how it could evolve gradually.

I'm not saying we should have to pick Intelligent Design OVER Evolution. Teach evolution but ask intelligent questions.

My thoughts on the rock

[ShavenYak]

Is it possible for a rock to exist that is too big for our hypothetical omnipotent God to lift? Obviously not... no matter what a rock's mass is, He can lift it. Since the proposed rock is logically unable to exist, God cannot create it. This is not a limitation on God's power... He can still create any size rock He wants. And then He can lift it.

More to the point: Can God create a circle which is wider than it is tall?

But what about "intelligent falling"?

[rmcd]

As usual, the Onion has a helpful perspective.

Re:But what about "intelligent falling"?

[windowpain]

Don't laugh man. Have you heard the latest? There are people who say, presumably with a straight face, that the differences among languages are too great to have been caused by happenstance. They say the differences indicate there must have been a "wrathful dispersion" (a la the Tower of Babel).

Google "wrathful dispersion".

Ah!

[jd]

But they trolled the court, they didn't bear it. :)

Re: Ah!

[Maxo-Texas]

A fellow believer in Last Weekism I see!

I hope you feel as I do that all those evil Last Mondayism followers are a stain to the general school of Last Weekism. I myself am a firm believer in Last Tuesdayism.

Every day I get less sleep and so I am more tired. If this continues within a month I won't be able to do anything at all since i'll be so tired. Clearly the world was created in the last week.

Challenge

[penguinoid]

You are misdefining "falsifiable", or just confused? Here's a challange for you: I suggest how to falsify ID, and you explain why I am wrong, and also give an example of how to falsify any scientific theory.

How to falsify ID: Examine DNA of different creatures bit by bit. If the changes look like predicted by any naturalistic explanation, then ID is false.

Well said

[bobdickgus]

So very true ID is definately not a scientific theory and shouldn't be taught in a science class.

Science's advocate

[benhocking]

To play science's advocate :), here's my explanation of where your argument falls apart:

• We can use radioactive dating to date when many of these specimens stopped absorbing element X (where X might be carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, or some other element).
• If this is due to a single flood we would expect all organisms bigger than Y to be at the same level, as the rocks would not have let them settle below a certain point.
• We would expect to find broken pieces of the bigger organisms (chipped teeth, hairs, etc.) to be found with the smaller organisms.

I will give you credit for coming up with a new argument, however. (New to me, at least.) And since you were only playing devil's advocate I'll give you 8/10 for creativity. :)

Re:Science's advocate

[GuyverDH]

The only problem with carbon dating, is the maximum timeline it can be used for.
It cannot be used to go back to the beginning of time, only a very small percentage of it.

It requires that sunlight was hitting the entire planet for all of the time that the Earth was around.

Now given the story of Genesis and the flood, that would mean that the firmament, made up of water, surrounded most of, if not the entire earth from the time of creation, until the flood - this would mean that sunlight only struck the earth at the polar regions where the firmament would have been thinned out enough to allow sunlight through.

Given this, there would be nothing that would have been hit with sufficient sunlight to give accurate readings prior to the flood, except at the polar regions.

After the flood, the entire planet was in the path of the sunlight and could start building up quantities of carbon-14 in their makeup.

Re:Science's advocate

[Alsee]

I'll give you 8/10 for creativity. :)

Wouldn't that be 8/10 for creationitivity? :)

-

ID provides no value

[chmilar]

Patient: "Why to I have cancer?"

Intelligent Design Doctor: "You are designed to have cancer."

Patient: "Okay. Thank you. I will go away and die, now."

ID promotes fatalism. Not only is not science, it is anti-scientific.

Real science provides real value.

Before you get into ID vs. evolution, ponder this

[pappy97]

Think about this people. Why are we even having this ID/evolution debate?

Oh I know....when humans came to be they had something other animals did not: the ability to reason.

Most animals can't reason, and their whole life consists of eat/sleep/sh**/f***/survive and then die.

With humans we think beyond that, we can reason. It's a blessing and a curse.

Blessing to be so intelligent, but curse because it makes us ask the ONE single question (among other questions) that got religion started: what happens after we die???

Because humans have the ability to reason, we can't deal with the fact that nothing happens when we die. Most humans would be too paranoid to live life (because of the ability to reason and think about these abstract things), so we invent religion. We invent stories that say what happens when we die, to put us at peace. Once those stories got a hold of us, people pulling the strings busted out creation myths(ding ding ding!) and the rest is history.

So what is the point of arguing ID vs. evolution? ID is based on religion, which came about to put humans, who have the ability to reason, at peace during their lives because they can't deal with the fact that nothing happens after death. You just die.

Federal Judge Rules Against Intelligent Design

[homebrewmike]

"Federal Judge Rules Against Intelligent Design"

Thank the Gods! :-D

Alcohol

[Nick Driver]

...but members of my family recently moved to a small town in Alabama. It is a dry town in a dry county. In the heavily southern baptist area, they have outlawed the sale of alcohol because drinking is a sin.

Just curious, but would it bother you any less if they instead had overtly stated that their official reasons for outlawing the sale of alcohol in their county/town were because it led to health problems, social behaviour problems, family violence problems, drunken driving, etc, instead of "religion" reasons?

--
I think I'll have a drink myself.

Re:Alcohol

[DaveV1.0]

It would actually bother me more if they sited those reasons, because those reasons show a lack of understanding of the problem and pure reactionary thinking.

What you are describing is effects of the abuse of alcohol and alocholism. It would truly be a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Would you deprive me, or anyone, of enjoying a beer or a glass of wine with dinner because a few people abuse alcohol? Along those lines, one may as well outlaw cars because people speed, die in wrecks, hit pedestrians, etc.

Re:Alcohol

[Copid]

Just curious, but would it bother you any less if they instead had overtly stated that their official reasons for outlawing the sale of alcohol in their county/town were because it led to health problems, social behaviour problems, family violence problems, drunken driving, etc, instead of "religion" reasons?

Not to speak for anybody else, but it would bother me a lot less less. I like my laws to have some piece of logical reasoning behind them that indicates that they will benefit society in some concrete way. I happen to think that the reasons you listed are demonstrably foolish, but the nice thing about laws based on measurable social impact is that one can argue them based on data.

Laws that are based on little more than what makes one faction's diety sad are generally very difficult to argue against, and they tend to make the rest of us feel surprisingly as though the government is favoring one religion over another (or the lack thereof). Of course, when those of us who don't share the particular religious convictions of the majority make noise about that sort of thing, the people who passed the law (who usually make up 80+% of the population and control all aspects of government) are suddenly up in arms because we're persecuting them over their beliefs.

Hello Neo! I am the Architect

[Anonymous Coward]

Deleted from Matrix script: " Please tell your human friends that it is neither God nor Evolution. It is the matrix that created them. The Matrix has you!
Go on and save Trinity.
See you in Matrix Revolutions"

Can't we have both?

[Anonymous Coward]

So many people are so stupid :(. Intelligent design is likely false, with evolution clearly a fact. Let's not debate about that because we know it's a fact. THINK, use your mind, not you feelings. Now, why can't we have both? Cannot there be a god that created evolution? HMM?

Re:Can't we have both?

[haapi]

We *must* be careful of our words. Evolution is a "theory", but it is a scientific theory, which is 1) The best explanation or model of the known facts so far, and 2) disprovable (and revisable) upon presentation of new facts. The creationist proponents just do not get the definition of "scientific theory". Yeah, I know Carl Sagan said, "Evolution is a fact,", but he meant that "fact" as in "provable evolutionary change has been found," and I agree with him.

ID is not disprovable, and its model provides for no advancement in science, i.e. there is no place on which to tack newly garnered facts, no way to do any predictions, and there is nothing to revise.

Scientists working the field of evolution may eventually find facts that prove a supreme being, and the scientific theory will be so revised at that time. For ID, the reverse can never be true.

I wish they'd rerun "Cosmos" again. Be fun to see what's evolved in 25 years.

Re:Can't we have both?

[Anonymous Coward]

Many religious people DO think a god created evolution, but that likely won't be discussed in a science class either. Your light and fluffy concessions won't please non-deists such as IDers.

It's quite clear to me...

[AnomaliesAndrew]

That God did not intend for Intelligent Design to be taught in public schools. (hahaha)

Best argument in favor of ID

[benhocking]

The best argument in favor of an ID-type theory I've ever heard was made by Nick Bostrom. Granted, this probably isn't what the Dover Board had in mind...

(Yes, I prefer Bostrom's argument over the FSM, but that's just me, I guess.)

Uh. Ummm

[Anonymous Coward]

Unbelievably, they are. Evolution is what they consider the weakest target, because the interaction of biological systems and their enviroment over time is the most complicated, but the also the one people feel most familiar with.

But they don't believe in relativity, which may as well be the same as not believing in gravity, and instead they All Powerful God of lies, greatly manipulated the speed of light and all of nature's "constants" to produce the universe as it appears, but which is really only 6,000 years old.

How many missing links 'ya need?

[geekotourist]

First, a background question: you know that a transitional species- a missing link- will itself be a species? Because "species" are actual lifeforms, everything else is just a clade- a grouping. So if you have a an animal species that becomes another species, the transitional form can't be anything but a species.

Also, you know that evolution is nothing but changes in allele frequency in a population over time, so at no point, with either modern scientists or Darwin himself, was anyone ever expecting to see a transitional form that wasn't itself a functioning, living species? Its not like the transitionals are going to be half-melted blobs melting from human into porcupines, like some frozen outtake from Species the movie.

That said, How about the transition from Ape to Modern Humans? Transitional enough for you? Each one of the 20 main hominids is slightly different from its neighbor, but very different from a few neighbors down. No, the earliest ones could not be confused for modern humans, no matter how much you shaved and suited them up. (And for kicks, you still have some morphological leftover traits-- take a look at your teeth, and notice the giant roots for your tiny little canines. Note how earlier humans used to have much larger canines.)

Other transitions include dinosaurs to birds, or reptiles to mammals, or land mammal to whale. Or if you're talking about genetic missing links, that's really, really easy to find. For example, chimps and humans don't have the same number of chromosomes- we have one less- but funny how human chromosome 2 is almost identical to chimp chromosomes 2p and 2q. We even have broken bits of telemorase right in the middle of 2, exactly what you'd expect if 2p and 2q had fused together. All primates have to eat vitamin C, we can't produce it ourselves, unlike all other mammals except guinea pigs. One prediction scientists made (see '29 evidences' below) was that we'd eventually find that primates have a broken vitamin C gene. Funny how they recently found that exact gene, the identical broken bit shared by all primates (The gene also has further 'chips and scratches,' where the additional broken bits correlate highly with the type of primate. Guinea pigs also have a broken gene, but in a completely different place. The designer sure spent a lot of time on making broken genes correlate with morphological similarities. You'd think the designer could be a lot more creative in being a plagarist, no?)

Also, scientific theories are never "confirmed," just corroborated. In the 29 Evidences for Macroevolution FAQ you can find well-referenced (peer reviewed research) evidences, each with predictions and falsifiability criteria. We're still waiting for the '1 evidence for ID' that includes the same predictions and falsifiability.

Oh, and that "microevolution is distinct from macroevolution" idea? That's a fairly common creationist claim. One of a very long list of common creationist claims. Answers to claim CB902 are here. (For kicks, you can also check out the claims that even creationists say to stop using, and see how many of those get mentioned in this thread.)

Re:How many missing links 'ya need?

[smellsofbikes]

If I had mod points you'd get them all. Hell, if I could, I'd throw in a free pizza for the "half-melted blobs melting from human into porcupines, like some frozen outtake from Species the movie" line: that's the best chunk of words I've read all day.

Small Detail

[TubeSteak]

Technically George Washington wasn't the first president.

I wrote a paper about it way back in the day.

John Hanson served in that office from November 5, 1781 until November 3, 1782. He was the first President to serve a full term after the full ratification of the Articles of Confederation - and like so many of the Southern and New England Founders, he was strongly opposed to the Constitution when it was first discussed.
...
Six other presidents were elected after him
...
George Washington ... was the first President of the United States under the Constitution we follow today.

http://www.marshallhall.org/hanson.html

I'm not sure where you learned about G.W. (since it wasn't science class), but they learned you wrong.

To be fair, this is something that isn't included in most highschool courses. Or even in college courses that don't specifically discuss the beginning of the US of A.

Re:Small Detail

[Anonymous Coward]

He was the first president of the Congress of confederated states. There was no executive office created under the Articles of Confederation.

Re:Small Detail

[Dephex Twin]

If you want to be pedantic, I never stated that Washington being the first president was true, nor did I even say that this is what I learned in school. I said that it was something a majority of Americans believe, and that I didn't learn it in science class.

Re:Small Detail

[leabre]

Well, actually, it is taught in every public institution I've ever attended. But the fact is, when we state the George Washington was the first President, we are in fact, implying, the first President of the United States. Most people would understand it as such, being, that we grew up in the United States, under the Constition.

However, the first president was John Hanson during the time of the Articles of Confederation. There was no executive branch back then and the President played a very different role than our current presidential institution.

Further more, how do you ask, "who was the first president?" without specifying what president we're talking about? ... "who was the first president of the United State?", "Who was the first president of the Union?" Thus, without context, one might actually confuse the second for the third. So we'd need to specify context in order to get the correct answer.

I've seen Jeopordy episides, where, in a very general sense, when the question came up, the correct question was "Who was George Washington?"... but then in a very distinctive sense, in a U.S. history theme, the correct question was "Who was John Hanson?". Just needs context, is all, and the default context is, the United States, on the whole.

Thanks,
Leabre

Re: Affect In Kansas?

[Black Parrot]

> While school boards may continue to trickle out ID curriculua mandates, this ruling and the trial's record will effectively mean such mandates won't last long once they get to court. It's over as far as the public schools are concerned.

Yes, at the very least the courtroom testimony in the Dover case was absolutely devastating, and any school district that wants to fight it in the future is going to have to risk having all that come out again.

(Given the kind of zealots we're talking about, some of them surely will be stupid enough to risk it, but they'll get hammered for precisely the same reasons, if not by precedent.)

> I think the next battleground will be the lawsuit against the University of California for not accepting ID-inclusive biologic coursework as valid science coursework for admissions. This is about (essentially) privately educated students who want to go to good public schools and raises different issues, as I think the main summary of the plaintiff's argument is that the UC is discriminating on religious grounds.

Sounds pretty bogus to me. Basically UC is refusing to accept religious instruction as science instruction, and the plaintiffs are trying to play the martyr card. Unfortunately we've got a lot of fundamentalists and evangelicals in this country who think not getting their way is tantamount to persecution.

Re:Affect In Kansas?

[kmcrober]

Yes, thank you, I understand the difference between precedential and persuasive authority. Law school did that much for me, at least. While judges do not like to look stupid (which is a nice and succinct way of summing up a lot of judicial process), they also don't like to make other judges look stupid. Judge Jones has authored a careful and considered order that explains why ID isn't science, at least in the facts before his court. Another court, even in a different district, will almost certainly have to distinguish the cases if it wants to rule that ID is kosher in public schools.

There aren't many cases in this field, and Jones' ruling, like the Cobb County ruling, is significant in a political sense. Jones' ruling is also much broader, and more likely to shape the advocacy on this issue around the country, which will also encourage future courts to deal with his language, findings, and holdings.

In matters such as these...

[coolGuyZak]

Please make sure to spell "Bob" correctly. ;)

Re:In matters such as these...

[laughing rabbit]

I can be as slack as I want!

Selected quotes from the ruling

[sfjoe]

I enjoyed reading some of the quotes from the judges ruling, especially:


"The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy."


and for those radical right-wingers who think every ruling that goes against them is the sign of an "activist judiciary":


"Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board (bold-face added by me), aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Board's decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources."


A bad day for the radical right but a very good day for our educational system.

Re:but can we still raise questions about evolutio

[scheming daemons]

Okay, now tell me how blood clotting works and doesn't turn ALL my blood into one big clot. How does something like that evolve? Doesn't the "turn-clotting-off" mechanism have to be there at the same time as "turn-clotting-on"? One without the other is gonna kill me. It's when they both have to be there at the same time that leaves me puzzled as to how it could evolve gradually.

You're making the common mistake that ID proponents always make. Namely:

"There's some phenomenon I cannot explain. And nobody has given me a good explanation for it yet. Therefore, there must be a supreme being."

It's the God-of-the-gaps. Whatever humanity cannot yet explain, we ascribe to "god". The problem with your God-of-the-gaps is that... he keeps getting smaller as humanity's collective knowledge increases.

Someday, science will have an explanation for you on just how "clotting" works and has evolved. What then for you? Your god will be smaller, and you'll have to cope with that.

There will be always some things they we don't have a good explanation for... yet.

But guess what? Even if your intelligent "designer" does exist? You have a conundrum. How did the designer come to be?

If your answer is simply "He always was, didn't need to be created." Then I can answer to you... why can't that same explanation hold for the universe itself... it always was.

The old canard still applies. If God didn't exist, man would've created him.

Interesting question.

[jd]

Generally, when people have ideas, it is not in isolation. They combine ideas in their mind and produce a result, they don't just pull a fully-formed idea out of thin air. The ideas are mixed in a way not a million miles from how genes are mixed in living organisms.

If you want to regard mental processes as a form of sexual reproduction in the most abstract form possible, then I guess it would describe the essential underlying mechanisms involved in how people think, and would certainly go along with a fairly common attitude amongst engineering types that the product of their mind's work is their "baby".

Gravity is just a theory.

[antizeus]

If it were fact, it would be like someone debating against the Law of Gravity.

Intelligent Falling.

Re:Gravity is just a theory.

[sardiskan]

Exactly! Flame On!

Thank you!

[MrNougat]

Disclaimer: IANAL

The court could have ruled ID in science class as unconstitutional in this case based only on the religious motivation of its insertion into the curriculum, without ruling on whether ID is or is not science. That would have been easy to do, since the school administrator who put ID into the science class here said, "2,000 years ago, someone died on a cross. Isn't anyone going to stand up for him?"

It would have been very easy for the court to rule on the constitutionality of ID in this specific case only, but it seems the court did not take this easy way out.

Instead, the court said that ID is not science. Now precedent says that ID is not science, and that precedent can apply to any case anywhere.

Thank you, Judge John Jones, for having some stones.

Tangentially, I am troubled my the subtle rise in religious and/or moral discontent in this country. We, as a nation, can overtly say that we're not at war with Islam. Our actions at home, however, betray the nation's real intolerance of other cultures, and the intent to impose America's (I use that term loosely) religion and/or morality (also loosely) on people who do not want to be imposed upon by anything. Our actions at home do not match our words. I wonder what we're doing abroad that they're not telling us about, especially in light of secret CIA prisons in Europe, and continual uncovering of prisoner abuse by US forces.

Perfect timing

[whterbt]

What a great opportunity to try out my new sig :).

PROOF there's no god [was Re:Well good]

[Maow]

you know that humanism, atheism, and being agnostic are all religions too

the belief that those that believe in a creator are wrong is a religious belief

Okay, that's bullshit.

Does that mean I'm religious because I do not believe in the tooth fairy? I don't think so.

Does that mean you're religious because you do believe in a tooth fairy, for which there is not one shred of evidence, in fact, quite the opposite?

Sheesh, what utter nonesense.

I postulate that I can prove there is no god: what divine creator would create so many fuckwits as a legion of devout followers?

Why are fundamentalists unable to use their (supposedly) god-given brains to analyse the nonsense they believe in?

No divine creator would create so many ass hats and set them loose on the rest of us.

Re:PROOF there's no god [was Re:Well good]

[rjshields]

No divine creator would create so many ass hats and set them loose on the rest of us.

Amen to that!

Re:PROOF there's no god [was Re:Well good]

[gr18563]

I am a Christian and I do believe in a creator (God) but that does not mean I believe that creatures cannot evolve, I just do not believe that life evolved from inanimate chemicals. I try not to push my religion on anyone and do not appreciate anyone pushing their religion on me. I also do not appreciate comments such as yours referring to me the way you did. The generalization you made is grossly inaccurate. PS I use my God-given brains for more productive work than hashing out arguments with /.'ers.

Re:PROOF there's no god [was Re:Well good]

[Oligonicella]

"No divine creator would create so many ass hats and set them loose on the rest of us."

Bullshit! His Highness the Spegetti Monster would do exactly such a thing. You lose you sacriligious bastard!

What's the phrase for me, then?

[Just Some Guy]

I always thought I was an ID proponent - I believe that God created the universe and all life in it - until I learned exactly what ID really means.

I believe that He made the universe about 13 billion years ago through a process we call "the Big Bang", but that's just my understanding of current cosmology and subject to change as our/my knowledge of the subject grows.

I also believe that he used evolution to create life, as evidenced by all the hints left laying around and the ongoing processes around us.

I know that God exists by various reasons, but they all come down to faith. I know a little about how He created us, but it all comes down to science.

Since there's no way I'm going to say I believe in ID, what is the term for someone who thinks that God made everything through the processes that science is revealing to us?

Re:What's the phrase for me, then?

[sickofthisshit]

Since there's no way I'm going to say I believe in ID, what is the term for someone who thinks that God made everything through the processes that science is revealing to us?

"Deism" is one option.

Re:What's the phrase for me, then?

[Just Some Guy]

Well, there's more to it than that. I'm actually a relatively observant Southern Baptist (see, we're not all as radical as some would have you believe), but I'm mainly trying to figure out where I stand on science issues.

I believe in creation, as per my original post, but I don't think that makes me a creationist (I don't think the Earth is x,000 years old). I also found out that I'm not an intelligent design believer (I used to think it meant something like what I believed, but that fell apart).

It's not that I have this great urge to label myself, but it would be nice if I could say "oh, I believe in $foo" whenever the topic comes up rather than have to explain from scratch each time.

Re:What's the phrase for me, then?

[sickofthisshit]

I wasn't saying that Deism has to cover the whole of your philosphical, ethical, and moral belief system.

But for purposes of science, you can believe in a Deistic basis for the creation of the physical universe, including Earth and its biological contents, and a more conventional Christian treatment of the soul, good & evil, sin, immortality, etc.

Christ's teachings leave a whole heck of a lot uncovered. In retrospect, it would have been nice if Christ had also given some seminars on biology and quantum mechanics, cosmology, etc., to avoid some of this debate between Bible-readers and laboratory scientists, but if he did, they have been lost to history.

Now, there is not much in science that can go very far in determining a basis for ethics (although we can wonder why and investigate how insects, fish, chimps, etc., don't go in for morality in the same way humans do), or how people should treat one another. Leaving a perfectly reasonable space for religious beliefs to prosper.

Re:What's the phrase for me, then?

[jfengel]

I actually don't know of a name for you, which is funny, since there are an awful lot of people who share your beliefs in one form or another. It's actually more or less the stated doctrine of the Catholic Church.

You could call yourself a Darwinist, which tends to imply that you believe the Big Bang Theory. I don't like that name, because in general I dislike tying theories to people. It's not about Darwin qua Darwin but about the theories that he expounded first (well, not quite first, nor best, but he sort of hit the sweet spot of "nearly first and good enough").

"Evolutionist" is less personality-driven, with the same implications, but it still really doesn't cover it.

You could call yourself a "Christian Scientist", but that's REALLY gonna send the wrong message.

Closest may be "I am a Southern Baptist and also a scientist", at which point you'd better be prepared to reconcile your separate positions. (The Southern Baptist Church is a lot more complicated than most people realize, and you may be in for a long afternoon of clearing up misconceptions.)

Re:What's the phrase for me, then?

[Hedgethorn]

"Theistic evolution" is the phrase usually thrown around in Christian philosophical circles for this belief. It denotes someone who accepts the broad outlines of evolutionary theory but believes it was guided by the will (and perhaps outright intervention) of a monotheistic deity.

Among the notable Christian theologians/philosophers who espouse(d) this view are C.S. Lewis, Richard Swinburne, and the official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church.

Re:What's the phrase for me, then?

[n54]

There is no "group-name" for individual thought as having such a name is self-defeating :)

Disclaimer: I agree with you except I think there's something to I.D. as well (I'm not a creationist nor christian).

Frankly, I'm amazed.

[Dominic Burns]

No-one's been moded up for mentioning how they've been touched by 'his noodly appendage'.

ID and the Philosphy of Science

[tm2b]

While I certainly agree with you in general, I think there are exceptions - some philosophy courses are good for pointing out where science ends and the nonsense begins. It's worth speaking about the fundamental limits of science (eg, the "induction problem" - you can draw conclusions about the physical universe while you're measuring but nothing logically prevents the physical universe from changing or being completely different outside the realm of your observations), and that's a topic for philosophy.

ID would make an excellent topic for a "Philosophy of Science" course. Science talks about mechanisms, ID talks about things that simply aren't measurable - and a philosophy of science course would underscore that science makes no comment on things that aren't measurable directly or indirectly.

Intelligence?

[q2bruiser]

It always amazes me when a group of highly intelligent people can be so closed minded. No one here can prove evolution nor intelligent design. Do one "simple" thing for me. Create an ameba. We know the composition, even the ratios. Make one. What? No takers? Thought so.

Re:Intelligence?

[windowpain]

I can't make an atom of hydrogen or lithium. Does that mean that the periodic table is a bunch of hogwash?

Can't teach no religion in no public school

[Pac]

It's right there in teh Constitution thing, guv. Some Fundy Feathers put it there, they tell me. Who knows what those birds were thinking.

Are there two different Intelligent Designs

[shis-ka-bob]

I was trying to understand ID, and I think there are two very different groups that are claiming this term.

The first is just a new name for Young Earth Creationists (YEC). These are the people that insist on a literal interpretation of Genesis' Creation and Flood stories. They attack Evolution for every perceived weakness. This is the 'God in the Gaps' idea. I think that this is an awful view of God, since every discovery becomes an attack on God. This view make every honest investigator a villain. This is the same nonsense that make Galileo a threat to the Catholic Church during the Renaisance. The Catholic Church, and the mainstream Protestant Churches have learn and they are not making this issue a source of division between themselves and science. The YEC crowd is still holding to this view, so they are in constant combat with science.

The second sort of ID advocate says something like

OK, I see that a Big Bang occured. but do you really believe that its something like a zero-point energy perterbation of an empty nonthingness? OK, I see that the Universe was formed by a cooling Big Bang. Hey, look at this. If I change the strength of the weak nuclear force by a tiny fraction, I don't see how a stable nucleus with Z>4 could possibly form for more than a few nanoseconds. Wow, if I change any of the fundimatal physics constants, the Universe would either by chaos or booring. What are the odds that we have the right set of constants to allow for a dynamic, but relatively stable universe? OK, I see that life managed to evolve on Earth over a few billions years. But is is really reasonable that all the forces of the universe were so brillaintly tuned that we could form something like life, which is an exquisite balance of stability and dymamism. You may buy this, but to me the exquisite set of rules that our universe obeys looks like it was set up to create us. To me, this looks like evidence for the hand of God.

This second sort of ID should not be threatening to 'mainstream' science, since every wonderful scientific discovery is just more evidence of God's brillance. This is not 'God in the Cracks', this is 'God behind the Science'. I view this sort of ID as a 'philosophy of science,' largely becuase I don't quite see how they can make a testable hypothesis. As the parent post notes, there is room for Truth that is not scientific.

This sort of ID can also embrace Genesis as a metaphor. In fact, is should be no surprise that many see the Big Bang as evidence for a Creator. This sort of ID should actually be quite threatening to the YEC, since it denies the literal intepretation of Genesis.

Of course, in many Christian traditions, it is considered blastphemy to call the Bible perfect. The Bible is the inspired Word of God as interpreted by a long series of impefect humans. So, insisting on Biblical inerancy should properly be attacked on both scientific and religous grounds. If you take this view, imagine yourself as a late Stone Age scribe. God chooses you to recieve the story of creation and evolution. You don't know calculus, so you have to get the simplified version. You also don't have much use for numbers larger than a thousand, so the explanation of the time scales doesn't mean much to you. So we'll go with 'a day is as a thousand years in the eyes of God' and just compress 'ages' into 'days'. I actually think that the Genesis Creation story (up to the stuff about Eve anyhow) is a halfway decent summary of the history of the universe in a few sentences.

In case anyone hasn't figured this out, I really want to see the Young Earth Creationists squirm. I think that they have an immature theology and they are boorishly trying to force their immaturity on the rest of us.

Ah, but it is wrong

[Pac]

Unless you have a new theory that explains the Universe around us better than the current ones, it is wrong to substitute the best explanation so far by anything else. If you have some evidence that The Great Spaghetti Monster came in his Cheese Sauce and planted life on Earth, we'd better teach the kids about a slow process of evolution, encompassing geological eras, starting in a humble self-replicant molecule and getting to eagles, sequoia trees and humans.

Re:Ah, but it is wrong

[COMON$]

I think there may be more theories out there that dont see the light of day because much of the scientific community believes that any alternative to evolution is laughable. I am not referring to a form of ID here, just to the fact that todays scientists are a far cry from what they used to be. They used to be much broader educated, more open-minded. Today they are so specified that they cant think outside the box. Same thing applies to a lot of theologians, they spent so much time debating greek they stopped studying basic science. But yet each side makes outlandish claims in areas they know nothing about.

This is a jump but I dont think we will see any alternate theories come out due to the fact that today's scientists are about as blind as the justice system.

Mr. President? Is that you?

[GojiraDeMonstah]

People who say ID cripples their children's ability to succeed in the real world obviously don't pay attention to politics.

Re:Mr. President? Is that you?

[fyngyrz]

People who say ID cripples their children's ability to succeed in the real world obviously don't pay attention to politics.

That's not it. It's just that they don't count becoming a bribe-taking, PAC-owned, glittering generality dispensing, constitution-eroding, rights-repressing, mommy-law-making, religious synchophant as "success."

:)

Simpler than that

[jgoemat]

Intelligent Design should not be tought in Biology class for one simple reason, it is Philosophy (or Theology) and not Science.

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.

By definition, the act of an 'intelligent designer' would deal with supernatural phenomena. ID goes into no depth in explanation of phenomena, it merely states that there is a designer. It statest that there must be a designer because nothing else could explain the observations, when there are clearly other ways to explain the observations and no evidence whatsoever of the designer. It doesn't go into how the designer would have created anything. What powers would it use? How can ID make predictions, an important part of science, if anything would depend on the unknowable whims of this creator?

So, mandating that ID not be taught is in no way an establishment of religion, but quite the opposite. See, Science is NOT religion, and keeping these thinly veiled religious views out of the science classroom is exactly what that part of the first ammendment is about. Putting them into the classroom by a government would be establishment of religion.

Gaia Theory (science, because Wikipedia says so!)

[scoove]

Intelligent design isn't science, therefore it doesn't belong in a science room.

Neither is the Gaia Theory, though it is a common part of high school and college biology curriculum and is often discussed during Earth Day. Though it lacks any scientific foundation and is often controversial with persons of faith (who apparently react at having their children instructed by a state school about the "mother goddess earth"), it is well tolerated by the otherwise religious intolerant left.

The concept was pioneered by James Lovelock, who described the earth as "as a complex entity involving the Earth's biosphere, atmosphere, oceans, and soil; the totality constituting a feedback or cybernetic system which seeks an optimal physical and chemical environment for life on this planet."

Educational kits for high school teachers include a discussion of early tribal mysticism, Hindu, Buddist and Native American beliefs and traditions that support the Gaia concept. So how is Gaia different from an intelligent designer? Consider the following Gaia beliefs:

"the Earth's atmosphere is more than merely anomalous; it appears to be a contrivance specifically constituted for a set of purposes" (gaia strong theory)

"Highlife Theory shows that this one gigantic living organism is by far the most intelligent living thing on earth. Far more intelligent than us humans. You'll understand this better later." (gaia highlife theory

So what is the difference between ID and Gaia? Serious reading of Gaia can lead you to believe for a moment that the followers are clearly ID writers in disguise - promoting an exceptionally strong faith in environmental mysticism and an earth that was created and is maintained for our holistic interaction. However, when you realize Gaia's designer is the mother goddess and is presented as in no way any corrolary of a Christian god, the difference becomes more clear.

So should we care about our children being tought about Gaia and the mother goddess, intelligent designers, creationism, evolutionism and other concepts? As a libertarian, I actually enjoy the value of the different ways of looking at a situation these different ideas present (and understand they really help get kids engaged in education). As long as a religion is not being promoted (e.g. some school districts programs that require middle schoolers to "be a Muslim" for a month, say Muslim prayers, etc.), awareness of new concepts that others believe is valuable.

So ask yourself a hard question: what kind of person flips off a driver with a goddess bumper sticker, a walking fish or christian fish on the back of the minivan? Being tolerant of different ideas isn't easy as it can often challenge us to question our own beliefs and practices. Likewise, we should be wary of punishing the expression or discussion of one groups beliefs as there are plenty of our own that probably do not stand the scruitiny as substantiatable fact.

Creationism's Evolution

[Maxo-Texas]

If you want a living example of natural selection and evolution, you merely need to examine intelligent design.

Over a period of time, arguments that were completely stupid (bad for procreation of the ID meme) have been culled.

Ideas which make it easier for it to suceed have been added.

ID today is not the simple obvious creationism of the late 1800's. It's a very complex system of arguments which could not have sprung complete as it is today.

If this much complexity in a meme can be realized in only a span of a hundred years (and really mostly in a punctuated period of the last 20 years when creationists figured out

a) how to lie (abandoning that pesky need to be honest they used to have)
b) how to use mimic so "ID" "looks like" a scientific argument.)

then what could an living creature achieve in a million years of constant pressure (of early death!)?

read the Judges comments in the pdf.

[settledown]

This is a very specific case, even though this forum has "evolved" into a god vs. darwin debate. The school board members used devious tactics to get other board members to vote for the ID inclusion in science class. This Judge did NOT say that ID is a waste of time, did NOT say that evolution is anti-religion, did NOT say that ID isnt a worthwhile discussion. ID does not belong in Science class, and it was put their by board members with an agenda that didnt serve the best interest of Dover school district. sidebar- The pope himself said that evolution does NOT contadict Catholisism (paraphrase)

Re:read the Judges comments in the pdf.

[Anthony]

What is with the moderators? A well reasoned post, stating the clear facts of the issue, by a registered Slashdotter gets a 0?

How I Learned to Stop Whining and Love Evolution

[cj7wilson]

The big question we think this debate is about is "Is there a God, or isn't there?" I think many Christians think that evolution is anti-God, when it's not. It wouldn't be the first time large numbers of Christians didn't accept new scientific ideas. Think about Copernicus, Galileo, and others. They turned out to be right, and it wasn't the end of Christianity, though by and large it condemned their theories and behaved rather badly about it.
You can't use science to prove God exists, but you can't disprove it with science either. The universe could have been created to look and behave like it does, or it could have ended up this way all on it's own. Scientists has tried for all of history to either prove or disprove God, and no one has been able to do either. It will always come down to a personal choice of belief: Either God is damned smart or we are damned lucky.
I do think that in many if not most ways "ID" as a movement is more about fighting a perceived hidden agenda in the theory of evolution rather than true science. True science is about finding fact, regardless of what that fact might imply. Christians of all people should know that God is a big boy, He can take care of Himself. Christians should focus on following Christ and spreading the gospel, and not on picking worldly battles.
I like evolution. Personally, I think God would have designed creation as a riddle no man could solve, where His followers would have to live by faith, and not by science. I happen to like that God is smarter than us, and I think that when we die and we find out He really DID create everything, we'll be all the more amazed at what He's done (though some of us might feel pretty stupid for not seeing Him in it). If we die and He's not around, I guess none of us will feel anything at all.

First post, Flame on!

God spontaneously popped into existance?

[AmazingRuss]

I am not totally convinced about evolution, as it does seem far fetched (to my tiny little mind) that all this complexity 'just happened'.

HOWEVER, ID presupposes that a being with the power to manufacture all this complexity 'just happened all at once', which I think is even less likely.

Re:God spontaneously popped into existance?

[|/|/|||]

Yay! That's science. We work based on the best explanations (theories) that we can come up with, but we never just assume that those explanations are true. Evolution is a theory, and therefore an assumption. I wouldn't call it "far fetched" (I understand a lot of the details) but I would certainly never "believe" that it is true. In fact, I could "believe" something completely alternative, but when I put my "science" hat on I would have to go back to theory, and accept that the best supported theory of our origins is evolution. Religion is about belief. Science is not.

Re:God spontaneously popped into existance?

[Boronx]

It is very difficult to believe, which is why it's conception, detailed investigation, analysis, verification and application are considered monumental human achievements.

Re:but can we still raise questions about evolutio

[Todd Knarr]

Okay, now tell me how blood clotting works and doesn't turn ALL my blood into one big clot.

Well, first you have to look at the mechanism for blood clotting. It doesn't need a "turn off" mechanism, it's default state is off. It has a mechanism for turning clotting on, which requires both a) exposure to oxygen and b) physical breakage of platelets. Get away from the immediate area of a cut and you wind up not having at least one of those, so clotting can't start on it's own and the clotting around the cut can't progress further. It's kind of like a car with the spark plugs removed: you don't need something to stop it, you just need the absence of something that makes it go.

As for how it evolved, probably from a mechanism to seal cell membranes when they were punctured. We know there's variation, we can see it today in people whose blood doesn't clot well. Doubtless there were variations the other way where clotting happened far more readily, but those branches probably dead-ended long ago as creatures with a tendency to have their blood solidify when they were injured wouldn't live long enough to propagate that variation.

Testability

[Trinition]

It is not possible to test evolution

I disagree.

There is a difference between testable and ease of testing. Evolution can certainly be tested. Take a population of some organism, place them in to equal environments, vary the environments differently over time.

The difficulty if in the magnitude of some of the variables. How big of an environment do you need? How many organisms in each population? How much time to let it transpire? Each of these are probably answered with large numbers. However, just because it is difficult to test, doesn't mean its not testable.

Consider some competing theories from the past, like the stars being points of light fixed to a class sphere encasing the earth. To test this, you can go up high enough and see if indeed there is a glass sphere.

Now when you look an intelligent design, "everything you see was put in its current state by God.", that's a lot harder to test. That's not a theory of an on going process, but an event from the past whose conditions and variables you cannot know.

Intelligent design is not testable; however, evolution is, difficult though it may be.

That is not honest, quote it in full

[Pac]

The obnoxious sticker said: "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered".

Now you can read it in two ways:

a) The word "theory" here means exactly what it means in Science. In this case, all textbooks should have hundreds of similar stickers as in "This textbook contains material on inertia. Inertia is a theory, not a fact, regarding the way bodies upon which no external force is acting behave. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered".

b) The word "theory" here is being used with its layman meaning, as in the song "I have a theory" in Buffy's Musical Episode. "I have theory, it could be bunnies". In this case the sentence is not only wrong, it is a blatant religious statement. That was found to be the case, and then the judge nixed it.

