Slashdot Mirror
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.
Intelligent design isn't science, therefore it doesn't belong in a science room.
Thank God for that!
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.
My work here is dung.
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: Damn...what a smackdown.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
Thank God!
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.''
Be a real patriot: Question authority. Think for yourself. Formulate your own conclusions.
The question is, can this be used as a legal precedent in other cases like this across the country?
BBC and Wired
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.
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.
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.
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.
I read the internet for the articles.
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.
"When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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.
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.
Establishment and Free Exercise clauses
If you cannot keep politics out of your moderation remove yourself from the Mod Lottery.. NOW!
"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
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
(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.
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
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
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.
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.
It belongs in Philosophy.
What?
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
Then all biologists should be charged with violating the DMCA, shouldn't they ?
Uh... you realize that Footloose was a fictional movie, right?
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)
If you cannot keep politics out of your moderation remove yourself from the Mod Lottery.. NOW!
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.
> 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...
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
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.)
If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe. -- Carl Sagan
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.
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.
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?
...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
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.
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?
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.
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.
My kingdom is not of this world; (John 18:36)
isn't clear?
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
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.
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.
once more into the breach
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.
diegoT
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.
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.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
Ummm ...
l l/21/14/3643/
...
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/fu
Sorry,
Your next starter for 10 is
Help! help!, the termites are eating my DRAM!!!
> 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.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
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.
If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe. -- Carl Sagan
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
Secure messaging: http://quickmsg.vreeken.net/
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.
Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
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.
1. This particular "activist judge" was appointed by President G.W. Bush in 2002.
n .debate.ap/index.html).
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/evolutio
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.
TLR
A man no more knows his destiny than a tea leaf knows the history of the East India Company
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.
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.
$#!^ happens, but why does it always have to happen to me???
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.
Some days it's just not worth
chewing through my restraints.
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
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
I invite you to help yourself to last year's flu vaccine.
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.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
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.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
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?
This has been observed, e.g. several new mosquito species have evolved in the London subway.
see here for more info.
You know, I don't remember the 9th Commandment saying "Thou shall not lie, save to further my faith".
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
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.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
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.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
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.
Where all think alike, no one thinks very much.
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.
English is easier said than done.
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.
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!"
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.
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.
"God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
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.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
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.
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.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
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.
"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.
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.
diegoT
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
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.
A simple google search for "evidence evolution" yields numerous pages. From the very first one (I'm feeling lucky!)
m 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 1: Observed Evidence of Speciation http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.ht
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
-- Too lazy to get a lower UID.
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.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
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.
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.
Where's my sock? There it is...
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)
Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
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.
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.
I like muppets.
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.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
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.
"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"
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
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.)
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
> 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.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
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.
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 :)
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.
"On a scale from 1 to 10, people are stupid"
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?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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".
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
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.
I read the internet for the articles.
Evolution is provable/disprovable. ID is not.
ID doesn't meet the rigorous scientific standards to be called a "theory".
"I have as much authority as the pope, I just
don't have as many people who believe it" - George Carlin
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?!"
Trolling is a art,
...richie - It is a good day to code.
why-is-it wrote:
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:
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:
(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&
All but God can prove this sentence true.
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.
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.
"If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice!" -Rush
Only if you slam a 40 and overload your bladder...
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
"Then you can blame CNN. The quotes came from their site."
So, um, you're saying you, um, didn't RTFA?
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.
Just because something is explainable or natural does not remove it from being a miracle.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
As has the spelling of "definitely".
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.
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.
Reading Slashdot is ruining my spelling and grammar.
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.)
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)
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!
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.
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.
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!
Everyone is entitled to his own opinions, but not his own facts.
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.
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.
When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
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
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.
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.
Anyone who whines about being modded down should be.
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.
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
"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.
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
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
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 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.
Which big band was it that we started with? Benny Goodman? Count Basie?
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.
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
"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
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
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.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
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:
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.
Well, is there a monkey in my box? Remember, God has to answer yes or no.
Oh wait - no he doesn't.
And I can't exactly "see" evolution's effect, but one thing I can "see" is the bacteria that have grown resistant to antibiotics.
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
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.
llamaluvr wrote:
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.
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&
All but God can prove this sentence true.
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.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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?
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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).
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.
1913 Webster
...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.
"A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy." --Theodore Roosevelt
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.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
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.
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.