Scientists Figure Out How Bees Fly

corbettw writes "Researchers at CalTech have discovered how bees fly, putting one more nail in the coffin of Intelligent Design. From the article: 'People in the ID community have said that we don't even know how bees fly ... We were finally able to put this one to rest. We do have the tools to understand bee flight and we can use science to understand the world around us.'"

Comments

Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[ackthpt]

Nails? Coffins? Intelligent Design? Pfft! What do these have to do with each other? Why do bees fly?

Because they forgot how to teleport!

man, i thought everyone knew that already .. all you had to do was ask them.

Cal Tech shouldn't be worrying about beating back old riddles posed by the flocks and get back to the business at hand of figuring out how to hack scoreboards.

Why this is important

[KingSkippus]

At first glance, this sounds kind of trivial, but from TFA:

The scientists said the findings could lead to a model for designing aircraft that could hover in place and carry loads for many purposes such as diaster surveillance after earthquakes and tsunamis.

Now, if the ID advocates had their way, we would have just said, "Hey, God makes bees fly. Since I already know the real reason, there's no real reason to keep studying it." In fact, some of them will probably even go so far as to dismiss the findings as false because it conflicts with their notion that God must be responsible. If we listened to them, we wouldn't have possible future scientific and engineering discoveries, discoveries that could possibly lead to even more important work on truly world-changing devices.

If they have their way and we stop studying other things that are presumably more important like evolution, stem cells, the origin of the universe, and so on, what else may we be missing out on?

I never cease to be amazed at how science has consistently managed to explain everything ID advocates have thrown at it. Is it always right? No. Is it complete? No. But when it comes to explaining how things work, it has a record that beats non-science every time. As far as I'm concerned, you can keep your "It must be God" explanations to yourself and in your churches. Maybe you want your kids to grow up dumb, but I'd rather my kids study stuff that is real and that can actually contribute to our progress.

Re:Why this is important

[bel_slashdot]

As a Christian Pastor, I believe the world, and everything in it, was indeed created by God. But I also believe that he is a God of order, and thus there is an order to all things that can be observed and recorded. As science progresses, I would expect that many things that are a mystery to us today would be explained and understood. The fact that there is a scientific explanation for these things does not disprove the existence of God. Sure, for many in the creationist camp, science and God have no business mixing. But there are also those who believe as I do. Why do God and Science have to be mutually exclusive?

Re:Why this is important

[Fished]

Now, if the ID advocates had their way, we would have just said, "Hey, God makes bees fly. Since I already know the real reason, there's no real reason to keep studying it." In fact, some of them will probably even go so far as to dismiss the findings as false because it conflicts with their notion that God must be responsible. If we listened to them, we wouldn't have possible future scientific and engineering discoveries, discoveries that could possibly lead to even more important work on truly world-changing devices.

Nonsense. This is a caricature of ID perpetuated by those who know nothing about it, haven't bothered to read the central works, etc. An ID advocate would (and no doubt will say), "Cool! We discovered the novel, innovative way that the Designer chose to make Bees fly!" The more religiously minded intelligent design sorts would say, "Ain't God grand?"

The bogus, idiotic, pseudo-scientific types opposing ID would say, "ooh! Here's an interesting finding that I can somehow stretch to attack ID," on the basis of a few off-hand remarks made by a few non-central ID advocates.

The claim that we don't know how bees fly is by no means central to ID. This is just propaganda.

Re:Why this is important

[Planesdragon]

Now, if the ID advocates had their way, we would have just said, "Hey, God makes bees fly. Since I already know the real reason, there's no real reason to keep studying it."

Horse-pucky. You're making the same false argument that various religious advocates make when they say "since some Scientists are Atheists, supporting Science is supporting Atheism."

There are some I.D. advocates who don't know the first thing about science. And there are some who, on every other topic except evolution, are indisinguishable from other speakers or scientists.

By and large, "how Bees fly" says nothing about whether it was an evolved behavior or a constructed behavior. It's wrong for a moronic I.D. advocate to argue so, and it's wrong for a /. nutjob to argue that knowing how bees fly refutes I.D.

Re:Why this is important

[dc29A]

Hey, God makes bees fly.

- Flying Spaghetti Monster you insensitive clod!