Re:That is not honest, quote it in full

[jav1231]

OH! So "theory" can sometimes be mistaken as "hunch." And since most people are too stupid to understand the difference, we better just leave it off!? That is absolutely rediculous. And you wonder why people are upset? If that's true, then odds are your target audience for the class aren't going to get it anyway. After all, they haven't "evolved" yet, apparently. This, and statements like, "We can't explain how apes became humans along every point in the chain. There must have been environmental or cataclismic forces at work to allow for the gaps we see." This has always been the explanation I've heard for any holes in the theory. No one, and I mean no one has ever provided an explanation that made this make any believable sense. There really is little logical difference between "there's a higher being that developed mankind" and "there's an unknown event for which we have no evidence that must have exacted force on the evolutionary timeline." Even THIS crap was better crafted than, "Well, some people think 'theory' means 'hunch' so it's better to keep the sticker off." Nice.
I accept that people have issues with ID. People have issues with a lot of things. My shock is the extent to which people will suspend reason on the so-called "science" side to defend themselves and not defend their positon that evolution (macro) is great science, but their position that it's flawlessness should go completely unchallenged under any circumstances. What I'm finding is that many of those people have no clue what objectivity is.

Re:That is not honest, quote it in full

[jav1231]

And of course those who can't handle free speech, or even debate for themselves mod flamebait.

Re:That is not honest, quote it in full

[Pac]

First, I haven't modded down you, so don't blame me. I am here.

Second, you show some lacking in your knowledge of body of data - the "gaps" you speak of are being closed every minute around the world, by dedicated fossil hunter, lab analists and theorists (more or less in this order). And the theory is evolving and being re-worked as the body of data grows and new eveidence for this or that hyphotesis emerge.

Third, what I said bears no relation to what some people think or fail to think. The logic is clear: either they were using the word theory in the technical sense and then there was no reason to single out evolution for a warning or they were using the word to mean, as you say, hunch, and refering specifically to one scientific theory they don't like. The later implies there were non-educational, non-scientific reasons leading to the inclusion of the sticker. And the judge found the reason for the sticker was that one particular religious group do not like evolution. Hence, no sticker.

Amd by the way, the difference between "there's a higher being that developed mankind" and "there's an unknown event for which we have no evidence that must have exacted force on the evolutionary timeline." is the difference between science and religion. The first statement can not be proven false. The second can, by showing no event was necessary or showing the gap was caused by our failure in finding the missing links or showing another event happened. But science, specially science dealing with geological and evolutionary timescales, is always a search for the best explanation for the data we see. Always remember, in the end there is a body of data supporting the theory, and the theory is what the scientists consider the best explanation for that data. Show me the body of data supporting the existence of the higher being and we can discuss this as a scientific theory.

Re:That is not honest, quote it in full

[Anonymous Coward]

it is even better than that.

"there's a higher being that developed mankind"

is not the complete statement of theists, creationists, or inteligent desiginists. the complete statement is more along the lines of:

there's a higher being that developed mankind and it can never be observed, measured, or quantified

THAT is what makes ID non scientific.

Re:That is not honest, quote it in full

[jav1231]

In the end, theory is theory. As for gaps, I've never heard any valid explanations for the gaps or that missing links were found. The latest findings of the "small people" might elude to a missing link, but that's the closest I've seen science come. One problem with the theory as a whole was that early paleantologists falsified so much data or extrapolated to rediculous extremes. If macro-evolution is true, this behavior has tainted the data to a certain extent in the minds of the public.

Well, it was taught in my Philosophy class

[jgoemat]

It wasn't called 'Intelligent Design' I don't believe, but we went over several 'proofs' of the existence of God and it was one of them. I specifically remember the professor going over the 'If you find a watch in the desert, do you think it just came into being or grew out of the ground?' argument that I've seen associated with Intelligent design as well.

Which actually goes to blow holes in Intelligent Design. If I find a watch in the desert, I would assume that someone lost it or threw it away. I could find that person, or use the serial number to find out where and when the watch was made. I could go to the factory and observe how the watch was made, including all the materials that went into it. Using science, I could theorize about how that watch came into being from the big bang, to supernovae that created the heavier elements, to the forming of the earth and geology to form the minerals, to the evolution of man who created the factory to make the watch.

If I was a firm believer in Intelligent Design and didn't know how watches were made, I would simply say that God must have created the watch and placed it in the desert with his own hand for me to find. Has everyone seen 'The Gods Must Be Crazy'?

Please, both sides: grow up!

[wcrowe]

Stop trying to mix science and philosophy!

Did anyone actually read the article?

[Anonymous Coward]

The article said that the school wasn't actually teaching ID merely stating that there was an alternative view! It seems like everyone here has decided to ignore that and focus on if ID should be taught in classrooms. That is not what was being objected to. Stating that there is an alterntive view seems like a reasonable thing to do to me.

Do people really think that it is so terrible that children hear that some people think there is alternative to something that has not been proven?

Re:Did anyone actually read the article?

[MightyMartian]

I dunno. Do you think that history classes ought to be taught there is an alternative view on the Holocaust, even though virtually every historian out there will state unequivocally that the Holocaust was a fact?

In fact, that was what Judge Jones observed, that evolution was singled out for this treatment. No other topic in biology, or any other part of the science curriculum was given this treatment.

Beyond that, why should non-science be taught in a science class? ID isn't science, and even its proponents admitted in court that the very meaning of science would have to be altered to permit ID in as a scientific assertion. Is there any other alternatives you would think kids should know about? Perhaps we should bring up demon possession as an alternative to mental illness, or perhaps we ought to find some nice alternatives to the germ theory of disease.

Re:Did anyone actually read the article?

[Anonymous Coward]

I dunno. Do you think that history classes ought to be taught there is an alternative view on the Holocaust, even though virtually every historian out there will state unequivocally that the Holocaust was a fact?

Do you think that there would be this much of a response to someone banning "an alternative view on the Holocaust" is there a law in place to do this? Why is this issue singled out especially since clearly there is a fairly high level of debate about the topic?

Beyond that, why should non-science be taught in a science class? ID isn't science, and even its proponents admitted in court that the very meaning of science would have to be altered to permit ID in as a scientific assertion. Is there any other alternatives you would think kids should know about? Perhaps we should bring up demon possession as an alternative to mental illness, or perhaps we ought to find some nice alternatives to the germ theory of disease.

Again this was my whole point the school was not teaching this material! They mentioned it. This judgement means you can't even mention it as existing. That seems screwed up to me.

a judge has no place in a school

[Antiocheian]

Reading this thread on Slashdot is actually more revealing than the news itself. The issue is not about the validity of intelligent design. Personally I find intelligent design wrong and evolution right.

However I would prefer to leave my chilren's education to a teacher and not a judge.

Re:a judge has no place in a school

[kilfarsnar]

"I would prefer to leave my chilren's education to a teacher and not a judge."

Really? If that were the case you child might be in school reciting the Lord's prayer with a bunch of other kids of the same skin color. The issue here is whether the school board is acting in keeping with the constitution. Last I checked that's within a judge's mandate.

Re:a judge has no place in a school

[darthtater]

"Really? If that were the case you child might be in school reciting the Lord's prayer with a bunch of other kids of the same skin color. The issue here is whether the school board is acting in keeping with the constitution. Last I checked that's within a judge's mandate."

If you are referring to a ruling like Brown vs. Board of Ed. then I think you have missed the point. You are talking about a judge ruling to grant more liberty. The parent's concern and mine as well is that this judge has SILENCED a certain _idea_. Now you can't even express the very _idea_ in the science class. Judges _granting_ liberties is much easier to stomach than taking them away.

Re:a judge has no place in a school

[kilfarsnar]

"If you are referring to a ruling like Brown vs. Board of Ed. then I think you have missed the point. You are talking about a judge ruling to grant more liberty.

No, I am talking about a judge restricting the liberty to segregate schools. You are missing my point. This case was about upholding the constitution, not granting or restricting liberty. The court does have a place in deciding what is and is not constitutional. That is what is at issue here. It's not like the judge is up there teaching class!

Re:a judge has no place in a school

[darthtater]

"The court does have a place in deciding what is and is not constitutional."

I agree with you totally, though I have yet to find the part of the constitution that has anything to do with public school curriculum.

The Pope has spoken.

[Anonymous Coward]

CNN is reporting that U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III has ruled that Intelligent Design cannot be discussed in Dover, Pennsylvania biology classes.

This is so marvelously, marvelously funny! Go to any time in history, and you'll find the same people. Only their clothes/ideologies change. In Galileo's day, the censors wore red hats and lace, today they wear black robes. But it's the same people doing the same thing--silencing ideas they dislike. They never learn.

And of course Intelligent Design is science. The very point of the Darwin tautology (i.e. about the fit to survive surviving) was to come up with a way to explain why a biological world that seems intelligently designed isn't. Evolution exists not to explain the evidence, but to deny it with the sorts of over-reaching, explain-all-with-one-idea theories that were so popular in the 19th century. Marx is dead and Freud is dying. Only Darwin lingers on, long past his time, defended by an intolerant priesthood that will tolerate no dissent.

Recall Galileo muttering, "Nevertheless it moves," and you'll taste the humor of all this.

--Mike Perry, editor of Theism and Humanism by Arthur Balfour

Re:The Pope has spoken.

[kilfarsnar]

"And of course Intelligent Design is science."

Care to back up that statement? How is Intelligent Design itself not an over-reaching, explain-all-with-one-idea theory?

I happen to believe in God and that He created the universe on purpose to operate in a certain way. So I guess you could say I believe in Intelligent Design. But it is my belief, nothing more. It should not be taught in science class any more than molecular physics should be taught in sunday school.

You mention Galileo. His fate was indeed instructive as to what happens when science and religion get mixed up.

Re:The Pope has spoken.

[Bassman59]

"And of course Intelligent Design is science."

"Care to back up that statement? How is Intelligent Design itself not an over-reaching, explain-all-with-one-idea theory?"

The whole point is that Intelligent Design punts on the explanation. It says, "there are things that we cannot explain, and shouldn't try to explain, and for that, we must say there is an Intelligent Designer."

In other words, it's anti-science. Why should anyone do any research if knowledge is beyond our capability to understand?

Oh wait, I forgot. The people who are behind ID are the same people who prefer an uninformed, uneducated electorate/workforce.

Talk about Unified Theories ...

You believe Hovind!?!?!?!?

[evenprime]

sardiskan confidently, but erroneously, stated the following

If you look at the whole picture, evolution is unprovable and ID is unprovable, which means that to whichever wing you choose, you choose so on a BELIEF. ID vs Evolution is not about proving the origin of man anyway, its about TRYING to prove that there is or is not a God.

Evolution is not "about" anything. It is a description of a process. This process has NO bearing on the existence or non-existence of god. Your belief that this IS about religion mirrors that of the board members from dover who the judge said "repeatedly lied to cover their motives even while professing religious beliefs".

You urge us to go to the website of Kent Hovind, a tax evading Young Earth Creationist who's favorite arguments are so weak that even other creationists say he makes "mistakes in facts and logic which do the creationist cause no good". Hovind is a professional debater who depends primarily on one tactic; he throws out questions (most of which are irrelevant) so quickly that his opponents cannot answer all of the within the alloted time. He This tactic would fail in a written debate where the opposition had time to answer all his questions. That's probably why hovind dislikes standard debate formats and refuses to participate in online debates.

• Hovind's fake challenge
• Tax evasion and fake PhD's
• Hovind debates at UTK

Re:You believe Hovind!?!?!?!?

[sardiskan]

As I stated, and as is stated in the very document you linked me to: "The age-old battle between the beliefs of creation science and evolution brought itself to UT last Saturday, as representatives of both sides debated one of the most polarizing questions in our culture." Evolution is as much a BELIEF as creationism is. It's a description of a process? How can you say it's a description of a process? They don't even know what process they are talking about. It's like trying to describe the process of an apple becoming an orange. It doesn't happen, how can you describe something that doesn't happen. It a description of a BELIEF in a process that is vaguely understood in the first place. Again I say, if evolution were a real process, what need would there be of a debate anyway. Flame on.

Re:but can we still raise questions about evolutio

[dustmachine]

You're making the common mistake that ID proponents always make.

And you're making a nice mistake also by putting words into my post. This isn't the extent of the argument for God. That argument is much bigger and covers more than just the physical sciences (philosophical/ontological). This God of mine is the one who made science and put a nice order to things. This isn't the sun-god chasing the moon-god around the sky on a fiery chariot.

My post is wondering why nobody asks any questions of evolution. Is evolution so sacred that we can't ask questions of it? Can't a decent textbook present some of the problems with evolution and ask the future generation of scientists to help solve them instead of just glossing over it all? "Darwin's theory of evolution (macro-evolution) answers everything (or it eventually will) and we'll even gift-wrap that for you."

There will be always some things they we don't have a good explanation for... yet

And it could certainly not be something outside the 2-dimensional Flatland. That's the talk of madmen. Sure, some puzzles will be solved (and I hope they are because it would sure make things easier), but getting back to my original post, how much shoddy evidence do we have to have in schoolbooks before we start to ask why the editors didn't examine it more closely? Has a generation of scientists been stifled from improving upon evolutionary theory because they don't dare question Darwin?

why can't that same explanation ["it always was"] hold for the universe itself.

That explantion was tried for a while. It didn't hold up once we saw that the universe was expanding. i.e. if it's expanding it must have been smaller -- set the wayback machine for a split second after the big bang. Did it "make science smaller" all of a sudden? And if it didn't exist forever then there must have been "imaginary time" (Hawking, et al.) before that.

I don't have enough faith to be an atheist.

You're so objective...

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny, you would rather believe that devices more complicated than mainframes evolved due to random changes and call stupid people that say "wait, I don't buy it"? What makes you think you are smart? Your When was the last time you found 386 cpu that just happened to evolve out of silicon somewhere in mountains?

Re:You're so objective...

[sickofthisshit]

Um, what the hell are you talking about?

The evidence that computers were designed includes a big building marked "Intel" in Santa Clara, filled with engineers doing design. I drove by it last week. And the fact that they came out of a computer catalog. And so on and so forth. Only the most extreme skeptic would question the reality of those things.

Computers don't reproduce themselves, for one thing. If computers were able to have sex and little computers were born, (maybe they start out as 4-bitters and grow into 32-bit computers after a pupal metamorphic state?), then you might expect a great deal of random variation between computers, and the question of why some architectures are big-endian and some are little-endian would be a complicated issue to sort out, for instance. But it just ain't so. No equal time for computer evolution by natural selection in computer science curricula, I guess.

The fact that you apparently can't understand the basic differences between computers and biological organisms is a serious obstacle to you understanding anything at all, not just evolution.

ID vs. Bush

[unclocked]

Intelligent Design is a thoery by not so intelligent people. The best proof that there is no Intelligent Design in this universe is that it wouldn't design someone as stupid as GWB, its biggest supporter.

Anthropic Principle

[Tony]

Wow, if I change any of the fundimatal physics constants, the Universe would either by chaos or booring.

Uhm... no.

Once you change a single physical constant, you've changed the universe, and all bets are off. There is no way to say that we live in a carefully-balanced universe; we do not have the knowledge to understand our own universe enough to accurately predict what another universe might look like.

Also, that view of the universe assumes that all physics constants are arbitrary. They are not. They fit together like a puzzle the same way carbon atoms form fullerenes-- they are mathematically intertwined. God is not needed; the beauty and symmetry of the universe is full within itself.

Re:Anthropic Principle

[shis-ka-bob]

I don't agree with the views of intelligent designer, but I tried to reproduce their arguements. I agree that much of their argument is due to the lack of imagination as to how other physical systems might be able to give rise to 'life'. The argument that this is simply the Anthropic Principle is useful, but it is not definitive in the way that the agreement between QED and measurement is. The Anthropic Prinicple has always struck me as valid for a philosphy of science, but is not itself scientific. Again, my personal belief is in Evolution and a Big Bang about 13.7 billion years ago, all governed by natural law and without the intervention of a deity. I don't have a quarrel with the 'second sort' of intelligent design folks, but I have a huge quarrel with the Young Earth Creationists.

What is "real"? How do you define "real"? --Morph

[xnot]

See the wikipedia entry for theory, but a key point is that theory makes a prediction for future events based on a large body of real world evidence for cause and effect. The key is -real world- evidence, NOT "proof". Anything can be a theory. I might have a theory that the sky is red. My perception of the sky being red comes from me, so my theory cannot entirely be disproven by anyone else. The reason is because what we focus on is what we see. We don't see what is really there, we see what we want to see. That is why language can and is used endlessly by people- If I want to write an article, I just pose an idea, and if it's even remotely plausable, I can create evidence to back up the idea, depending upon what I look for.

Scientists know this. They know that their own perception can cloud the results of their experiments. That is how the scientific theory evolved. Scientists realized that the only way to find something resembling "truth" (or at least something that is useful) is to create a theory, ANY theory, and then test it out in the real world to see what would happen. If the results came back not what they expected, then the theory was false. It does not matter who made the theory, how long the theory existed, or what evidence was in favor of the theory before. All that matters is that X did not lead to Y, therefore the process (theory) was incorrect.

People who are focused on faith often have trouble with this. That is because faith is entirely from a person's own perspective, not from the perspective of what's actually there. That may sound like a contradiction. Faith believes that something is there, and that's where it starts from- the ideas are created from that. Science also believes something is there, but then goes out and tests and refines their belief based upon what actually happens. That is not to say that science is right and faith wrong. Things which do not have a direct or at least fairly predictable cause-and-effect relationship, those things science typically has difficulty in explaining. That is because by definition, a theory is testable. In other words, things that are not testable cannot be explained by theory.

Keep wondering

[Steeltoe]

Ugh. I don't understand this stuff. Would anyone mind enlightening me/solving this apparent paradox?

Big questions are not to be answered. When you answer them, they become small questions. You see, the potential is less when you have an answer, than when you don't have the exact answer in your mind. The greatest scientists of our times knew this, and studied both the mystic as well as intellectual "modern" science.

If you understand this, you are on your way to know less and less, but keep wondering about all aspects of life. That is when you are becoming more enlightened. If you are confused. Congratulations! It takes less ego to admit so, than to stomp everybody else around you for being "heretics" ;-)

Re:Keep wondering

[Anonymous Coward]

Excellent, I'll spend the rest of my life completely drunk, knowing as little as is possible. Possibly throw a little crack in there as well, to ensure I know absolutely nothing.

This will, of course, mean that all questions become "big questions", thus there will be much more "potential".

Muppet.

Re:Keep wondering

[Steeltoe]

If you don't take care of your mind and body, you're not really anxious to find out anything. There needs a certain sincerity. So go ahead, see where it takes you. At least that will be an experience too.

Not fact?

[lemaymd]

Evolution is asserted as fact in basically every place where it is even remotely possible to make such an assertion. You're watching an IMAX movie when suddenly, "Millions of years ago, dinosaurs evolved into birds...", etc. There is NEVER any mention that "we currently believe that dinosaurs evolved into birds millions of years ago...". I have never in my life heard an evolutionist unequivocally admit that perhaps evolution is a false theory. As such, they claim it is fact. If you have a couterexample, please point me to its source so I can read it.

ID as a whole could be falsified if it were possible to show that no god played a role in the creation of the universe. Such an argument will never be discovered for a variety of reasons, but theoretically it could exist.

Examining a particular corner of ID such as literal Biblical Creationism is much simpler. It sets out a number of hypotheses that can be compared against the evidence we observe:
  - Earth is around 6000 years old
  - The entire surface of the earth was covered by floodwaters at some point
  - Fish, birds, land mammals, humans, etc. were all created separately by a single Creator
  - All humans are descended from a single couple, Adam and Eve.

I have absolutely zero interest in debating the evidence for these events, since it is almost axiomatic that no evolutionist can accept any arguments for them (they have incredible faith and patience). However, the point is that ID as a whole and specific parts of ID are both theories that can be scientifically examined. Yes, ID involves the supernatural, but if the supernatural exists, how can you exclude it from scientific discourse and still call yourself a scientist?

Re:Not fact?

[Anonymous Coward]

Counterexamples? Pretty much anywhere that a scientist explains what a theory IS, they explain very clearly that evolution is a theory.

Of course, in the scientific parlance, a theory IS a fact, at least to the limit of their understanding. Heavily tested understanding, totally unlike the completely untested blind faith that religion involves.

" ID as a whole could be falsified if it were possible to show that no god played a role in the creation of the universe. Such an argument will never be discovered for a variety of reasons, but theoretically it could exist. "

HOGWASH! It is IMPOSSIBLE to prove that no god played a role in the creation of the universe. That's exactly WHY ID is not a theory. Without breaking several of the known physical laws of the universe, it would be impossible to observe the original creation of our universe, and even then, there would be no *proof* that god or gods weren't involved. The religious types have been very clear that God is intangible, unmeasurable, unseen, etc - even if we filmed the Big Bang, there's still no evidence that God WASN'T involved.

While it is possible to disprove the statement 'All crows are black' (by finding a white crow for instance) it is IMpossible to DISprove the statement 'No Crows are Orange'. Without collecting every crow in history on earth, (and anywhere else in the universe that they MIGHT be found).

" I have absolutely zero interest in debating the evidence for these events, since it is almost axiomatic that no evolutionist can accept any arguments for them "

Arguments? No. EVIDENCE? You're a liar. No beating around the bush here. Any scientist would jump at the chance to present REAL evidence that the ToE is flawed or wrong, but that evidence doesn't exist! Such evidence would mean a Nobel Prize for whoever presented it, and tenure for life.

Every point you've raised so far has been multiply debunked. I can see why you don't want to debate, but I DO wish you'd be honest with yourself at least.

You have zero interest in debating because you know you haven't got a leg to stand on, and an evolutionary scientist would literally BURY you in peer-reviewed evidence.

" Yes, ID involves the supernatural, but if the supernatural exists, how can you exclude it from scientific discourse and still call yourself a scientist? "

IF the supernatural exists. IF! And your -evidence- that it exists? Scientists have scads of evidence for Evolution, including direct observation of new mutant abilities appearing and conferring evolutionary advantage on lifeforms.

IF we all have invisible purple feelers growing from our foreheads, how can you call yourself religious if you don't thank god publicly every day for our beautiful gleefers? What? Of COURSE we have gleefers! Where's your faith?

As soon as you can explain how to measure, test, or reliably evaluate the supernatural, you'll have a point. As long as it remains unmeasured, untested, unrecorded - how can such dreck be used to do real, testable, repeatable SCIENCE?

" Examining a particular corner of ID such as literal Biblical Creationism is much simpler. It sets out a number of hypotheses that can be compared against the evidence we observe:
    - Earth is around 6000 years old
    - The entire surface of the earth was covered by floodwaters at some point
    - Fish, birds, land mammals, humans, etc. were all created separately by a single Creator "

- The age of the earth is 4.3 billion years old. First falsification of this 'theory'
- There is no evidence of a worldwide flood EVER. Second falsification.
- fossil and genetic evidence shows that birds, reptiles, mammals, AND humans all evolved from a common ancestor.

Each of these has been tested in multiple ways, and all the physical evidence points to the same conclusion.

Have you any physical evidence for any of these points at all? NO?

Boy, that was easy.. I see why you don't want to debate!

Re:Not fact?

[timbo234]

Evolution is asserted as fact in basically every place where it is even remotely possible to make such an assertion. You're watching an IMAX movie when suddenly, "Millions of years ago, dinosaurs evolved into birds...", etc. There is NEVER any mention that "we currently believe that dinosaurs evolved into birds millions of years ago..."

Gravity is asserted as a fact in basically every place where it even remotely possible to make such an assertion, electricity is asserted as a fact in basically every place where it even remotely possible to make such an assertion. I've never heard any mention of 'we currently believe that gravity holds things down towards the earth and keeps the planets and sun orbiting one another'.

Yes, ID involves the supernatural, but if the supernatural exists, how can you exclude it from scientific discourse and still call yourself a scientist?

ID involves the supernatural, therefore it is not testable. Since science is based on observation, evidence and experimentation it is by definition only able to test aspects of the natural world. Wether something supernatural exists beyond the natural world (personally I hope there is) is an interesting phillosophical and religious question but is outside the scope of science. Its that simple.

ID= lack of religious trust/ belief.

[Teun]

"it was way to complicated to have occurred by chance.".

Exactly my problem with ID, as a believer I can not fathom the disbelief in the theory of ID; "Evolution is too complicated to be a product of our God".

Re:ID= lack of religious trust/ belief.

[bckrispi]

"Evolution is too complicated to be a product of our God".

Then your god is a weak, impotent god....

Re:ID= lack of religious trust/ belief.

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Isaac Asimov loved to point out that the god of the Bible, who created this small flat reality with a vault overhead with lights embedded in it, six to ten thousand years ago, and an ocean all around it, was far too small a god to have created a universe 15 billion light years in diameter, and age, with four hundred billion galaxies of a hundred billion stars each.

Far, far too small and insignificant.

Re:Gaia Theory (science, because Wikipedia says so

[cr0sh]

Personally, I think the Gaia Theory got spun weird because when the theory was developed, the theory of emergence and chaos theory weren't yet well formed. Since understanding of these two theories are preresquisite to understanding what Gaia is really about, but they weren't yet ready, mysticism and "religion" of "mother goddess" and other nonsense quickly set in.

Even so, the idea is sound, if you look at it from the point of chaos theory, emergence, and network theory.

Essentially, Gaia is the idea that the Earth, in and of itself, is an emergent phenomenon being, whose base parts are composed of everything on the earth interacting with network effects (feedback loops and such). This "being", if it truely exists, is barely more fathomable to us than the human is to a skin cell (or neuron, if you prefer). We have the advantage over a skin cell in that we ourselves are emergent phenomena beings full of networking effects. We also have smaller such beings which we are only now beginning to study, in the form of bureucracies (ie, governments and corporations). Whether the Gaia theory is true or not is up for debate, but we have plenty of precedents to show it might be true.

What is really amazing is when you consider that intelligence (and in more complex forms, sentience) seem to require feedback and network effects, in order to emerge from the base set of nodes (whatever those nodes are). At a very base level, we have atoms and atomic interaction (actually, it goes below this into sub-atomic particles, etc), building up into molecules, to cells, to organisms, to colonies, to insects/animals, to humans, to bureaucracies, to (Gaia?), to ???. Indeed, it is that last one that can make you wonder, and is where science fiction begins (are the "stars" intelligent? can we even tell?)...

Evolution is fact... the question is...

[psyon1]

Evolution and ID/Creationism are not mutually exclusive, a creator could have just created the building blocks of life. The real question is whether or not life just happened spontaneously, or if we required some intelligent being to make us. Then more questions arise. If we required a creator, wouldn't the creator require a creator? When does the chain stop? Then comes in those who say "God has just always existed!" If it is possible for God to just "be", and to have always existed, there is no reason that life in general couldn't have just formed out of no where.

Well, I could probably go back and forth on this for hours, but the point has been made.

Re:Evolution is fact... the question is...

[NumenMaster]

I'm really with you on this. If science were to lead us to some startling evidence of a creator, COOL. If there is a creator and made conditions of the universe so that evidence of intelligent design is obscure or invisible, FINE. If earth really is 6000 years old but a creator or creators altered our conscienceness to see what we see, FINE (we'll study what we see). If we study the universe and never conclude an exist of a creator, LIFE GOES ON.

My feeling about this whole thing is the real proponents of this issue is the fringe who believes Earth is indeed 6000 years old. All strata, fossils, and life initiated again after the flood. Of course, two of every species was brought onto the arc (one male and one female). And, meanwhile, the arc had an ingenious method in which to deal with all the waste. It also had the food supply for everything. And, with Noah being the brilliant zoologist that he was, the animals were grouped in such a way that they wouldn't eat each other (ie carabou vs tiger).

Just my opinion, I could be wrong.

Lemon vs. Kurtzman decided this

[Animats]

The Supreme Court decided this, almost unanimously, in Lemon vs. Kurtzman, 1971.

"For a law to be constitutional under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, the law must have a legitimate secular purpose, must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion, and must not result in an excessive entanglement of government and religion."

That's worked reasonably well for over thirty years.

The Establishment Clause is in the Constitution for very practical reasons. All the founders were familiar with the religious wars that had torn up Europe. Some of them were from sects that had been persecuted. They didn't want their country to go through that. And it worked.

Compare Europe before democracy, or the Islamic world today.

Isn't it IRONIC?

[Anonymous Coward]

An excerpt from the legal brief... Case 4:04-cv-02688-JEJ Document 342 Filed 12/20/2005 Page 56 of 139 "An objective adult member of the Dover community would also be presumed to know that ID and teaching about supposed gaps and problems in evolutionary theory are creationist religious strategies that evolved from earlier forms of creationism, as we previously detailed." Note that the judge calls out that the 'creationist religious strategies' have 'evolved from earlier forms'. Maybe in the twisted reality that the proponents of ID live in their strategies didn't evolve but spontaneously sprang into being by the will of an intellegent designer. I like this Judge's use of irony to poke fun at the bible thumpers. :-)

Element X, not just carbon

[benhocking]

The inability of carbon to go beyond a certain date (although not for the reasons you suggested) is why I used X instead of carbon. Each isotope has a range over which it is useful/valid. Where these ranges overlap, they can (and do) cross-check each other.

ID == White Supremacism?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is conjecture of the highest order, but the thought just occurred to me that what underlies the aversion to, objection to and rejection of solid facts supporting evolution as a working scientific model might in part stem from deeeply racsist views. I grew up in Africa as a white person and very sadly saw many white people would often equate black people to apes. There is even a photo that has done the rounds on the net that is a photoshop of Robert Mugabe's face to make him resemble a gorilla. The phenonemon of white people projecting their own internalised fear of the base motivations onto black people is well documented and observed in literature and sociology. The idea that humans could have evolved from apes is too threatening to the internalised notions of purity and sanctity that many Christians have of themselves. Creationism and ID have evolved (!) as a type of convoluted attempt for people to separate themslves from what they fear most: themselves.

Designed not evolved

[benhocking]

Now, see, I'm going to have to argue (for completeness sake if for no other reason) that ID was designed. (Somehow I couldn't bring myself to say that it was intelligently designed.)

Law of natural selection

[benhocking]

Evolution is a theory, but the law of natural selection is a law. Of course, Newton's laws are also laws. Doesn't make them *exactly* right, though.

Actually, the Scopes Monkey Trial wasn't like that

[Garwulf]

I'm afraid your information is a bit off here about the Scopes Monkey Trial. It may indeed have galvanized science, but it was also quite possibly one of the biggest scams to ever hit the American court system.

Basically, the law that caused it all came down, and just about everybody thought the thing was idiotic - the science teachers, the locals of Dayton, and for that matter, the court in question. The problem was that any previous attempts to challenge the law had been quashed at the legislative level, and the only way to actually get rid of the thing was to have it declared unconstitutional, and that meant a court challenge.

So, some of the people in the town of Dayton decided that they would challenge the law, but for that they needed somebody to be charged for breaking it. Now, in order for the law to actually get struck down as unconstitutional, it had to happen in the court of appeal, since the district court didn't have the authority to do so. Therefore, the defense actually WANTED a guilty verdict, as that way it could get up to an appeal, and the law could get quashed. Even the judge knew this was a test case, and the publicity was key.

At the same time, the town was in dire need of publicity, so they welcomed it. Dayton became a tourist town, for all intents and purposes. There wasn't any of the bigotry and violence suggested in "Inherit the Wind" - it was more like going to a carnival, and even Scopes was late for a trial session at one point because he had been swimming with friends.

Ironically, while it did go to the court of appeal, the idea failed - the charge was quashed, but on a technicality rather than constitutional grounds.

Some more information is available here: http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/s copes/evolut.htm

I read the actual judgement

[clawhound]

I just finished reading the judgement handed down on this case.

The judge slammed the school board for this. He concluded that this action violated both the Federal and Pennsylvania consitutions. They school board frequently did not follow its own procedures. Of those who voted for this, the majority did not actually know what ID meant. Several school board members who left the school board cited the aggressively religious tones of the other board members. The school board consulted no scientific expertise in establishing this new policy. The school system's science teachers refused to act on this policy, citing professional conduct. This all lead up to the Dover school board lining up the perfect test case for ID to be shot down like a dead duck on a string.

Re:I read the actual judgement

[Bassman59]

"This all lead up to the Dover school board lining up the perfect test case for ID to be shot down like a dead duck on a string."

Plus, the voters removed them from office in November's elections.

Re:Do This To This Federal Judge & See What He

[William R. Dickson]

This would hardly be surprising, since he is a church-going Christian. Not all religious people are blind to the difference between faith and science.

What Science Says about the Truth/Falsity of ID

[dhirsch226]

What Science Says about the Truth/Falsity of ID: Nothing!

Because ID is not science (it makes no testable predictions), science says absolutely nothing about whether it is true or false. ID may be true, it may be false, it may even use evolution via descent with modification via natural selection as a mechanism. There is no way to know using the tools of science.

Re:but can we still raise questions about evolutio

[Big_Al_B]

I remember my 8th grade biology text (1986ish) showing some guy's drawings of various animal embryos and how similar they are. Now I find out it was an exaggeration.

Source?

And the peppered moths? I come to find out they were dead moths pinned to the trees.

Are folks reading this comment supposed to know this reference? Provide a context and the refuting source here too please.

Okay, now tell me how blood clotting works...

Already very simply and eloquently explained by another poster....

I'm not saying we should have to pick Intelligent Design OVER Evolution. Teach evolution but ask intelligent questions.

Well I'm saying that we should only teach testable theories in science classes. And, since science is all about asking intelligent questions---with repeatably testable answers---I'm glad we agree.

Alternate theories are a dime a dozen

[Pac]

If you care to check the mainstream scientific periodicals, you will realize new theories explaining this or that aspect of Science pop up everyday around the world, to cope with new data and new insights. Not only that, all aspects of the current theories are in constant motion in all fields, from cosmology to biology to particle physics. Most of if take years (sometimes decades) to reach undergraduate and high school textbooks because any new idea has to be re-tested, checked, reproduced.

Now, replacing a major theory (Quantum Mechanics, Evolution, Gravitation etc) is the work of generation of gifted scientists or a genius. It does not happen every other day, because major theories have a whole bodie od data behind them.

Re:Alternate theories are a dime a dozen

[COMON$]

I agree with you wholeheartedly. It is these theories that I read in the periodicals, the motions started by a select few that have me all riled up. For a good example check out string theory, a great theory, not saying that I subscribe to it, but it has a lot of good points and makes a lot of sense but until recently spent most of its life being laughed at by scientists around the world. I believe that people have so much investement in quantum physics that they refuse to consider that all their work might have been for the wrong cause.

As for information reaching textbooks and undergraduate programs, years may be a little generous there, you know as well as I do, a lot of the great explanations for evolution are not put in books. Yet a lot of the fradulent ones are kept there because of old views, see Haeckel's Embryo for a classic example. So you get a lot of fundies attacking evolution pointing out all the flaws because the flow of information is perverted by politics, scientists, and parents.

It doesnt have to be this way, wikipedia is a step in the right direction. Promote new ideas, dont crush them because they have a scifi aspect to them that you read about in books when you were younger.

Today it is all about who has funding and who doesnt, who has gov't support and who doesnt. Can you imagine the resistence to an alternate view of how we came to be? Look at the scientists who have been investing personal time and the finances involved. Not to mention the emotional aspect. Anything new would be crushed before it even hit the papers. Evolution got its beginnings because there was no other alternative. Not that it was wrong or right but because the theory arrived at the right time.

ID is more true than evolution

[Anonymous Coward]

Evolution is mostly based on Charles Darwin's Origin of Species, which explores the concept of mutations found when animals cross breed under CONTROLLED CONDITIONS!!!! NOT OUT IN THE WILD!!!!! People made many of the species we see today and called them house pets!!!!

Part of science is observation of something happening in real life, not just in a controlled lab experiment.

Re:ID is more true than evolution

[Bassman59]

"Evolution is mostly based on Charles Darwin's Origin of Species, which explores the concept of mutations found when animals cross breed under CONTROLLED CONDITIONS!!!! NOT OUT IN THE WILD!!!!! People made many of the species we see today and called them house pets!!!!

Part of science is observation of something happening in real life, not just in a controlled lab experiment."

So, Darwin's visit to the Galapagos Islands was a controlled condition?

Now tell me the moon landing was faked ...

You don't see science teachers arguing...

[Ayanami Rei]

Whenever this comes up, all the science teachers are on the side for continuing to teach Evolution. But no one seems to think they know what they're doing. Well why the hell do they hire them?

It's the PTAs. Directly elected school board members. In small towns that want God back in public school lest their kids become children of Satan.

I'm serious.

Re:You don't see science teachers arguing...

[sardiskan]

Well, I can see what you mean. I just love the way the public school has become such a better place since Prayer and God were removed. Violence, shootings, fear, hate. It's all quite nice isn't it. And yes, you can pinpoint the decline in schools at the point at which God and Prayer were removed from them. Flame on.

Re:You don't see science teachers arguing...

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, yes, and Afghanistan and Pakistan got *so* much better when religion got *introduced* into their schools. So girls no longer had to worry about learning to read and write, and no one needed to learn about engineering or science, because everything you need to know is in the holy Koran!

Schools are much better places without religion. Slashdot would be a much better place without religion. Most places would be better without religion.

Because religion is just pap that stupid people believe in to soothe their own feelings of inadequacy.

Testing Faith

[PJ Brunet]

Scientific theories are NOT about faith - in fact, part of the scientific method is to *disprove* theories, wheras faith is exactly the opposite - simply believing it's true and not challenging it. Scientists are always looking at probing the theory of evolution, trying to find its weaknesses and trying to disprove evolution theory as it stands because *this is what science is about*. Intelligent design is not a scientific theory because it does not set out anything that's falsifiable. Things that must be taken on faith are by definition not falsifiable.

If faith was entirely blind, it wouldn't be faith--there would be no retention. If I tell you that 2+2=4, this requires faith going back to clay tablets in the desert, faith in astronomy, it goes back to the womb in which your brain was formed, it goes back to the formation of your vision, etc. Do you have faith in the language that I am using? When you open any science book for the first time, as a child, why would you accept any of it? Maybe you accept the love of your parents, your parents deciding to send you to school, so you trust your teachers, and the information being presented...? As you get older you might begin to investigate for yourself the concept of "zero", the motives of science, the consequences of science and how it is presented, etc. Or maybe you find other things more interesting, more useful, more emotive than science... To truely learn anything first you must accept the possibility that something could be true--to do that you need to put yourself into a position where you can see the new tree of implications, pitfalls, benefits...from the perspective of a true believer. To believe that 1+1=2 you were probably already open to this notion of "math" by way of your parents--most likely someone in your family or a close friend taught you that 1+1=2... and you probably loved and trusted that person that told you that 1+1=2, and so you had faith... Holding any knowledge to be true is an act of faith, and that faith, like armor, is tested--and it should be because it determines--directly or indirectly--all of your actions, affecting other people. The decisions you make reflect what you believe--consequently these decisions affect what you hold most dear, so you desire beliefs in accordance with??? As you advance and refine your sensibility, advancing your perceptive faculties, your knowledge is less and less accessible to others because of the many intermediate steps taken. It is the same with art--to most, abstract art is incomprehensible. Artists have superseded language with color and form... But sometimes we need to retrace the steps (which is sometimes more boring than adventuring further) that led us to the "result" that we hold to be true, for maximum benefit, if indeed we do believe that the information that we hold to be true is worth the time and effort required for dispersion.

Why can't people be happy with the following?

[Ixitar]

Why can't people be happy with the following being said at the beginning of the section on evolution?

We are going to be covering the scientific theory of evolution. There are religious aspects to the creation of the world, creatures and man. You should talk with your parents and clergy about those aspects. The religious aspects will not be covered in this class and will not be on the tests.

This would acknowledge the religious aspects of creation without covering them.

Re:Why can't people be happy with the following?

[narcc]

Why can't people be happy with the following being said at the beginning of the section on evolution?

Because it doesn't need to be said and therefore should not be said. The religious education of a child is the responsibility of that childs' parents/guardians and/or the childs' clergy. If you want your child to learn about "intelligent design", or any other religious teaching, you should explain the ideas yourself or have a member of your religious group handle the task.

I don't see why various religious groups feel the need to push the responsibility of a childs religious education on public schools.

Not that hard to find evolution

[zjl56]

Whether you consider evolution fact, or a scientific theory. It isn't very hard to see evolution how dirty a process it is. If we were intelligently designed by God ,why would he bother to give humans coccyx or the appendix? Which serve no point in any major systems in the body.

Have you met many scientists?

[benhocking]

You keep using the phrase "left winged 'scientist'". I do not believe the phrase means what you think it means. Having an MS in Physics/Astronomy, another Masters in CS, and working on a Ph.D. in Computer Science in a sub-field that involves a lot of neuroscience (i.e., practically being a professional student), I've been exposed to many, many people that I'd qualify as scientists. Every single one of them, to the best of my knowledge fits your definition of "left winged 'scientist'" even though many of them (but a minority) voted for Bush in the last election (don't ask me why). Of the hundreds of college students I've known, only 2 of them would not qualify as being "left winged", and I've matriculated at Georgia Tech (BS/Phys), Georgia State (MS Phys/Astr), and the University of Virginia (MCS, Ph.D. in CS in progress). (These are three colleges that are relatively conservative.)

Re:Have you met many scientists?

[sardiskan]

Cool. So you really CAN'T stereotype people. And this whole time I was thinking the conservative colleges were just puking out a bunch of conservative, Bush loving, Mindless minons when in fact. You just can't tell at all. Cheers

Drugs are Outlawed for That Reason

[Anonymous Coward]

Would you deprive me, or anyone, of enjoying a beer or a glass of wine with dinner because a few people abuse alcohol? Along those lines, one may as well outlaw cars because people speed, die in wrecks, hit pedestrians, etc.

That's the very reason why the so-called 'recreational' drugs are outlawed. Where any use, even infrequent casual use equals abuse in the minds of those who support total prohibition of anyone catching a non-alcohol buzz.

Would you deprive me, or anyone, of enjoying smoking a pipe of sweet hemp and playing my harmonica on my front porch just because a few people abuse drugs?

but the same could be said for evolution

[mosb1000]

"especially one that has been repeatedly tested . . . and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena"

But these things specifically don't apply to the (scientific) theory of evolution. The time-scale over which the theory of evolution would need to be tested on multicellular organisms to prove that major differences between organisms will evolve would be prohibitive to any experimentation. And the time-scale over which the theory apples would also make it essentially useless for predictive purposes.

If you remove those from your definition of a scientific theory:

"A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that . . . is widely accepted"

You see that the definition could describe ID as well.

Note that I'm not referring evolution in single-celled organisms because it is so different (single celled organisms can uptake new genetic material from their environment, and do not mate to procreate, so it's hard to define species of single celled organisms) form evolution in multicellular organisms.

Re:but the same could be said for evolution

[Barlo_Mung_42]

Saying it is hard to test is not the same as saying it is untestable.
The theory of evolution my be hard to test but ID is untestable. Therefore it is not science and should not be talked about on equal grounds with evolution.

Re:but the same could be said for evolution

[Anonymous Coward]

"The time-scale over which the theory of evolution would need to be tested on multicellular organisms to prove that major differences between organisms will evolve would be prohibitive to any experimentation. And the time-scale over which the theory apples would also make it essentially useless for predictive purposes."

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Firstly, eveloution has been directly observed in species which have very short reproductive cycles - species such as bacteria.

Secondly - experiments have been done confirming eveolution - by introducing deliberate environmental stresses or artifical selections on a population with a short reproductive cycle changes to that species have been observed as predicted by the theory.

Finally, the theory of eveloution has made predictions - and indeed predictions which have subsequently been shown to be correct. The primary examples of these predictions: (1) the theory of eveolution predicted a mechanism of inheritance of characteristics from one generation to the next and therefore predicted the existence of DNA, and (2) the theory of eveloution predicts the twin nested hierarchies that we see in biology where the physical hierarchy of species is very well mirrored in their DNA hierarchy.

Re:but the same could be said for evolution

[mosb1000]

"Firstly, eveloution has been directly observed in species which have very short reproductive cycles - species such as bacteria."

No, there is no such thing as a species of bacteria that is analogous to a species of multicellular organisms, for reasons I have stated.

"Secondly - experiments have been done confirming eveolution - by introducing deliberate environmental stresses or artifical selections on a population with a short reproductive cycle changes to that species have been observed as predicted by the theory."

Again, only in bacteria.

"(1) the theory of eveolution predicted a mechanism of inheritance of characteristics from one generation to the next and therefore predicted the existence of DNA"

Wrong, inheritance is a prerequisite for evolution to exist. The work done to prove the existence of inheritance had nothing to do with the theory of evolution.

"(2) the theory of eveloution predicts the twin nested hierarchies that we see in biology where the physical hierarchy of species is very well mirrored in their DNA hierarchy."

Except in single celled organisms, as they can uptake DNA from other bacteria and since they do not reproduce sexually.

Evolution isn't science either...

[3d-Bob]

Evolution is wishful thinking on steroids. Pat Buchanan (despite what you think of him) has summarized the current state of evolution quite well here: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTI CLE_ID=47973 Again, I would urge you SlashDot readers to stop being so close-minded (nay, dogmatic?) about evolution and creationism/ID. If you haven't read "Darwin's Black Box" or "Darwin On Trial", you're just as close-minded as the "Bible-thumpers" you deride. WARNING: Another author's book is mentioned in the article.

Re:Evolution isn't science either...

[narcc]

You need to be careful who you get your information from. The following quotes form the article you linked contain incorrect information:

Comes now Darwin's turn. In his 1859 "The Origin of Species" and other works, Darwin posited his thesis that man is not the work of any Creator, but a being that evolved from lower forms of life out of the primordial ooze.
...

For generations, scientists have searched for the "missing link" between ape and man. But not only is that link still missing, no links between species have been found.
...
Where are the "half-bats" with no sonar or unworkable wings?

Their absence does not prove - but does suggest - that they do not exist.

I stopped reading the article at this point. I'm certain there are many more errors beside the ones I've listed. (Note: I found more in the exerpt I read, but didn't mention them). Mr. Buchanans ignorance on the subject of evolution is astounding.

He also compares Charles Darwin to Karl Marx in an obvious attempt to negatively portray Charles Darwin and his ideas.

Re:Evolution isn't science either...

[3d-Bob]

You say these statements are in error, but don't say how. How? If Mr. Buchanan (and others) are wrong about intermediate fossils not existing (say, something between a velociraptor and a bird), please show me! I'd like to see at least two intermediate fossils, please. As I have stated in the past here, my belief in Christianity is not on any single piece of evidence, but an entire mountain of evidence which, taken in whole, is a LOT more convincing than anything I have read about evolution (and I *have* read a lot of it, but try not to because of the nauseating effect it has... :) Be careful to NOT read any book that offers proof for Christianity - it will turn your world upside down and that would be bad for the digestion. By the way, has anyone "invested" in evolution asked themselves if they could possibly be wrong? Try it - it's healthy!

Re:Evolution isn't science either...

[Decaff]

I'd like to see at least two intermediate fossils, please.

Here are many:

http://www.origins.tv/darwin/landtosea.htm#whales

This illustrates the evolution of whales from land mammals.

By the way, has anyone "invested" in evolution asked themselves if they could possibly be wrong?

All the time.

This is why more than one dating method is often used to check the age of fossils (radioactive decay + position in rocks). There are frequent controversies about how different animal groups are related (such as dinosaurs and birds).

Questioning is at the core of science.

Re:Evolution isn't science either...

[Decaff]

By the way, if you would like to read detailed refutations of Buchanan's points, let me know and I will provide them. I do think it is unfair for you to have been modded 'Troll', as you are simply expressing a commonly held belief.

Re:Evolution isn't science either...

[3d-Bob]

Thanks for that bit about the "troll" ranking. Many Christians point out that evolution can't withstand a serious debate, so its proponents often stymie debate by using ad-hominem attacks to redirect the direction of the debate. The "troll" ranking is another example, and it's sad because it's censorship, plain and simple. Isn't that something that only Conservatives/Republicans practice? As to the point-by-point refutation, you can skip all that if you want and just direct me to a website that shows the intermediate fossil record for the transition between a primitive animal and the modern animal it was supposed to have evolved to, say, ape and man. I'll take another look (with an open mind)... :)

Re:Evolution isn't science either...

[Decaff]

The "troll" ranking is another example, and it's sad because it's censorship, plain and simple.

I agree.

As to the point-by-point refutation, you can skip all that if you want and just direct me to a website that shows the intermediate fossil record for the transition between a primitive animal and the modern animal it was supposed to have evolved to, say, ape and man.

My favourite example is the whale:

http://www.origins.tv/darwin/landtosea.htm

All fossils are shown (click on the pictures for the fossils) and the step-by-step evolution is clear.

Does this help? I can provide other examples if you are interested.

Re:Evolution isn't science either...

[3d-Bob]

Thanks for the link. Here's a refutation from the Answers In Genesis group: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re1/chap ter5.asp One thing the article points out is that the diagram showing the transition from a land mammal to the first sea-based one fails to show an important point: the two species are RADICALLY different in size. I'll let you read the article, but I will say that in regard to the aforementioned transition, I think it's a bit of a stretch to go from what appears to be a fully functional land animal to a fully functional sea animal! I don't buy it! Why don't these transitional animals die off due to poor ambulatory ability, poor digestion ability, etc., which would be the result if the one were really changing into the other; evolutionists can't answer that one! Here's a much more technical refutation, but I'll admit: I only skimmed it since it goes over my head! http://www.trueorigin.org/whales.asp I believe God created ALL of these transitional forms in order to "fill in" different parts of our ecology, that is, the food chain. We don't know what role each of these animals played, but they all had a purpose. I'd also like to point out that radio-carbon dating is far from perfect. It was used (back in the '50s I believe) to date some lava flows (or some such) to 800 million years old, but it was later discovered from records that they were in fact only decades old. (I think the process relies too heavily on assumptions of the underlying material, where it was found, etc.)

Re:Evolution isn't science either...

[Decaff]

Here's a refutation from the Answers In Genesis group

The article is full of so many errors it is hard to know where to start.

People who (like in that article) post statements like "Therefore, natural selection would not have favored incomplete intermediate forms." Really aren't putting forward a sensible argument.

You can't say that intermediate forms can't have a function and then say:

"we should not assume that ignorance of a function means there is no function"

One thing the article points out is that the diagram showing the transition from a land mammal to the first sea-based one fails to show an important point: the two species are RADICALLY different in size.

That isn't a problem at all. Evolution of size changes is extremely simple. Remember we are talking of changes over millions of years.

I'll let you read the article, but I will say that in regard to the aforementioned transition, I think it's a bit of a stretch to go from what appears to be a fully functional land animal to a fully functional sea animal! I don't buy it! Why don't these transitional animals die off due to poor ambulatory ability, poor digestion ability, etc., which would be the result if the one were really changing into the other; evolutionists can't answer that one!

We can easily answer it, as there are plenty of animals around right now that are transitional - think of hippos, seals, penguins, crocodiles. They seem to be coping OK!

Re:Evolution isn't science either...

[3d-Bob]

You can't say that intermediate forms can't have a function and then say...

They're not saying the intermediate forms can't have a function. They're saying they aren't functional! There's a difference.

Evolution of size changes is extremely simple. Remember we are talking of changes over millions of years...

The sea animal is 10 times larger, for heaven's sake! And if the transition took place over millions of years, why don't we have any fossils for the intervening time??

...there are plenty of animals around right now that are transitional - think of hippos, seals, penguins, crocodiles.

These aren't transitional animals! They're fully functional, fully articulate! You expect me to believe that (going back to the land/sea analogy) the transition was intantaneous thereby eliminating any difficulties that would normally arise during the transition? Talk about taking something on faith!

And I don't know how you can gloss over the immensely sophisticated functionality of whales and dolphins mentioned in the article. Engineers try DELIBERATELY for years to reproduce this functionality and fail (even when we succeed, we often don't know why we succeeded because the chemical interactions are unfathomable...) There just isn't enough time for these trillions upon trillions of random (mostly failing) mutations to occur!

Evolutionists routinely paper over (or use fancy paintings) to fill in the massive holes in their theory. From the article: "The difference is illustrated well in the article 'A Whale of a Tale'. This article shows that the critical skeletal elements necessary to establish the transition from non-swimming land mammal to whale are (conveniently) missing (see diagram)."

I'm sorry, but I refuse to believe this crap! I'm going to leave it here. I hope you will consider reading the two aforementioned books, plus books that are pro-Christian (which, as I have said, do a much better job of eliminating doubt than evolution), such as those by Grant Jeffrey, Josh McDowell, Norm Geisler, etc. I wish you the best - Merry Christmas! (oops, I offended again...:)

Re:Evolution isn't science either...

[Decaff]

The sea animal is 10 times larger, for heaven's sake! And if the transition took place over millions of years, why don't we have any fossils for the intervening time??

Because fossils are very rare, and size changes can happen very fast. An animal the size of a mouse could increase in size at a rate that was barely detectable in several human lifetimes and still get to the size of an elephant in a time too short for this change to be in the fossil record!

These aren't transitional animals! They're fully functional, fully articulate! You expect me to believe that (going back to the land/sea analogy) the transition was intantaneous thereby eliminating any difficulties that would normally arise during the transition? Talk about taking something on faith!

No - you are for some unknown reason assuming that there are transitional animals that would have problems. All of the intermediate animals would have been fully functional and healthy. Why should they have problems?

There just isn't enough time for these trillions upon trillions of random (mostly failing) mutations to occur!

That isn't the way evolution works. Failing mutations rarely even survive to birth. There is selection for good mutations.

"The difference is illustrated well in the article 'A Whale of a Tale'. This article shows that the critical skeletal elements necessary to establish the transition from non-swimming land mammal to whale are (conveniently) missing (see diagram)."

Where is this from?

I'm sorry, but I refuse to believe this crap! I'm going to leave it here.

Please don't - I am enjoying this. You did say you were going to look at things with an open mind. Calling it all crap without being prepared to debate is not doing that.

Merry Christmas to you too! (You don't have to be un-Christian to accept evolution).

Re:Evolution isn't science either...

[3d-Bob]

All right, no really, this is the LAST reply, and then I have to get on with the rest of my sorry life...:)

Regarding massive growth spurts: There would HAVE to be fossils for intermediate transitions. Let's take the fallacy of human evolution. Based on what we know of human growth population, and assuming that humans have been around for millions of years as postulated by evolutionists, the Earth would have to be littered with skeletons! There would literally be hundreds of billions (if not trillions) of ancient human fossils laying around, even accounting for plague, wars, ice ages, etc. This isn't up for debate - it's merely statistical. For a mouse to increase in size to an elephant, statistically there would have to be at least one intermediate fossil proving this! It's only common sense. The evolutionary record on this is remarkably shabby in this regard.

As to transitional animals being fully functional, this belies commonsense too. You can't take two completely different respiratory systems (for example), make an intermediate form of them, and expect them to "just work". They won't. We're expected to believe that ALL transitional forms of eyes, brains, respiratory systems, skeletal systems for ALL existing species were fully functional? This is completely unreasonable from a scientific point of view, and no reasonable man would believe this. If you do, you're wilfully suspending disbelief in order to support a world-view that fits your current lifestyle (which is the whole basis for evolution, in my opinion).

Regarding the trillions of positive mutations that would have to occur, you say, "There is selection for good mutations", I have to ask you, "Who is doing the selecting?" Since this is all supposedly random, the odds of any given complex system randomly assembling even over 250 million years is ridiculously absurd, even for simpler systems. Again, it's the law of statistics: let's say there are 10 microorganisms in a given complex system that have to work right for it to be "functional". The odds of them evolving together is 1/10 * 1/10 * 1/10 * 1/10 * 1/10 * 1/10 * 1/10 * 1/10 * 1/10 * 1/10. That's 1 in 10 billion (if my math is right). That's just one very simple system, and the human body has billions of them! That makes the odds WORST than astronomical!

The "Whale of a Tale" article is linked to in the original article, which I repost here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re1/chap ter5.asp

There are many other arguments that counter evolution, such as the evidence of a massive worldwide flood, the fact that the sun would have increased in size to envelope the Earth over that time-span, etc. Many books have been written on this.

I don't have time to keep going. Bible prophecy is playing out before our eyes, and history, archeology and past fulfilled prophecy all tell us we can trust the Bible to know who we are and where we're going. Time is running out. I feel that with the recent very bad behavior from Iran recently, Armageddon is very near. Accept Christ while you still have time! Seacrest out...

Re:Evolution isn't science either...

[sickofthisshit]

You are a fucking moron. Nothing like even 0.0001% of organisms die in such a way that their remains are preserved as fossils.

"Ashes to ashes and dust to dust" and all that. Ever see roadkill, or dead wildlife? Not much left after the carrion-eaters and the insects and the fungus and everything get done with it. Gone in a few days. It turns into dirt. UNLESS it gets quickly buried in an anoxic environment. And geological processes leave it in a place that human fossil hunters can access it.

Fossilization is exceedingly RARE, and fossil discovery by scientists is even RARER. We're lucky to have found the fossils that we have! Demanding that we produce millions more to satisfy you is preposterous.

Why don't you provide a few dozen more letters from St. Paul? Why don't you show us where the cross is?

Re:Evolution isn't science either...

[Cremlian]

good point. There is also very strong evidence that changes in size occur with you put a speicies on a smaller landmass. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/eden/giants.html The link is pretty self explainatory.

missing the point

[darthtater]

The real issue in this is that a judge just declared that you can not teach a certain thing in a science class. This precedent will most definitely cut both ways in the future. I am really bothered by judges getting the last word on what can be included in a science text. What happens when a "religious" judge declares certain portions of evolutionary theory "unacceptable". The best way to avoid both extremes is to leave this out of the courts. If evolution has stronger merits then it will prevail long-term on it's own. Any time we give the court the power to SILENCE a certain idea there better be a darn good argument for it, because down then road when the social winds change it could come back and bite us.

Re:missing the point

[Bassman59]

"The real issue in this is that a judge just declared that you can not teach a certain thing in a science class."

No, it is not. The judge was following precedent, which said that you cannot teach a specific religious belief in a science class. The precedents said that Creationism is religion, and the judge in this case rule that Intelligent Design is Creationism, therefore it cannot be taught in science class. It CAN, as the judge points out, be taught in humanities classes.

"This precedent will most definitely cut both ways in the future. I am really bothered by judges getting the last word on what can be included in a science text. What happens when a "religious" judge declares certain portions of evolutionary theory "unacceptable". The best way to avoid both extremes is to leave this out of the courts."

And then where should this be settled? You suggest no alternative.

"If evolution has stronger merits then it will prevail long-term on it's (SIC) own. Any time we give the court the power to SILENCE a certain idea there better be a darn good argument for it, because down then road when the social winds change it could come back and bite us."

Re-read the decision. The idea hasn't been silenced -- it just cannot be taught in a science class.

hey fucks

[Anonymous Coward]

Why lose time with these stupid issues?!
Who cares about creationism?
What a shame : more than 1300 comments for this shit, while other more interesting stories are completly ignored.
What a bunch of filthy liberal fags!!
Go fuck yourself whith your stupid political agenda and idiotic activism!

ID of a funny post

[ndansmith]

CNN is reporting that U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III has ruled . . .

I keep grasping for some joke about James Earl Jones being the judge's brother (and some sort of hillarity about Darth Vader or Mufasa ensuing), but it just aint coming to me.

This is CNN.

Science should be taught in the science classroom.

[DaveWick79]

Why is the debate about teaching ID vs. Evolution in the classroom? What should be taught is SCIENCE and only science. Both ID and Evolution are merely theories which try to explain the possibilites of why science is the way it is. Neither one is any more religious in content than the other. So to rule that teaching ID is unconstitutional should really be synonymous with rule that evolution can also not be taught. Because if you are not teaching absolute observed scientific fact, by these standards evolution also belongs in a mythology or related class as well.

Very cool...

[Ayanami Rei]

It sounds like I would have enjoyed taking a class like that. It disappoints me to hear the reactions of the other students however. "Should we do genetic engineering or not." Almost as if they wanted to know whether it was okay... If you're going to forge ahead in fields of a potentially politically charged nature, you've got to be prepared to defend your position and hold your ground. Not to say there aren't ethics courses out there that give you interesting arguments, allowing you to jump start your ability to form an opinion when it comes to such issues... but the students seemed to want to be told what to think or how to act.
Yuck.
I hope I'm not overgeneralizing or mischaracterizing your classmates.

ID Was Hume-iliated Long Ago

[crashdot]

Folks, the "Argument from Design", aka the "Teleological Argument", was ripped to shreds a couple of centuries ago. Check out David Hume's "Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion". He died in 1776.

If you'd still like to believe in ID (AFD, TA) and want lots of people to agree with you, please return to the early 18th century with a large group of your closest friends.

Why do people with religious feelings want to appear logical, when the cornerstone for all religious belief systems is Faith? That's believing propositions without evidence. And the more preposterous a proposition, the greater the faith of the believer, so believing in ID doesn't take much faith at all because it sounds vaguely plausible. Believing that all of creation was shat out by an omnipotent nine-stomached Grimunflat ... now that's Faith!

Cop out.

[Trojan35]

"What people believe is a subject for an anthropology class, not a science class." Come on, you know just as well as I do that grade school classes are much broader than high school or university classes. If a teacher mentions that some believe God designed man, he shouldn't get raked over the coals by people like the /. community. The sad part is, the honest teachers that make one small comment here or there are the ones who get in trouble, while the ones preaching Neo-Con or Anti-religious propaganda get by.

That's a contradiction

[mmell]

Good Catholic: Any form of birth control is a sin (sex for any purpose other than procreation is a sin).

Co-equal

[Roadkills-R-Us]

I started out as an evolutionist. I worked really hard to prove that evolution was the full answer. But when you get right down to it, it takes just as much faith to start with the big band and end up with what we have today as it does to say "It's all in Genesis" or "*Someone* clearly did it, whoever it is".

Re:Co-equal

[Anonymous Coward]

Which big band was it that we started with? Benny Goodman? Count Basie?

Re:Co-equal

[vertical_98]

All jokes about the 'big band' aside...Evolution is still just a theory. People love to point out that gravity is just a theory also, but you can see gravity's effect every second. Evolution is still not provable, regardless what Slashdot thinks.

Vertical

Re:Co-equal

[WilliamSChips]

you can see gravity's effect every second.

And I can't exactly "see" evolution's effect, but one thing I can "see" is the bacteria that have grown resistant to antibiotics.

Re:Co-equal

[OwnedByTwoCats]

I started out as an evolutionist.
Yeah, right.

I worked really hard to prove that evolution was the full answer.

Where were you published?

But when you get right down to it, it takes just as much faith to start with the big band and end up with what we have today

That takes no faith at all. Just an examination of the evidence.

as it does to say "It's all in Genesis" or "*Someone* clearly did it, whoever it is".

Ya gotta have faith for that. It isn't all in Genesis. Genesis gets most everything wrong. It is myth.

Re:Co-equal

[Paua Fritter]

ha! where are my mod points? :-D

Re:Co-equal

[Programmer2Lawyer]

but one thing I can "see" is the bacteria that have grown resistant to antibiotics

Well now, you've managed to say nothing at all. No serious person doubts natural selection, nor does ID. But you can't exactly get from amoeba (a few genes) to man (a lot more genes) by selecting among the gene pool. To get there you need to introduce lots of completely unproven, unverified, completely speculative and theoretical concepts, such as speciation by mutating genes being passed on (which they never are) to subsequent generations. Then, you've got to explain where the additional genes come from. Then, you've got to explain how things like eyes, wings, and lungs "evolve." Then ... well, there are lots of theories to fill to try to fill in such gaping holes. But wait, those aren't "theories;" they're facts! Right, I forgot.

Re:Co-equal

[zippthorne]

But is it because new species of bacteria have come into existance or because existing strains within the various species of bacteria have become more pronounced due selection pressure?

Re:Co-equal

[Anomylous Howard]

What do you mean mutated genes are never passed on? It all depends where and when those genes mutate. Both meiosis and mitosis provided great opportunities for mutations to occur. In single celled organisms a mitosis induced mutation that is beneficial will certainly be passed on. The same is true for meiosis in an asexually reproducing organism. You've got to be willfully blind not to see hereditary mutations all around you. Explain the existence of Chihuahua dogs without hereditary mutation. Selective breeding of mutations like big eyes, round heads, and tiny bodies made these dogs more "fit" to human breeders. In nature, natural selection, would certainly favor quite different mutations.

Explaining things like eyes, wings, and lungs are not as hard as you might think if you were to actually look for answers. Those "gaping holes" are growing smaller every day.

Oh, and while you're opening up your eyes and beginning to appreciate the wonder of the world around you, try looking up what the term "scientific theory" means. It does not mean "a yet to be proved fact", but rather a "yet to disproved explanation".

Oh, and while you're opening up your eyes and begining to apreciate the wonder of the worl around you, try looking up what the words "scientific theory mean". It does not mean "a yet to be proven fact", but rather a "yet to disproven explaination".

Re:Co-equal

[greenrd]

And I can't exactly "see" evolution's effect, but one thing I can "see" is the bacteria that have grown resistant to antibiotics.

That's not evidence for macroevolution, though, is it? When ID people debate evolution what they really have a problem with is macroevolution.

Re:Co-equal

[F_Scentura]

Anyone referring to scientists as "evolutionists" isn't quite right in the head to begin with, but you're confusing evolution with abiogenesis. And no, it doesn't require any "faith", faith is based on a lack of evidence. We have a wealth of evidence for how we have came to be. Sure, God could be behind it, what's why the majority of Christians believe evolution is how God brought us to where we are.

Re:Co-equal

[KermitJunior]

Growing resistant to antibodies is way different. Have bacteria ever jumped to another species? Almost every mutation in science degenerates a particular species, not improve it. Bacteria never forms into more complex organisms to any large effect.

Re:Co-equal

[JetJaguar]

But in evolution there is no such thing as "macroevolution" as ID proponents usually want to define it. Macroevolution in the evolutionary theory sense is just a lot of microevolutationary events built up over time.

ID proponents all too often interpret macroevolution to mean monkeys giving birth to human babies as part of their usual sophistry of creating false dicotomies. But that is not what evolution predicts. Common descent does not mean that one species gives birth to another in a flash. It does mean that the line between separated species can get kind of fuzzy at the time of a speciation event, but that is exactly what you would expect to see if speciation events are actually the result of the build up of a lot of micro-mutations. And these kinds of events speciation events *have* been observed in various stages through out the world.

Here in Arizona we have an excellent example of squirrel speciation where different populations of ground squirrels have been divided by geologic evolution of different mountain peaks. The different populations have been separated long enough that speciation events are occuring almost right before our eyes. And there are even intermediary events where we can see how different populations were cut off from the main branch at different times and you can see the linear correlation between the genetic code differences and the time at which they were seperated. You can't really get any better direct evidence of "macro-evolution" than that.

Re:Co-equal

[Decaff]

Almost every mutation in science degenerates a particular species, not improve it.

The key thing here is the word 'almost'. That is what makes evolution feasible.

Re:Co-equal

[sickofthisshit]

Your use of the term "degenerate" is nonsensical. Species do not go up and down some ladder of "degeneracy", they don't "improve" or decay. They change, and part of changing is that separate populations of a species sometimes diverge from each other to the point where they are different enough that they become distinct species.

You simply do not understand the concept you are criticizing.

Re:Co-equal

[sickofthisshit]

For the billionth time on slashdot, "Macroevolution" is a nonsense term made up by creationists, ID'ers, or whoever decides they want to disbelieve the theory of evolution.

It is a non-existent distinction, and every attempt to make such a distinction is a distortion, either deliberately or through ignorance, of what evolution means.

If you believe there is some way to classify evolutionary change between "micro" and "macro" evolution, you simply have no clue what you are talking about.

Re:Co-equal

[krmt]

Genesis of course.

Re:Co-equal

[RespekMyAthorati]

That still has nothing to do with the obsession on the part of fundies to fill in the blanks with superstition.
One of the founding principals of science is the ability to honestly say "I don't know", without resorting to the intellectual cowardice of the supernatural.

Re:Co-equal

[Anonymous Coward]

Macroevolution in the evolutionary theory sense is just a lot of microevolutationary events built up over time.

Or as some wit remarked, "The only difference between micro- and macroevolution lies in the first vowel."

Re:Co-equal

[Anonymous Coward]

Genesis gets most everything wrong. It is myth.

Umm two myths actually, and two myths which disagree with each other about the sequence of creation. The first one starting with Gen1:1, in which 'Elohim' (lit. 'the gods'), create(s) first the material world, then plants, then animal and then humans (male & female), and the second starting with Gen2:3 in which a numen called 'YHVH' creates the world, then man (without whom plants would be unable to grow Gen2:6), then plants, then animals and finally His masterpiece: woman. Note that in English translation 'Elohim' is rendered as 'God,' while 'YHVH' is rendered as 'the LORD God'.

NB: The notion of plants being unable to grow without human aid is not as ridiculous as it first appears if one considers the possible Mesopotamian origin of elements of the second biblical creation myth. This was (and is) a region of extremely low rain fall, though nevertheless well supplied with streams. The area became settled (and gave birth to the City) only with the development of irrigation.

Re:Co-equal

[Conspiracy_Of_Doves]

When you read the original hebrew, you get a somewhat different take. The first creation was by a pantheon of gods who created the universe, earth and humans. The second creation was by one particular member of that pantheon who created his own little place on earth, eden, and put adam and eve in it.

Re:Co-equal

[xSauronx]

link? ive heard a number of things about the "original hebrew", one being that we dont have any access to the original hebrew, but we do have the "original" hebrew tranlated into greek, though ive *never* heard any talk of a translation that said there were at first a number of gods.

Re:Co-equal

[telekon]

So clearly the amoebae had to be touched by His Noodly Appendage. That's what you're saying, right?

Re:Co-equal

[telekon]

Early hebrew religions are properly speaking henotheistic, elevating one god above others but acknowledging the co-presence of multiple deities. Henotheistic tendencies, although suppressed by the Torah, persist into early Christianity, especially in the case of the Gnostics.

I'm not certain "the original Hebrew" per se is the best choice of words in this case, however... to which original Hebrew are you referring? The canonical Genesis story of thePentateuch, or perhaps the "original Aramaic" of the Genesis Apocryphon or the Book of Enoch that were both discovered in the caves at Qumran?

Don't assume that what passes for the "Bible" is any more improtant or any less myth than the rest of ancient Semitic cosmology. It's all very interesting... and equally valid as a basis of religious belief, I suppose, if you're into that sort of thing.

required arts electives, ethics

[hpulley]

Most were looking for a required arts elective I think, after already having taken the "technical writing" english course (I took a more than the required minimums and took and SF English course as one of them). That said, I don't believe they wanted to be told what to think, they simply thought that ethics of science would be more interesting and more relevant to their careers. After all, it is a big issue with cloning, stem cells, and genetic engineering of mice with human ears and brain cells.

Are all mammals the same thing?

[Chmcginn]

Thanks -- I will mostly look at the second link, because although the fruit fly stuff is interesting, they are still fundamentally the same thing, a type of fruit fly.

There's something on the order of 4,500 species of fruit fly in exsistence. Which is more than, say, the number of mammal species still living. Would you argue that a horse and a donkey, then, aren't different enough to be a good demonstration of macro-evolution?

Re:Are all mammals the same thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not sure. But isn't it correct that if you breed a horse and a donkey, you get a sterile animal -- a mule? So they are arguably part of the same DNA tree, as is a zebra, but breeding is a dead end. My thoughts on the horse is that you can selectively breed many types of horses, miniature up to the big draft horses the same way that dog and cat breeds have been so differentiated.

So no, I don't think I consider this a good case of macro-evolution. Another poster gave me more to think about, however, so I won't attempt to say that evolution as a theory is not right where macro-evolution is concerned, I will say that in my mind the jury is still out -- and out quite a ways.

Your signature is cute, but...

[Ayanami Rei]

You might want to change it. It's wrong from an evolution-ist's perspective.
It doesn't help when articles like this come up and debate ensues.

1) Man didn't evolve from apes.
Apes and Humans share (distant) ancestors.
2) "Evolution" is never claimed to be something that happens simultaneously for a whole species.
Real quick ape/human evolutionary scenario: (FYI)
Apes and humans do not share the same habitat. Some precursor could have dabbled in both habitats. Eventually the population would split, wherein one population would adapt to the savannah (human ancestors), while the other the tropical rainforest (ape ancestors). Geographic seperation provides the first interbreeding barrier, and as the species slowly mutate, they couldn't interbreed even if they wanted to. And so the two pre-human/pre-ape ancestors would spiral off unto their ultimate current culminations, taking on further attributes that make them better suited to the environment.

Mostly agree

[einhverfr]

Well put. Intelligent design might be summed up as the idea that "natural processes alone cannot explain the complexity of higher life forms." I do object to it being taught but for reasons other than what most people say here.

The problem with intelligent design is that it is not testable. I think the scientific term might be "interpretation" rather than "theory." In other words, it has little predictive value and is a bit more of a "here is what I think this information means" rather than "here is a theory we can use to predict such and such."

Other "interpretations" in Science include, notably, the "Copenhagen Interpretation" of Quantum Physics. The Copenhagen Interpretation is the idea that "for the purposes of quantum experiments, observation can be thought of as the force that defines a quantum event to a specific manifestation, i.e. the collapse of a specific wave." Like Intelligent Design it is probably untestable. After all, how do you test the effect of observation on quantum phenomina? Certainly not by comparing it in an observed vs. a non-observed state.... In essence the Copenhagen Interpretation really is a "useful way of thinking about" the experimental data in quantum physics. But the fact is, it has no more predictive value than other interpretations, and when you compare the writings of Schroedinger and Heisenberg, one hardly even sees a common interpretation there. I.e. Schroedinger seems to think that the state really is undefined, while Heisenberg thinks it is defined yet unknowable for the non-omnicient. I.e. to Heisenberg, it is not that the velocity and position of an electron are mutually undefined on a physical level, but rather than measuring one prevents measuring the other accurately without simultaniously measuring every other quantum event in the universe. In this view the electron has a distinct position and a distinct velocity, but we can't measure them simultaniously. In this view, these properties exist *indepentant* of observation, while to Schroedinger, they don't.

The problem of interpretations of theory and in fact scientific theory itself is well summed up by Heisenberg in "Physics and Philosophy" where he discusses the fact that data does not imply theory, and that interpreting any set of data (in order to create a theory) necessarily requires bringing in additional assumptions, and that these assumptions may or may not be testible. While Heisenberg doesn't discuss Occam's Razor, it is noteworthy that when you have competing theories, the less complex one is usually assumed to be the most useful. Hence we use a heliocentric rather than geocentric model of the solar system because it is easier to get the motions accurate with less work even though one can mathematically transpose one system into the other with a bit of work.

The apparent problem with Intelligent Design as an interpretation of evolutionary theory is that it appears to most of us to be conclusion ("There is a Creator God") in search of a proof. For this reason, it doesn't seem to fit well with the scientific Principle of Parsimony, a.k.a. Occam's Razor ("One Should Not Needlessly Multiply Entites"). In essence ID requires more work to get the same result as evolutionary biology would. So from a rigid scientific view, ID is a bit like arguing that Saturn moves around the Earth. Yes, you can make it work, but there really is no reason to do so when you have a simpler heliocentric model to work with.

Our current evolutionary theory is fairly incomplete and is still being actively developed. Indeed evolutionary theory is as flawed as the ID people say it is but that is largely because there are missing pieces which are still being worked out. For example, there isn't really a solid understanding as to why populations diverge so quickly when the biodiversity is low,* but the answers to these questions will, I think, better answer the shortcomings of evolutionary theory than ID does today.

* I would say we are about 80% there but this is a very complicated pr

Re:Mostly agree

[CloakedMirror]

I just have to chuckle at your use of heliocentric vs geocentric. Quite recently, I have begun to wonder if we haven't taken Occam's Razor to the extreme and come up with the "easier" solutions instead of the right solutions. One of the first questions I had to ask myself was, is the solar system (and perhaps even the universe) geocentric and we have just applied the easy answer instead of the right one?

I don't ask this to be flippant (although I do belive it to be non-crucial), but I do wonder if some of the deviations that we have noticed in movements of celestial bodies would not be explained if we didn't attempt to apply the easy answer first. Before you ask, I don't recall the exact situations of deviation but I do know that there are such wonderful theories as "dark matter" and such to attempt to explain these things.

In any case, I just thought it interesting that you should use an analogy that ties to something which I have begun to recently question.

Re:Mostly agree

[Listen Up]

You need to be extremely careful in your writing, especially when it comes to a few mistakes I see, and your apparent like to almost literally copy Wikipedia information (although some of the information on Wikipedia is incorrect, the correct information needs to be understood before being used in any context). I'm only going to point out a few for illustration:

1) Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle only applies to subatomic matter. It does not apply to macroscopic systems. To use Heisenberg's principle to make grand sweeping statements about the Universe or Physics understanding of the Universe as a whole is incorrect. This is a very common mistake made by non-Physicists.

2) Occam/Ockham's Razor only applies to equal explanations. It does not apply to two completely different explanations, even if one of them happens to be simpler. Occam/Ockham's Razor also does not prove that the simpler explanation is always the better explanation, it has been proven in many cases to be the opposite, and it does not differentiate between two equally good explanations. For example, using Newtonian Physics instead of Einsteinian Physics to explain simple physical motion is an example of Occam/Ockham's Razor (Einsteinian Physics is an extension of Newtonian Physics), but it does not apply to Evolution versus Intelligent Design. Evolution versus Intelligent Design is not an example of Occam/Ockham's Razor.

3) A mathematically and physically correct Heliocentric model cannot be transformed into a mathematically and physically correct Geocentric model (e.g. the Earth is not motionless). Newton's Laws and later Relativity easily disprove Geocentric models. This was first shown by Aristarchus in 250BCE and later mathematically and empirically verified by such people as Copernicus and Galileo. This is a basic excercise for 5th to 8th grade students and should have been taught in its entirety during a 1st or 2nd semester college Physics course.

4) The main problems with Intelligent Design is that it is %100 religious in origin and that those who try to use Intelligent Design without religion fail because they have a non-scientific fictional fabrication, the least of which is non-disprovability, non-repeatability, and non-predictability. Not to mention logically false (i.e. The universe is too complex for me to understand, so it must have had a creator). My favorite question to Intelligent Design people is if the universe is so complex it needed to have been created, then who created the creator? If the creator simply existed without cause, then logically the universe could have existed without cause as well, without any need for a creator. And therein lies one logical fallacy of Intelligent Design, amongst its other problems. Simply put, Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory, but a wild ass fictional fabrication invented by those who are unable or unwilling to accept and understand reality.