Re:Why this is important

[ironwill96]

I'll probably get flamed a lot knowing the general liberal slant of /. but let me at least try to present a valid response to some of your points.

First of all, i'd like to make it clear that believing in Intelligent Design or in Creationism does NOT in any way prohibit ideas such as evolution, understanding how bees fly, or any other scientific fact that you want to explain. I don't understand why people constantly claim that creationism and science seem to be unable to co-exist! I believe God created the world, but what if he did so through the means of evolution and when "night became day" the big bang occurred? Does it really matter if I interpret the Genesis story to be a bit less literal than some ID proponents might claim?

Also, the thing about say studying stem cells has NOTHING to do with Intelligent Design. It has to do with something called medical ethics - and something called the Hippocratic oath. The issue at stake is when is a person a person by legal rights - does using stem cells from aborted fetuses or harvesting them constitute abuse of someone's human rights or are they not really a human yet because they haven't been born?

Basically my point is before making blanket inflammatory statements about Intelligent Design, Creationism, and their detrimental effect on science, at least stop to think that many of us love Science and desire for them to co-exist. Even some of the most scientifically minded individuals such as C.S. Lewis were turned to God in their pursuit of "evidence" to disprove his existence.

Re:Why this is important

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah right. Like any ID advocate has ever set foot inside a lab.

Re:Why this is important

[vortigern00]

OK, I'll bite.

I, myself, as a scientist and an atheist (although I believe the two have nothing to do with each other) have never read the important works of ID.

As an ID supporter, I am led to believe that you are liely an authority on what those important works are, and I ask you to kindly list those which you feel are most important.

I give you my word that I will read them all with a totally open mind.

Re:Why this is important

[Prophet of Nixon]

No reason at all.

Its just that people are silly and like to argue.

Re:Why this is important

[JourneymanMereel]

Now, if the ID advocates had their way, we would have just said, "Hey, God makes bees fly. Since I already know the real reason, there's no real reason to keep studying it."

/me puts on a flame retardant suit

I firmly believe that God did, in fact, make bees fly. He gave them wings and the ability to use them. He did the same for other flying insects. He also gave wings of a different type to birds... including special ones for the hummingbird. That doesn't in any way shape or form mean that we can't figure out how they do it. If we didn't study some form of defying gravity, we wouldn't have airplanes. I don't know about you, but when I'm going from Michigan to Florida, I sure appreaciate those steal birds.

Heck, some guy from GM made my Jimmy stop when I press the brake pedal but that doesn't mean that I don't appreciate the mechanic that studied how it was done and what to do to fix it in the event that it doesn't work as intended!

Re:Why this is important

[Anonymous Coward]

I think many people assume that since the ID model includes an original designer that it means we no longer need to understand how how something works-->God made it, I don't have to know how it works, it just does.

ID would say, however, that our world can only be fully understood if we include an original designer instead of random chance. It then goes on to ask the question, "how does it work?".

ID'ers would be every bit as concerned with how things fit together and how things work as someone with an evolutionary model.

Re:Why this is important

[TheFlyingGoat]

As someone who believes in creationism and hard science, I think both sides of the argument are taking the issue as black and white instead of realizing if a higher being really did create everything, then there's far more gray area involved.

The people on the science side should continue researching as they have in the past. They're doing great research that can teach us about a number of things, and that research can be used in future technology. Those that don't believe there's a God can continue not believing it.

The people on the ID side should realize that if God did create everything, he's probably smart enough to design things in such a way that it can be explained through science as well. My personal belief is that everything, with the exclusion of miracles, can be explained through science, and that God did this so that people really can have a choice between believing and not believing. In any case, it shouldn't be an issue since the Bible doesn't teach us to argue stuff like this, it teaches us moral lessons like loving one another. People like Pat Robertson give Christianity a bad name. The same is true for terrorists and extremists (the Iranian leader) with Islam.

As for teaching it in school, I don't believe it's right to do so. ID should be taught in Sunday School as it always has been. Christians should try using science to explain their faith, not try to argue that they're opposites. There have been many great scientists in history that have also been religious. They don't have to be mutually exclusive.

In the end it's up to each person to decide what they want to believe, but trying to force faith-based arguments into the classroom is the same as trying to force evolution into church.