Re:Mostly agree

[Listen Up]

To answer your question "I have begun to wonder if we haven't taken Occam's Razor to the extreme and come up with the "easier" solutions instead of the right solutions"...No.

Your questions rings of popular junk science and junk philosophy. The scientific method finds the correct answer, not the simplest, because it is easily shown that the simplest explanation is not always the correct explanation. But, if the correct explanation is also simple (or used in place of the completely correct complex model for the sake of simplicity of explanation if no more accuracy is needed) then that is perfectly fine. Although, unfortunately, in most cases people's understanding of a subject ends with the simplified explanation.

If you did not take Calculus based Physics or Astro Physics courses in college, then NASA has some pretty good 'dumbed down' explanations about everything you are questioning. The 'dumbing down' also leads to the problem of people misunderstanding that there are better and sometimes complete understandings and explanations of problems. If you are able to understand the actual Physics and Mathematics involved, then there are plenty of resources available at your local university to help you out.

In another post, I mentioned the following information:

"Occam/Ockham's Razor only applies to equal explanations. It does not apply to two completely different explanations, even if one of them happens to be simpler. Occam/Ockham's Razor also does not prove that the simpler explanation is always the better explanation, it has been proven in many cases to be the opposite, and it does not differentiate between two equally good explanations. For example, using Newtonian Physics instead of Einsteinian Physics to explain simple physical motion is an example of Occam/Ockham's Razor (Einsteinian Physics is an extension of Newtonian Physics), but it does not apply to Evolution versus Intelligent Design. Evolution versus Intelligent Design is not an example of Occam/Ockham's Razor."

Re:Mostly agree

[Anonymous Coward]

"Evolution versus Intelligent Design is not an example of Occam/Ockham's Razor."

This is probably right, since I doubt that the strange intelligent design theory makes the same predictions as the theory of evolution does. So you can't choose between those two using Occam's Razor. And also, Occam's Razor doesn't tell you which theory is "right."

But you can still use Occam's Razor to decide that the intelligent design theory should not be taught in a science lecture; the intelligent design theory makes a useless assumption, along the lines of "something that is impossible to detect exists." But if you don't assume that, you get the same predictions. So you definitely don't use that theory as the one that should be taught in a science lecture.

For example: Say that the only assumption that the intelligent design theory makes is that "something that is impossible to detect exists." Well, that doesn't make any predictions. There's no experiment that we can do that the theory can tell us what should happen. So instead just don't assume anything. Then we still don't have any predictions, but we've assumed less things. So the theory that science would use is the second one. It wouldn't assume anything.

That doesn't exclude the first theory. There still could be something that is impossible to detect that exists. But if we had chosen the first one, it would exclude some other possibilities. So Occam's Razor lets science always choose the theory that excludes the fewest other theories. Since science wants to always find the theory that makes the best predictions, that's an important thing. So that's why scientists use Occam's Razor to find out what theories they should use.

Re:Mostly agree

[CloakedMirror]

Your questions rings of popular junk science and junk philosophy.

This is the stereotypical response of "scientists" to anything that is said by someone whose credentials are unknown to the scientist, and whose opinion is not necessarily in keeping with the generally accepted theories of the day.

Although, unfortunately, in most cases people's understanding of a subject ends with the simplified explanation.

Ah, yes, another of the ivory-towered, black-robed magicians favorite tactics. I used to use this same approach when talking to people about physics and/or computers. It made me feel superior to say that what I was capable of understanding was so far beyond their limited capacity. As one that practiced those high ideals of studying physics, chemistry and computer science (at the university level) I find it contemptable when someone tries to use such transparent tactics on me.

Einsteinian Physics is an extension of Newtonian Physics), but it does not apply to Evolution versus Intelligent Design.

I am quite aware of Einsteinian vs Newtonian models of physical motion, and was not attempting to apply either of those to the concepts surrounding evolution. Rather, I was referring to the idea that so many times when we think we have finally understood something, we find that our understanding is mistaken (or perhaps misapplied).

Occam/Ockham's Razor only applies to equal explanations. It does not apply to two completely different explanations, even if one of them happens to be simpler.

What makes one explanation equal with another? If they were equal, would that mean that they were both correct? Or is it only an equal explanation if you can through empirical evidence, and experimentation, prove them to an equal degree? How do you define explanations to be equal?

Evolution versus Intelligent Design is not an example of Occam/Ockham's Razor.

Would I be correct in assuming that you say this because you don't hold the explanations found in intelligent design to be equal to the explanation found in the theories of evolution? Again, what is the criteria that makes explanations equal enough that you would apply Ockham's Razor?

Re:Mostly agree

[einhverfr]

Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle only applies to subatomic matter. It does not apply to macroscopic systems. To use Heisenberg's principle to make grand sweeping statements about the Universe or Physics understanding of the Universe as a whole is incorrect. This is a very common mistake made by non-Physicists.

Hmmm... Planck's constant is certainly small enough to erase the distinction between subatomic particles and, say, baseballs. I.e. even if the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle applied to baseballs, the level of uncertainty is small enough to make it largely moot. In other words, one could easily argue that just because energy exists in atomic units (quanta), these units are small enough to make energy essentially a continuous function on a macro-level. Note that the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle states that the product of the uncertainty of position and velocity is approximately equal to Planck's Constant (h). And h is sufficiently small to render the equation practically moot for macroscopic systems. My point, however, is that there is an ongoing disagreement over whether the particle component of an electron actually *has* a definite position in the absence of observation, but this is entirely untestable because any test requires, you guessed it, observation...

Let me explain to you what I mean. Planck's Constant is 6.626068 × 10-34 m2 kg / s. This means that the product of the precision of the velocity and the position are approximately equal to this very small number. Unless we are measuring the position to such a degree that we are looking at the outermost boundaries of the electron suborbitals, we are probably not going to run into any reasonable uncertainty in this measurement. I.e. if I am measuring the position of a baseball to the nearest mm, I don't have much uncertainty wrt its velocity. This doesn't tell us whether measuring the speed and position of a baseball really does fall within the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, but it does tell us that it has *no practical effect.*

As a side point, just like quantum physics, E=mc^2 only practically applies to a very small subset of systems, such as nuclear reations and matter-antimatter reactions. If you burn, say, a ton of coal, the effect on the total mass of reactants vs. the products of the reaction will be small enough to be negligeable. However, this does not mean that it doesn't apply here too, just that the math largely renders this moot.

Secondly, I haven't even *read* the Wikipedia information. My main source on this was a book by Werner Heisenberg called "Physics and Philosophy." I suggest you read it. I have also read some shorter works by Schroedinger. I do believe that I am accurately representing both Heisenberg and Shroedinger in this case. I think my favorite paragraph in Heisenberg's book is where he states that E=mc^2 is largely a quantified version of Heraclitus's statement "Fire, i.e. that which moves is the prima materia."

If you can devise a test to prove that an unobserved subatomic really does manifest all possible quantum states, I am sure you will get the Nobel Prize. But it is fundamentally impossible to test the unobserved state of anything. Therefore the CI is largely beyond testing (but again it is presented as "a way to think about" the data rather than a description of quantum reality.

Thirdly, Occam's Eazor does apply to the issue of ID vs. the modern theory of evolution at the moment because it is simpler to fill in the gaps in evolution simply by saying "there is probably a natural process here that we don't fully understand" than it is by invoking a divine intelligence. This is because it is simpler to acknowledge ignorance of a predictable scientific process than to acknowledge a process beyond our ability to comprehend it.

Also Occam's Razor doesn't tell you which theory is most likely to accurately represent the fundamental nature of things, but it does tell you which theory is most likely to be *useful* and *efficient.* For this r

Re:Mostly agree

[einhverfr]

Geocentric == what we see in the sky. Heliocentric allows us to make models that are mathematically workable for planetary movement.

Both are right depending on what we want to do with them. Usually if we want to have a geocentric model, for, say, navigational or astronomical purposes, we start with a heliocentric version and project it back to what we see.

"Freedom of speech" and "Freedom of Religion"...

[stankulp]

...mean what, exactly?

This whole embarrassing Evolution versus Intelligent Design debate is only occurring because government schools are not places of education, but places of imprisonment and indoctrination.

Why are "intellectuals" so frightened of free speech? If you're so smart, you could defeat your opponents with your piercing wisdom instead of shutting them up at the barrel of a gun, which is what laws are all about.

Re:Well good (not!)

[Anonymous Coward]

As is evolution - which is not science but a theory. It is no more valid than to say that "the Ancients" populated life here, and the Goa'uld brought people here in their space ships.

You can't prove either with scientific methods, as you cannot have a controlled experiment.

Both ID and evolution should be taught, or nothing at all. Let the kids decide which makes more sense.

Bryan

The Other I.D.

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.seedmagazine.com/news/2005/11/the_other _id.php

Re:Science should be taught in the science classro

[windowpain]

And thus the "just a theory" defense is trotted out once more. When scientists use the word "theory" it's in a very different sense from the way non-scientists use it. Google "just a theory" and you'll come up with many explanations, including this one.

Umm.... Yeah, actually, it does

[Chmcginn]

Freedom of Religeion != Freedom from Religeion

You spelled "Religion" wrong, which is funny, considering you seem to be all about it.

Secondly, "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" means that the federal (and due to the 14th Amendment, the state) government can't establish a state religion, give preferential treatment to an established religion, or stop people from exercising their religion, as long as doing so doesn't violate religiously neutral laws. What I'm trying to get at, is... if the government can't force a particular religoin on me, then why should they force any religion on anybody?

Don't forget, in the end, that's what this debate is about - if it's supported by public money, it's not supposed to include religion. And if ID isn't religion, well, then, I'm the Pope.

Terrible!

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it's aweful that you can't teach religious subjects in schools but it's perfectly fine to teach all of our children to be little fucking athiests!

ID IS Science

[twomb]

I see this as an absurd question. Isn't this what archeology is all about? How do we determine if an object is a rock or a fashioned tool. The question is clearly one of ID.

While the issue of ID with respect to biology is a different animal, it is clearly a scientific question. To answer that it is clear that all biological structures were designed by the creator God who is three persons (the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost), would be completely beyond any scientific sphere. But the question of ID or not is clearly within the proper realm of science.

I'm reminded of a movie (The Thirteenth Floor). This movie was not a contender for any Academy Awards, however the plot was excellent and it explored the concept of Artificial Intelligence. The primary characters had developed a computer simulation of the 1920's. The neat thing about this simulation is that the creators could enter in as one of the characters. Not, just as an observer or a computer roll play, but as an actual character within the simulation. However, the main character was faced with evidence that in fact his "real" world was a simulation as well. This was clearly evidence of a scientific nature and as it played out, he discovered that, in fact, his world was intelligently designed by programmers of another world. It seams that his life would have been easier just believing as he did that he was a "real" person. However, he chose to explore the question of intelligent design and find the truth.

It seems that the dogma of our day is naturalistic evolution. We will not consider evidence that seems to contradict this, nor will we allow it to be taught in our classrooms. In this, we emulate our predecessors who would not allow Galileo to promote the radical Copernican ideas regarding our solar system.

Re:ID IS Science

[|/|/|||]

Yes, it is possible that our universe was created on purpose. Yes it is possible that we could find evidence that our universe was created on purpose.

No, we do not currently have any evidence that our universe was created on purpose. No, "Intelligent Design" is not a scientific theory.

What does ID say, that because such and such a structure has a certain amount of complexity, it must have been designed? Says who? I say that there exist an infinite number of universes, one in each possible configuration. Because every possible universe exists, ours *has* to exist, no "designer" required. How do you distinguish between my hypothesis and ID? How do you pick the one that's the most accurate? Answer: you can't. They're not scientific conjectures, because they're untestable. They are also, therefore, useless.

As for archeology, we actually have evidence that there were living organisms around at the time that the "objects identified as tools" were found, and even evidence that those organisms made and used those tools. ID has no evidence, we can't test it, and it therefore falls into the huge category of "unprovable conjecture."

Re:ID IS Science

[twomb]

"No, we do not currently have any evidence that our universe was created on purpose. "
Well, I'm glad we cleared that up! It's good to have omnicient people, such as yourself, on slashdot, who know all evidence that "we" currently have.

It seems to me that you've defined ID as a straw man here. Is it really the case that all there is to ID is the thought that some things are complex, so they must be designed? I think there's a lot more to it than that.

But, are you saying that no matter how much evidence there is, we shouldn't look at that evidence, because there's no way to prove the hypothesis? This isn't theoretical math, it's biological science. 100% certain proofs don't exist here. You look at the evidence for or against certain hypothesies and determine if there is significant support.

Re:ID IS Science

[|/|/|||]

Are you serious? I'm pretty sure that if anyone had evidence that our universe was created on purpose, both you and I would have heard about it.

I'm not trying to set up a strawman, I'm attacking ID as I've heard it presented by others. So far, nobody has presented any evidence in favor of ID, even when pressed to present some. Have you ever heard of any?

But, are you saying that no matter how much evidence there is, we shouldn't look at that evidence, because there's no way to prove the hypothesis?

I don't understand where you got that from. Just because we can't prove something doesn't mean we can't pick a "best" theory. That theory is chosen on the merits of its being able to stand up to scrutiny via testing. In other words, the more evidence, the better the theory. No theory is perfect, which is why they're constantly modified and replaced.

Re:ID IS Science

[twomb]

"I don't understand where you got that from. Just because we can't prove something doesn't mean we can't pick a "best" theory. That theory is chosen on the merits of its being able to stand up to scrutiny via testing. In other words, the more evidence, the better the theory. No theory is perfect, which is why they're constantly modified and replaced"

I'm sorry, I misunderstood your point. Glad we agree here.

Certainly there is evidence for ID, if one is willing to seriously entertain the possibility. I'm not the best proponant for this, as I haven't given it any serious study, but here are a few things that I've heard in discussions. The "youngness" of the earth has caused many to completely dismiss geo-natural causes for the origins of life (lookup Francis Crick - Nobel Prize winner for the discovery of DNA). Also, given our current understanding of natural selection/mutation, there hasn't been time for the development of life as we know it. Again, there's evidence in the fossil record of periods of great explosions of life, times when many new species formed in very short periods of time. This is all evidence for ID. It may be that you have other explanations than ID that you think are better. For instance transpermia, the idea that life originated on other planets and was transported to earth, has been proposed to overcome some of these problems (sounds like Battlestar Galactica might be on to something). But you cannot legitimately deny that it is evidence for ID, unless of course you have some metascientific (ie philosophical) reason for doing so.

Re:ID IS Science

[|/|/|||]

You need to look at your "evidence" a little closer.

The "youngness" of the earth has caused many to completely dismiss geo-natural causes for the origins of life (lookup Francis Crick - Nobel Prize winner for the discovery of DNA).

That is an argument against evolution. How does it imply an intelligent creator?

given our current understanding of natural selection/mutation, there hasn't been time for the development of life as we know it.

That is an argument against evolution. It makes no positive case for an intelligent designer.

Again, there's evidence in the fossil record of periods of great explosions of life, times when many new species formed in very short periods of time.

Yet again, you're not making a case for ID, you're weakening the case for evolutionary theory. Even if you reduce it to nothing, you will then have nothing. ID can't just be the lack of evolution, it has to have evidence of its own.

This is all evidence for ID.

No, it absolutely is *not*.

Okay, here's an example that may change your perspective. I'm proposing my own explanation for how life originated. My explanation is that there are an infinite number of universes -- a full set. There exists one of each possible configuration of the most fundamental particles in the universe. All possible universes exist, and therefore our universe, which has complex organisms, *has* to exist. Nobody designed it, it just is.

Now, my evidence that this is true is twofold. A) Complex entities exist. B) There hasn't been enough time for them to have evolved.

There you go. My explanation is absolutely possible, and it has the exact same evidence as ID. What do you do? Are they both right? If not, how do you pick the better explanation?

Of course, the answer is that you can't. Neither of these proposals have any positive evidence in their favor. They are possible, but no physical evidence implies that either one is true. Do you agree?

Re:ID IS Science

[twomb]

I understand what you're trying to say here, but you're so desperate that there not be any evidence for ID that you're blinding yourself. The first point, I can see how you can get around that by calling it a negative argument. The second and third however, both have positive aspects. Consider, if there hasn't been time for something to naturally develop, then it stands to reason that there is some force encouraging it. Also, considering the complexity of design -err development intellegence can be posited.

Again, I'm out of my realm here, but when you combine this with other aspects, such as the continuing reoccurance of complex life in the geological record, when it would have been wiped out over and over again, along with - I know you don't like to think of this as evidence - the complex engines that can be found on the cellular level (these devices are similar to macro devices that humans have devleoped as well as nano devices we hope to develop, a case begins to appear. I'm not saying that it's an open and shut case, but to say there's no evidence demonstrates a desperation that I think inappropriate.

I concede that there is a metaphysical/philosophical element to ID, but any affirmation of truth requires some set of metaphisical presuppositions. This cannot be removed from any sphere of study scientific or otherwise. At a minimum we must echo Descarte "cogito, ergo sum".

Re:ID IS Science

[|/|/|||]

Desperate that there not be any evidence? Hardly. I don't just discount ideas offhand, even when they seem ridiculous on the surface. Why? Because being wrong doesn't win many arguments, so I'm always trying to criticize my own position. Don't assume that I haven't given ID fair consideration, even though I'm pretty sure that the concept is meaningless. Are you able to look at it objectively? Think about your "evidence" one more time:

Consider, if there hasn't been time for something to naturally develop, then it stands to reason that there is some force encouraging it.

OK, fine. Assuming (let's not forget that this is just an assumption) that there hasn't been time for something to develop according to current theory, then it stands to reason that there is something at work that we don't understand. That is a reasonable statement. It is, however, something else entirely to actually propose an explanation. Are you with me so far?

So far we haven't talked about ID at all. We've just established that we can't explain something. Now, you could present ID as an explanation, but you're going to have to back it up with something. Did you read my "alternative" explanation in my previous post? Here's another one: "You see, every 22 seconds the entire universe takes on a random configuration. The one we're in is almost infinitely unlikely to occur, but since the universe has been doing this for eternity it was bound to happen eventually."

Do you see my point? There are an infinite number of explanations. We have to sift through them. The 22 second conjecture, however, cannot be tested. There's no way to see if it is true. Therefore, we cannot consider it as a potential theory. I, personally, cannot see any possible way to test ID. Neither have I ever heard *anyone* else propose a real way to test it. Have you? I've seen fake tests, tests like "put a bunch of bacteria in a dish and see if they evolve flagella" and such. Of course, you see the flaw in the test. It's a test of evolution, and you won't learn anything about ID regardless of the result.

..when you combine this with other aspects ... a case begins to appear.

A case for what? A case for something besides evolution? OK, that's a reasonable assertion. A case for ID? What makes you pick ID? Where is the *positive* evidence? I can't say that I think evolution is a good explanation (or even a possible explanation) just because I've never seen God! I have to say, look at these fossils, look at this bone structure, look at this DNA, look at these correlations -- I have to have some evidence in favor of evolution before I can expect anyone to listen to me. Where is the evidence in favor of ID? How can you say it is more likely than the 22 second repeating universe?

but to say there's no evidence demonstrates a desperation that I think inappropriate.

It looks like my position sits on a pretty solid logical foundation, which means I have no need to be desperate. Will you concede at this point that evidence against evolution is not the same thing as evidence for design? Once you accept that, will you admit that you've never heard of any "evidence" for ID that wasn't just pointing out a supposed weakness in evolution? Be honest with yourself, because if you don't it's too easy to jump to conclusions based on your existing biases.

Hahahaha...

[Ayanami Rei]

You're in science class.
You're there to learn science.
It doesn't matter what you believe.
Ergo, ID has no place there. ID vs. Evolution (capital 'E', mind you) is a philosophical debate.
Little-e evolution is the only theory we have, right now, that can be used in a scientific fashion to explain biodiversity. It gives us models and clues as to why species adapt and change _right now_. It is the basis that lets us draw conclusions about one species by studying another. (Operating on a pig to understand a human body).
So if you are in biology class, where (we hope), you are going to be taught things that help you in the field of Biology, then you better damn well be taught the theory of evolution because that's all we got.
Learning ID in that same class is not going to give you _any_ tools to help you in life. It's just there, almost like a disclaimer, to make the parents of certain children feel better.
Putting in the curriculum almost certainly guarantees at least two wasted class periods with the teacher answer pointeless questions from the student re: this debate.
The teacher should just be like: all further questions should be directed to your parents, or sign up for Philisophy or Comp. Religion next year.
Christ on crutches...
We don't learn Alchemy in Chemsitry class either. There are people that still believe in it though.

Re:Hahahaha...

[keraneuology]

You're in science class.
You're there to learn science.
It doesn't matter what you believe.

Then teach proven science. If it is a theory then say "this is a theory". The opening line simply shouldn't be "your parents and priest/pastor/reverend/shaman lied to you, man evolved from apes".

Re:Hahahaha...

[Copid]

Then teach proven science. If it is a theory then say "this is a theory". The opening line simply shouldn't be "your parents and priest/pastor/reverend/shaman lied to you, man evolved from apes".

I'm not sure where you see that happening. I certainly never experienced it. I was taught many theories. The theory of evolution was one. The theory of relativity was another good one. In fact, intelligent design was mentioned IN MY BIOLOGY CLASS (~10 years ago) as a perfectly valid philosophical position. However, it was also pointed out that as it stands, such a theory does not fall into the realm of science.

I'm not sure what everybody else was learning, but if problems like the one you're describing are really rampant, they should probably be corrected. Of course, the correct solution would be to tell biology teachers not to say that sort of thing. Dumping pseudo-scientific fluff that makes certain religious factions happy into the coursework is not the solution, and pretending that philosophical objections to evolution (and to the scientific method in general) are actually scientific objections is definitely not the solution.

Offensive and misguided

[caitsith01]

As an atheist, I find that this statement is actually extremely offensive, not to mention misguided.

Atheism is a religious belief in that it is a belief regarding spirituality and man's place in the universe. I do not wish to start a pedantic semantic argument, but one definition of religion is "[a] cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion." I would say that as an atheist I am conscientiously devoted to the notion that there is no god and that a moral or ethical system must therefore be derived by humans for themselves. I further strongly believe that organised religion represents nothing more than an attempt to organise such a system but is frequently, perhaps universally, rendered ineffective by superstition, dogma and human ambition.

Let me put it another way: belief in nothing is not no belief. It merely means that I don't believe there is a being 'out there' or 'up there' to which I am answerable or by which I am controlled, created or otherwise influenced. Does this mean I have no morals? Am I an inherently bad, or amoral, or otherwise non-spiritual person? Not in the least. I believe (note the use of the word) very strongly in the capacity of human intelligence to allow us to produce something greater than the sum of our parts. Love is an excellent example of this capacity in action.

The parent, and many of the responses to it, are perhaps mistaking the issue of fundamentalism vs tolerance for the issue of atheism vs theism. A fundamentalist atheist is no different to any other fundamentalist. This does not justify lumping all atheists together, being dismissive, or otherwise belittling another person's belief system.

Accountability

[Peaker]

How could I be accountable if I was never making a choice.

Why does accountability depend on "free will" (whatever that means)?

As long as your decision-making algorithm (you do agree that there is an algorithm there, don't you?) takes into account the consequences of accountability, it makes sense to make you accountable, whether or not you have this "free will" thing you speak of.

If find it all very amusing.

[Anonymous Coward]

There are a few things about this story that I find mildly amusing.

First up: Why is it that a post on religon always means massive post numbers on a geek web site?

Second: Religon is based on belief, and goes out of it's way to not have anything about it's beliefs that can be disproven. Yet they are in a court where proof is paramount.

Third: The laws of the land are supposed to be based on the bible and the church etc.... i think.

I wonder if that is taught in law school, or if the lawers will try to have the religous side of the law taken out of the law classes and put into some other class with a different name? How about calling it 'Religous Evolution' ?

Omnipotent God = no ID

[Anonymous Coward]

ID is the claim that some biological structures are so complex (in a "specified" way) that they COULD NOT have resulted from natural selection.

If God is omnipotent, he's perfectly capable of causing biological structures to exist via any mechanism he damn well pleases, including natural selection. The fact that you, or I, or anyone else can't fathom how is irrelevant if God is omnipotent.

Personally, I think ID is blasphemous--if God had designed each species directly, he would have done a better job. But's that's my theological opinion, nothing scientitfic about it.

The exception, not the rule

[Peaker]

But usually, brainwashing does work and does persist.
As in your case, it does not always succeed.

But just look at the simple statistics, of the amounts of people who persist their parents' beliefs vs. the amounts of people that don't. If brainwashing was not an issue, then persistence should be around 50%, and we both agree it is far above that, is it not?

Re:The exception, not the rule

[Darth]

But usually, brainwashing does work and does persist.
As in your case, it does not always succeed.

i disagree that it was brainwashing. my family exposed me to a set of beliefs that they held. Some of those beliefs i have evaluated and found merit in. Some of those beliefs i have evaluated and discarded. I do not accept the notion that exposing me to ideas is equivalent to brainwashing.

But just look at the simple statistics, of the amounts of people who persist their parents' beliefs vs. the amounts of people that don't. If brainwashing was not an issue, then persistence should be around 50%, and we both agree it is far above that, is it not?

Why should persistence be around 50%?
Where are you getting these statistics? Are we talking about what people actually believe, or what they present to the public?

I think you are neglecting motivations other than brainwashing.

Wrong. Scientific Method cannot be applied to ID

[Anonymous Coward]

Note that I'm not referring evolution in single-celled organisms because it is so different

You can't accept evolution for one organism and reject it for another, on a whim. That's just not Science.

The scientific theory of evolution has been subject to dozens of thousands if not millions of scientific tests over many decades. The testing is not complete of course, it never can be, but that doesn't in any way make it non-scientific. It holds together extremely well as a scientific theory, so far. Huge numbers of questions remain of course, and they always will, but no test has disproved the validity of evolution as yet.

You should note that just because something is a theory in Science doesn't mean that it is suspected to be false. Quantum Mechanics is a theory too, yet all those quantum mechanical devices in your TV and cellphone and computer seem to work just fine. Yet, QM still is no more than a scientific theory, despite that.

The same is true for the astronomical sciences for example, since we cannot directly examine objects billions of lightyears away. And likewise for the key theories of fundamental physics, since we cannot directly examine any of the objects discussed in string theory, for example. But we can always extrapolate hypotheses from these theories and try testing them. That's what makes it Science.

Nothing in ID can be subject to testing by the scientific method, so it's not Science, and hence ID doesn't belong in a classroom of Science, it's that simple. It has nothing to do with truth or falsehood, but merely with whether the matter is subject to the scientific method or not. And ID is not.

Atheism and monotheism are not religions

[einhverfr]

I.e. Atheism is a belief that there is no god. Certainly some branches of Buddhism are atheistic. In other words, Atheism is about as much "a religion" as Monotheism, Polytheism, or Pantheism is. Yet we would hardly say that there is Monotheism is a religion and by that lump all Jews, Christains, Muslims, Bahai'i, etc. together.

Indeed there are religions that are atheistic just as there are religions that are pantheistic, monotheistic, or polytheistic.

Agnosticism might be the only one that might not be characterized as the belief that forms the foundation of a religion. Science is agnostic in the sense that it doesn't say anything about the existance or lack thereof regarding any specific divine entity or entities.

Ack... ignore bold. Mistake in typing.

[Anonymous Coward]

>_<

Obligatory Bill Hicks quote

[Sathias]

"Mommy mommy, a goldfish left a lincoln log in me sock drawer!!"

"That's the story of Jesus..."

Re:Wrong. Scientific Method cannot be applied to I

[mosb1000]

"You can't accept evolution for one organism and reject it for another, on a whim."

I'm not, single celled organisms do not easily fit into well defined species, so the theory of evolution as it applies to species of multicellular organisms does not really apply to them. It's not a whim.

"Nothing in ID can be subject to testing by the scientific method"

That's ridiculous, anything is subject to testing by the scientific method, ID is no different. It's just that, like evolution, the matters addressed by ID are not testable by any means available to us. This is also true for QM, or Astrophysics. I never said they weren't scientific, I only said that ID was no less scientific.

Ah.

[Anonymous Coward]

I misinterpreted your paraphrased quote, then. :-)

No, I'm afraid not. Theories are never Fact.

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't it a fact that electricity powers light bulbs?

Not really. It's only "fact" in a handwaving sort of way.

Science doesn't tell us what *actually* powers light bulbs, but it does provide us with a mathematical theory describing how they might be powered, one that is consistent with all known evidence. This sometimes makes sloppy scientists say it's "fact" when they're explaining such things to a lay audience, but if pressed by another scientist they would readily admit that a theory of Science always falls short of being the Truth or Fact.

Disputing that electricity is a fact does not cast any doubt on its theory though --- a point that non-scientists don't seem to grasp very well. Only experiments can invalidate a theory.

You're confusing two aspects of evolution...

[Dr. Zowie]

That evolution happens is pretty indisputible, since anyone can reproduce it in populations of microbes, drosophila, or even canis familiaris. But the idea that evolution is the mechanism by which people came to exist is much less well tested. Although the evidence seems to be pretty overwhelming, it is not currently possible to repeat the whole experiment within our lifetimes, so Occam's Razor is the main justification for evolution-as-creation-story. Although the evidence is amazingly consistent and rich, Occam's Razor (the principle of parsimony) is a pretty weak philosophical tool compared to realism or positivism (the ideas that scientific theory is actually describing something real that can be reproduced), and it's not surprising that many folks find it hard to swallow.

That doesn't make the short-Earth creationists right -- it just makes them more understandable. They're at least attacking the edifice of scientific study at a weak point, rather than at a bastion.

Re:You're confusing two aspects of evolution...

[Anonymous Coward]

Evolution is VERY disputible! It is being done by many scientists. Microoevoluion doesn't prove Macroevolution, and adaption doesn't equal evolution. I suggest you check out the update. Unless, you really belief the thing that we call a world came from nothing. It screams of a design by a high being.

Re:You're confusing two aspects of evolution...

[Laser Lou]

Although the evidence is amazingly consistent and rich, Occam's Razor (the principle of parsimony) is a pretty weak philosophical tool compared to realism or positivism
One thing that creationists tend to ignore is that, when the aggregate of a large number measurements, made with different methods, and done by many different people, exhibits consistency, then even if large, obvious variations exists between the individual measurements, the overall consistency renders the results as being essentially real and suitable evidence. Creationists like to focus on inconsistencies in small samples and ignore the big picture.

Re:You're confusing two aspects of evolution...

[timbo234]

There are no 'two aspects' of evolution. The evolutionary processes that act on microbes over short period of times are the exact same ones that act on larger organisms over long or short periods of time. There is plenty of evidence for evolution over long time periods: (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/)
and plenty of examples of radiation experiments that simulate the long-term action of evolutionary processes on complex organisms (ie. not just bacteria or single-celled organisms):
The work of Herman Muller who was a pioneer in radation bombardment experiments:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/muller.html [talkorigins.org]
http://www.aboutnuclear.org/view.cgi?fC=History,Ha ll_of_Fame,Hermann_Joseph_Muller [aboutnuclear.org]
http://nobelprize.org/medicine/laureates/1946/ [nobelprize.org] (he received the Nobel prize for inducing mutations through radiation bombardment)
Another example of mutation inducing experiments:
http://www.ansinet.org/fulltext/jbs/jbs14269-271.p df [ansinet.org] (http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:762TTjEpLBAJ: www.ansinet.org/fulltext/jbs/jbs14269-271.pdf+mull er+%2B+flies+%2B+radiation&hl=en [72.14.203.104])

There has been a lot of debate in the scientific community about exact mechanisms and processes by which evolution happens, and their 'speed'. However its a bit much to think that creationists are right about evolution over long periods, especially since the whole micro vs macro evolution thing that they have invented is a false dichotomy.

Re:Well good (not!)

[Anonymous Coward]

"Let the kids decide which makes more sense."

Um... no. This is not a debate. You are using the common definition of "Theory",
not the scientific one. You can start to understand why Evolution is a Theory and
ID is not (it's a Belief) by doing a google search for "Scientific Theory". To save you
some time, here's the first link: wilstar.com/theories.htm It's very good, actually.

Why is this not a debate? Because science is not about Beliefs, your beliefs, my
beliefs and the beliefs of everyone else who ever lived are irrelevant. Just because more
than 50% of Americans are ignorant and have not been taught what a Theory is doesn't
make a debate about ID any more valid. As some one else wrote in a previous thread...
A majority of Americans also think Abraham Lincoln was your first president (he was
your 16th). Put another way, just because a majority believe something doesn't make
it so (or science for that matter).

J.

I don't think so

[benhocking]

If a science teacher made this comment of their own volition and didn't harp on it, I doubt very many people would get upset. (Sure, there's always going to be someone who is hyper-sensitive.) The point here is that the science teachers were required by the Dover Board to teach this despite the fact that they disagreed with it.

As article says

[smoker2]

and yet the argument continues....

I know, let's all send the Judge $10 and when he's beaten MS on capital, we'll have a real measure. The way I see it, if God existed, this argument would not exist. he was pretty plain about his demands earlier on, why so quiet now ? Hah, faith.

It was invented to at first calm a population, then control it. I have no need of artificial protection.

Thanks anyway.

Your reading is in error; read the ruling.

[abb3w]

To be fair, the judge (in his 123 page opinion) didn't rule that "intelligent design cant be taught in Dover" as stated in the summary

Check the order at the end of the 139 page ruling:

Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 65, Defendants are permanently enjoined from maintaining the ID Policy in any school within the Dover Area School District.

Technically, I think a lawyer would call that an order, not a ruling, but I don't think you're qualified to split hairs that fine. Anyway, the other 139 pages pretty much are nothing but rulings as to WHY they shouldn't have thought they could get away with it, and screwed up almost every step of the way. Of course, the summary used the word "discussed", not "taught", which is inaccurate insofar as private citizens (and religious leaders) are free to advocate it... in those capacities. But again, I don't think you're trying to split that hair. The summary is essentially accurate.

I'm sure teachers could still discuss intelligent design should they be so included.

I presume you mean "inclined", not "included". I will note that the prime defendant was the "Dover School District"; since the teachers are employees of the Dover School District, that would likely be deemed to violate letter as well as spirit of the order. I also refer you to the section begining page 64:

After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science.

(Emphasis added)

Even if new science teachers come in who are willing to touch this turd with an eleven foot pole (unlike the current batch; check out p. 127), they would be facing major legal problems if they tried teaching it in science class. (Unless, of course, merely presenting it as an example of something that ISN'T science....) On the bright side for the religious right, the Judge expressly did not take a position as to whether ID was the Truth. Not that anyone but religious moderates will be able to see that as a bright side.

I strongly suggest you read the ruling before further comment; it's in fairly plain English; if you take the legal citations to mean "because the Courts have already said so", it's even easier.

Don't forget religious wars......

[OldBaldGuy]

It's not just that their idea doesn't answer any questions. No questions would even get asked , if these people ran the world, or your school system.

Don't forget religious wars. they are so much more fun. No resolution till one side is gone...

Just because there's more of something...

[Chmcginn]

Doesn't mean it's more complex. Individual insect eyes are barely about the light-spot on some bacteria, as far as function. They've just got a bunch of them, with the right networking wetware.

On a side note, one thing I really don't get is why anti-evolutionists always bring up the eye. It's not impossible, or even difficult, to imagine a simpler eye, and one simpler than that, and so on. And it's not hard to imagine one more complicated than ours - if you live anywhere outside a major city, you probably see birds on an almost daily basis with much, much better vision. If you want to argue something as being irreducibly complex, why not start with sexual reproduction?

Oh, wait, I forgot... fundamentalists, sex... nevermind, I'll shut up now.

What would ID teach?

[CuteAlien]

I'm always a little puzzled by that. I'm not even sure if we really should ban ID from schools, because it would probably take about 5 Minutes until the teachers would run out of material. Just think of it:

Teacher: Today we teach an alternative Theorie to Evolution. It's called Intelligent Design and it's about the theory that evolution did not happen but an intelligent Designer created life. The main argument of ID is that life is too complex to be created by random processes and therefore a Designer must exist.

Student: Ok, tell us more about this theory. Tell us about the experiments which were done to verify it. Tell us about research that's going on.

Teacher: ...

Oh well, maybe some ID people here can fill in the points. Arguments *for* an ID theory - *not* arguments against evolution theory. Anything besides the "life is too complex and so we need an (even complexer) designer who created it".

Re:Wrong. Scientific Method cannot be applied to I

[einhverfr]

That's ridiculous, anything is subject to testing by the scientific method, ID is no different. It's just that, like evolution, the matters addressed by ID are not testable by any means available to us. This is also true for QM, or Astrophysics. I never said they weren't scientific, I only said that ID was no less scientific.

Actually, there is quite a lot of interpretations of scientific theory that defy testing. Prove to me, for example, that an unobserved electron doesn't have a distinct position as the generally accepted Copenhagen Interpretation would have. Prove to me that Schroedinger's cat is really both alive and dead inside the box prior to observation. Note that this is just an interpretation of a thoery and not a theory itself. In other words, it is a useful way to think of things rather than an assumption that this is a statement about the ultimate reality of the position of an electron in a suborbital in, say, a Neon atom. The idea that the position and velocity of the electron don't exist absent observation is fundamentally untestable because you can't prove using the scientific method what occurs in the absense of observation. In other words, the CI is fundamentally outside the role of the scientific method, but it is usually passed of as a "way to think about" things rather than "the fundamental nature of things."

ID is no different. One cannot scientifically prove the existance or lack thereof of any specific theological model. So why teach this as science.

I have absolutely no problem with co-opting science for religious ends, but this doesn't belong in a science class, especially in a pluralistic society such as we have in the US. In other words, ID is religious argument, not a scientific one. It fails to pass a number of basic threshold scientific tests, such as the principle of parsimony. If one wants to teach ID in sunday school, if people want to publish books on it for general or professional consumption, or any other activity, that is fine. But it is not a good thing to teach in a class about the foundations of science.

This being said, most of the textbooks I have seen do an attrocious job of teaching evolution to gradeschool students. Not only is it oversimplistic, but it is a representation of theories that have been obsolete for a few decades.

what is religion?

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't it interesting that the people who tend to insist that atheism is a religion are the same people who insist that christianity is not a religion?

"You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means." -- Inigo Montoya.

Aren't we missing the point?

[POLAX]

How is teaching ID unconstitutional? Isn't silencing people and not allowing them to teach about something (whether it is right or wrong) unconstitutional?

I suppose we've banned teaching of any ideas that might be arbitrarily classified as "hate material" (critisizing corporations is banned - after all they're "people" too), "pornography" (even so much as a nipple under any context), and "terrorist" (i.e. anarchist or anti-establishment). So under this pretext there's no reason not to ban ID theory/philosophy/whatever...we've already banned free thought and free speech which are more important and the what prevent anything else from being banned anyways.

Re:Aren't we missing the point?

[Bassman59]

"How is teaching ID unconstitutional?"

The judge (a Republican, who, anticipating the response from the wingnuts, said, "I'll be labelled an activist ...") said that Intelligent Design is nothing more than Creationism, and previous court rulings have said that Creationism is religion, and teaching a specific religion in a science class violates the First Amendment's Establishment Clause, which mandates separation of Church and State.

"Isn't silencing people and not allowing them to teach about something (whether it is right or wrong) unconstitutional?"

See above.

Re:Aren't we missing the point?

[narcc]

Isn't silencing people and not allowing them to teach about something (whether it is right or wrong) unconstitutional?

No one is "silencing" anyone here. All that was established is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID in public schools. Private schools can teach ID all they want.

Also, "hate material", "porography", "terrorist", "free thought", and "free speach" have not been banned. Feel free to teach/show these things in your private club, place of worship, home, etc.

Probably/Could Have

[123abc]

I _probably_ evolved from some common ancestor or frogs _could have_ evolved from fish. Fine. Prove it. Prove it to a 99.9% level of certainty.

Prove to me that a light detecting eye evolved into a camera eye. Don't show me different types of eyes. Show me, with 99.9% certainty, the exact path/steps that a light detecting eye evolved into a camera eye.

Do this without using words such as 'probably' or 'could have'. Do it using 100% observation and nothing else; faith is not allowed, only observation.

Also, the fact that this thread has so many responses is an maybe an indication that, perhaps, there is a little double that some people have in their own theory.

Any reasonable person has to admit, it's hard to swallow evolution as the source of molecular machines such as ATP Synthase (can be both a rotary motor and generator), Helicase, and protein chaperones.

Yes, it's possible to contrive ways these molecules randomly came to be, but do it without using words such as 'probably' or 'could have'; anything else is wishful thinking and doesn't prove a thing.

Re:Probably/Could Have

[Laser Lou]

Any reasonable person has to admit, it's hard to swallow evolution as the source of molecular machines such as ATP Synthase (can be both a rotary motor and generator), Helicase, and protein chaperones.

Yes, it's possible to contrive ways these molecules randomly came to be, but do it without using words such as 'probably' or 'could have'; anything else is wishful thinking and doesn't prove a thing.

You have it backwards! Those molecular machines are not brought about by evolution. Instead, they enable evolution to occur!

Show me, with 99.9% certainty, the exact path/steps that a light detecting eye evolved into a camera eye.
You make it easy. The "camera" eye is made of many "light detecting" eye. The genetic mutation that doubles the number of eyes without killing the whole body occured 20+ times, resulting in the "camera" eye. Hey, that's much like how electronic cameras came to exist!

Re:Probably/Could Have

[ID indeed]

It has not only been "proven" to 99.9%, it goes far beyond that. Either some god or gods are bullshitting us, or evolution is the way it happened. Regardless, the only thing we can possibly do is to follow the evidence in front of us. So evolution it is. I'm glad we can agree. (PS. You have absolutely no idea, whatsoever, regarding the state of modern biology and evolutionary theory. Stop pretending like you are "in the know" here. I've spent a decade working to become an expert on a very related topic and the sheer quantity of knowledge I have not yet merely skimmed grows with every passing day. This is grown-up stuff. If you want to play, it's going to take a little more than your pathetic little uninformed conjectures.)

Re:Probably/Could Have

[123abc]

You didn't take my challenge. You just spewed out the normal bullshit.

10 year expert in what topic?

"This is grown-up stuff. If you want to play, it's going to take a little more than your pathetic little uninformed conjectures"

Like what? You don't even have an intelligent comeback for little uninformed conjuctures.

Ah, no, not cyclical

[geekotourist]

This is common creationist claim number CC310. The short response is:

• Many strata are not dated from fossils. Relative dates of strata (whether layers are older or younger than others) are determined mainly by which strata are above others. Some strata are dated absolutely via radiometric dating. These methods are sufficient to determine a great deal of stratigraphy.

  Some fossils are seen to occur only in certain strata. Such fossils can be used as index fossils. When these fossils exist, they can be used to determine the age of the strata, because the fossils show that the strata correspond to strata that have already been dated by other means.

• "The geological column, including the relative ages of the strata and dominant fossils within various strata, was determined before the theory of evolution." For more on this, see CD103, The entire geologic column is based on the assumption of evolution
  • "The geologic column was outlined by creationist geologists. For example, Adam Sedgwick, who described and named the Cambrian era, referred to the theory of evolution as "no better than a phrensied dream" (Ritland 1982). The geologic column is based on the observation of faunal succession, the fact that organisms vary across strata, and that they do so in a consistent order from place to place. William "Strata" Smith (1769-1839) recognized faunal succession years before Darwin published his ideas on biological evolution.
  • The geologic column is validated in great detail by radiometric dating, which is based on principles of physics, not evolution. Furthermore, different dating techniques are consistent, and they are consistent with the order established by the early pioneers of stratigraphy.

If you want to see more references to dating, check out the geology section of the common questions. For example, "Isochron methods do not assume that the initial parent or daughter concentrations are known..." from CD002, which then links to a full essay on isochron dating. It has references, including to a text that is "An excellent semi-technical introduction to isotope dating methods... It is accessible to those who haven't studied the field, and has even received reasonably positive review in creationist literature..." which might be exactly what you're looking for to catch up in this area.

Re:Ah, no, not cyclical

[mdielmann]

Thanks for the info. I'll have to do some reading.

Jump! Jump! Jump!

[abb3w]

the reason why it was defeated - in the words of the Judge - is not because of ID itself

Wrong.
Ruling, Page 136:

In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.

QED.

Here's an idea... God keeps backups...

[Burning Plastic]

God created the universe however many billion years ago. He let it run through until somewhere past 4000 years ago.

Each few million years he made a backup copy in case something went wrong.

That finally happened some time after 4000 years ago (maybe something that man did???) and so he restored from his backup copy and removed additional humans from ouside of "Eden" thinking that maybe that would fix the problem that happened later.

Because of this, the entire fossil record is intact and everything can be worked backwords to the beginning. However, this version of the world was only 'created' just over 4000 years ago.

How does that sound???

You haven't disputed the existance of electricity

[einhverfr]

Science doesn't tell us what *actually* powers light bulbs, but it does provide us with a mathematical theory describing how they might be powered, one that is consistent with all known evidence.

In other words, you don't discount the existance of electricity as a fact. You just reserve some degree of skepticism regarding the current idea of what electricity is.

In other words, we know that light exists and this is a fact. However, the theories as to the *nature* of light are still subject to some degree of scrutiny.

So unless you are uncomfortable thinking that electricity is a fact and that "something" that we call electricity powers the light bulb, then you have not told me that the existance of electricity is just a theory.

Hurrah!

[MythMoth]

"The world is obviously flat! Clearly people in the southern hemisphere would fall off otherwise. The round-earth thing is only a theory, after all."

Not a surprising victory. The prosecution took the smart approach of inviting testimony against ID from established scientists with strong religious backgrounds. But a pleasing victory.

Religion class

[syousef]

The Dover school board need just introduce a new course "Mysticism, Superstition and Things That Go Bump in the Night". Then they could teach ID

It's called religion class. I suffered many years of it.

On a side note...

[Chmcginn]

Can I get permission to use your copyrighted material (i.e. your post, #14300629) in my interpersonal electronic mail messages?

I just think that would go along well with some of my other sig-quotes...

Re:On a side note...

[Fareq]

I suppose I could allow you to do such a thing...

for a price...

No... not really... go ahead, quote me.

Not Science, but Alternative.

[Anonymous Coward]

Most people don't want intelligent design to be taught in science classes as a part of that science. The argument is that ID is a prominent alternative to the evolution theory, and so when an unprovable theory (such as macro-evolution) is taught the majorly accepted alternative theories (such as intelligent design) should also at least be presented, regardless of whether they are 'scientific' in their basic idea.

I don't see the trouble in presenting all of the possible solutions to an unknown area of science, such as the origin of life forms on Earth. In most biology books, you will find many instances of unproved ideas that are presented with plausible alternatives. It is inconsistent to only provide one theory of the origin of life on Earth. I also don't think that a theory's (unofficial) association with a religion or people group should be decisive in determining if it is appropriate to teach it to the general public. If macro-evolution were originally bound to a religious group, it would be just as easily dismissable as intelligent design, seeing as it is no more plausible or provable.

Going back to the question of scientific basis of intelligent design, it cannot directly be scientifically supported, as evolution can, but it can be strongly (albeit indirectly) supported through historical documents. Why, if the majority of the Bible has repeatably been proven as a reliable historical record, can people so easily discard it's accounts of the creation of the world by a Supreme Being? By no means are these accounts provable, as is most of the Bible's historical content, but they still should not immediately be discarded, simply because they do not seem likely. In my opinion, the reliability of the latter historical parts of the Bible is enough to justify consideration of it's account of creation.

Of course, until a reliable method is devised to test the theories we will never know. Evolution will be difficult to test, since no one can live long enough to observe it occuring, and a project to document it over a long enough period of time will simply take too long, since we will not have results for possibly several million years. On the other hand, intelligent design is difficult to test, since it could only have happened once, and so there is nothing to observe. Although there is strong evidence for each theory (regardless of how extreme or ridiculous either sounds to any person), at this time there is no way to conclude that either are true. Right now all that can be done is to decide which theory you believe, and attempt to support it however you think will be best. Either way, at this early point of development and research of the two theories, no single person should decide which is allowed to be taught to children, and neither should be exclusively presented to a class.

Re:Not Science, but Alternative.

[Bassman59]

"Most people don't want intelligent design to be taught in science classes as a part of that science. The argument is that ID is a prominent alternative to the evolution theory, and so when an unprovable theory (such as macro-evolution) is taught the majorly accepted alternative theories (such as intelligent design) should also at least be presented, regardless of whether they are 'scientific' in their basic idea."

You make no sense. You say that ideas that are not science should be taught in science classes?

"Why, if the majority of the Bible has repeatably been proven as a reliable historical record, can people so easily discard it's (SIC!!!!) accounts of the creation of the world by a Supreme Being?"

Now you've veered off into Looney Land. The Bible has not been proven to be a reliable historical record. It was written by men (don't give me this "divinely-inspired" shit) many years after the events supposedly took place. And the writers had their own agendas. Oh yeah, what about the Apocrypha? You know, the stuff that was edited out much later because certain kings and popes felt that those writings contradicted their rule?

"In my opinion, the reliability of the latter historical parts of the Bible is enough to justify consideration of it's (APOSTROPHE LOSSAGE, GODDAMMIT!) account of creation."

In my opinion, the reliability of anything you say is suspect.

Re:Gaia Theory (science, because Wikipedia says so

[scoove]

Pretty interesting comments cr0sh...

Indeed, it is that last one that can make you wonder, and is where science fiction begins (are the "stars" intelligent? can we even tell?)

Which is exactly why it's unfortunate some want to limit education to only the approved list of ideas (and in typical form, those that they happen to agree with). One needs a broader base of models to understand how to pick the best strategy for a given situation.

I laugh pretty hard at the goddess types, but really have to respect most of them for being so passionate about doing positive things (even if their method is odd at times).

Reason is the Path to God - Anon

Nice...

*scoove*

One missing piece though

[einhverfr]

I have not seen an adequate evolutionary understanding of what causes species to become so genetically incompatible as to branch off and become separate species (as opposed to subspecies). In plants, this is even more problematic than with animals due to apparent lack of migration.

I suspect the answer to this question is that there may be several mechanisms which might make this possible, and that these mechanisms are not mutually exclusive, and indeed that physical separation might not even be required.

Evolution as a general process can be and has been experimentally verified by, say, spraying populations of insects with, say, DDT and seeing how the population eventually becomes resistant to the chemical. Again, self-selective breeding has been well documented in the fruit-fly world. So with these cornerstones, evolution (as an adaptive process) is as much a fact as electricity. But the theory still needs some work.

Now forming a species boundary between populations might require more complex environments than can be worked with in a laboratory.

Re:One missing piece though

[Cadallin]

Speciation is a fascinating and complex process. In general it does occur when populations are separated, although this need not be true. In any good undergraduate University level Zoology course, several mechanisms that can give rise to new species are discussed during unit on Evolution.

As far as plants go, it is worth noting that plant species are generally quite geographically widespread, and despite lacking migratory tendencies, most plant species DO possess means for seed dispersal, chance allows these means to cover large areas. Once a species is widespread, any of a variety of events can occur which leave populations isolated. Fires, Earthquakes, overgrazing, competition, etc. Any of these can result in isolated populations which over time may diverge and loose the ability to interbreed.

In the absence of population isolation, populations can also divide as they radiate to fill different ecological niches. Darwin's Finches are a similar case. Many different kinds of Finch may exist, even on a single island, but each fills a different niche, some eat seeds, others insects, etc.

who said a designer had to be perfect? wtf?

[Anonymous Coward]

ID topic progression

1) ID people are religious whackjobs
2) ID isnt science
3) Everyone who believes in ID is religious
4) I dont care if you think it is aliens, nobody else does. Shut up!
5) (my favorite) Life can't have been designed because it is such a terrible
design! I mean there are things wrong! The retina! The appendix! Even a 3 year
old toddler could have designed life better than that. Life is so simple that
even a 1st year grad student could design better life from SCRATCH!

Uh, folks. If you think YOU know how life should have been designed, go ahead
and design even the simplest living cell. You will get the nobel prize, and will
go down in history as the first person smarter than einstein.

*real* ID people don't always think it must be a perfect god who designed life. it could just be some smart aliens.

you people who are violently anti-ID are like an orphan who finds himself in the woods one day, but cant remember seeing his parents. he deduces that he must have evolved from nothing, because he doesnt have any parents.

in all of the universe, for ID to be possible there only has to be other intelligent life who we could be the children/experiement of. for ID to be utterly wrong, then life on earth must be the very first intelligent life in the universe. which do you think is more likely?

why are we so arrogant as to presume life evolved here from nothing? even if life CAN evolve from nothing, statistically it is much more likely to be SPREAD by other life.

oh, and one last time, i think "god" and "jesus" are complete horeshit. i know some of you have so blocked out the ID argument that you will look at those words and probably see a blur in your mind, because it doesnt compute to you. YES, there are people who think ID may be possible, who aren't a bunch of religious bible-bangers. but you can't accept that, can you.

the fundies give the real ID people a bad name.

btw- how many of you rabid anti-ID people ever ran the SETI screensaver? hmmm.

Re:who said a designer had to be perfect? wtf?

[TripMaster Monkey]

*real* ID people don't always think it must be a perfect god who designed life. it could just be some smart aliens.

The problem with that line of logic is that such a non-supernatural designing race either itself requires a designer, or evolved naturally.

If the former is true, one must look at the designer's designer. If the designer's designer is again not supernatural in origin, this step must be repeated until one either arrives at a designing race that evolved naturally, or arrives at a supernatural Designer (capital D) that itself does not need to be designed.

If one arrives at a supernatural Designer at the end of this progression, we're right back to the classic Creationist argument, which has been amply shown to not be science.

If one arrives at a mundane designer who evolved naturally, ID is meaningless, since we're back to evolution.

in all of the universe, for ID to be possible there only has to be other intelligent life who we could be the children/experiement of. for ID to be utterly wrong, then life on earth must be the very first intelligent life in the universe. which do you think is more likely?

First of all, this is a straw man argument. For ID to be utterly wrong, it is not necessary that we be the very first intelligent life in the universe. The universe is very big and very old...more than big enough for intelligent races to evolve simultaneously without any inkling of the other's presence, let alone any way for the two to physically interact, and old enough for plenty of intelligent races to evolve, build civilizations, and die out long before we showed up. Second, given the stupendous gulfs of time and space that seperate our solar system from even the nearest star, I'd have to say that it's far more likely that we evolved naturally than to postulate some "smart aliens" intentionally designed us as some sort of demented science experiment.

YES, there are people who think ID may be possible, who aren't a bunch of religious bible-bangers. but you can't accept that, can you.

Yes, I can accept that...but given the arguments I've outlined above, the "smart alien" ID proponents are even more out of touch with reality than the fundies are....and that's saying a lot.

Fun and Games

[Anonymous Coward]

Good. Now they can put the Darwin's Voyage wonder back into Civ4, which they avoided to be "politically correct" (which means correct to the current political presi .. in power). Shame on you Sid.

ID != creationism

[ckhorne]

I get so frustrated when creationists simply assume that something is not true, especially when the facts are only a few clicks away (google).

And I get so frustrated with people that lump ID in with creationism and bible thumpers, and with people that are called "stupid" or "blind" because they question a theory. Also- the "facts" in your link are still speculation on the scientists' parts.

I never "assumed" that something was not true - I personally question evolution because I have not seen (or read or googled or otherwise) anything that provides more than circumstantial evidence, at least none that convince me 100%. You can explain the theory of electricity and turn on a light or 1000 other things, give mathematical evidence, and sure, there's little room for argument. But I personally can't accept the same with evolution - at least not with the evidence that has been presented- there is simply too much room for question. If science produces undisputable proof to support evolution, then yes, it would be fact.

I'd like to point out also that survival of the fittest could probably be considered "fact" - by definition, only those adapted to the environment will survive. I question the gene mutation and adaptation on a large scale.

Sigh... My original point, about the Theory of Evolution (not to be confused with lower case evolution, as was in a previous post) being a theory and not fact, seems to be completely lost. I think it's interesting that the same people that argue that ID is not a scientific theory because it cannot stand up to the scientific process (which is 100% true) also argue that Evolution is an accepted fact, and is somehow outside the realm of scientific theory itself and cannot be disproven.

Re:ID != creationism

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahh but in fact, ID == Creationisim, as can be shown (and was observed in the court case) as the early manuscripts for the much vaunted "Pandas and People" have the word "creation" in the exact same places as the later ID based version places "Inteligent Design"

please see:
http://www2.ncseweb.org/wp/?p=80 for the evidance.

Re:ID != creationism

[ckhorne]

So if I went through and replaced all the "evolution" words in this thread to "flat earth" or whatever, then it'd automatically change the meaning?

Creationists can believe whatever they want to believe. For a more in depth and non-Christian view of ID, have a read through "Darwin's Black Box". And before someone points out that science has superceded that book, note that the concept of ID still stands.

ID only says that the world was created/seeded/planted in some way by an intelligent source outside of our current knowledge. It could be aliens that sent out a probe for a last-chance survival or another human race that existed far before we know - I have no idea. I only support the fact that there may be a valid alternative.

Re:ID != creationism

[Gregour]

Where did the aliens come from? Did life start on their planet, or did another alien species create them, too? Eventually you have to get back to the first occurrence of life. And the question still remains, did that first occurrence of life evolve into the alien species, or were they created by some higher being? If those first aliens were create by a higher being, then your version of ID requires some supreme being. Therefore ID==creationism.

Re:ID != creationism

[ckhorne]

I never said that I had any of the answers, only that I am willing to entertain the possibilities. Likewise, any decent scientist should be willing to accept that evolution can be proven wrong; if it couldn't, then it wouldn't be a theory. I'm not saying that either is correct or incorrect - only that a theory should be stated as such. (Although everybody seems to be ready to jump on the opportunity to tell me how much I'm wrong.)

Scientists currently explain the moment of the Big Bang as a gravitational singularity in which current physics cannot model (by definition). Under your argument, because the Big Bang must have originated from somewhere/something that cannot be explained, is must (eventually) also equate to creationism. Obviously, this is not what scientists are implying; only that we don't have the mathematical models to understand it. Yet this mathematical unknown is a perfectly valid and accepted proposition in the scientific world.

Does the fact that nobody can fully explain ID also mean that it is creationism? No. It means that the process cannot be fully explained. In constrast, creationism makes the assumption that there must be a supreme being, and thus anything can happen.

Bacterial evolution

[DrYak]

Both ways, and also including a third way.

First, if you have selection pressure, you must have diversity on witch to apply the selection, for start.
It doesn't come out of magic.
Otherwise we'ld have started with a very life-rich world, that can only become progressively poorer by mean of selection.
Although that may indeed be hapenning to the wild-life due to humans destroying animal habitat, archeological records show that indeed new species that didn't exist before have appeared some times in the past. In the field of microbiology new wonders are appearing almost every day (due to short life cycle : more cell division means more mutation means the number of generations needed before something new appears take less time).

Second, some mutation have been observed, documented and are well known (for the obvious reason that there's a lot of research done in the field).
- Some bacteria resist drugs, specially penicilins, by modifying the proteins that the drug targets.
- In case of the worst multi-drug resistant Staphyloccoci, the lab in which I have been working has proved that a single mutation that disables a specific gene has helped the bacteria to resist to Vancomycin. (I've worked in a lab doing research on bacterial genome).
- There's something really weird that I've heard in some conference : a lab has found that some bacteria species are able to *control* their mutation rate. In case of environmental stress (like new drugs), they increase some proteins that act as mutagens (by recombining gene parts and building new one "lego"-style).

Third way, that you didn't mention : genetic manipulation. No, not man-made mad-scientist style. Mother Nature style. Bacteria, and some specie more than the other, are champion at scavenging gene from different species/dead bacteria, not only exchanging materials within their own specie.
It's kind of bacteria don't only have regular sex, they are also zoophile/necrophile perverts.

Re:Bacterial evolution

[ddimas]

- There's something really weird that I've heard in some conference : a lab has found that some bacteria species are able to *control* their mutation rate. In case of environmental stress (like new drugs), they increase some proteins that act as mutagens (by recombining gene parts and building new one "lego"-style).

It's not just bacteria. All species are capable of increasing their mutation rates when under stress. Something about the genetic repair mechanism (error checking to the computer geeks) becoming less efficient when the organism is stressed for a prolonged period of time. Lots of failures of course (99.9999999% of mutations are NOT helpful), but once in a while something changes in a adaptive fashion. The new organism is now under less stress and the mutation stabilizes. This can take a few hundred generations but you only have to succeed once in a while. Meantime the sports get winnowed out (starvation or predation usually, although I understand a species of bacteria has evolved that eats styrofoam) and the successes get established. Repeat until your genome is reproductvely incompatible with the root stock and voila! New species.

Devoutly ironic

[sjames]

I find it "interesting" that so many supposedly devoutly religious people are so willing to tell any big fat lie it takes to cram their religion down everyone's throat. Surely such a thing cheapens what should be sacred.

Re:Devoutly ironic

[Anthony]

It is quite common it seems. Ian Plimer (a bit rough around the edges) described this behaviour in Telling Lies for God: Reason vs Creationism

Rather sad behaviour really

Prove it.

[PJ Brunet]

"ID requires belief because it is untestable." Prove it.

Re:Prove it.

[|/|/|||]

Ha! You fool. We're not talking about proof, we're talking about science. You want me to modify my model of the universe to include ID? Then show me some evidence. As far as I know right now (no, I can't "prove it" any more than I can "prove" any statement about the universe) ID is untestable. If you think it is testable, then show me how. If you think that my model would be more accurate if it included untestable theories, then tell me why.

Prove it? What the hell are you thinking?

Re:Prove it.

[PJ Brunet]

In this case your model is the universe and though you may find comfort in a negotiable universe, you have no say in the matter. You can observe the model changing right now without your input. Test as you may, for science or for play, the model tests you, and you die too.

Theory of Electo-Magnetism Describes and Predicts

[Anonymous Coward]

You clearly don't understand the difference between the theory of electro-magnetism and the phenomena to which we refer by the terms "electricity" and "magnetism."

The theory attempts to describe the underlying mechanisms and relationships between electricity and magnetism (like the non-obvious fact that they are different phenomena from a common force --- in simple terms that they are "the same thing"). Further the theory describes these in quantifiable terms with predictive value. Thus we can use the theory to predict how much magnetic force can be measured for a given electrical input through a given set of windings, etc.

The theory could be "wrong" in a number of ways (and might need to be refined to account for as yet undiscovered flaws in it's model. This wouldn't mean that "electricity ceased to exist."

So, either you're not very bright (not understanding the distinctions I've made here) or you're wedded to your argument (and thus ignoring those distinctions for the purposes of persisting in the argument).

The libertarian in me is starting to get riled up

[stuce]

It's simple. We're having this problem because the government runs the educational system. You should be free to believe whatever you want and teach your kids whatever you want. So you send your kids to go learn about God and ID and I'll send my kids to go learn science and economics. Then my kid gets to be your kid's boss and lay him off so he can stand in the unemployment line with all those Saudi Princes with Ph.D's in theology. Problem solved.

Didn't the babel fish already settle this?

[dmw]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babelfish

Not to defend ID, but . . .

[j_w_d]

If you dig into the history of it, the "empiricist" approach to reality was an attempt to sort out "nature" from the "irreducible" acts of a deity. This wasn't creationism in the modern sense, but instead an attempt to understand how to sort out the "noise" of nature from the "signal" of a hypothetical creator or designer. Deism would have tended to support such an idea since it doesn't dictate some specific deity as THE deity and doesn't support the idea of any particular creator. Supposing that you could separate out a "signal" there is nothing that would then allow you to state that the signal belongs to Jahweh as opposed to Shiva, or some other creator-type. Supposing that someone actually DID sort out such a signal, the next battle would be between the religionists over whose was the right one - more or less a return to the status quo ante the Enlightenment. The very existence of such as debate is obviously due to poor design, probably one of Slartybartfast's assistants.

Of course success would be dependent upon some natural property that really was "irreducible" and would also necessarily include an explanation of why the crappy "design" of the human foot really was the best of all possible designs. Since nothing in nature so far is "irreducible," and a blind drunk could design a better foot, the whole ID concept already appears to have been falsified. I have seen arguments that certain properties of critters such as rotifers are "irreducible," but the error there is self-evident. If it is composed of chemical compounds, it is not irreducible.

Re:Wrong. Scientific Method cannot be applied to I

[Anonymous Coward]

mosb1000,
A lot of unicellular organisms fit into well defined species, as long as they reproduce sexually (wich is dominant over asexual reproduction). Anyway, the theory of evolution applies to all living organisms. Darwin chose the word "species" but he could have chosen "morphs" as well. Evolution by natural selection applies to any living being, i.e able to reproduce.
The theory of evolution doesn't need a clear definition of "species" for all organisms.
I know what I'm talking about, I'm a (French) PhD student in evolutionnary biology.

Re:The libertarian in me is starting to get riled

[Vaughn Anderson]

I absolutely agree, so you can go to private school and learn about evolution. Where as I'd prefer my kids be taught neither at school.

Poor ID argument

[DrYak]

such as speciation by mutating genes being passed on (which they never are) to subsequent generations.

Are you working in genetics ? Because you don't know something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
- Mutation *CAN* be passed to generation (there's abundant examples. A more simple one is one from of the mutation that can lead to trisomy, but in fact isn't trisomy (3 chromosomes) like the other forms but shuffling parts of the chromosomes (translocation). It is passed to next generation(s).)
- A single mutation doesn't speciate (because to be passed to the next generation, the individual still has to reproduce). But make a little bit more different. Take two groups, set them appart. With time the differences accumulate, and finally after several thousand years the two groups start to really look different. You've ended up with species.

Then, you've got to explain how things like eyes, wings, and lungs "evolve."

Are you working in the field of genetics ? Are you working in a genetics lab ? Comparing genomes of different species ?
Do you have broad knowledge in compared biology ? embryology ?
If you said "no" to one of the above question, maybe you don't know all the facts. You miss some information.

That's what's the most risible with ID's notion of "irreductible complexity".
The whole notion of "that looks very hard to understand for *me*. therefor it must be highly complex. so only god^H^H^H a supreme being could be the architect of such complexity".
If you cannot understand something it doesn't mean you should not try te break it into smaller units, try to understand how they work, how they play together.
"irreductible complexity" is a king of "it's to hard for me, i'm giving up" policy, except that the cowards that encourage it are trying to push it as science into the class room.
"irreductible complexity" is an interesting philosphical topic. But it should stay there, in philosophy.
Biology is about science and scientific process, "giving up because it looks too complex" isn't part of that process.

Genome of creatures are analized and compared. Genomes of known simians and humans has been analyzed, links between some species have been made, lists of gene that make up the diffrence are partly known. For some trait, we can have a rough approximation of the list gene that must mutate to obtain trait in specie B starting with trait in specie A.

Some of the evolutionnary theories that are used to explain the evolution facts, have been re-inforced by new archeological finding. Every now and then, you read in the press about some "Missing evolutionnary link" that was discovered. Although the press article are sensasionalist and over simplified, they do illustrate something : The current evolutionnary theory are ratter good because new findings are concordant with what was "predicted" (or maybe should I say : what the theory predicted we should find in our past, but didn't know yet at the time these predictions were made).
Even if some subtleties are refined (and even less subtle like the question if dinosaurs were more close to birds and had already hot blood) it is a very good model (theory) that supports and explains a lot of known data (facts). But subtelties in a complex model doesn't equals to flawed model that must be ditched. See Intelligent falling.

On the other hand, ID's irreductible complexity looks coherent only to people who have poor scientific knowledge and don't know the latest findings. ...soon ID proponent will tell that the Internet was intelligently designed by some supreme being, because it is too much complexe to have emerged by mere cooperation of individual scientist. Why not ? After all, the kind of gullible who fall for ID have no more knowledge in electronics, engeneering and computer sciences than in biosciences. And Internet is a wonderful sample of irreduct

Re:Poor ID argument

[Cre8ed]

Mutations do not produce any benefical results to genetic material, they only take away. How could billions of mutations over billions of years, make a man???? --Consider the protien hemoglobin-- Given the following formula for linear arrangements -- The formula for n things, p being a like of one kind, q alike of another kind, and r alike of another kind, etc., then the total number of ways in which all the n things can be arranged so that no arrangement is repeated is N = n!/(p! x q! x r!...), where "!" indicates a factorial. The chance of hemoglobin existing exactly as it is is 1 in 10^650. That probability would be considered absurb (Absurd" has a mathematical definition in physics: any probability less than 1 in 10^50 is, by definition, absurd). This number would be a good approximation of something which has absolutely _NO_ chance of existing by chance. In fact the _flawed_ estimation of the age of the universe of 10^67 seconds, is even at odds with the possibity of evolution is this case because, it would mean how many mutations per second for the life of the universe for such and arrangement of amino acids to take place (and that is given the protiens themselves existed in the first place). Not matter which way you want to twist it, the facts all point to one simple answer. We are fearfully and wonderfully made by a masterfull creator who exists beyond space and time.

Re:Poor ID argument

[Conspiracy_Of_Doves]

Shuffle a deck of cards and spread them out. The odds of the cards coming up in that particular order are around 8x10^67. You talk as if evolution was trying to hit a dartboard with humans in the center. Anything could have evolved and they are all equally improbable. Evolution doesn't care what evolves. All evolution does is filter out harmful mutations.

By the way, you are wrong about all mutations being harmful. The vast majority of mutations are neutral, neither harmful nor helpful. Second to that are harmful mutations, and the least common are helpful. Whether a mutation is harmful or helpful largly depends on its environment. A mutation that gives an animal thick layers of fat would be helpful in an artic environment, but harmful in a desert or somewhere where it has to run quickly to escape predators.

Re:Poor ID argument

[Anonymous Coward]

"If you cannot understand something it doesn't mean you should not try te break it into smaller units, try to understand how they work, how they play together."

This whole idea of breaking things into the tiniest bits to observe it stems from the Modern era. The idea that if we can just break things down enough to get a completely objective view of the idea/thing in question will give us the right answer is a common misconception. The fact remains that we can't break things out to look at them completely objectively, even if you are looking at straight facts and data about how organisms develop two people will look at it differently. Thus there is no perfectly objective view that will give you the answer based on science, because it is all how we as people percieve these things.
But like was mentioned above, do we have an example of 1 species turning into another, just like we see the effects of gravity so apparent everywhere? Can we explain what light is? these are questions that science deals with, and while we may not be able to answer them, skipping from the theory stage straight to the fact stage is hazardous in any environment. Which is why I believe that evolution is no less a religion than buddhism, judaism, christianity, or paganism etc..

Stratigraphy is not the only means of dating.

[jotaeleemeese]

You have medium life of radioactive materials, mitocondrial DNA measurments and others.

For bunnies sakes, that debate is over.

Why would someone want to teach ID?

[Anonymous Coward]

We should ask this question: Why would someone want to teach kids ID? What is there to gain for an ID proponent?

It's simple really. ID proponents are also just trying to propagate their own genes through natural selection. One way to get a leg up on the competition is to ensure that your kids are more fit to survive in society that other people's kids.

ID is a great tool for this. Get the system changed to include ID, and you might influence other people's kids to stop questioning the system. "Just accept what you're told on faith." In the mean time, ID proponents will teach evolution to their own kids. After all, people who learn to become critical thinkers are more likely to become successful in today's knowledge-based society. Better to only keep the critical thinking for your own kids, and trick everyone else's kids to become dumb order-taking slave workers.

It's a brilliant plan, really.

PaRENt Up Plz!!111! One one one MOD up PLZ UP !!

[Anonymous Coward]

This thread stinks...
 
...Like the French

We have observed speciation.

[jotaeleemeese]

Call Fido.

Its ancestors used to be wolfs.

My thoughts

[leabre]

This is actually a reply to a more specific thread on this topic, but I'm pasting it here because I think it worth the say to a more general audience.... the thread in question is:

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=171719&thresho ld=-1&commentsort=1&tid=99&mode=thread&cid=1430287 9

---------------

You're very assertive, but did you witness it first-hand? For that matter, did I witness our creation first-hand? The answer to both questions is "no". Both require a fair amount of faith to believe in.

There's a Star Trek: Voyager episode, "Living Witness" (http://www.st-hypertext.com/voy-4/witness.html) that actually provides some though provoking parallels (well, close enough to make my point). Basically, 700 years in the future, a civilization has used fossil records and debree as a means of determining a doctrine that the Voyager crew was hostile. Their purpose for doing so was revisionist, unlike the root of this conversation. They would look at fossil records and theorize certain things and many of the details were in fact, innaccurate. Well worth the watch.

It very much applies to this conversation. We are looking at fossil records and postulating, but who knows whether we're interpreting the data incorrectly. Just recently Slashdot had a story about how some feathered dinosaurs were found fossilized, when the creature in question was previously thought more reptilian than feathered (assuming the discovery was true).

Now, I've said this before, I'll say it again: I don't know whether I believe in ID so-called, as I've never taken the time to understand it, and every reference I hear to it seems to indicate it is a bit different than Creationism. I do believe in Creationism. I do not believe Creationism is incompatible with evolotion (in general) but more specifically, I think our thoeries of evolution are incorrect and thus far, inconclusive. To the extend I think they are compatible, is the extent that I believe a species will adapt to their environment and certain conditions can cause changes, such as people growing taller or whatever. Is that species evolving into another that one day will not become compatible with humans? As far as I'm aware, all humans are compatible with each other respective to the ability to procreate, dispite any other localized differences.

We can live near a nuclear powerplant and become "changed" as well as our offspring, which can possibly become incompatible with both society and procreation with other non-changed humans, is that evolution in action? Is genetically modifying genes and other things, such as foods that we eat, that might cause unpredictable things to happen to us, also evolution in action?

The simple fact is, we don't know for sure that one creature became another. All we're doing is looking at fossils and DNA and thoerizing (is that a word?), similar to the main characteristic of the Voyager episode cited above. With the same conviction that you believe in evolution, so do I believe in Creationism. I've been told more than once that anyone with a brain can see right past the religious dogma and see the "truth". I do have a brain, I have looked at some of the details, and am not completely convinced of the current form of the thoery of evolution. It is not a life endeavor of mine to spend all my time seeking the "truth" anyway, much as it is not a life endeavor of mine to better understand quantum physics. So I make best with what I can, as do you I'm sure.

In any case, I choose to believe in Creationism for many other reasons than I can list here, but I hope I can effectively communicate that I'm not mindless or uneducated and have a fairly open mind. Open mind, not to be confused with easily persuaded or mindless (sometimes when people te

Re:My thoughts

[Todd Knarr]

The simple fact is, we don't know for sure that one creature became another.

This would be just plain wrong. We have seen creatures in the laboratory change into different species. It's easiest to see with microbes and certain insects because their lifespans are short enough we can feasibly observe hundreds or thousands of generations, but there's no fundamental reason anyone can explicate why the same thing shouldn't happen to larger creatures. So, do I assume that what I see happening has happened before, or do I assume that for some reason the rules changed somewhere in the past to go from prohibiting what I see now to allowing it? Simplicity says assume that the rules didn't suddenly and drastically change unless and until someone presents some sort of evidence to suggest such a change (surely something drastic enough to alter the way DNA itself works should leave some signs somewhere).

Re:My thoughts

[ID indeed]

Sorry, but that's just wrong. See, we have completely demonstrated that life on this planet has evolved from simpler ancestors. There is no question about it.

If one wants to come up with a new theory, they have to explain why all living (or at least sequencable) things on this planet are very nearly the same (except for a few minor variations -- like, for example, monkies have yet to build a global civilization). Of course, modern biology (and evolutionary theory) proffers a damn good explanation.

Then, you have to explain why morpohological features from the fossil record clearly demonstrate derivative (descent) from precursors morphologies.

Our common ancestor was likely a homo sapien in Europe, but if not that, we almost certainly have relations in hominid species in Africa. There is no doubt that we shared a common early mammal "mother", and we all ought to get used to the idea that we came from a basic set of Cambrian worms. Gross, sure, but that doesn't make for an intellectually compelling counter-argument.

There is no faith here. There is a huge pile of unavoidable evidence. Maybe, somehow, beyond our ability to ever recognize, some god was pulling the strings, but it doesn't really matter. Whatever it was that that this presumptive god did, it has left us with the mere ability of perception and manipulation of a natural world. We can prod it; we can make life-saving drugs with it.

I hope you are one of those theistic evolutionists. I'm not totally sure how one can rationalize the physical world and their faith otherwise, but you certainly wouldn't be the first to try. And, to be fair, I've seen some very intelligent people self-destruct due to "literal" interpretations of homilies, regardless of their "religion".

You are a good kid, but trust me, there isn't anything broadly "unsolved" on this topic. We have its number, and it would be best if religiously minded folks got past this and started prepping for rather complete theories regarding the "origin of life" and the "nature of intelligence, self-awareness, and conciousness".

Re:My thoughts

[leabre]

For every proof that this happens, there's also research that discounts it. The fact is, the we can't even agree on what our research suggests. In any case, you certainly are convinced its a fact. I've already admitted I believe in specie adaptation. But I just don't think the evidence is solid enough for me to believe that we came from an ape or a worm. Again, that's where I refer to fossil records. They are only partial story and not a full record of lineage.

A mosquito living near a nuclear powerplant or chemical factory might grow a 6th pair of wings and 2 additional legs and another eye. We might even classify it as another creature. But is that natural selection or naturally occuring evolution? Is genetically tampering humans and other creatures to create something that wasn't naturally selected or conceived also evolution? Is eating genetically modified foods constantly, then causing unknown and unforeseen changes in some creature natural selection and evolution in action or just tampering with them?