Re:Why this is important

[jotok]

Now, if the ID advocates had their way, we would have just said, "Hey, God makes bees fly. Since I already know the real reason, there's no real reason to keep studying it."

Maybe that describes some proponents. But consider this. As a religious person I take ID as an article of faith ("God made the bees and endowed them with the ability to fly.") As a scientist I also believe that every observable phenomenon probably behaves according to certain rules ("The bees fly according to some principle X.") One proposition has nothing to do with the other.

What never ceases to amaze me is that supposedly rational people will make the same mistakes of which they accuse the proponents of ID. While ID errs in claiming it is a science, scientists often elevate empiricism to the place formerly occupied by the Almighty, any time they suggest that anything which cannot be observed and tested must necessarily not exist (hint: empiricism cannot be proven true by empirical methods).

The current push for ID is a power grab. The backlash is another power grab. The problem we're facing with these issues is not with differing (not even "competing") ideas about how the world works, but rather that people with different ideas will start culture wars and attempt to grab power.

Re:Why this is important

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope that's humor... Cause it might just look like you are the one who is being close minded on things.

Re:Why this is important

[ndansmith]

Yes this is a common straw man argument used against ID. Perhaps we should look at this way: ID != Supernaturalism. The point of design is that God is so great that he could cause a bee to fly (or any other astounding example from nature) within the natural order, without relying on his supernatural powers. ID proponents are not looking outside of science to explain how the natural world works. What they are doing is questioning how the natural order came to be.

Re:Why this is important

[grasshoppa]

Why do God and Science have to be mutually exclusive?

Personally, I'm more impressed by a "God" that can design the rules to the universe and start the big bang more than one who just created everything "as is", in motion.

They don't have to be mutually exclusive. It's the nature of, forgive me for sounding cruel, low intelligence people to turn things in to a black and white equation. They also happen to be a vocal bunch in this country, which is unfortunate. I also believe they are the minority, but a very vocal minority.

Re:Why this is important

[dgatwood]

It doesn't in any way refute I.D. as a general theory. It does, however, help refute the claim that I.D. is a scientific theory.

The excuse given for treating I.D. as a scientific theory is that science can't teach us all of the relatively basic things about our world, and thus, must be flawed in concept, so alternatives should be allowed. By eliminating one of the common criticisms of science, hopefully this will help put to bed the question of whether I.D. should be taught in a science classroom.

Note that I wouldn't be averse to public schools teaching a class on the philosophy of science. However, that is a philosophy class, not a science class, and should not be an alternative to an understanding of the sciences. Such a class should be taught like any other philosophy class, not like a religion class. That is, unfortunately, often hard to do when talking about modern religious ideology.

Re:Why this is important

[1800maxim]

Any lack of desire to study things has nothing to do with belief in ID/creationism/existence or absense of any supernatural being.

Personally, I don't know why belief in ID has to automatically exclude all science, research and scientific method. ID, in theory, is separate from religion, and does not advocate the existence of one being or another.

Just my opinion, of course :)

Re:Why this is important

[Jherek Carnelian]

The claim that we don't know how bees fly is by no means central to ID.
This is just propaganda.

However it is:
1) Funny propaganda
2) Entirely believable propaganda given the public perception of ID believera

Re:Why this is important

[airrage]

I think the "we don't even know how bees fly" was used in a metaphorical sense. To illicit that science does not have all the answers either. These statements are often used as debating points, or persuasion topics, but don't quite refute the central logic. With that said, my understanding of ID is this:

If you see a stop sign you realize it is conveying information, though I didn't see it built or designed, I assume someone did. Thus design always preceeds information. DNA, has all these base pairs and conveys information. An informational library on the order of all the atoms in the universe (or something like that). Thus, if there is all this information, where is the designer?

I think that is where the debate rages from. Not necessarily the flight patterns of bees, though that was interesting since I'm always running the other way and never stand long enough to count wing beats.

As a Christian, I'm interested in ID, but like any tool in the wrong hands it can be dangerous.

Re:Why this is important

[Nicolas MONNET]

Yeah it's like those black folks who keep badmouthing the Klan when they've NEVER been at one of their gathering or even just tried one of their comfortable hooded robes.