We could feed the gnat or fruitfly over thousands of generations what we think they eat, but then what we provide them to eat may not be cultivated correctly, as it would naturally, or if it is, what that eats may not even be cultivated correctly, and so it may not truly be simulating their natural habitat. I remember seeing a sci-fi show where there were humans in an exhibit in a zoo, the sign for the aliens to read stated that the human spends 40% of their time in this room, which was a sorry excuse for a living room with a television set that didn't work. The humans were miserable. The point is that anytime we try to simulate a habitat or something like that, we fail miserably.

I heard a story from my math teacher once. I researcher conducting an experiment puts a frog on the table, draws a line and shouts "JUMP" and measures how far the frog jumped. Puts the frog back, cuts of an arm, shouts "JUMP", it jumps a little less distance, he takes notes, puts the frog back. He cuts of the other arm, shouts "JUMP", it jumps a little less distance, he takes notes, and puts the frog back. He cuts of a leg, shouts "JUMP", it jumps a little less distance, he takes notes, puts it back. He cuts of the last leg, shouts "JUMP", it doesn't move, so he concludes the frog must be deaf because it didn't respond.

The point is that we can be misinterpreting the data and drawing false conclusions. Many people who support the theory of evolution are not open to the idea that they may be wrong. Even as a Creationist, I'm certainly open to the idea that I may be wrong, but evolution hasn't yet been proven to be conclusive. In our lifetime, it may not be. In 500 years, perhaps we'll have a clearer picture and more time to observe naturally occurring phonomena.

In any case, I'm even willing to accept that our Creator provided us with the ability to adapt and change perhaps, "perhaps", speciate. Even so, whatever speciates is still what its ancestor was. I worm wouldn't become a fish or a human or an ape to a human. We might be very similar but that doesn't mean we weren't created similar to begine with.

But I don't doubt everything, as someone recently called me a "epistemelogical nihilist". I just don't think there's enough evidence to support evolution any more than I think there's enough evidence to support that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction before his capture.

Thanks,
Leabre

Re:My thoughts

[Todd Knarr]

Problem is, you're looking at half the theory and ignoring the other half, then complaining that what you look at only provides half the explanation. Take that mutant mosquito, for example. That's an example of the first half of evolution: genetic variation. You exclude the second half, natural selection. What the theory of evolution says is that if you take those mosquitos near the nucler power plant and let them go for a long time (measured in hundreds to thousands of generations) you'll see some of those mutations turn out to provide a survival advantage in that environment (say, a resistance to the harmful effects of ionizing radiation), and after long enough you'll find that those traits have spread to the entire population in the area and that those mosquitos no longer interbreed with the mosquitos they came from (either they simply won't mate, or they're genetically different enough that matings won't successfully produce offspring).

And as I said, we've observed this kind of change happen. There's researchers who've claimed to see it not happen, but that's entirely possible. That still leaves all the times it has happened. A better theory is going to have to explain why we see evolution happen, or it's going to have to explain why all those observations of evolution happening are mistaken. ID does neither. And by the time you've got done adding enough bits of evolution and biogenesis to ID to cover all the things we've actually observed, you end up with either a Designer who didn't do anything that wouldn't have happened anyway without him or a Designer who's deliberately emulating evolution so precisely that the results are indistinguishable. This is what causes ID to be untestable: the Designer introduced must insure at all times that there's no way to test for his presence, because if he doesn't then the theory would predict an outcome at odds with observed reality.

As a deist...

[Chmcginn]

Your analogies seem to suggest that the world is a bit of entertainment that God created to while away a lazy eternity.

Your mocking of my personal belief system can only end in jihad, unbeliever!

Damnit, I think I'm confusing my fundamentalists again...

The gods must be crazy

[HermanAB]

Imagine, this verdict from a country with a gigantic statue of a goddess in a majour harbour... ;-)

nothing is falsifiable

[r00t]

All of these ideas crash and burn upon encountering Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem.

You don't get anywhere without some basic assumptions that you just have to take on faith.

Re:nothing is falsifiable

[GlamdringLFO]

That's the point I was trying to make. Since no matter what theory one holds, it must be taken on faith, then what difference does it make which theory is taught?

I wish you were right.

[r00t]

Sadly, many organisms have mutated to have resistance to antibiotics and pesticides.
(this is beneficial to them, not us)

Atheism is a religion

[mferrare]

"If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby."

Not so fast Yewbert...

I think it would not be unfair to say atheism can be as much of a belief system as any faith is. This compares to not collecting stamps which is simply nothing.

Atheism is not necesarily that you don't believe God exists. It's more that you believe that God doesn't exist.

And once you're at that point, you, just like people of other faiths, want to let others know of your own belief system in the hope they will benefit from it. So atheists will also preach their beliefs (just as people of other faiths do) maybe with the hope of converting those who are not (yet) atheists. An example of this would be the practice of removing reference to religous influence from theirs and others' lives eg: No prayers in schools, no ten commandments statues, calling the Christmas break 'The Holidays' etc etc.

Some atheists also tend to 'crusade' against 'organised religion' (the reference to organised crime is not accidental) and also push a morally relativistic point of view which attempts to remove the authority of God.

My point is this. All of this stuff above is more than 'not collecting stamps'. Atheism is as an active a faith as Catholicism or Islam or Judaism is.

The formula STILL works!

[Anonymous Coward]

Okay, let's check the formula.

1. Do a Google search faster than anyone else ... Check
   
2. Stress that there is the always-more-informative article somewhere else ... Check
   
3. Quote the obviously-not-as-informative article ... Check
   
4. Make a pathetic and inane comment after the quote to trick people into thinking that TMM is so-o-o-o insightful ... Check
   
5. Add the anime smile that appears to be pissing a lot of people off ... Whoops. Forgot that.
   
6. Get that first post in order to satisfy the pathetic ego ... Damn. Missed it. TMM's probably crying in the bathroom now.
   
7. ???
   
8. KARMA!!! ... Check
   
9. Wait for the annoying AC to come in and prove that TMM is karma whoring YET AGAIN ... Check
   
10. Wait for TMM to ignore the AC because TMM thinks he's a fu*king god in his own mind ... Check

Yep. The TripMaster Monkey Karma Whoring Method still works! Gotta love it! The proven method for Slashdot karma whores everywhere!!

Re:The formula STILL works!

[TripMaster Monkey]

I know I shouldn't feed the troll, but he's just so cute! ^_^

Let's address these points one at a time, shall we?

Do a Google search faster than anyone else ... Check
Actually, the reason I had so much info on this particular subject was because I myself submitted this story...only to be rejected because I was too late. Other people actually appreciate the additional information I frequently bring to discussions...as you would if you were actually interested in participating in the discusion.

Stress that there is the always-more-informative article somewhere else ... Check
Some dilligent digging can usually (but not always) turn up some good additional information on a subject. It stimulates healthier discussion, but we've already established you're not interested in that sort of thing.

Quote the obviously-not-as-informative article ... Check
I call bullshit. If you want to accuse me of bringing references to the discussion that do not increase substantially the amount of information available, be so kind as to provide examples. Until then, keep your groundless accusations to yourself. Kthanx.

Make a pathetic and inane comment after the quote to trick people into thinking that TMM is so-o-o-o insightful ... Check
Here's one that never fails to amuse me...apparently, you feel that you and I are the only participants here who aren't sheep. Every time you bitch about me 'tricking people into thinking I'm insightful' you manage to insult the entire Slashdot readership. And you wonder why you're regarded as a 'troll'...

Add the anime smile that appears to be pissing a lot of people off ... Whoops. Forgot that.
Or perhaps the anime smile that appears to be pissing off one person multiple times...of course, we'll never know, since you insist on hiding under the AC blankie.

Get that first post in order to satisfy the pathetic ego ... Damn. Missed it. TMM's probably crying in the bathroom now.
It's true that I get my share of first posts....it's also true that I use them to discuss the topic at hand, instead of bleating 'frist psot!'. Sorry I ruined your hobby...

KARMA!!! ... Check
My karma has been maxed out for longer than I can remember. If this was about karma, I would have quit out of boredom long ago. What this is about is discussing issues in a forum of like-minded individuals, but it seems you can't get past the 'frist psot' and 'karma whore' slashdot-is-a-big-game mentality long enough to see that.

Wait for the annoying AC to come in and prove that TMM is karma whoring YET AGAIN ... Check
The only thing you've managed to 'prove' is that you are indeed annoying...but that should be some comfort to you.

Wait for TMM to ignore the AC because TMM thinks he's a fu*king god in his own mind ... Check
This one's cute. According to your fourth-grader logic, if I decline to answer, you're right and I'm a chicken shit, but if I do answer, you've successfully 'goaded' me into responding, and will crow 'YHBT YHL HAND'. Damned if I do, and damned if I don't. You're a evil mastermind. A regular Moriarty. Are you feeling better about yourself yet?

Yep, the Bitching and Moaning about TripMaster Monkey Trolling Method still works! The proven method for Slashdot trolls everywhere! ^_^

(BTW, I included two anime smilies in this post, so you could get twice as indignant. I like helping people.)

Teaching how to think is more important

[jesterzog]

It is perfectly correct to teach the fact of evolution, for it is a fact. It is an observed phenomenon, or fact, if you like. The Theory of Evolution is the theoretical construct explaining how evolution operates, the mechanism involved and the consequences of these mechanisms.

No argument there, although personally I'd prefer that the focus was on teaching how to recognise evolution as a scientific theory rather than simply throwing established facts at students.

If students are simply taught evolution because we know it's right without clearly demonstrating why it's more right than the next "fact" that someone on the street (or in the media), tells them, I'm not sure it really teaches them much at all. It certainly shouldn't be surprising if they come out of the education system completely missing the point.

Difference between truth and fact

[Analogy Man]

One needs to take care with the distinction between truth and fact. I am of the opinion that ID is both bad (non) science AND bad theology. What I appreciate of the judges decision is took the time to articulate the definition of the scientific endeavor. While dismissing ID for what it was he didn't over-reach with a God is dead Agnostic/Athiest position either.

When it comes to religion their can be truth without fact. Take for instance the story of the prodigal son. Was there really such a family Christ was referencing?...probably not. Is there "truth" about the human condition?...certainly!

Religion and science strive for the same goal

[squirrl811]

Religion, like science, is a search for truth. Belief or denial of the truth does not change the reality one bit. Believing God exists does not make that existance true, just as denying God exists does not make that same existance false. There can be only one truth.

So we all have our own "beliefs" that we have come to for various reasons. I say "beliefs" as no science or religion can be proved 100% true. In the end, every one of us makes a decision based on our observations. Scientific observation is certaintly a good one, as it is reproducable. But that should not and does not negate personal observations and experiences that may lead to more religious beliefs.

My take on things is that a healthy mind will evaluate (and constantly re-evaluate) observations of all types to form and refine their "beliefs." In the end, there is still only one truth. I intend to keep my mind open and continue to observe and evaluate. Also, I intend to pass those experiences on to my children to help them get ahead in finding the truth. It would be horridly irreponsible of me not to! Quite possibly they will form their beliefs similar to my own, having the same information. But perhaps they will see it differently than I do, or have experiences and make observations that will help me build on my own beliefs to come closer to the truth.

Again, this is just my personal opinion, but the state of science and religion (at least as the general public takes part in them) is terrible. People follow ideas and conclusions like sheep, with no conscious thought, evaluation, or observation of their own. People accept the most popular scientific ideas as they appear fashionable. People herd into churches because they were told it would make them "good people." But they don't listen and experience and decide what they believe on their own.

So may people are just lost. They don't believe in anything, scientific or religious. Of course, they think they do have beliefs! But being part of the crowd without conscious thought has little meaning. Believing a scientific theory without thinking what it means and if it makes sense is worthless. Believing in a religion because your parents told you to means nothing if you don't come to the belief while using your eyes, ears, and mind at the same time.

So to end my little speech, it seems to be poor parenting to not pass on experiences and observations to your children. This should include reproducable science as well as personal experiences and ideas. Let your children soak it in, explore it all, and when they have lived a little more of life for themselves they may surprise you with a better handle on what the final truth's of existance are than you had ever considered!

Re:Religion and science strive for the same goal

[m50d]

Religion, like science, is a search for truth.

No. If religions were truly searching for truth they would question the existence of their gods. What distinguishes science from superstition is the desire to find out the truth whatever it may be.

So we all have our own "beliefs" that we have come to for various reasons. I say "beliefs" as no science or religion can be proved 100% true. In the end, every one of us makes a decision based on our observations. Scientific observation is certaintly a good one, as it is reproducable. But that should not and does not negate personal observations and experiences that may lead to more religious beliefs.

But religious believers don't on the whole base their beliefs on observation, just on what they are told by authorities.

So to end my little speech, it seems to be poor parenting to not pass on experiences and observations to your children. This should include reproducable science as well as personal experiences and ideas.

Pass on the experiences, sure. But let them draw their own conclusions.

Re:Religion and science strive for the same goal

[squirrl811]

In a way I agree with you. If you snip out another part of my previous comment...

"So may people are just lost. They don't believe in anything, scientific or religious. Of course, they think they do have beliefs! But being part of the crowd without conscious thought has little meaning. Believing a scientific theory without thinking what it means and if it makes sense is worthless. Believing in a religion because your parents told you to means nothing if you don't come to the belief while using your eyes, ears, and mind at the same time."

You will see I am saying (or trying to say) about the same thing as you have. People need to draw their own conclusions. If a person believes what they do based soley on what an authority says (scientific, religious, or otherwise) then their belief doesn't really mean much.

Where I differ from what you said is that some observations can lead to "religious" viewpoints. As long as those views are still based on thought rather than what a person is fed by authorities, I don't see how a religious stance is any less significant than a scientific one. Both are from observation, and both are subject to further revision should observation and experience warrant it.

As long as a person continues to strive for the truth, I don't see how they can go wrong. If it turns out that religion is superstition as you suggest, then a person who constantly re-evaluates their beliefs should eventually come to the same conclusion. If religion has something to it in truth, then this person should realize this as well. It's all about drawing your own conclusions from the information you have gathered.

Re:Religion and science strive for the same goal

[m50d]

We seem more or less agreed. But if you feel people should come to religion through their own observations, then surely that means it is better for parents to leave their children to do that for themselves?

Re:How I Learned to Stop Whining and Love Evolutio

[Coniptor]

I vote damned smart! Goes with the teritory.
You know. Omnipotent, Omnipowerfull, & Omnipresent.
God could have created everything from evolution.
As to your comment on a preceived hidden agenda I would say.
Not all who push evolution have an agenda to say God does not exist but many DO!
For those that do. I have nothing to say at this time in jest.
I have only this to say. He does exist. Those that don't accept his Son are doomed to burn in a lake of fire. For all this shit the likes of you give the likes of me. I and I'm sure many others are just going to LOVE the vindication. Nuff said.
Replies WILL be ignored.

Entropy?

[Anonymous Coward]

"react, adapt, adjust and change"

According to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, they do no such thing.

Re:Wrong. Scientific Method cannot be applied to I

[mosb1000]

"The theory of evolution doesn't need a clear definition of "species" for all organisms."

That's bullshit. The existence of species is an underlying tenant of evolution, since evolution describes how species adapt and change over time. If the word species is not well defined and meaningful, the theory of evolution can not be either.

"as they reproduce sexually (wich is dominant over asexual reproduction)"

Sexual interaction is not a prerequisite for reproduction in single celled organisms, so I don't understand your claim that it is the dominant form of reproduction (since is isn't really a form of reproduction in single celled organisms at all). Even if it were, many single celled organisms can exchange genetic information with organisms which are clearly morphologically, and genetically distinct from themselves. Multicellular organisms can interact sexually only with members of their own species.

"I know what I'm talking about, I'm a (French) PhD student in evolutionnary biology."

I don't buy authority arguments. I won't accept things unless they make sense to me, regardless of the source.

Halting problem solved

[The Famous Brett Wat]

The answer to "will this program ever halt?" is always "yes" for any real program.

Naturally, you weren't talking about real programs that actually execute (and are thus capable of halting in a literal sense), but rather the abstract concept of "program" and halting-in-theory. That being so, the available range of answers you've offered ("yes" and "no") is insufficient. It's not a case of not knowing the answer -- it's a case of knowing that neither "yes" nor "no" are correct in certain cases.

Not everyone is going to agree with my conclusion here, because not everyone is willing to consider a logical calculus that deviates from the pure yes/no true/false of classical logic. To those that are so constrained I ask, what is the basis for your dogmatism? Anyone sufficiently well-versed in logic should know that classical logic can't prove its own correctness, so why insist on it?

Re:Halting problem solved

[TrumpetPower!]

The Famous Brett Wat wrote:

The answer to "will this program ever halt?" is always "yes" for any real program.

Huh? What the fuck are you smoking, and can I have some?

I mean, like, the first program most of us ever wrote is an example of one that, ported to a Turing machine, would never halt.

10 PRINT "HELLO"
20 GOTO 10

Anyone sufficiently well-versed in logic should know that classical logic can't prove its own correctness, so why insist on it?

Erm...like I said, just what the fuck are you smoking? The incorrect implications of your overly-broad statement aside, we've been discussing absolute limits that even a supposedly omnipotent being wouldn't be able to overcome. And, by way of suggesting that such limits don't apply...you cite exactly such a limit.

Whatever.

Cheers,

b&

common in america

[wagthesam]

My opinion is that this is one of the hundreds of examples where many Americans (I am not generalizing) try and force their idea onto others. Its happened since America's founding, in the example of manifest destiny and in the current century in Iraq where America is forcing "democracy" on a foreign nation. Continue spreading the idea of intelligent design to others who wish to know about it. For the rest of us, leave it alone. Don't force a religious idea into a science classroom and call it an alternative view to evolution.

Re:common in america

[superchkn]

I think that is a bit forgetful, we're not the only people that try and force our views upon others.

I think many people (I am not generalizing) try and force their beliefs onto others. It's happened since the world's founding, in the example of religion and in the current century in the world where the worlds leaders are forcing their policies on others. Continue spreading the idea of intelligent design to others who wish to know about it. For the rest of us, leave it alone. Don't force a religious idea into a science classroom and call it an alternative view to evolution.

Really, that was a waste of time, but anyway... People are always eager to have others share their view. I don't know the reason but maybe it affirms their beliefs and makes them feel better about themselves and their decisions. I guess it's nice to be in the majority so people are always trying to introduce new members into their way of thinking, or associate with like-minded individuals. I don't think most people would agree that it might be possible that their way of life isn't the right, or best. I think most would probably be defensive and then try to convince you that, indeed, it is. I guess it's just human nature, but luckily we have laws to limit just what people/organizations/republics can do before those actions are considered illegal. Not that it always works, but that's the intention.

So, with all that in mind: in theory, democracy looks pretty good even though as far as the US federal government goes I think we can all agree that it's devolved into a elitist representation. Still, as far as the long-term welfare of the people go, I can't really see any alternative. It's possible I haven't looked hard enough or researched enough, it's hardly an interest or specialty of mine. But, having grown up in the US, I can't really say how I'd feel about any other form of government but I'm pretty sure I wouldn't want to live under Sadaam Hussein, even there's probably a more devious reason for his removal from power. We can't really leave though, because due to the lack of infrastructure and government, it would probably disintegrate into something worse than the previous dictatorship.

But hey, yeah I agree, a religious theory has no place in a US classroom. American's should realize that being in the majority, doesn't mean that things are always going to go your way, which was a large part of the basis on which this country was built. Someday, somewhere, everyone is probably going to be part of a minority and just as you expect to be respected by the majority, you should respect the minority when you are in the majority....and that's basically what this fight is about: changing things to suit the majority even though we've agreed not to do so (well, I guess we're all born into it now, though we could conceivably alter the constitution if the majority really felt so strongly).

ID potentially testable

[Tablizer]

ID requires belief because it is untestable.

Not necessarily true. If we found intelligent patterns encoded in DNA, such as Pi to a billion places or 3D images of geometric shapes, that would tend to true-ify it.

The very idea of whether there is or isn't a creator is completely out of bounds. It would be like proposing that there's an invisible elephant in another, completely inaccessible dimension.

ID does not require a supernatural creator. Us humans may create life ourselves one day. That would not make us supernatural.

Re:ID potentially testable

[|/|/|||]

ID does not require a supernatural creator. Us humans may create life ourselves one day. That would not make us supernatural.

A creator that is a part of our physical universe could certainly be described by a scientific theory -- if you had some evidence to start from. The existence of unexplained complexity (not that we have found any examples) does not constitute evidence. You could make up an infinite number of untestable explanations that have no evidence, but they're all worthless until you can somehow filter them. How do you weigh the relative validity of ID when there are no proposed tests to see if it holds up under scrutiny?

Re:Wrong. Scientific Method cannot be applied to I

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

> Nothing in ID can be subject to testing by the scientific method

Not true. ID proposes that the design is purposeful.

Yet consider the tailbone. Presumably it has a purpose. Yet if so, why construct it of a bunch of fused, degenerate vertebra instead of making it a single, solid bone process?

Evolution explains it without breaking a sweat. It's merely the remnants of a tail that's largely evolved away.

ID, not so.

And what about the even more embarassing fact of genes that are not expressed because of evolution, but still partially exist, and are expressed occasionally, such as actual tails on humans, or occasional legs on whales or snakes?

Evolution explains that quite well: When evolution favors getting rid of a useless body part, it's faster to disable or block genes that construct that part than it is to somehow grind out of existence a whole chunk of DNA.

ID cannot explain it as there is no need for these useless genes to be there if they are not supposed to be expressed as part of design.

And now, the sadly not-a-punchline.

Wait for it....

No, the devil did not create the mutations that make a whale or snake have a leg.

Re:Wrong. Scientific Method cannot be applied to I

[mosb1000]

"ID is religious argument, not a scientific one."

What is the difference between a religious argument and a scientific one?

"It fails to pass a number of basic threshold scientific tests, such as the principle of parsimony."

The term simple is hard to define, and largely subjective. The principle of parsimony is just a scientific sounding way of saying that what seems like the simpler answer, probably is. Obviously, some people will feel that ID is the simpler answer, while others will not.

ID needs a place in the science cirriculum

[123beer]

This debate has put the general public's ignorance of the scientific method on display. It shows that, at the highschool level, there is a need for a general "introduction to science" requirement. ID would fit perfectly into the section on the differences between pseudo sciences and real science. This would serve our students far better than sort of sweeping it under the rug in biology class, and equip the next generation of decision makers to quickly recognize future attacks on science.

The real problem now is that ID proponents can spew "scientific" sounding ridiculousness and the majority of people do not immediately recognize it as such. All it takes is the most basic understanding of the scientific method.

Atheism might not be what you think

[Shade Everdark]

Actually, atheism is not necessarily a worldview. It is generally recognized ( http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html#at heisms/ ) as being divided into two camps: those of the strong atheists, who choose to believe that deities do not exist, which is in inded a worldview, and those fo the weak atheists, who simply choose not to believe in any deity, which is really a choice to not have a religious worldview.

Re:Atheism might not be what you think

[NetMunkee]

From that webpage:

For example, many people use agnosticism to mean what is referred to here as "weak atheism", and use the word "atheism" only when referring to "strong atheism".

I suppose you could apply that to me, heh. So yes, when I used the term "atheist" I was referring to "strong atheist" as it seems that is the proper way to specify those that hold to a materialistic worldview (which is the worldview that seems to be assumed in Darwinian Evolution). Thanks for the clarification :)

Ha ha ha!

[yndrd1984]

Mod that +1 Funny!

Oh, wait, he was serious. Make that +1 Scary.

Mutation control.

[DrYak]

Interesting (and of course, obviously logical given evolutionnary advantages) : do you have references on such studies performed on multi-cellular animals ?

The only example I know of was the bacteria I mentionned.
Also, in contrary of your exemple, the bacteria used recombinase to increase mutation rate. (For the non-bio-geeks out there : works by shuffling functionnal units, instead of randomly damaging DNA. This is a mutation method that has a better meaningful/buggy result ratio. For example: Same technique is used in our body to produce new antibodies)
I definitly should try to find again the paper.

Re:Mutation control.

[ddimas]

I saw it in a paper about 10 years ago. I wouldn't have a clue as to where to find it now. (Literature search time, sigh).

L@@K: Mawd Pear-ent Up or EL5E!1!!1 =====------

[Anonymous Coward]

if you do not mod the parent up, you are a gay mod. same goes for he Who has no M.O.D-points

Well.... lessee....

[SvnLyrBrto]

.... "when you get right down to it", if the human body *is* designed, it most definitely was NOT *intelliently* designed. I could could toss a list longer than your arm of design flaws that *I* would correct, if I were the one given the job of designing "Human Body" version 2.0.

cya,
john

this is amazing

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't usually read past the default threshold here. Usually I don't have a reason. But a quick check of the first page (there's two pages, also rare) shows almost no posts under 5. And they all agree. And there isn't much new to explain in any of them.

We cannot accept what we observe as fact, because we don't even know how we observe what happens. We do not know how consciousness works.

Re:this is amazing

[Anonymous Coward]

And I don't know that if I stop working, stop eating, and finally stop "living" that I won't just wake up in some other life. Yet I'm going to keep on working, keep on living, and keep on trying to better myself and my situation regardless.

Just because we don't fully understand things is no reason for us to stop trying to find explanations.

I mean, you certainly can, but I think I'll fully exploit (as in live my full lifetime) my time in this state of existence.

I could decide to do nothing, or I could decide to do terrible things believing all that exists is simply my personal invention and that it really doesn't matter. However, the possibility that my perception is reality precludes me from acting out either of those scenarios. We could go on pretending that we're talking about deep, meaningful things, but I'm pretty sure everyone that's interested in this sort of thing has already thought all of this, which means we'd just end up doing what you suggested in the first place which is really nothing at all.

Re:this is amazing

[ID indeed]

We do not know how consciousness works. We do, however, have a number of excellent theories on how it works. Many of them even survive scientific prediction/experimentation. Something, by the way, the ID camp has yet to do in its multiple millenia of existence. Anyway, and I mean no personal offense, but I hope you are old and will die soon, as I don't think you'll be able to handle the "breakthroughs" of science in the coming few decades. Hell, you can't even wrap your head around a simple-minded, century old idea. You all are still routinely blowing religious gaskets about something far settled and done. Imagine what would happen if your precious "unsolvable" frontiers got farmed. Madness! What would you say to the computer that first has an existential crisis? I'm gonna say the same thing my PI did: what is your meaning in life? It's to write this damn paper; shut up and get back to lab. If you are not old, well, shut up and get used to your base-less presumptions being blown out of the water on a routine basis. The rest of us have things to do.

that's not skepticism -- that's nihilism

[misanthrope101]

By your logic, all murderers should be released, because we don't know for sure that they did it--we weren't there, after all. Science does not purport to teach final, ultimate answers. It just tries to find the best theory to fit the facts. No field of knowledge at all meets the standard of certitude and proof you are demanding--we don't really know anything with absolute assurance. By your logic:

1. I don't know that germs exist, because I've never seen them, and even if I had, I don't "know" that they cause disease--it's just a postulate.
2. I don't know that the Earth is round, because I've never been in space to see the Earth from the right perspective. The apparent roundness that scientists speak of could be an optical illusion, or a mistake--they've made them before, you know.
3. I don't know that atoms exist. I've never seen them. They're just a postulate that happen to fit the facts.
4. I don't "know" that WWII happened, or for that matter, whether anything before a certain day in Dec 1969 happened. I wasn't there. I guess I'll withhold judgement on all that other stuff, like Caesar, Jesus, etc. Interesting postulates, though. Maybe someday I'll "know" with absolute certainty that anything outside my own mind exists.
5. I don't know that the Earth revolves around the sun.
6. And so on, ad infinitum...

Science does not offer the certitude of religion, but then again, neither does religion. Science is the only flashlight we have available to find out about the world around us. It isn't perfect or all-powerful, and it doesn't address Truth with a capital "T", or for that matter any absolutes at all. I read a criticism of science the other day that I really liked -- "Scientists don't really KNOW any of this. All they have is a theory that happens to fit the facts." That's pretty much true, as long as we keep in mind that scientists are the only ones with a process that involves fact-finding, logic, experiments, and revision to ensure that the theory does, after all, come as close as we can to fitting the facts as we know them. All the other camps are just saying "goddidit" and waving their hands mysteriously. That approach contributes nothing at all to our understanding of the world, and in fact undermines our knowledge by discouraging critical thinking.

Speaking of critical thinking, I find it bizarre that someone can flirt so heavily with epistemelogical nihilism, but only when it comes to this particular scientific theory. I've come across a lot of people who, from their explanations, are only trying to be conscientious skeptics, and they too adopt they whole "hey, we weren't there, so it takes just as much faith as creationism!" line. But they would never apply that "we can't REALLY know" approach to the court system, or to the germ theory (and it is a theory, by the way) when their child is sick, or to any other aspect of human existence. Their epistemelogical nihilism clicks on and off like a lightswitch, and it's only on when they're talking about evolution. By their logic, medical schools should devote equal time to teaching that demonic possession causes illness as they do to this "germ theory." Germ theory is, after all, only a theory, and we don't really know that it's correct--it just happens to fit the facts, and since there is the "element of doubt" in all fields of study, then all are of equivalent value. This position is obviously absurd, and I doubt you could find many creationists or ID advocates to support it, but as soon as we bring up evolution then they want to challenge the very foundations of thought. You never see people run so quickly to question the nature of "knowledge," "facts," and "conclusions" as when their "knowledge" isn't supported by "facts" that support their desired "conclusions." "What do we really know, after all?" can usually be translated as, "the facts do not logically support the conclusion I'm comfortable with."

Re:that's not skepticism -- that's nihilism

[leabre]

Very interesting manipulation of my words. I'm impressed.

> * I don't know that germs exist, because I've never
        seen them, and even if I had, I don't "know" that
        they cause disease--it's just a postulate.

I've seen some germs. I've also witnessed them under a microscope cause anomalies to other host cells. Didn't you ever take biology?

> * I don't know that the Earth is round...
> * I don't know that atoms exist.
> * I don't "know" that WWII happened, or for
        that matter, whether anything before a
        certain day in Dec 1969 happened.
> * I don't know that the Earth revolves around
        the sun. [/Quote]

Most of these examples you give, we can safely trust in our common knowledge of them, because they have indeed been observed by many people and confirmed and measured within our lifetime or at least within the lifetime of people still alive today.

Evolution on the other hand has not been witnessed by anyone in any lifetime. When was the last time we witnessed a fish grow legs and walk out of the ocean.

I'm not up-to-speed with how others react to this topic. But you're about as intend on insisting your perspective as I am what I believe. The simple fact, is most of the other examples you gave, whether theory or not, we've measured them and observed them quite conclusively.

Evolution should not be confused with facts. We truly have not observed it on a very grand scale. We have observed what appears to be small cases of species adapting, but we've yet to witness an eyeball change or a creature change phylum. All the species that we've observed change, are still nearly identicle to what they were before the change. Thus, I agree and am willing to believe that such adpatations and micro changes happen.

One of my favorite examples is some kind of African elephant I was watching a Learning Channel documentary on, they were so hunted during the early 1900's for just their tusks, and them being such emotional creatures, grieving over any dead elephant they come across, they finally started being born (after about 40 years or so of being "hunted") without tusks. I find that as a prime example of species adaptation, but they didn't start growing arms or a bigger brain with which to attack the humans back, they just "adapted" to their environment and continued being the elephant they were. However, who knows how not having tusks has effected them, that was their primary means of showing dominance and winning a mate, IIRC.

I very much believe in science and medical science. But there's just not enough evidence (beyond fossil records and inconclusive postulating) to suport macro evolution as introduced by Darwin.

Regarding your quote (which I happen to like very much, I'd be interested in reading the source) "Scientists don't really KNOW any of this. All they have is a theory that happens to fit the facts." I'll agree completely. I just am not convinced of any facts substantiating macro evolution. I'm not unwilling, I just happen to believe it to be more of a leap of faith then believing in a Creator.

When I first started reading and replying to your post, I thought you were trolling, but after reading and re-reading your post, I think you actually are interesting in having a decent conversation (somewhat). It's enjoyable, rather than being slandered over what I believe.

Thanks,
Leabre

Re:that's not skepticism -- that's nihilism

[leabre]

I actually went and looked up the word nihilism after posting my previous reply. I do not believe that word even remotely descibes me in the slightest stretch of the imagination. Perhaps it describes others, or a certain prevailing attitude, of which I might share some characteristics, but I don't discount evolution on the basis of religion, or doubt that we can really know anything. Everything is "knowable", some of our ideals might have to be revised one way or the next.

I discount it on the basis that no one has observed it and that we're really only throwing out ideas with no absolute way to measure them, even remotely. I just don't believe that looking at fossil records can be nearly as conclusive as most supporters of dawrinian evolution would have me believe.

Anyway, I've said all I have to say on this matter. Thanks for the chat. Its been stimulating.

Thanks,
Leabre

Re:that's not skepticism -- that's nihilism

[misanthrope101]

Most of these examples you give, we can safely trust in our common knowledge of them, because they have indeed been observed by many people and confirmed and measured within our lifetime or at least within the lifetime of people still alive today.

Evolution on the other hand has not been witnessed by anyone in any lifetime. When was the last time we witnessed a fish grow legs and walk out of the ocean.

Evolution, i.e. genetic change in a population over time, has been witnessed, studied, duplicated, folded, starched, and made into a tie-died shirt. It's commonplace and not even remotely controversial. You are using a definition of evolution (a fish growing legs before our eyes and walking away) that is obviously absurd. The good news is that your definition has nothing to do with evolutionary theory--your leg-growing fish would largely disprove evolution, not the other way around.

The critereon used by scientists who study evolution is speciation. Speciation has been observed again and again and again. You seem to be riding in with a new, deliberately absurd, criterion, and then dismissing evolution because it doesn't meet your bizarre standard.

Is it the idea of common descent you're objecting to? Common descent is just inferred from the evidence. Science develops theories that fit the facts, the evidence, and we go from there. I find it strange that so many fields of science (and even everyday human existence) use inference with no risk of controversy, but when we're talking about evolution, suddenly inference becomes useless conjecture.

Human credulity is not calibrated to timescales of hundreds of thousands, much less billions, of years. You are trusting your seat-of-the-pants intuition far too much. Macroevolution is not much more than a lot of microevolution, and I doubt there's much to the definition of macroevolution other than reproductive isolation. I know people come back with the firefly-into-a-rhinocerous demand, but common descent doesn't work that way, or at least evolutionary theory has never indicated that type of change.

I'm not here to try to change your mind about creationism. People trust their gut feeling all the time, which is why casinos always make money. But you really should learn about what evolutionary theory is so you can rephrase the reasons why you don't believe in it. You can find some good, concise (and some brief) explanations at talkorigins.org. Many creationists would profit, if only by looking more credible, if they took evolution seriously enough to at least what the theory does and doesn't posit. Among other things it doesn't posit is a fish growing legs right before your eyes and walking away.

Regarding your quote (which I happen to like very much, I'd be interested in reading the source) "Scientists don't really KNOW any of this. All they have is a theory that happens to fit the facts." I'll agree completely. I just am not convinced of any facts substantiating macro evolution. I'm not unwilling, I just happen to believe it to be more of a leap of faith then believing in a Creator.

I don't remember the source of the quote--it could have been the talkorigins.org feedback page, or usenet, slashdot, or any number of other places. But I'm surprized by the resistance to the idea of macroevolution. Millions of years of constant little changes seems to intuitively add up to a lot of change. The theory, right or wrong, isn't that implausible, unless you outright find the idea of common descent offensive, as many do. If you're morally offended by the very notion of common descent, then no, you will never be convinced. If you have no moral/spiritual feelings concerning common descent, then a lot of little changes adding up to a lot of change seems sort of obvious. That doesn't mean we "know" definitively, absolutely, amen, only that it's the best theory scientists have developed to explain the facts as we know them.

Re:that's not skepticism -- that's nihilism

[misanthrope101]

Actually I said epistemelogical nihilism, not just plain nihilism. Saying "we don't know, because we weren't there, so evolution takes as much faith as creationism" is exhibiting epistemelogical nihilism. Because you and I weren't present at a murder doesn't mean that saying the defendant did it is "takes just as much faith" as saying invisible aliens from Neptune did it. The explanation that relies on natural, known processes is more rational, while the explanation that posits a supernatural, unknown, mysterious force(s) or being(s) is the conclusion that takes faith.

Evolution, as in genetic change over time, is known, speciation is known to occur, phenotypic differences are known to occur, so inferring from this that populations branch into reproductively isolated, genetically incompatible, different populations based on environmental or other selection is the more rational explanation, even if we can't trace the fossilized, perfectly preserved organisms from Brad Pitt to the original replicator. That was long-winded (more than I intended), but essentially I'm saying that the explanation that relies on natural, known processes is more rational than that relying on unknown, supernatural forces or beings that we can never know. That we weren't there at the beginning does not put all conclusions on equal footing.

Saying that all conclusions take the same amount of faith is epistemelogical nihilism, because that argument undermines the idea that we can know anything. The person saying "A Leprechaun did it!" is not on a level playing field with someone trying to understand, via explainable, understandable processes, how we got here.

Re:that's not skepticism -- that's nihilism

[Anonymous Coward]

In fact, if you saw me point a gun at someone, pull the trigger and there was a big bang, the person falls down dead with a bullet in them did you see the bullet leave *my* gun?

Also, consider this "theory". There is no interior to any item It is only a surface. When you cut bread, saw wood or break bricks, the effort needed to do that creates the new surface.

See, fits all the facts*

*well, all the facts I want it to fit

Re:that's not skepticism -- that's nihilism

[leabre]

By the level of determination that you show towards me, even labeling me "epistemelogical nihilist", and the examples you give, leads me to believe that you think evolution is fact, one most scientist don't believe it to be fact, though it is certainly taught that way. In any case, I can label you stubborn and equally un-openminded as well, but I don't. You're entitled to your opinion. I'm just not convinced, not that I don't want to be, I'm just not. What looks like irrefutable evidence to you looks like speculation to me.

Thanks,
Leabre

Re:that's not skepticism -- that's nihilism

[leabre]

For every proof that this happens, there's also research that discounts it. The fact is, the we can't even agree on what our research suggests. In any case, you certainly are convinced its a fact. I've already admitted I believe in specie adaptation. But I just don't think the evidence is solid enough for me to believe that we came from an ape or a worm. Again, that's where I refer to fossil records. They are only partial story and not a full record of lineage.

A mosquito living near a nuclear powerplant or chemical factory might grow a 6th pair of wings and 2 additional legs and another eye. We might even classify it as another creature. But is that natural selection or naturally occuring evolution? Is genetically tampering humans and other creatures to create something that wasn't naturally selected or conceived also evolution? Is eating genetically modified foods constantly, then causing unknown and unforeseen changes in some creature natural selection and evolution in action or just tampering with them?

We could feed the gnat or fruitfly over thousands of generations what we think they eat, but then what we provide them to eat may not be cultivated correctly, as it would naturally, or if it is, what that eats may not even be cultivated correctly, and so it may not truly be simulating their natural habitat. I remember seeing a sci-fi show where there were humans in an exhibit in a zoo, the sign for the aliens to read stated that the human spends 40% of their time in this room, which was a sorry excuse for a living room with a television set that didn't work. The humans were miserable. The point is that anytime we try to simulate a habitat or something like that, we fail miserably.

I heard a story from my math teacher once. I researcher conducting an experiment puts a frog on the table, draws a line and shouts "JUMP" and measures how far the frog jumped. Puts the frog back, cuts of an arm, shouts "JUMP", it jumps a little less distance, he takes notes, puts the frog back. He cuts of the other arm, shouts "JUMP", it jumps a little less distance, he takes notes, and puts the frog back. He cuts of a leg, shouts "JUMP", it jumps a little less distance, he takes notes, puts it back. He cuts of the last leg, shouts "JUMP", it doesn't move, so he concludes the frog must be deaf because it didn't respond.

The point is that we can be misinterpreting the data and drawing false conclusions. Many people who support the theory of evolution are not open to the idea that they may be wrong. Even as a Creationist, I'm certainly open to the idea that I may be wrong, but evolution hasn't yet been proven to be conclusive. In our lifetime, it may not be. In 500 years, perhaps we'll have a clearer picture and more time to observe naturally occurring phonomena.

In any case, I'm even willing to accept that our Creator provided us with the ability to adapt and change perhaps, "perhaps", speciate. Even so, whatever speciates is still what its ancestor was. I worm wouldn't become a fish or a human or an ape to a human. We might be very similar but that doesn't mean we weren't created similar to begine with.

But I don't doubt everything, as I've been labeled a "epistemelogical nihilist". I just don't think there's enough evidence to support evolution any more than I think there's enough evidence to support that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction before his capture.

Thanks for the chat.

Thanks,
Leabre

Re:that's not skepticism -- that's nihilism

[misanthrope101]

The "fact" of evolution is genetic change in a population over time. Is it an "opinion" that this happens? Scientists do consider this genetic change to be a fact, and use the theory of evolution to explain why and how the genetic change happens.

I agree with you that evolution has not been "proven." No scientific theory has been proven, because proof does not exist outside of mathematics. No theory in biology, physics, chemistry, or in any other field is proven. So I guess we can't believe anything--it's all just opinion, as you say. I don't see why we should stop with evolution. If someone is more comfortable believing that the earth is flat and is the center of the universe, well, those other theories haven't been proven, so I guess it's all just a matter of faith.

I'm only so tenacious because the arguments you are using are, well, strange. You ask for evolution to be proven beyond all doubt, but why just evolution? I can't figure that out. Nothing in science is proven beyond all doubt, so by all logic you should be equally skeptical of all scientific claims. It's all just faith, right?

Re:Of course there are intermediate forms of the e

[endoplasmicMessenger]

Light-sensitive cells exist in many simple forms and have evolved to more and more efficient versions of vision.

To say that is to suggest that evolution is a fact. That is fine by me because I believe that evolution is a fact.

But what you say says nothing about whether the Neo-Darwinian explanation of evolution is in the least bit accurate.

Evolutionists seem to make statements like these frequently, as if they bolster Neo-Darwinism. They do not.

Neo-Darwinism is, as much as I can tell, a bunch of nonsense.

m0dpr0be MOD PROBe time! MOD parent UPPITY insight

[Anonymous Coward]

I am not SPock.

Third-party observer

[jd_esguerra]

I must have missed something in graduate school. When was it proved that there is no God?

The existence of god is still up for debate; nothing has been proven. It's a gross simplification, but I am going to lump all of the posters into two groups: The first is trying to define what "god" is. The other group is trying to define what "god" is not. Feel free to draw a Venn diagram. So there is a boundary that separates what god is and is not. Some folks (first group) have faith that god is defined to be consistent with their beliefs. So from their perspective, religion being what it is (slow), the boundary of what god is (or religion, or whatever) does not change much with time.

However, much of the other group sees the same boundary change rapidly-- they have learned what god is not, through science, experimentation, experience, etc. For example: Lightning and thunder are not really god bowling in heaven, though not too long ago, it could easily "correctly" interpreted as a sign from god. So, yeah. God is not lightning. (Or rather, lightning is not god.)

The problem here is that many people (from one perspective or from both-- the religions scientist, maybe?) see a contradiction, and it agitates them.

Personally, I think the hard-core ID side needs to get a grip, and quit thinking that science is chipping away at the rigid walls of religion. Think of it this way: The more often we can show something to NOT be supernatural or devine, the more incredible the unexplainable becomes. With science, your god is not getting smaller, but bigger, and much more complex.

A philisophical problem, not a pragmatic one

[MajorJuggler]

From my extremely limited knowledge of the case, it seems that the issue (and the judge's job in this case) is not to decide which theory is correct. There are arguments for and against both theories. The issue is whether both theories should be given due investigation.

Both Intelligent Design and Evolution can be considered theories, and both should be examined and researched scientifically. Both have underlying presuppositions. Both sets of assumptions are irrelevant to the veracity of their truthfulness. The assumptions are either true or untrue, regardless of your personal view on said assumptions. (The majority of people have a problem with this point, regardless if they are Christians waving their ID banners, or secularists waving their evolution banners.)

As long as it is possible that a theory's underlying assumptions could be true, then the theory should be scientifically investigated. Since the underlying assumptions of both ID and evolution could be true, they should both be investigated.

Refusing to investigate a particular theory on the basis of its underlying assumptions is bad science. This has happened with evolution before, and the tables are now being turned and it is happening to ID.

Once it is established that either could be true, it becomes an issue of investigating at the evidence for (and against) both, and building scientific arguments on both sides. However, this is not the issue at hand.

The judge seems to have denied the veracity of a theory (ID) on the basis that science can neither prove nor disprove said theory's assumptions. Put another way, the judge ruled against investigating theory #2, because it disagrees with the assumptions of theory #1. This is a textbook definition of bad science, or, in this case, bad politics enforcing bad science. This is a disturbing trend, and is just as bad as when the Catholic Church forbade many scientific advances in the name of religion, during the middle ages.

Re:A philisophical problem, not a pragmatic one

[Todd Knarr]

But that's the very definition of a scientific theory: that you can test and disprove it. As you noted, Intelligent Design falls into the category of things that can't be disproven. It's thus not a scientific theory and as the judge noted doesn't belong in a science class. This is the problem the ID people have: if it were treated like a scientific theory, it'd take about 15 minutes to utterly demolish it beyond resurrecting.

Re:A philisophical problem, not a pragmatic one

[superchkn]

Scientific method, the method employed in exact science and consisting of:
(a) Careful and abundant observation and experiment.
(b) generalization of the results into formulated "Laws" and statements.
1913 Webster

How can you experiment on ID? Seriously, I'd like to know how that would be done. What's your method for detecting the presence of an intelligent entity or whether it is affecting ones results?

With evolution, we can subject organisms to varying environments given a known starting point. We can observe the changes in the DNA in the resulting populations. We can observe the genes being selected for in the resultant generations. We can observe the differences between each different controlled ecosystem's DNA. We can observe how DNA replicates and introduces random changes. This all supports the theory of evolution, and it can be done using the scientific method. We have observed, and hypothesized. Then we created an experiment to test our hypothesis and it supports our theory. Evolution has a lot of evidence supporting it and though it may have some holes, it is a strong theory.

ID was just recently introduced, has a very bad scientific reputation, uses questionable methods and is strongly linked to a creationist text. The judge made no statements saying that ID shouldn't be investigated by the scientific community. He said that it shouldn't be taught in schools as a secular theory (which under the constitution, it must be secular*), because based on the evidence provided during the trial it is a thinly disguised theory of creation. Typically theories are judged by the scientific community, and only after gaining support there are they taught as theory in our public schools.

* "The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48"
Secularist Sec"u*lar*ist, n.
One who theoretically rejects every form of religious faith, and every kind of religious worship, and accepts only the facts and influences which are derived from the present life; also, one who believes that education and other matters of civil policy should be managed without the introduction of a religious element.

1913 Webster

Re:A philisophical problem, not a pragmatic one

[superchkn]

"The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48"
Resurrect Res`ur*rect", v. t. See Resurrection.
      1. To take from the grave; to disinter. Slang
            1913 Webster

      2. To reanimate; to restore to life; to bring to view (that
            which was forgotten or lost). Slang
            1913 Webster

*I find the choice of wording quite humorous (intended or not)*

Another problem is that the [some?] ID people are trying to bypass the scientific community by using their majority (or apparently appearance of majority since the school board was voted out) to effectively legislate this into the textbooks as a scientific theory. If ID supporters truly believed it could withstand the scientific community then why didn't they persevere to get it accepted by the community anyway? I'm pretty sure that's a rhetorical question, but I'd love to hear an answer that doesn't involve the words/meanings: conspiracy, secularist, or closed-minded.

Re:A philisophical problem, not a pragmatic one

[MajorJuggler]

I apologize for not making the distinction in my original post between the high-level notion of ID, and the valid scientific theories that point to ID.

At the highest philosophical level, you are correct in that ID is not, by scientific standards, a valid theory. However, to state that any argument supporting ID is also non-scientific, is a classical logical fallacy. This is the fallacy of stating that because something is true of the whole, therefore it must also apply to all of its parts.

To back up one step, there are two possibilities as to how life has come into existence and has attained its current form. Either there is/was some form of intelligent design, or there was not. These 2 possibilities cover all possible scenarios. If there was not any intelligent design, then life came into being by chance. This is logically and scientifically equivalent to stating that evolution is true.

Therefore, either evolution is true, or some form of intelligent design is true. Therefore, by mutual exclusion, if evolution could be proved false, then it would logically follow that some form of intelligent design would have to be true. I use the word "prove" here in the scientific sense, in that scientifically we can never state that we know what the absolute truth of the matter is, only that we have a high degree of certainty as to what the absolute truth is.

Therefore, intelligent design is worthy of mention on scientific grounds if and only if there is valid scientific cause to discredit evolution. Note that the motivations behind the proponents for ID are absolutely irrelevant to this fact. If evolution can be scientifically shown to be false, then it can be scientifically stated with a high degree of certainty that some form of ID is true. Similarly, if there is reasonable scientific doubts with the theory of evolution, then it is scientific to make mention of these doubts. Anyone with the mindset that they will not allow a particular theory to submit itself to the standard procedure of considering its possible flaws is, by definition, exercising bad science.

That said, there are some scientific theories that seem to support evolution, and there are some scientific theories that seem to support ID. Claiming otherwise is a narrow-minded statement born out of ignorance.

The issue, therefore, is not whether or not ID at the highest possible level is scientific. The issue is whether or not the arguments and theories that happen to point to ID are scientific, and that they should be mentioned. This is not an issue of religion as motivation behind ID, but if proper scientific methodology is being applied to evolution.

The lawyers on the side of evolution have done a brilliant job at masking this fact, and the lawyers on the side of ID have done a terrible job of falling right into their trap. The case seems to have been handled very well by the evolution lawyers, and miserably by the ID lawyers.

While the judge is correct in this statement: "In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not", he has committed the classical logical fallacy of equating the parts with the whole. If anything makes an effective argument against evolution, then it by necessity points to ID. By stating that any [argument X] that points to ID can be taught on the basis of not being scientific, he is assuming that all [argument X] are inherently non-scientific. Herein lay his logical fallacy, and the result is that any [argument X], regardless of its independent scientific legitimacy, will be labeled as "ID religion", and barred proper scientific merit. This is the very definition of bias towards a particular theory, to the exclusion of all others. Therefore, my original point (edited to reflect the distinction between parts and the whole) still stands, that: "the judge ruled against investigating theories which point to #2, because it disagrees with the assumptions of theory #1."

Our legal system is effectively embarking on a witch-hunt to depose all references to ID and oppositions to evolution, while at the same time covering their eyes, covering their ears, and covering their mouths to "see no evil", "hear no evil", "speak no evil".

Re:A philisophical problem, not a pragmatic one

[Todd Knarr]

Correction: at least two possibilities. There's no evidence yet ruling out more, so it's not neccesarily true that ID must be true if evolution is false and vice versa.

As far as meriting study on scientific grounds, whether ID merits it is completely independent of whether evolution has been disproven or not. Even if there's no evidence to disprove evolution, ID would still merit study on scientific grounds if it met the requirements of a scientific theory. The problem is that, by definition, ID doesn't meet those requirements. The fundamental requirement is that it must make predictions about the world that can be checked against observed evidence and determined to be correct or not correct. The problem with ID is that any observation can be handwaved with "Well, the Designer must have wanted it that way.". Given any set of observations, none of the explications of ID provide any useful way of making a testable prediction about things we haven't observed.

Evolution, OTOH, does provide ways of making predictions. For example, one of the direct implications of evolution is that if a normally contra-survival genetic trait happens to provide an advantage in one particular set of conditions then it should be rare everywhere except where those conditions prevail, where it'll be common. When we look at the real world we see examples like sickle-cell anemia, a genetically-linked trait that causes significant health risks but also provides high resistance to malaria. Sickle-cell anemia is a relatively rare condition in most populations in the world, but is very common in populations that originated in the tropics where malaria's common. Intelligent Design provides no way of predicting this, evolution does.

To make the situation worse, all the explications of ID I've heard also rest on fallacies. For example, one of the more common ones is that we don't have any good explanation for how life originated in the first place, that it's just too improbable that inorganic compounds miraculously combined in exactly the right way to form long-chain organic molecules like DNA. Problem is, we do have a good explanation for that. Further, when we replicate the conditions early in Earth's history when life was originating, we see exactly that "miraculous" combination occur in the laboratory. When you take ID and replace all those fallacious claims with what's been actually observed, ID's left hanging in mid-air with nothing left beneath it. Much, in fact, like the theories that said that heavier objects fall faster than light objects after observations in vacuum columns showed all objects falling at the same speed regardless of weight.

Re:A philisophical problem, not a pragmatic one

[MajorJuggler]

To reiterate:

"Either there is/was some form of intelligent design, or there was not [some form of intelligent design]. These 2 possibilities cover all possible scenarios."

It is logically impossible to come up with even a theoretical explanation for the existence of life that does not fall into one of these two categories. It is not an issue of evidence of another; ALL possible realities have just been covered, by this wide definition. Therefore your following statement is absolutely incorrect:

"There's no evidence yet ruling out more, so it's not neccesarily true that ID must be true if evolution is false and vice versa."

Since these are the only two possibilities, and the Law of Non-Contradiction is true, mutual exclusion therefore also holds, as does my original point. If you wish to discuss this point further, I suggest you familiarize yourself with the laws of logic, as you have blatantly defied them in your prior post.

Ironically, by taking up pragmatic discussion of particular issues, you have admitted that theroies that seem to oppose certain portions of evolutionary theory merit scientific discussion and investigation. On that we agree. However, a slashdot forum is certainly not the ideal location for a comprehensive point-by-point discussion between the two major viewpoints.

Re:A philisophical problem, not a pragmatic one

[Todd Knarr]

You omit some mixture of ID and evolution (initial creatures were created by some entity, then evolution took over from there), and you omit the possibility that there wasn't any intelligent design and that evolution also turns out to be incorrect and some other mechanism is responsible. Evolution isn't the only theoretically conceivable alternative to intelligent design, it's just the only one we currently know of that's supported by evidence and hasn't been contradicted by evidence. Attempting to define "evolution" as "not intelligent design" is a nice rhetorical device but it's not a correct statement of the situation.

And yes, scientific theories that differ from evolution deserve investigation. That's science. Intelligent design merely fails to be a scientific theory, for the reasons I've noted.

Re:A philisophical problem, not a pragmatic one

[darthtater]

"And yes, scientific theories that differ from evolution deserve investigation. That's science. Intelligent design merely fails to be a scientific theory, for the reasons I've noted."

If we go back to the time of Galileo we would find the same sort of thinking flipped on it's head. Everything at that time was thought of through the mindset of a god/creator and anything that came to a non-creator conclusion was called non-scientific and censored. Eliminating a set of possible answers before you ask the question is patently un-scientific and that is exactly what is happening right now.

The repeatability requirement is not found in the scientific method. Observation is the crux of the method. Many areas of science don't use repeatability tests in their field because it just doesn't make sense to do so. In chemistry and biology it makes sense, but in paleontology it doesn't fit because there is nothing to repeat. It's just discovery, observation and deduction, which sounds a lot like the method ID uses. It seems to me that the same sort of biological tests used to test the voracity of evolution also apply to ID. Since you brought up Stanley Miller's prebiotic soup tests(you have guts by the way), it is fair to point out that those tests are at the same time a test of abiogenesis and ID. The only thing that makes it one or the other is the presupposition of the tester.

The idea of a third possible scenario of how life began other than chance or a creative intelligence is just a secular gap theory. I don't see anybody with guts enough to call Francis Crick or Antony Flew un-scientific for being persuaded by Intelligent Design theory.

Re:A philisophical problem, not a pragmatic one

[darthtater]

I agree that the lawsuit was misguided at best. Trying to sue to require Intelligent Design to be taught was a bad move. If you listen to ID scientists then I don't see how you could say that they aren't willing to have their theories vetted by the scientific community. But when you have the editor of Nature magazine essentially apologizing for publishing an article on ID then it's pretty hard to have a normal peer review process. It gives the impression that the fear of vetting is on the other side.

Re:A philisophical problem, not a pragmatic one

[sickofthisshit]

Actually, Galileo was one of the first to *take* something resembling a modern scientific approach to natural questions. The idea of "non-scientific" did not exist in Galileo's time. "Contrary to church teachings" was a concept of the time, and church teachings at that time included a great deal of Aristotelian cosmology and physics.

He got into trouble for promoting (too loudly and with too much certitude) heretical views, not for being unscientific.

Re:A philisophical problem, not a pragmatic one

[Todd Knarr]

Not quite, as far as Miller's tests are concerned. I'd note that in those tests there's no observed evidence of outside interference with the experiment, no evidence to support a Designer involving himself. They do demolish the ID tenet that it's unlikely to the point of impossibility that the building blocks of organic life could simply have spontaneously appeared without some outside influence, so if one does treat ID as a scientific theory it's immediately shot down by observed evidence. The only presupposition is "What we see is what's there.". One can, of course, posit a Designer who can influence the experiment without leaving any observable evidence of his influence, but that destroys the ability of your theory to predict anything because any outcome could then be handwaved by recourse to this invisible, undetectable Designer.

Re:A philisophical problem, not a pragmatic one

[darthtater]

I said nothing of Miller interfering with his experiment. My problem with Miller is that he made up all of the parameters of the experiment out of whole cloth. He had no evidence whatsoever to prove that the parameters of his experiments are what actually existed.

M0D inFORMative PLZ! Unless You are a DILDO!

[Anonymous Coward]

I pour toasty grits on my balls.

Which "evolution" are we talking about here?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't have a problem with evolution per se, but I do have a problem with bad science being rammed down the public's throat as "fact" because any challenge to that bad science is immediately tarred with the big, nasty "pushing your religion" brush.

Teaching "evolution" ...? Which evolution would that be ... Darwins', Mayer's, Gould's or Dawkins'? They all are hailed as proponents of this beautiful but flawed theory, and they all contradict each so damned often that it is impossible to reconcile their individual notions about the "facts". If evolution is not fatally flawed as a hypothesis, why all the unresolved contradictions?

Prove this for yourself sometime. Ask almost any group of "evolutionary scientists" to define some simple term like "species", and watch the stream of contradictions. If the notion of "species" cannot be clearly defined, then what is it that we are talking about in the first place I ask?

Re:Which "evolution" are we talking about here?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ask any physicist how gravity works.

Disagreement over minor (yes, minor) mechanistic details does not justify outright fucking lunacy presented as science in high school classrooms.

The "Paley" argument has certainly been referenced in science; the "Behe" argument would be, too, if he'd just fucking make one. "Ohhh, wooow, complicated... that blows my mind" is not a fucking (or even a light petting) scientific argument.

Please, try again.

Re:Which "evolution" are we talking about here?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not talking about "minor details". If we are indeed discussing The Origin of SPECIES, then the notion of what constitutes a "species" is central to any argument about the subject. If such a central notion remains mostly undefined in any universally accepted fashion, then ANY discussion about it is meaningless.

Mayer wrote in 2001: "Even at present there is not yet unanimity on the definition of the species", and then goes on to note that there are 6 or 7 notions about the definition of "species" aside from the 2 or 3 that HE personally supports. Get it? HE disagrees with those other definitions. And it's not as if there are just "details" to be worked out, they are mutually contradictory definitions.

Again - if such a CENTRAL notion cannot be defined beyond mutually contradictory notions, then it's just plain nonsense. Dressing it up in a tweed jacket with elbow patches doesn't make it science.

Re:Wrong. Scientific Method cannot be applied to I

[einhverfr]

What is the difference between a religious argument and a scientific one?

A good scientific argument is one that starts from facts and observable phenominon and then discusses possible solutions as possible solutions. It is not afraid to say "in these cases we don't have all the answers."


The term simple is hard to define, and largely subjective. The principle of parsimony is just a scientific sounding way of saying that what seems like the simpler answer, probably is. Obviously, some people will feel that ID is the simpler answer, while others will not.

I think that the phrase "One should not needlessly multiply entities" is clear enough. The ID folks think that it is necessary to posit a creator as a sceintific theory, but I find no reason why this is necessary. If the creator is not *necessary,* then the existance or lack thereof of a creator entity is beyond the scope of the scientific theory.

The real problem is that people want to see a Grand Unified Theory of Science and Religion, and that is not going to be something that is accepted in scientific circles for the reason stated above. It is generally simpler to say "We don't know how what determines the exact collaps of the quantum waveform" than to say "God decides in his infinite intelligence how every quantum waveform collapses." Same with every area of evolution attacked by ID.

In essence, it is *always* scientifically simpler (because it is more predictable) to assume a lack of knowledge of the natural than to assume divine intervention. Because science is involved in predicable, repeatable phenomina,areas that require divine intervention are outside its scope. So for example, whether or not the god you pray to hears your prayers is outside the scientific theory simply because you cannot link a prayer by anyone to the same or a similar observed effect. Does this make sense?

For the record, I am a polytheist and am certainly not anti-religion. I am against having mandatory education laws at *at the same time* teaching theology in school.

What are the chances?

[Max Nugget]

Something I find interesting, is that it's completely circular to take the perspective, "What are the odds that the Earth and Humans and all this stuff would come to be, so much would have to go just right to result in the conditions for our existence," -- which, of course, is true, but then to follow that up with "the odds of us existing are so small, that this must have been the work of some intelligient being."

I would call this a non-sequitur. Why? Because if you accept the idea that the odds of us existing are, say, 1-in-6-billion, and especially if you also accept that the odds of some other world with "life," or anything even slightly related and stable enough to survive over billions of years (or even "10,000 years" as the bible reads), existing close enough to us in this huge universe that we'd be able to know about it with the current state of space exploration progress, then the "intelligient design" theory doesn't hold.

Why? Because the argument is essentially, "it's so unlikely that we'd come to exist, that it's more likely we were created by an intelligient being."

This is actually a really stupid thing to say, though, because it is only as a result of your EXISTING that you're able to have such a thought.

A perfect analogy is a different kind of "creationism" -- human conception. Let's say there's 6 billion sperm all trying to get into the one-passenger-only unfertilized egg. And let's say you are that one, single sperm that managed the feat. Now, 20 years later, you exist. And you say "what are the chances that I exist?" There's not really any useful meaning to be derived some such a thought. The other 5.999999999 billion sperm would be thinking the same thing, if they existed instead of you. There were 6 billion babies/Earths with the potential to exist, and one that came to exist. All 6 billion of those potential babies would grow up to ask the same question, maybe even to believe that "God" created them. This fact alone is why it's foolish for you to consider yourself "unique" in your existence. All 6 billion babies were unique and "unlikely", and if they had the chance to grow into humans they'd tell you that themselves.

To put this another way, saying "something intelligent MUST have created us because it's too unlikely that we came to exist through random events," discounts the obvious fact you've already stated -- that you DO exist as the combination of extremely random events, and that even if some intelligent being later took credit for it, the other 5.999999999 billion possible alternate realities you calculated, based on the known elements the intelligient being placed in the world, do not cease to exist as potential alternate realities.

So what I'm saying is, it is actually irrelevant to the concept of evolution (and "Big Bang" theory, and all other science theories) whether there is a "God" or any other creator. The explanations remain unchanged, theories based on the observed reality. Even with the revelation of an intelligent creator, we are still an "extremely unlikely" permutation of the existing world/universe/reality (regardless of who created it), so you cannot argue that our unlikeliness is somehow "proof" or "suggestive" of the idea of there being an intelligent creator.

In other words "God" could have created 5.9999999999 billion other realities. If "He" exists, he chose to create ours. If "He" does not exist, ours was created out of extreme randomness. Because the outcome is the same whether "He" exists or not, it is foolish to suggest that the outcome (our reality) in any way points to or against "His" existence.

Even as a theory, Intelligent Design doesn't make sense. It draws an illogical conclusion (the existence of an intelligent creator) from its observation (the unlikeliness of our existence).

And claiming there are "gaps" in Darwin's theory is even more ridiculous, as if to say "our theory gains credence from the fact that Darwin's theory is incomplete." This makes no sense, nor does its opposite: Even if Darwin's theory explains everything 100%, this does not weaken a competing theory. It does make it likely that someone will want to reach for Occam's Razor, though.

What about multiculturalism?

[Anonymous Coward]

You must - by law - have your children ready and on the street corner by 8 am. There they will be picked up by numbered yellow buses and taken to publicly-funded learning centers. At these centers your children will hear lessons and recite facts which the government deems appropriate.

If any parent should happen to disagree with the doctrines taught there, it would be best for that parent to keep these disagreements to his or her self. Even the most passionate objections - even those which spring from the centuries-old cornerstones of your culture - would be best left unsaid.

Science will nurture your children in ways you can't possibly imagine. So make sure your children come to school with open minds. We'll close them tight on the government-sponsored truth!

Re:What about multiculturalism?

[ID indeed]

You can always homeskol 'em.

It's unfortunate that you dislike having children educated on topics relevant to reality. That must be difficult for you.

However, we all happen to live in a society that must take some actions on behalf of the society. One of them is to have a semi-educated population. It helps to prevent witchhunts and such. Oh, also, it sustains the economy that makes us really, really rich.

Yeah, math and science are hard, and they can bring down a GPA, and the basic underlying notion of rational thinking probably does fuck with all sorts of mythological upbringings, but damn it, I like the fucking Enlightenment and you bastards are going to have to pry it out of my cold, dead hands.

Scallop eyes.

[Jafafa Hots]

Google scallop eyes.

yes, but human tetherball build queue rush

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree that there isnt enough time in the science class to begin with but if these points are to be made (that religion and non falsifiable methods are not monotonically improving anything) they're going to have to be made in the science class room, cause where else will they actually be made??

and of course its important to get the basics right first, or at least early, or failing that, soon.. maby...

Re:yes, but human tetherball build queue rush

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, I don't really think a science class needs to denigrate non-sciences and their almost uniform inability to assist in human progress. The point is made quite sufficient by explaining what science is and what it has accomplished in terms of the making of the modern world.

As other responses to the OP demonstrate, the ID apologists et al. will just happily tout falsehoods to try to tear down science unsuccssfully. So, what really needs to be done for today's and tomorrow's students is the solid teaching of logic and reasoning skills. We won't get many Slashdot posters out of this, but the world will be a better place.

Why is ID even being considered?

[superchkn]

I don't even understand why Christians are pressing this issue. If one believes in the Christian God and all that he has done, why can't one wrap ones mind around the fact that He could create the Earth and make it appear the way that it is? I thought the whole idea of religion is that it is the faith that is important, not the physical evidence anyway. If it was readily evident that God had created the universe and He had left irrefutable evidence of this fact, we would know. There wouldn't be any requirement for belief and there wouldn't be any disbelief. In that environment, we would have no choice in our future or belief, inherently we would believe and inherently we would be saved. Our faith could never be tested in such a world and in fact we could then only argue over which religion is actually worshipping the correct God, which really couldn't ever be construed to be any sort of true faith as we know it.

I haven't even touched upon the strong case for evolution and the total lack of any scientifically-accepted, provable evidence in support of ID -- I'm referring to well-respected scientific journals here . Nor have I mentioned the fact that ID is provably based on creationism and that no one has the legal right to teach _my_ child religion in public school (not that I have any children, but still). It's not my problem, the scientific community's problem, or my government's problem that the scientific evidence doesn't support ones belief or religious interpretation of a religious text. Religions survived the discovery that Earth isn't the center of the universe, and it will survive the theory of evolution. Just because ones faith can't surmount scientific evidence doesn't give one the right to teach religion in school. This republic was based on liberty above all, including Christianity, something that apparently many would like to forget along with the scientific method.

Finally for those that think that I'm enforcing/choosing a religion, consider this: while I'm not a believer in any specific religion I support the theory of evolution. Evolution has no bearing upon my religious beliefs, it neither supports or detracts from my religious beliefs, much in the way that mathematics has no bearing upon my religion. I don't support ID, primarily because it doesn't follow the scientific method. If one's going argue this against evolution, let's start talking about physics. There is no law of gravity in regards to what exactly creates that force (for starters). So we can just say that God is just pushing us down (literally THE MAN is keeping us down!!). What is time? Ah, it's just something God made, it just is! Whoops, I mean "Intelligent Entity", not God [we can fix that with a search and replace, don't worry]! Can anyone help me expand this theory? Maybe we can tack it onto ID and we'll present it as the all-encompassing theory of existence? What possible barrier can withstand the answer "because the intelligent entity created it that way"? Seriously, if we can't agree that ID isn't science then let's just let this be settled in the scientific circle. That means it doesn't get into the public school system until it's proven itself in the scientific community, which at the very least means it's discussed and accepted in scientific journals. Every modern theory took that course before becoming mainstream and ID deserves no special treatment. If ID is to measure up to evolution, then it needs to be subjected to the same peer review process to which all other scientific theories are subjected. One can't railroad a theory into mainstream by teaching it in school, and one can't legislate a statement into a scientific theory simply because it is what one believes. It needs to adhere to the scientific method and it needs to withstand scientific testing, neither of which has been done from the data I have gathered.

The fact that there is no direct scientific evidence to backup the existence of a god is not a denunciation of all religions that depend upon the premise. That fact

Its not very hard to evolve life

[johnpeb]

I wrote a program a couple years ago that uses neural nets and a genetic algorithm to evolve beings. It doesn't simulate the so called abiogenesis event but intelligence is certainly evolved. Check out the Java applet: http://peberdy.addr.com/jp/projects/page.php?p=ai

Re:Its not very hard to evolve life

[Sylven_1969]

Are you sure that's a "Bug" in the program? Or is it simply the way evolution works? It seems to me that maybe we've reached the point where our inteligence is going to start to degrade as well.

Re:Its not very hard to evolve life

[johnpeb]

Yea you may be right. There are a couple signs of evolution losing its touch. For example the fact that homosexuality exists.

But anyway that bug in my program occurs because the genes of the best being become so popular that theres virtually no difference between all the beings in the sim, and once they're at that point they inbreed and die.

Re:Its not very hard to evolve life

[bloodredsun]

Interesting thread. One of the suppositions about genetic homosexuality is that it does lead to better survival of the gene that contains it. This may sound impossible but here's an example. A family group has 10 children, one of whom is gay. While the other children would reproduce, one does not. Where this is useful would be group situations (family/clan/tribe/society) where the offspring of these children have their parents and also uncle to look after them. If you look at the genetic weighting of the children, the uncle would share a quarter of these childrens genes and so he has a genetic "stake" in their survival. This would result in increased success of the family group, including this genetic trait of homosexuality.

This would appear to be supported by the presence of homosexuality in species that have strong social groups and by the genetic basis not being a simple dominant or resessive model but a more complex one that would allow this trait to be passed on without expression.

Re:Its not very hard to evolve life

[johnpeb]

This would result in increased success of the family group, including this genetic trait of homosexuality.

Good point, I hadn't thought of it that way. Maybe evolution isn't losing it's touch after all. On the other hand the lowest n percentile of humans these days have a fairly good chance of reproducing (at a guess) a better chance of reproducing than they did a couple hundred years ago.

Not a bad suggestion...

[Atario]

...considering this is already done with things like phrenology and homeopathy. Steeling students against the onslaught of pseudoscience is a worthy part of the teaching of real science.

Politics,religion and science need to seperate.

[lazy genes]

The speed of human development is produced by the combination of these three powers.Combining them in different parts produces different results.The three produce a safe speed to evolve in a changing enviorment.All three are needed to produce a large mass .Genetic beliefs systems that have worked in the past get reused and modified.This is part of evolution.Perfecting science,religion and politics can never be accomplished.They are suppose to be seperate to work properly. Remove any one of the three and bad thing happen.A single person can live without religion ,but to create mass large enouph to produce technology is impossible without it at this point in human evolution.

Hahaha

[Anonymous Coward]

W00t! Go Cafe Press! http://www.cafepress.com/reasonstreet

Is that you?

[Atario]

I demand 8 eyes, the ability to see in more colour spectrums and greater resolution!

Geordi LaForge? Is that you?

you should all wear brown paper bags on your heads

[Anonymous Coward]

The whole western civilized world is laughing at the fact that there is even a discussion wheather ID has a place in schools as a serious alternative to the evolution theorie. How can a nation claim to be leader of the world and at the same time have religious wackos ger away with schools teaching bullshit to children? This is the year 2005, not 1005. If this goes on --

Re:you should all wear brown paper bags on your he

[NumenMaster]

Under normal circumstances (other issues perhaps), I'd be offended by your comments. I must agree with you, however.

But, it is obvious you don't live here. I'll have to inform you that anyone can launch a lawsuit for any reason for the most part. It's called tort and I'm a major supporter of tort reform. Unfortunately, lawyers make up both houses of congress so it would never pass.

And uninformed school board killed their political careers with this stupid stunt to politicize a crackpot idea. All were rejected during the special election last month. The town was outraged that such a topic hit the national news circuit.

Listen, there are whackos all over the place. It just happens that the US attracts the whole lot. Be glad they're not vocal in your country. Just know one thing: 80% of the population may believe that the universe was created by an intelligent being, but only a small percentage of that group believe earth is mearly 6000 years old. And all existing strata on earth's beautiful surface was created during some flood where every mountaintop, including everest, was covered with water. Then it all, magically, disappeared. Maybe it's on the moon's dark side ... I'll stop ranting now.

Anyway, I agree with you wholeheartedly. I, for one, am embarrased to be an American with a story like this.

Occam's Razor.

[Anonymous Coward]

"The principle of parsimony is just a scientific sounding way of saying that what seems like the simpler answer, probably is."

No. Occam's Razor (the principle of parsimony) just says the following:

Suppose there are two theories, and both of them make the same testable predictions. Then you should use the one that makes the least assumptions.

Now, if later you find another thing to test, and the theory that you are using does not make the right prediction, then you stop using it: That theory is wrong. So you use another one that makes the right predictions. If there are lots of them that make the right predictions, then you choose the one that makes the least assumptions again.

Now, the theory of evolution posits some things. You can call them axioms. Then you can get things from these axioms; Maybe something like "species will change in such-and-such a manner." You get things using rigorous logic. These are predictions. Then, maybe you are lucky enough to find a new experiment. You can test a prediction! So you test it. If the theory's prediction is right, then the theory is still not necessarily wrong. But it is definitely not necessarily right, either. But you keep using it anyway, because so far it predicts everything right, and it is the simplest theory (that you know about) that does that, because you chose it that way.

Every scientific theory does that. It has axioms, and it finds predictions with these axioms. Then you find experiments and see if the theory works for the experiments. Actually, the definition of a scientific theory is that. A set of assumptions that makes predictions and you can test them.

Now, the problem with the intelligent design theory is easy to see!

It posits that something is making everything happen just the way that it wants, or some such. But that's not enough to make predictions. Just because something's doing everything that it wants doesn't mean you know what it wants. So you need to posit other things. So you have to suppose things about what it wants to do. For example, you could suppose "so-and-so happens" is what it wants. So you have assumptions about what the something wants to do.

Our assumptions are simple. We assumed that there's something making everything work the way it wants. And then we assumed that what it wants is that "so-and-so happens." From this, it's pretty clear that so-and-so should happen if our theory is true! If so-and-so doesn't happen, then we are wrong. Or if so-and-so happens and something else also happens, then we're missing something in our theory, so it is still wrong (or at least incomplete).

Now, suppose that so-and-so does happen. So our theory is not necessarily wrong (but also not necessarily right). But what if we make a new theory, and just assume "so-and-so happens." Well, then we get the same predictions as with the other one! But we didn't assume that the something exists. We assumed fewer things! Then Occam's Razor tells us to take the new theory instead.

That's why the intelligent design theory isn't the one that should be taught. It makes an assumption that you do not need. Without that assumption, everything works out the same. So it violates Occam's Razor.

Pierre-Simon Laplace (the guy who showed us how to solve all sorts of cool differential equations) said something about that once. It is in French, but translated (from his page at wikipedia):

I have no need of that hypothesis. ("Je n'ai pas besoin de cette hypothèse", as a reply to Napoleon, who had asked why he hadn't mentioned God in his book on astronomy)

Re:Wrong. Scientific Method cannot be applied to I

[Decaff]

That's bullshit. The existence of species is an underlying tenant of evolution, since evolution describes how species adapt and change over time. If the word species is not well defined and meaningful, the theory of evolution can not be either.

No. Evolution is about how organisms adapt and change over time.

Could both be correct?

[Sylven_1969]

Even if the simplest life came from IE it seems to me that it would still evolve over time. IMHO IE is complete bunk, all I'm saying is that if life was Designed by a higher power it could still evolve so it doesn't mean that Darwin was wrong either way.

Wow, empiricism.

[Ivan Matveitch]

I contend that your mind is broken and perceives what is not there; your thoughts have no relation to reality. Do not bother to object, because your objections are necessarily false.

Now tell me with a straight face that you have no faith.

Religious Development and a Software Analogy

[Pfhorrest]

Then you might know that, at least for Catholics, it is expected that they use their reason fully in the investigation and acceptance of their faith.

Half of my extended family are devout Catholics. If I didn't know them so well I would never have guessed them to be religious people, as all of them (the adults at least) are college educated and work either in the medical profession or as educators, and almost never do anything invoking the supernatural whatsoever. Even the few religious events I've attended with them have a friendly, welcoming feeling to them, and don't at all make me feel alienated or like I'm somehow violating my own naturalist beliefs by being there.

I'm rather quite fond of Catholics (ones like them, at least) for this reason - they don't let their faith get in the way of their reason. If there is an apparent of conflict between them, they don't discard their reason, but rather modify their understanding of the articles of their faith to remain compatible with reality.

For this reason I see the entire Catholic faith, in a sense, similar to a huge software project struggling to maintain reverse compatibility. A long time ago, someone hacked together a workable program for how to run a human life, which had some pretty huge feature gaps and some serious bugs but for the most part worked pretty darn well, and a lot of people adopted it. In the intervening millennia, newer and more efficient programs have been created for running this or that bit of life, and the developers of the Catholic faith program - which are just its advanced users, since it's open source you know - have incorporated hooks for those algorithms and modified their own code base to maintain reverse compatibility with the old program. Slowly, over the ages, their own code is becoming deprecated, but it's still there with extra layers to translate between the new code and the old, since there's some bits of old code that don't have newer replacements yet, and so people want to keep using this old program since there's no fully suitable replacement for it yet.