Re:Why this is important

[dwayner79]

A agree wholeheartedly... as do most believers I know. The conspiricy theorists are VERY onesidded on this... and it ain't ours.

Re:Why this is important

[venicebeach]

No particular concept (e.g. 'God') is necessarily incompatible with science.

But certain systems of uncovering truth are. For example, if you decide what to believe is true based on what is written in a particular book, and trust this above any other evidence, you will likely put yourself at odds with science sooner or later.

Dogmatic belief is contrary to science. Religion is not the only place where dogmatic beliefs come from, nor does it necessarily require dogmatic belief, but they often go together.

Re:Why this is important

[Anonymous Coward]

Most excellently said.

Re:Why this is important

[blueg3]

Intelligent Design is not so much believing that God made the world. That's an essential part of many religions and something that religious scientists would not dispute. They tend to believe as you seem to, that God is more evident in the system than in the results. (The results -- such as people -- being a product of the system -- say, evolution. Of course, God, being omniscient, would have no trouble designing a system such that any desired result would occur.)

ID really refers specifically to evolution. In short: "Intelligent Design (or ID) is a highly controversial claim holding that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent designer, rather than an undirected process such as natural selection." It is not so much the presence of an intelligent designer that is the problem, but rather the denouncement of an undirected process. One of their frequent claims is that some systems are so complex that a seemingly random process such as evolution could not have produced them.

Delightfully complex systems arising out of simple rules should not be a surprise to scientists or mathematicians. Whether or not this property is a base property of nature or the work of God is up to you, there's not any way to differentiate.

Re:Why this is important

[GospelHead821]

I am with you, Bel. I consider myself a proponent of intelligent design, simply because I subscribe neither to pure creationism nor to a pure theory of random development. As far as physical mechanisms go, I subscribe fully to scientific theory. In my opinion, evolution, the big bang, condensation of matter, etc. are not gross and unpalatable ideas, as some creationists I know have stated. I find it fascinating and beautiful to suppose that God created the cosmos complete with laws of nature, physical constants, and initial conditions that allowed for the universe to develop under its own mechanisms with minimal intervention from God. (If you find it odd that I mention beauty, it is because I often find that when religious individuals are involved, the argument for or against a proposed mechanism often comes down to whether the individual finds the mechanism aesthetically worthy of God.) For myself, I find no necessary conflict between the mechanisms described by science and the actions of God described by the Bible.

Re:Why this is important

[isometrick]

God and Science are separated because one doesn't require hard evidence and the other does.

Science advocates the usage of verifiable data and logical thinking to arrive at conclusions.

A belief in any God (or belief that there is no God, for that matter) has, as of yet, not been justified through these means.

Science advocates the epistemological paradigm of "Spartan Meritocracy," or making as few initial assumptions as possible and discarding or revising those assumptions that are shown subsequently to be wrong, dubious or no longer useful. That is paraphrased from The Rejection of Pascal's Wager a wonderful website which explores some of these issues.

Science does not specifically reject God(s), it merely rejects the manner of thinking which caused you to arrive at your belief. It's something that could change with hard evidence, but we've yet to see any.

Re:Why this is important

[burnin1965]

Pastor,

Its not that Science and God must be mutually exclusive, it is that the principles which Science and Faith are based on are mutually exclusive. Its the faithful who want to force God into Science in place of scientific principles which are contradictory to their faith.

burnin

Re:Why this is important

[Eslyjah]

I have not read it, but I hear that Darwin's Black Box by Michael Behe is an important work among those who advocate ID. Applause for your interest in going to the source. I wish more slashdotters thought this way. It leads to much more interesting discussions.

Re:Why this is important

[Threni]

> Why do God and Science have to be mutually exclusive?

Occam's razor. You might just as well ask "why do science and belief in pink nasal monsters have to be mutually exclusive?".

Re:Why this is important

[JasonKChapman]

and it's wrong for a /. nutjob to argue that knowing how bees fly refutes I.D.

Especially since Intelligent Design, like any other religion, is irrefutable. Since reason is argument's only tool, any proposition not based in reason is both unassailable and indefensible at the same time.