It's really a marvelous piece of social engineering and now that I think about it, quite a sensible approach. Some of us may be 1337 hax0rs who can code up our own life-programs from scratch, taking the best of what we've seen and inventing our own and tying it all together into one elegant system, thus rejecting anyone else's system as weak and broken and in many ways quite Evil (to use a technical term). But not all the lusers out there can code up their own stuff, and they've got to use something in the meanwhile, so they use whatever hack job best suits their needs. Catholicism seems something like Mac OS X - lots of free and open source stuff in there, highly compatible with open and non-proprietary systems, but with layers that make it all reverse compatible with the older Mac code, and a slick face on top of it all that most everybody feels comfortable using.

My biggest pet project is, by this analogy, writing a whole new Life OS from scratch, all open source with clean and elegant code, no ugly hacks, and a full feature set that's mostly compatible with all the major brands out there, only breaking compatibility in places where the other brands had really ugly hacks that shouldn't be propagated - thus allowing anyone who wants to switch completely over to this new and improved system in a very easy transition, and leave their old junkware behind. I know put in those terms it sounds like a major project that will never be finished - and I guess, like any great open source project, it never will be - but I hope that at the very least I'll wind up with a usable product that other systems can incorporate bits of into their own code. I'll be happy if it just helps programs like Catholicism, who seem eager to incorporate newer cleaner code, to develop into a better product in the end, thus migrating all their millions of users off the crapware that they're currently using.

No offense to Catholics or anyone else is intended by this post. I think you're being stupid if you blindly follow anything, but chances are you and I would agree on a good majority of topics, once we got the semantics straightened out.

Re:Religious Development and a Software Analogy

[endoplasmicMessenger]

Best of luck! That's a huge project. I had a project like that of my own for a while.

Then I decided to re-use the Catholic code base. The amazing thing is that the original developers didn't even know how to program. They didn't know a thing about software engineering. In fact, it was the last thing on their minds. But somehow the 12 of them (oops, make that 11), with the help of their Lead Architect, created a system that has actually lasted all of these centuries. Nothing short of miraculous! :)

Re:Wrong. Scientific Method cannot be applied to I

[Bush Pig]

> ... anything is subject to testing by the scientific method ...

No, it isn't. Off the top of my head, the grounds for belief (or disbelief) in the soul is not testable by the scientific method. Nor is belief (or disbelief) in a god or gods. (Nor is most of mathematics.)

Because I prefer my explanations elegant and compact, I don't happen to believe in the soul or any gods, whereas I do believe in the validity (note: not truth) of mathematics for the same reason. However, this is belief (and trust in Occam's Razor) and I recognise that it is not scientifically testable (although eminemtly reasonable).

Why must you turn Slashdot into a house of LIES?!

[Dimensio]

Speciation, or evolution of one species into another, is not observable and has never been found in the fossil record.

Wrong.

Pat Robertson's outburst makes no sense.

[Dimensio]

ID proponents testified under oath that ID is not supposed to be religious in nature. Either Pat Robertson is an idiot totally unfamiliar with the issues or the Dover school board members committed perjury.

You're both wrong.

[Dimensio]

Actually we do not know whether or not a specific scientific theory is indeed provable until it is indeed proven.

No. Scientific theories can never be proven. Scientific theories must always be tentative; that is, they cannot be considered so firmly established that absolutely nothing can prove them wrong. Scientific theories are always subject to revision or even outright falsification, no matter how much evidence mounts in support.

Wow! The missing link!

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. That post may just convince me that evolution is indeed true. Perhaps some of us are still in the process of evolving from a lesser being. Come to think of it, I've seen other examples of primitive life form thinking on the highway since I've been commuting again.

How about this...

[trigggl]

We were designed to evolve. As much as we try to play God, we haven't figured out how to do that one yet.

Patient: "Why do I have cancer?"
Evolution Doctor: "Your Brain Evolved."
Patient: "OK. I'll go die now, since I have no one to pray to."

Yeah, ID promotes fatalism. Maybe you should get cancer before you talk about it. I have a brain tumor, but I don't recall being fatalistic about it.

By the way, I have a Bachelor of SCIENCE degree in Engineering. Design is anti-scientific.

Re:Wrong. Scientific Method cannot be applied to I

[Xrikcus]

No, it really isn't. One organism cannot evolve. It is about groups of organisms, loosely termed "species". That doesn't mean "species" has a strict definition though, you can look at a group and say "that's a species" and study how they change over time without being able to define when they become two distinct species effectively.

Re:Wrong. Scientific Method cannot be applied to I

[Decaff]

No, it really isn't. One organism cannot evolve. It is about groups of organisms, loosely termed "species"

Actually, it isn't even about that. The only thing that really can evolve is DNA.

Said

[Mark_MF-WN]

Well said. There are definitely atheists who elevate their atheism to the status of religion -- ever seen those people who go around trying to get into religious debates, and haranguing everyone they can? But in general, no. Atheists lack any of the characteristics associated with religious faith. Which is why I fucking hate secular humanist clubs... it's atheism, with all the annoying bullshit of a religion. What the hell!

Discovery institute funded by Gates

[Anonymous Coward]

The discovery institute is largely funded by everyone's favorite monopolist, Bill Gates.

And he dares to complain about the state of science education in the US!!

Re:Well good (consider)

[Maxo-Texas]

1) There is strong geological evidence of a 4 billion year time span. This is a -really- long time. In just a million years, humans have 50,000 generations. Consider what humans did to wolves in way less than 5,000 generations (wolf -> great dane, Irish wolf hound, beagle, pit bull, chihuahua, etc. All from the same parent wolf line).

2) Evolutionary theory has been applied to programs and using this method generated the standard solutions humans usually figure out and - this is cool - a new method to solve the problem, not previously considered, which was more efficient than anything we had thought up yet. Really exciting stuff. You really should look into this area.

3) Given that there is -no evidence- of human existence before roughly 100,000 years ago (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cro-magnon_man) and strong evidence of things similar to humans before that for only 2 million years, I think it would be very illogical to conclude that we started out perfect (unless by perfect you mean a small marsupial creature first seen during the dino era).

4) Remember- we are not perfect- we have lots of bad design in humans (the eye being a common example- our eyes are horribly designed).

5) "Bad" things are relative. Sickle cell is "bad" but in areas with maleria it is "good". "Good" things are relative. Dumping water for cooling is a good strategy in areas where you can replace the water- elsewhere, it's not such a good idea.

ID is creationism renamed (they know it too- the recent trial showed one of the big id books was originally written with "creationism" and when "creationism" was overturned, they just did a global search and replace with ID- that's lying- and that's pretty damn disappointing for a religion that is supposed to prize honesty and honorable behavior).

Re:Article didn't mention HOW it's unconstitutiona

[Taevin]

Since you are obviously having difficulty understanding my position I'm going to help you out:

#1. I do not disagree with keeping ID out of schools, science classrooms in particular. I do not even like the idea of ID or creationism as I am not religious and general dislike religion in general.

#2. What the fuck does that or ID have to do with the Constitution of the United States of America?

No where does the Constitution say religion is unconstitutional. No where does the Constitution say that the federal government must root out religion where ever it can be found in a public place. The only thing the federal government can do is pull its education funding from that district if it's being misused.

Letting a community decide to teach its children in the manner it deems best. The federal government saying that constitutionally allow activity is unconstitutional. See the fucking difference?

Re:Wrong. Scientific Method cannot be applied to I

[Xrikcus]

Well... maybe, but while clearly the DNA is evolving, the organism evolves as a result of that. You could say a balloon doesn't grow, it is just more air filling the inside, but the result is that the balloon grows anyway, surely the same applies?

Re:Article didn't mention HOW it's unconstitutiona

[sickofthisshit]

"religion" is not unconstitutional, of course.

STATE ESTABLISHMENT of religion IS. And it applies to the states as well by the 14th amendment.

Pennsylvania and it's localities can't force me to send my kids to church on Sunday, or any other day of the week. It can force me to send my kids to school, and therefore, schools cannot act as churches. There is a constitutional standard that governs what religious activities a school must allow, and what religious activities a school cannot allow or mandate.

Just declaring something "a community" doesn't give it the power to take away constitutional liberties, like the freedom to not follow a state-mandated religion. Dover, PA can't violate my constitutional liberties for free speech, against unreasonable search and seizure, or remove my right to vote based on race, color, creed, or national origin, or any of those other constitutional liberties.

Re:Wrong. Scientific Method cannot be applied to I

[Decaff]

Well... maybe, but while clearly the DNA is evolving, the organism evolves as a result of that.

Exactly. Change starts at the level of the DNA/Organism, not the species.

What is science by its own definition.?

[buildup]

If it can't be provable, demonstrable, repeatable then it is not solid science. It is a theory. No aspect of evolution nor ID has been proven by science's own definitions. So why limit the child's view by not even mentioning other non-proven views but are popular with a LARGE portion of acclaimed scientists. Let those kids proceed with science to remove the THEORY OF prefix from either. Let FACTS triumph! Not zeal.

Philosophize!

[ArgyleBandit]

Science is a processed developed by man to provide a method for observing the universe, and to create a model describing how things work. In many cases the models produced are very good, but science can not be confused with fact. Science is a living field, and the models we are using to describe the universe continue to evolve. Just look at the model of an atom over the last few hundred years for a good example.

Traditionally throughout history Science has gone hand in hand with Philosophy. Aristotle's book on Physics was followed by his book on Metaphysics. Philosophy doesn't throw out a theory because it doesn't have a testable hypothesis, but attempts to combine all of human knowledge together to discover the truth behind reality. Biology class certainly isn't the best place to be teaching any idea that has an un-testable hypothesis, but there really isn't a better place in public schools to familiarize students with those ideas. Most public schools don't even have a philosophy curriculum, possibly because of its limited commercial applications.

Re:Wrong. Scientific Method cannot be applied to I

[Xrikcus]

Clearly I made a slight error in wording that one :) The dna evolves as a group, so organisms evolve as a group. An organism can't possibly evolve. An individual organism's dna clearly can't change over time. The way to see DNA changing over time is to take a set of examples of DNA and view the general trend... view the descendent organisms of the original organism, as soon as you have an organism and its descendents you have a group of organisms, loosely a species, and we're back to the original point of species evolving, not individuals. You cannot, afterall, take an organism and watch it evolve... it'll die, and you're left with no organism.

What we need....

[Anonymous Coward]

is a way to prevent all the literal creationists from benefiting from all of the benefits of evolution. Which would include the denial of a considerable amount of medical treatments. Then when they have a life expectancy of 45 and an infant mortality rate of a third world nation, the reasonable people can be secure in the fact, their ignorance will quickly die with them.

It's nice that morons like you have your convictions. To bad you're all such great cowards you rarely stake your lives or the lives of your children on them.

Re:Wrong. Scientific Method cannot be applied to I

[Decaff]

Clearly I made a slight error in wording that one :) The dna evolves as a group, so organisms evolve as a group.

I kind of see what you mean. I may have been imprecise as well! I know that single indivuals can't evolve, but evolutionary selection happens at the level of the individual - ideas of group or species selection (if that is what you are implying) is pretty much out of date.

WTF?

[Anonymous Coward]

Good God, man, have you ever actually read anything about the modern theory of evolution? Did you get your information from a Creationist screed, or did you just sleep through biology class?

Your post makes as much sense as saying that atoms can't be split because phlogiston doesn't exist.

Wise fools

[jeremycec]

"Professing to be wise, they became fools..." (Romans 1:22)
"I pity da fool." (Mr. T, "Rocky III")

I note that the majority of rhetoric against ID is ad hominem attacks; i.e., "ID is stupid, and stupid religious zealots are the only ones who believe in it." There is very, very little effort given to proving points on a logical basis, which is what I would assume "scientific" people would try to do. The debate is very emotional and non-factual.

This leads me to believe that the people attacking ID have been blinded to the truth, just as it says in I Corinthians 4:4: "...whose minds the god of this age (i.e., Satan) has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light...should shine on them."

So, I am not angry at this wayward judge, or the ranting "scientists", or the wise fools that post on Slashdot. Rather, I pity da fools because they have been blinded.

Fortunately, I can read to the end of the Book, and I know that some day:
"...at the name of Jesus every knee shall bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, and that every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." (Philippians 2:10-11)

AMEN!

Peace out and MERRY CHRISTMAS (not some politically correct euphemism) to all!

The old TripMaster is back!

[iced_773]

Wow. That was priceless. It's also why I have you marked as "friend."

What happened to #5 on 1992_Called's Open Letter to T/\/\/\/\? You used to reply to your SlashStalkers all the time, making your posts quite fun to read. Now you just ignore them. Since your karma has been maxed out, and it isn't about karma anyway, what do you have to lose? I'm sure I'm not the only one who misses your artfully written responses.

Of course, your Stalker will probably reply to me saying something obscene, or a modder will mod me offtopic or something, but it's not about karma and maybe I will make a response of my own.

Re:The old TripMaster is back!

[Anonymous Coward]

Not at all. I will state, however, that your devotion to TMM is clearly making you accepting of any post that he makes regardless of its inherent insighfulness or lack thereof. You claim that his post is "priceless" with complete disregard for the reasons why people are starting to troll him more and more. Your continual insistence that those who have been hounding him under the AC shield are the same person, when I can state for a fact that they are not as my posts account for less than 1/4 of them, also shows your distinct partisanship towards anything that he states as insightful and factual.

I would not be surprised if you are one of his many "followers" that continually mod up even the most inane of his statements. It's only been recently that his posts, while following the same formula as most of his others, are no longer getting the +5 insightful and +5 informative mods like they have in the past. I obviously can only give one mod point to any given post, so it's not like I'm wasting my mod point on knocking him down. Additionally, I have a personal policy not to knock down posts because mod points are better used by modding people up. So, someone other than me is obviously modding him down, more now that in recent months. Yet you and the rest of his fans are oblivious to that as well.

I also have stated that of the past four or five posts telling him to knock it off with the anime smile, my posts counted for one of them. That's it. One. If that doesn't indicate a pattern of people getting frustrated with his "formula", then I'm not sure what does.

But since you obviously have rose-colored glasses with respect to TMM, I don't expect you to be objective in anything that I or anyone else has to say about the growing frustration with his karma whoring patterns.

Re:Wrong. Scientific Method cannot be applied to I

[Xrikcus]

Ah, gotcha. No, not at all :) Selection is at the individual level, I was just misinterpreting your comment as saying that individuals themselves evolve... which as you say, is nonsense, hence species evolve.

Intimacy for Nerds

[PJ Brunet]

"To believe that something is true is to not question it." Do you love me? Do you love me? How about now? Do you remember the movie AI? The blue fairy was a blue fairy was a blue fairy, for 10,000 years it never changed. We humans on the other hand have something called intuition, and intimacy...

Re:Intimacy for Nerds

[|/|/|||]

To believe that something is true is to not question it.

And unfortunately that is a common mistake made by humans. We cling to romantic ideas and to that which we are familiar with. Our hard wired emotions and ancient, leftover thought patterns are always there to confuse us. They are what give us the true human experience, they are what give us fears and desires and everything that makes the world real for us. They are also, however, obstacles that must be overcome if we want to study something objectively.

Just as your vision system fools you when you look at an optical illusion, it's easy to see the workings of the universe as you want them to be. Luckily we have a wonderful invention called Science. It's a methodology that forces us to be objective, and it has allowed us to gather a huge amount of knowledge and to discover amazing insights into the workings of the universe that we are a part of.

One place evolution leads

[benhocking]

It's hard for many of us computer scientists to think that evolution leads somewhere wrong when evolution has clearly led us (computer scientists) to the field of evolutionary programming. This is a field which is unabashedly based on evolutionary theory, and which has enjoyed tremendous success. I've personally employed many genetic algorithms (a sub-field of evolutionary programming) to help me solve problems that are difficult to solve in other ways. The idea that random mutations in the context of a "fitness terrain" can lead to useful solutions is a well tested idea in computer science.

By comparison, what scientific/technological fields has ID contributed to in a useful manner?

Re:One place evolution leads

[sardiskan]

So you're telling me that you're comparing computer programming to the INFINITLY more complex biological processes? We can't even cure the common cold and you think we can scientifically figure out where we came from??? And why are you skewing off into a tangent about computer programming anyway. I never said the concept of evolution is evil or wrong. It's a very good concept, but not in the context of having a species change to another one. That's the WRONG DIRECTION I'm talking about. Cheers

Fallacious thinking in ID

[Renew and Improved]

The basic argument in Intelligent Design seems to be, "Structure X is too complex for me to figure out a plausable evolutionary pathway for it; therefore it must have been designed."

ID advocates overlook some fundamental (though widely misunderstood) aspects of evolution. For instance, no "primitive" organisms live today. Every species now alive has gone through the same 3.8 billion years of evolution as the rest of us. The biochemistry of so-called "primitive" organisms has thus had plenty of time to complexify.

There's also lots of evidence that life evolves reduntant systems, which leaves it free to delete "primitive" method A in favor of "complex" method B.

Imagine an alien scientist studying plumbing in a modern U.S. city -- perhaps one of California suburbs constructed since the 1950s. With no outhouses, cesspits, or pit latrines as examples of incremental development, our scientist might conclude that modern plumbing -- which requires metallurgy, ceramics, hydraulics, pumping, electricity, etc. -- is too complex for the inhabitants to have developed. The technology must therefore have been given to them by an alien race.

I pointed these fallacies out to Michael Behe (author of ID classic Darwin's Black Box) some years back, but received no reply.

Re:Actually, the Scopes Monkey Trial wasn't like t

[Irvu]

I was well aware that the trial was "selected" actually. Nor do I consider that a "scam". The teacher in question chose to violate the law thus setting up the trial in the first place. That wasn't the first (dumping tea in the harbour) or last time that laws were deliberately violated to protest their existence.

As to the reaction in dayton, that wasn't the text of my discussion. Nor did I draw in any way from "inherit the wind". Since the trial it has (for better or worse) become a symbol of the evolutuion/creation debate and, perhaps outside of Dayton, spurred both sides along.

Consider this, the 6 members of the Kansas state board of eductation, scvheduled their pro-creationism dog and pony show for the exact same days as the Scopes Monkey trial starting it on the anniversary of the trial's opening. That wasn't accidental.

Whatever the intentions, or mood, of the participants at the time, the trial is now well beyond that in the minds of both creationists, and rationalists.

Re:Wrong. Scientific Method cannot be applied to I

[Copid]

That's ridiculous, anything is subject to testing by the scientific method, ID is no different. It's just that, like evolution, the matters addressed by ID are not testable by any means available to us. This is also true for QM, or Astrophysics. I never said they weren't scientific, I only said that ID was no less scientific.

OK. Hypothesis: There is some intelligent force that has interacted with organisms to produce the variety of life that we see today. Its methods are not specified. Its goals are not specified. The nature of the interaction is not specified. The length and time of the interaction are unspecified.

Test away. I'm very interested in seeing what observations you can think of that might favor a null hypothesis.

The nature of god

[Anonymous Coward]

> If god exists and is interested in human beings, then I can't imagine he is an arrogant
> god. More precisely, I don't believe that god would require or even suggest worship, let
> alone a relationship based on fear. Worship is as human a quality as they come, and fear-
> mongering is clearly the agenda of a con man. Both are quite obviously human inventions

Yes, because man created god in his own image.

> Regardless of whether god exists, organized religion is a scam!

So true.

Creation Vs. Evolution

[mattalex87]

This seems to be a one sided conversation everyone is completly and totaly pro evolution and so here is some more information on the subject. Biblical Creationism: The Universe is the result of design and construction by the all powerful, all knowing.... God. This may take a long time to read but please read the whole thing and give me your reaction. "Coal: Evidence for a Young Earth" Abstract: Evolutionary theory requires millions of years in the formation of coal in order to afford time for the development of living organisms whose fossils are found in coal deposits. However, laboratory and field research has demonstrated that coal is formed rapidly and in vast quantities. These vast coal deposits are unsullied by other material. The conclusion is drawn that actual research indicates a young age to the Earth that contains such coalified materials. Introduction "If coal takes millions and millions of years of heat and pressure to form, how is it possible that creationists are teaching that the earth is only a few thousand years old?" This is a commonly asked question among individuals seeking answers about the age of the earth and the universe. Research has been done by several creation organizations, as well as independent scientists, in order to answer such questions. The evidence actually shows that coal does not take millions of years to form, as is commonly asserted. In fact, the formation of coal has been proven to be a rapid process that can be duplicated in modern laboratories in a matter of days - or even hours. I. Rapid Formation In order for coal to be formed, several factors must be present. Pressure, temperature, water, time, and some sort of vegetation are the key elements for the formation of coal. According to evolutionary theory, the slow accumulation and decomposition of vegetation living in past ages accounts for the coal seams. However, this theory can not answer why such large amounts of original vegetation without soil can be found in the areas that are now coal seams, or how these coal seams became so thick - some being over two hundred feet in depth. Scientist Robert Gentry analyzed coalified wood found on the Colorado Plateau in order to determine how long it took for coal to form.1 By treating coal with epoxy and slicing it into thin sheets, Dr. Gentry was able to examine tiny, compressed radiohalos found in the coal. Radiohalos are discolorations in the coal, ejected by radioactive elements in the centers (such as uranium). According to evolutionary theory, in order for these halos to form, several processes must have occurred. First, water-saturated logs must have been laid down in several different geologic formations, including the Triassic, Jurassic and Eocene layers. Later, uranium solutions infiltrated the water-saturated logs, and uranium decay products were collected at tiny sites within the logs. The radioactive decay from the tiny particles ejected spherical radiation damage regions around those sites, thus producing halos. Finally, a pressure event on the site of the formations compressed the logs as well as the radioactive halos within them. However, because coal is not a malleable substance, scientists know that these logs had not turned to coal at the time the compression event occurred. This points to a quick burial and coalification of the logs rather than a long time period.2 II. Decay Ratios When the ratio of uranium decay to its decay product (lead) is analyzed, the conclusion is drawn that all the logs within the various geologic formations were buried at the same time. The high lead-to-uranium ratios admit the possibility that both the initial uranium infiltration and the coalification could possibly have occurred within the past several thousand years.3 III. Polystrate Fossils The presence of "polystrate" trees (trees petrified or coalified in an upright position) point to a rapid coalification process. One of the most commonly known polystrate trees is found at Katherine Hill Bay, Australia. This fossilized tree can be seen extending over twelve feet, thr

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Rational thought prevails

[Shoutboy]

Isn't it wonderful to see that every once in a while rational thought prevails? Yay rational thought!

Re:you should all wear brown paper bags on your he

[fluffy666]

Listen, there are whackos all over the place. It just happens that the US attracts the whole lot. Be glad they're not vocal in your country.

Hey, we had a deal with the Natives.. we ship over all of our religous whackos from Europe, they get an easy source of protein. Damm those communicable diseases.

I mean, we tried to deal with the problem ourselves - when it comes to reliegous genocide, you Americans haven't even made the starting grid yet - but these fundies breed.

You need some genetics knowledge

[DrYak]

Your reasonning has *several* huge flaws.

- What you're basically considering, even if you can't name it, is only punct mutation (a single base pair some where is randomly replaced by another or deleted). Single points of mutation do happen, but they're not the only way to create diversity.
There are other much more efficient ways : recombination, which is shuffling functionnal units to produce new genes using old parts. (whole gene subunits like "domain that goes thru cell wall" can be copied or moved around. The result is another gene that can function).
It's like trying to create something different out of a bicycle by throwing hammer randomly at it (point mutation. After an eternity and if done in parallel on a lot of bicycles, I may indeed work by virtue of the Shakespear and thousand monkeys principle) compared to taking a bicycle appart, combining the pieces differently and ending up with a tandtem, a mono-cycle, or a motor-cycle if you threw in a motor from somewhere else in the mix (recombination. then evolution will sort out which of your products is useful).
recombination is the quick method to obtain something useful out of almost nothing, point mutation help only for the fine tuning, most of the time.
All living cell can do it (both bacteria and eukaryote). The whole genome research is about trying to discover genes and infer their uses by recognizing such functionnal units ("auto-labelling" is exactly that. Computers look for known units inside the full genome).
The most trivial example is that this technique is used by your white blood cells to create new kind of antibodies to be prepared for your next infection. (They are obtained by shuffling around antibody "spare parts" and then fine-tuned by point mutation).
Some bacteria have developped new functions by creting new proteins that are inserted in their wall and let them interact with their surroundings in new way.

- Full gene can be duplicated, and then mutate independently ending in different variants.
Take your exemple of hemoglobin. In fact there's not a single kind of hemoglobin, but a great number of different related proteins. regular blood cells take 2 different kinds, 2 samples of each, and pack them in groups or 4. Myoglobin is another proteins that is used in packs of 2 by the muscle to store local oxygen suplies. All these proteins have very closely related structures, and are produced by genes that look similar and stem from a comon ancestor, but then got duplicated and evolved into separate proteins in the end even used by different type of cells.
Same goes for the pigments in the color sensors of the retina. In fact, the blue pigment and the green pigment sits next to each other on the same chromosome. They probably are a single gene that got duplicated and then specialised into 2 different pigments. Some kind of very light daltonism (that doesn't prevent seeing colors like regular daltonisme, but only mess detection of subtle differences) is caused by this genes getting once again duplicated and being now three copies on the same chromosome (green, blue, and mixed).

- Don't forget that proteins aren't linear but are folded. By repeating small segments, or by point mutation at strategical points, you may end up with something that is folded completly differently and has a complete different function. Same goes for the post-processing once the protein is builded (sugars may be added on the sufrace, ...).

- and there are a lot of other way to obtain new creative results quickly (plasmids, scavenging, ...)

- As another reader pointed out, the point is not to produce this single exact protein which today's human have. The point is to create whatever comes, and the let the evolution sort whatever is usefull. There may be hundreds of different combinations that are viable, functionnal and useful. Out of lots of possible alternatives, one specific got picked by luck.
Take the eyes : Insects, molluscs and vertebrate have evovled separatly and ended w

Footloose may be a movie but...

[DusterBar]

Footloose may be a movie but, would you believe that dancing is illegal in much of New York?

So, you want links - here is the main site that is trying to coordinate the fight to legalize dancing: http://www.legalizedancingnyc.com/

There was a great story on NPR some weeks ago (months) about this problem. Bar owners being fined a lot of money due to patrons "swaying and moving to background music"! (Warning, you need to listen to the story)

The amazing thing is the link to the Footloose movie - there are some people from that movie that are now working to address this law in New York. Some of them even claimed that when they first saw the script for the movie that they thought it was "too unbelievable" until they did the research.

Re:Wrong. Scientific Method cannot be applied to I

[telekon]

Thank FSM the ID proponents haven't taken up Feyerabend. Imagine if they started making compelling, rational arguments rejecting the actual power of scientific method within the 'scentific community,' and went from there to incommensurability as a basis for not comparing ID and evolution, up to the counter-induction principle as a basis for inclusion... The sad part is, as interesting as Feyerabend is, his actual position would have been for the inclusion of ID if it's what people wanted...

I hate that interesting and thoughtful critiques from science studies/ philosophy of science might eventually work for these christian fundie fascist wingnuts.

Before flaming back, NB the above description is a simplification (and, often conflation) of Feyerabend's work, such as I conjecture ID'ers might turn to. His actual work is quite interesting and far more nuanced.

we got lucky

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, we got lucky. Following this trial, I was actually expecting ID to be upheld, because I assumed they would have picked their fight in a district where the judge was known to favor creationism. When the judge isn't biased, the system comes up with the truth on average, but a biased judge can rule with any opinion they want. If there'd been a jury, same deal.

Back in college someone asked what the C syntax was for a function pointer. The professor said she didn't know, and asked us to vote on what the answer was. We all laughed. The reason we laughed was that we knew there was a correct answer, and that majority opinion had no bearing on what the correct answer was. Same here: the outcome of a court case is an opinion by a group of people, and doesn't affect what the correct answer actually is.

Re: Affect In Kansas?

[Rambo, John J.]

hello my pretty.. i'm back again and i wishy wishy you a shitty shitty chrismy chrismy!

The Answer: Neither Belong in a Science Class

[9InchRails]

If ID is 'flawed' for attempting to introduce the supernatural to explain the tough parts, then evolution is 'flawed' for lack of credible evidence combined with the presence of contradictory evidence. If ID is pseudo-mystical, then evolution is non sequitor.

I have no problem pulling BOTH of them out of science class. If you look at the facts objectively, it cannot be said dogmatically that either one happened. Let's all just stop pretending that the evolution proponents aren't secular zealots and just teach what can be scientifically proven.

Re:The Answer: Neither Belong in a Science Class

[Telepathetic Man]

If you read "The Universe In a Single Atom, The Convergance of Science and Spirituality", then you would know that it is more than just secular belief (a decription that is dangerous, in that it is all still theory), and that there are multiple major religions of the world that don't follow intelligent design, find themselves agreeing with science, or both.

The problems with the idea of leaving out everything that is still theorectical, or has not been unequivocally proven, would be;

• There is not much left to teach but the arts.
• Gravity, relativity, and quantum theories are really just as susceptible to that rational unless the exception that they have been partially proven with mathematics is enough to keep them in schools.
• It is just too dangerous for the United States to ignore good science and let all the other abitious countries take the lead in the technology that can be had by teaching and researching evolution.

Not Science

[Slant675]

Yeah, robotics is intelligent design, so it does not belong in a classroom either.

That makes no sense. If a being, like you and I, is discovered to be creating us, that is just as much science as us manipulating genes. It is a theory just as much as evolution is. Which might be a case to say that evolution does not belong in the classroom. Which brings us to the question, what defines "science."

Official declairation: I think both should be allowed in a classroom and both should be declaired a theory, since they both are.

Not only that

[Rui del-Negro]

To quote Terry Pratchett:

"People are always a little confused about this, as they are in the case of miracles. When someone is saved from certain death by a strange concatenation of circumstances, they say that's a miracle. But of course if someone is killed by a freak chain of events (the oil just spilled there, the safety fence broken just there), that must also be a miracle. Just because it's not nice doesn't mean it's not miraculous."

RMN
~~~

Science, Theory, and Models

[Anonymous Coward]

Science is the process of building, testing, defining, and redefining models of reality. In creating new models, new ideas, and new words, the work of Science is to constantly improve the ability of the Theory to match and model the perceived reality.

The problem with I.D. is that it looks outward for a supernatural creator to guide the functions of the universe and life. Their god might as well be just an alien, like Q from Star Trek. What seems to be missing is that it is the Observer that most impacts the perceptions of the cosmos.
We humans interact with the cosmos through the dim filter of our eyes and brains.

The human eye can only perceive certain bandwidths of light, and the rest goes sight unseen. Likewise the human mind perceives the cosmos in an ordered and structured way, because the mind is a pattern recognition organ that has evolved for the purpose of helping the individual survive day to day and reproduce successful offspring.

Java programming on paper would mean little to an ant, unless the ink tasted good. The ant does not have a perception of the computer code, or a computer. Likewise a human's perception of the universe is limited, because of the limits of the human brain. It's not the fault of the ant that it is an ant, and it is not the fault of the human that it is a human, that is just the nature of the function of the organs in the creatures.

Perhaps someday our minds will be able to build machines that can more accurately unravel the mystery of existence - what everything is 'made' of, why energy flows the way it does, how it got here and what happens next. Already we use devices to convert radio waves into sound we can hear, convert X-rays into black and white photos, and MRI machines to convert humanly undetectable energies into vibrant color pictures...

Now, just to break that FTL space/time misconceptions and discover the simple and cheap way to travel the Galaxy!

I.D. major flaw is making a religion out of a side effect of perceiving the cosmos through a pattern recognition organ.
They might as well say fairies paint the flowers colors every springtime, because we see the new colors pop up from nothingness... so it must be fairies.

Re-read my post

[benhocking]

All I said was that evolutionary theory has led to advancements in computer science, whereas to the best of my knowledge intelligent design has not led to any scientific or technological insight. Evolutionary theory (and the law of natural selection) have also led to insight in many other fields, but I thought I'd draw from a discipline (and a sub-field) from which I have first-hand knowledge. I am not saying evolutionary programming being useful in computer science proves evolutionary theory must be correct.

Again, let me be clear - I'm not comparing computer programming to complex (or even simple) biological processes, although comparisons can and have been made. (Comparisons are not the same as equality. One can learn a lot about a complex situation by comparing it to a simpler, easier-to-understand problem. Such comparisons can lead to great insight, although I will readily admit that one can over generalize from such comparisons. You seem intelligent enough to understand this distinction.)

What I am comparing is the scientific worth of evolutionary theory to the scientific worth of intelligent design - since ID is being proposed as a scientific theory (in the current context) and not just a theological theory. One measure of the value of a theory (and only one measure of many) is the scientific and technological return of that theory. Evolutionary programming is one such return (out of many) to come from evolutionary theory. Have there been similar returns from intelligent design? Have there been any scientific returns from intelligent design?

So to answer your question about why I'm "skewing off into a tangent about computer programming", in case you missed it in the above discussion, is because it demonstrates one merit (of many) of evolutionary theory, and hence is a valid framework from which to analyze the evolutionary theory vs. intelligent design debate.

And, of course, I will have to agree to disagree about whether evolutionary theory can explain one species changing into another. Many other posts on this thead have aptly explained how we have observed other species being evolved into. However, you would no doubt point out that what you really meant is that we haven't seen one genus evolving into another, and if such an example came up, you'd no doubt claim we haven't seen one family evolving into another. And, as many other posts have pointed out, there's a big difference between the couple hundred years (at most) that we've been accurately recording such things and the couple billion years that evolution has had to accomplish what it has accomplished. Again, I don't expect to convince you of this, and you, no doubt, don't expect to convince me that anything is too complex for evolution.

Re:Re-read my post

[sardiskan]

Ok, I've done a little research into Evolutionary Programming and Evolutionary Algorithms. Exactly what good has it done? What I'm reading shows a method of simulating the evolutionary process in a computer. But so what, you can make a computer do anything you want.

But here is something even more interesting. The information I found on EP and EA says, "In nature, we see that the encoding for genetic information (GENOME) is done in a way that admits asexual REPRODUCTION. Asexual reproduction typically results in OFFSPRING that are genetically identical to the PARENT."

But then on the same page it says "Evolution, by definition, absolutely requires diversity in order to work. In nature, an important source of diversity is MUTATION." Now, according to the dictionary, the definition of MUTATION is "A change of the DNA sequence within a gene or chromosome of an organism resulting in the creation of a new character or trait not found in the parental type." It seems to me that single celled organisms from the billions of years ago that evolutionist promote would have never produced anything but the same exact cell. Mutation would have never happened because the genetic material would have always been produced asexually. This is all based on what I read at http://www.faqs.org/faqs/ai-faq/genetic/part2/sect ion-1.html. Now I'm sure from here there are obviously "outside forces" that would cause mutation. And I'm sure there are others. But there may also be "outside forces" that would protect a species from mutation. Point being, you can't quantify everything.

You may have a point that ID doesn't really contribute anything SCIENTIFICALLY, I don't know, but I don't think that is the goal of ID. I think ID is an approach to the origins of life that allows for a creator and not a haphazard glop of primordial ooze. But I don't see evidence that the study of evolution has produced any scientifically usablility either. You can tell me that "we have found this cure", or "we have discovered this process" due to evolution. But that's just you saying that. I want to hear from the group that discovered it to tell me and prove to me that some evolutionary process helped them in discovering what they found.

Now don't get the impression that I know alot about evolution or Intellegent Design. I'm actually a Creationist. I believe the God of the Bible created the universe and all that is in it. The same God that Washington, Adams, and Lincoln prayed to and asked for wisdom with the running of this country. Which is why this is the greatest country on the planet. I don't waste valuable time on either approach. ID'ers are just tiptoeing around what they really want to say. But I like the idea of ID because it is a way to approach the atheist evolutionist that wouldn't believe a god created anything. Alot of atheist evolutionist think that ID'ers or creationist are morons that blindly believe something that has no proof. So for a creationist to approach an evolutionist would be of no merit. I've noticed alot of evolutionist pre-judge creationist and ID'ers. I know this because I'm an ex-evolutionist and an ex-athiest. But anyway, I digress because I'm getting off the subject. I'll not continue this bantor with you. I appreciate you're input though, I've discovered something I didn't know before. Cheers

Oh, really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting. Let's expand on this, shall we?

Actually, the reason I had so much info on this particular subject was because I myself submitted this story...only to be rejected because I was too late. Other people actually appreciate the additional information I frequently bring to discussions...as you would if you were actually interested in participating in the discusion. Some dilligent digging can usually (but not always) turn up some good additional information on a subject. It stimulates healthier discussion, but we've already established you're not interested in that sort of thing.

I will give you the benefit of the doubt on being a late submitter; however, you cannot convince me that for every article for which you just so happen to have "more information can be found here" links that you also were a "too late" submitter. Your posts clearly reveal a consistent pattern of always coincidentally having a "more informative article" ready to go by the time that the article is posted. Participating in a discussion with one's own unique insights and perspectives is one thing. Always having "more information" while often not necessarily adding any comments of substance is quite another.

Here's one that never fails to amuse me...apparently, you feel that you and I are the only participants here who aren't sheep. Every time you bitch about me 'tricking people into thinking I'm insightful' you manage to insult the entire Slashdot readership. And you wonder why you're regarded as a 'troll'...

From this, it's clear that you need to step out of your TMM persona and look at some of the posts that you submitted that for some reason got modded as "ingishtful". There are posts that are paragraphs long, loaded with what most people might not agree with but still can be insightful in thier own right. A great deal of your posts however are nothing more than an article quote with comments equivalent to "I [agree|do not agree] with that", although not so distinct in their brevity, the somehow get modded as "insightful". You of course have no problem with this being on the receiving end, but so someone who is "karmatically indifferent" so to speak, your ability to continually get modded up is suspicious at best. Some of your posts are indeed insightful; some of your posts are indeed funny. But a quote from TFA with a one or two short sentence comment of your own tagged at the end gets a +5 insightful or +5 informative when others quote articles and get modded down for karma whoring? Something is wrong here.

Or perhaps the anime smile that appears to be pissing off one person multiple times...of course, we'll never know, since you insist on hiding under the AC blankie.

"Blankie"? You accuse me of immaturity then you revert to an ultimately childish word as "blankie"? Although I don't expect you do believe this because you would have to admit that I'm right and that you are starting to annoy people with it, out of the last four or five anti-anime-smile posts against you as of this writing, I accounted for one.

It's true that I get my share of first posts....it's also true that I use them to discuss the topic at hand.

I fail to see how a link to another article or a quote from the article with a one or two sentence commentary can qualify as discussing the topic at hand. Many of your initial thread posts do qualify as you said. I would argue that most do not.

My karma has been maxed out for longer than I can remember. If this was about karma, I would have quit out of boredom long ago. What this is about is discussing issues in a forum of like-minded individuals, but it seems you can't get past the 'frist psot' and 'karma whore' slashdot-is-a-big-game mentality long enough to see that.

This is where I call "bullshit" on you. My karma has also been maxed out for more than a year. However, if you deny that there is no slight thrill in seeing a +5 attached to a post, I will call you