Re:Why this is important

[dnoyeb]

God can not be questioned, Science invites question. You didn't think every "religious" institution was concerned with God did you?

Leaders tend to be concerned with Power. Church leaders are no different.

Honestly, religious institutions tend to support conservatives for the same reasons many other established institutions do, and its nothing to do with "God" or "Values."

Re:Why this is important

[beforewisdom]

Why do God and Science have to be mutually exclusive?

Because science is based on observable and reproducible evidence with the simplest explanation to describe it all ( Occam's razor ).

Belief in a deity is based on faith. Faith is accepting something as true without having sufficient evidence to prove it as true.

No offense. You asked a straight forward question and I gave you my opinion which I hope was a straight forward, non-personally offensive answer.

Re:Why this is important

[MudButt]

Why do God and Science have to be mutually exclusive?

Good point. I am both a chemical engineer and Christian. Having gone through the public school system during the 90's and then a state university from 2000-2004, I have definitely seen my share of evolutionary theory. Allthough I don't personally believe in macroevolution, there's plenty of good evidence for microevolution (or adaptation within a species), and I also never saw a conflict with traditional Christian beliefs on creation and natural adaptation and functionality.

PS - My freshman biology professor said on the first day of class, "About 60% of what you learn this semester is wrong." He went on to explain that science is constantly revising and improving its theories and that if history can teach us anything, it's that every generation of scientists think they know it all.

Re:Why this is important

[bombadillo]

The fact that there is a scientific explanation for these things does not disprove the existence of God.

You must provide proof that god exists before anyone should feel the need to disprove the existence of a god.

Re:Why this is important

[Kalecomm]

Amen, Pastor. I'm a Christian believer and have always believed that God created everything, including the science that makes everything run. Just because we as humans "discover" something, does not mean that we can definitively prove that God does not exist.

I'm reminded of something that Morton Downey Jr. once said on his old late-night TV show: "If I believe that there is a God and there isn't, then I've just wasted some time. However, if I don't believe there is a God and there is, then I'm in big trouble!" To that I say, Amen!

Best Regards,

Kalecomm.

Re:Why this is important

[Matt Ownby]

I believe that both science and revelation from God are beneficial to increase mankind's knowledge and intelligence. If science produces truth and revelation from God is truth, then logically both cannot contradict each other, and therefore, there is no reason to fear either one.

Science explains what God did ... and relevation explains why God did it. If everyone remembers this, then no one will have reason to argue (or post inflammatory stories to slashdot hehe).

Re:Why this is important

[techno-vampire]

I think many people assume that since the ID model includes an original designer that it means we no longer need to understand how how something works-->God made it, I don't have to know how it works, it just does.

From what I understand of ID, it's not that we can't understand how it works, it's that it could not have evolved on its own and therefore somebody had to design it. In order for this to "refute" ID, they'd need to have shown how it could have evolved naturally.

Note that although I'm fairly religious, I'm not a believer in ID; I'm just pointing out that the article's claim to have refuted ID is wrong.

Re:Why this is important

[Anonymous Coward]

It's wrong for a moronic I.D. advocate to argue so, and it's wrong for a /. nutjob to argue that knowing how bees fly refutes I.D.

Thus proving that if an ID advocate is wrong, it does not necessarily stop them from arguing.

The sad thing about much of what I've read with regard to the ID camp is this: that no matter what our understanding of the world around us, and of that general knowledge of such will increase, that which can not be explained, and subsequently that which was explained as of late, falls under 'Intelligent Design' according to them.

This argument could be used against on either side as well, we figured out what ID was hiding, so therefore the amount of information ID contains is less. ID is shrinking. Of course there are those that would argue: what you have discovered was allowed to be discovered under ID or some such hoohah.

I subscribe to neither ID nor any particular theological belief structure, but I am intelligent enough to recognize the blind irrationality and failure in logic, that ID has written all over it, since it wants to be categorized WITH science.

/argument now dead due to logic being applied to theology
//dohhhhhh

Re:Why this is important

[professionalfurryele]

Got anything peer reviewed in a respected scientific journal? I'm one of these olde scientists who doesn't trust pop sci.

Re:Why this is important

[hackwrench]

There's quite a bit of evidence to suggest that the universe started at the point in time Genesis suggests it did and that time spilled into the "past" and future equally from that point. Consider this, why did we start finding fossils and oil when we did? It's not hard to look at the evidence and reach the conclusion that they first started popping up when the negative time reached a point equidistant from the Genesis center from us now.

Re:Why this is important

[systmoadownfreak]

What exactly are you trying to accomplish with this post? You first off imply that people that read the Bible and get nothing out of it have closed minds. Secondly you insult the scientist by saying that he couldn't keep his word. Next you give no true reference to anything within the Bible that specifically deals with this issue of intelligent design.

Fourthly, although slightly unrelated, you're too cowardly to even sign in to post.

Re:Why this is important

[LightningBolt!]

Why do God and Science have to be mutually exclusive?

God is someone else's voice in your head. Science is your own.

Re:Why this is important

[Anonymous Coward]

"If I believe that there is a God and there isn't, then I've just wasted some time. However, if I don't believe there is a God and there is, then I'm in big trouble!"

Doesn't that depend on which god it is? If it's Odin then I think you're supposed to die in battle if you want the good stuff. Believing or not is a side issue.

Re:Why this is important

[Anonymous Coward]

What exactly are you trying to accomplish with this post?

Oh, don't worry, he's definitely just trying to troll.

Re:Why this is important

[rossifer]

First of all, i'd like to make it clear that believing in Intelligent Design or in Creationism does NOT in any way prohibit ideas such as evolution

True, but the proponents of teaching ID in schools pitch it as an alternative to natural selection (one of the fundamental theories for observed evolution), specifically for the explanation as to how and why man appeared on this planet.

And as long as that continues to be true, your clearly correct statement will also be unfortunately irrelevant to the argument at hand.

Regards,
Ross

Re:Why this is important

[clockwise_music]

If only more people in the world were like you, sir.

The only book that I have read is titled "Case for a Creator" by Lee Strobel. (http://www.caseforacreator.com/home.php). What I thought good about this book is that he references lots of other books - may be a good starting point.

(I also agree with a lot of the parents that the original 'story' is a pathetic attempt at flame-baiting. Slashdot is getting pathetic and showing it's bias - final nail in the coffin of ID.. give me a break )

Re:Why this is important

[Spy der Mann]

Nonsense. This is a caricature of ID perpetuated by those who know nothing about it, haven't bothered to read the central works, etc. An ID advocate would (and no doubt will say), "Cool! We discovered the novel, innovative way that the Designer chose to make Bees fly!" The more religiously minded intelligent design sorts would say, "Ain't God grand?"

Except if that novel, innovative way is evolution itself :) (Gotcha!)

Re:Why this is important

[Chrononium]

Just an observation: science usually relies upon some sense of causality in order to establish relationships between events. Causality is a belief and cannot be proven to exist.

Re:Why this is important

[professionalfurryele]

Well of course it doesn't falsify ID, you can falsify ID. It's falsification would be demonstrating a negative, that is "There are no designed systems". This of course is one of the many reasons it isn't science. But since ID is creationism dressed in scientific robes, and is being used in an attempt to cripple scientific education in the US, it makes sense that scientists look to refute the most credible claims of the ID gang. Now since anyone advocating ID has no credibility (at least as a biologist) one crazy persons non-scientific rantings are as good as the nexts, and none of these claims are made in respected scientific journals (to my knowledge), so shooting down one claim of an advocate of an unscientific theory is just as good as shooting down another. ID is just the "God of the Gaps" in new clothes. Religious individuals should stop trying to impose that religion on science, and go do something not harmful to scientific progress.

Re:Why this is important

[Anonymous Coward]

do God and Science have to be mutually exclusive?

They can't be. God created everything, including science. Some people just haven't figured this out yet.

Re:Why this is important

[Anonymous Coward]

You're attributing Pascal's wager to Morton Downey Jr.? Seriously?

Re:Why this is important

[maxume]

Precisely! And since no one can currently test how the natural order came to be, there is no reason to talk about it in a science class.

Science shouldn't seek to explain why the universe came to be, but how.

Re:Why this is important

[PortHaven]

You're so ignorant and dogmatic you have no !@#$% clue what ID supporters believe. Moron. Yes flame bait.

But guess what, nearly every ID supporter I've ever known (from raw creationists to intelligent evolution supporters) have all been strong supporters of science. ID's supporters aren't against learning how a bee flies nor adapting such understanding to our own use.

ID supporters just believe that there was an element of design and intent as oppose to simple randomness in the development of what we observe.

  - You say the complexities observed, from our DNA to the sub-atomic particles are all the way they by pure random chance.

  - ID simply notes that there are observed complexities and notes that similar complexities observed tend to be by design, and that there seems to be an element of design. And the range of ID supporters swings quite wide. From those who believe the earth was created in 6 days to those who believe the earth is 4+ billion years old and man evolved from intelligently coded programming.

I just find it so tiresome (it'd be laughable if it wasn't so sad) that you guys are lock-stock judgmentally trapped in your own barrel of pickles (ideologies) that you can't even take the time to understand what ID includes and how it varies. And how much of it has no conflict with any evidence science has put forth.

Sure, they'll jump on any whacko ID who spouts something stupid. And at the same time whenever random scientist spouts something stupid they just dismiss it. You're more dogmatic and blind than the people you are criticizing.

- Saj

Re:Why this is important

[Supurcell]

God does exist, but only in your mind. It is an idea to explain away the unknown. The universe is a very complex thing. It is only now that we have better forms of communication that we can get many intelligent minds working together to start figuring things out.

The proof that no one religion is correct, is that there are so many conflicting religions. The only reason one is more dominate than others, is that the followers of religion A killed off the followers of religion B.

Re:Why this is important

[Anonymous Coward]

"Dogmatic belief is contrary to science."

That's a fairly silly statement. The belief that baptism is required by God to enter the kingdom of Heaven has nothing to do with science -- it's a legal requirement by someone who has the authority to require it. I can be very dogmatic on that particular belief and yet hold fast to scientific principles.

Re:Why this is important

[Shaper_pmp]

"First of all, i'd like to make it clear that believing in Intelligent Design or in Creationism does NOT in any way prohibit ideas such as evolution, understanding how bees fly, or any other scientific fact that you want to explain."

It depends how you define "Creationism". If you take it to mean "the idea that God, through some unspecified mechanism, created the universe and hence, transitively, everything in it", you're right. However, you're also in the minority.

If you take it to mean "God created the earth in 4004 BC, provided a bunch of fake evidence to convince the most intelligent of us that the world is really much older, and made Adam and Eve from clay literally as it depicts in Genesis", then you're not.

The problem is that while there are plenty of intelligent religious people who take the first position, the idiot vocal minority who stage confrontational headline-grabbing stunts like pushing ID (philosophy!) into science lessons (or having evolution removed from them) mean that when most people hear the words "creationist" or "ID" they think of the second.

To compound this, most religious people I know don't self-identify as "Creationist" or "ID", because, when you think about it, everyone who believes in a mainstream religion believes God created and designed them. A "Creationist Christian" is therefore a tautology. In contrast, the headline-grabbing lunatic fringe are always identified (and self-identify) as "Creationists", or "Intelligent Design" proponents.

Thus, to the majority of people "Creationist" means one of those "dinosaurs coexisted with cavemen and the appendix is just god's little joke" idiots who wouldn't know a metaphorical account of man's acquisition of self-awareness if someone helpfully wrote it out in a big book and gave it to them to learn from.

Is it fair that popular perception has twisted the meaning, so that people like you who self-identify as Creationist/ID are now assumed to be literal-interpretation idiots? No it isn't, but then it's hardly new either - try talking to a "hacker", or anyone who thought of themself as cheerful and "gay".

In fact, it's probably even fairer than the examples I just gave, because the term "Creationist" and "Intelligent Design" didn't really exist until they was coined to describe the lunatic fringe they currently do, whereas the other examples are labels whose meanings were twisted many years after they were first used.

"Does it really matter if I interpret the Genesis story to be a bit less literal than some ID proponents might claim?"

To us? Not even a little bit. I don't think you'll find anyone who has a problem with someone who believes that Genesis is a metaphor for God creating the universe. Sure, you might get flack from some hard-line athiests for beliving in god at all but nobody had a problem with the idea that "god created man in some way" (since it's essentially unprovable) until a bunch of crazy fuckwits started a concerted political campaign to impose their particular literal interpretation of the same on everyone else.

To the Creationists? You'd better believe it - why else would they spend years (and millions of dollars) campaigning to get evolutions replaced with their pet dogma? Everyone's got to believe exactly the same baseless irrational minority interpretation as them, period. Not only that, but they have to dress their favourite dogmas up and besmirch the good name of "science" to do it.

"Also, the thing about say studying stem cells has NOTHING to do with Intelligent Design. It has to do with something called medical ethics - and something called the Hippocratic oath. The issue at stake is when is a person a person by legal rights - does using stem cells from aborted fetuses or harvesting them constitute abuse of someone's human rights or are they not really a human yet because they haven't been born?"

Well, the utilitarian in me says that if they've already been aborted then the harm has a

Re:Why this is important

[Spy der Mann]

There are some I.D. advocates who don't know the first thing about science. And there are some who, on every other topic except evolution, are indisinguishable from other speakers or scientists.

Exactly, this is a double standard. To follow the scientific way on everything UNTIL it contradicts some pre-established beliefs (ID). And then all science goes down the toilet.

Re:Why this is important

[grasshoppa]

But what does you being "impressed" have to do with the existence of God? Does your belief (or lack of) hinge on how cool or impressive God has to be. If God were an absent minded professor who created a complex system and let it carry forth, but in many ways has no idea why everything happens the way it does now (since it's "evolved" beyond his original scope) make the concept of a creator less likely?

For the purposes of belief, does it matter what I base my faith off of? Religion and beliefs are merely tools to get people through there day, when you come right down to it. I'm not saying there isn't more to it. I am saying we have absolutely no facts with which to play with, so the best we can do is go off of gut feelings.

Re:Why this is important

[Wile_E_Peyote]

Dogmatic belief is contrary to science.

Although science as practiced by us humble human beings has it's share of dogma...

Re:Why this is important

[PortHaven]

And they exist on both sides of the issue (Pro-ID or Anti-ID). Though as of late, it seems Slashdot has grown fond of catering to troll submissions so long as it opposes ID. And it gets lame after a while. Do we really need 3 anti-ID articles a week?

I'm sorry, but I don't know a single ID'ist who has ever used the fact that science didn't know how honeybees flew as proof that science was wrong. Perhaps, as a point at the time, to stress that science doesn't have all the answers yet. And anyone who'd argue with that is frankly an idiot.

Maybe one day science will have all the answers...

- Saj

Re:Why this is important

[AeroIllini]

Horse-pucky. You're making the same false argument that various religious advocates make when they say "since some Scientists are Atheists, supporting Science is supporting Atheism."

There are some I.D. advocates who don't know the first thing about science. And there are some who, on every other topic except evolution, are indisinguishable from other speakers or scientists.

That's crap. Anyone who thinks that scientists can be I.D. advocates evidently know nothing about the I.D. movement (including the scientists themselves).

Full disclosure: I am an evolutionist who was brought up Christian.

I see no problem with religion and science co-existing in the scientist. But I.D. is so totally contrary to science (and to religion, actually) that anyone who respects the basic tenets of both science and religion recognizes that I.D. and science cannot coexist.

There are two basic premises to I.D.:
1. That it is a science
2. That there is a concept of "irreducible complexity."

No scientist ever subscribes to point 2. If they do, then they are a very poor scientist. It basically boils down to, "if we don't know how it happened, then God must have done it." Science is based on the idea that all things are explainable, and explainable with--this is important--testable hypotheses. If a hypothesis is not testable, then it isn't science. And by testable, it usually means, "disprovable." When testing such a hypothesis, there must be a condition that shows the hypothesis to be false. Saying "God did it" is not disprovable, therefore it is not science. It's just an excuse for not wanting to do science. Let me say that again for all the skimmers out there: I.D. is not science, and anyone who tells you otherwise does not understand I.D.

Please note that science does not exclude God, it just does not necessitate Him.

Many of the very good scientists I know have deep faiths, and these faiths coexist with science rather nicely. The difference is, their faith does not stay static in the face of contradictory evidence, and their science does not presume the presence of their faith. Faith is belief in the absence of evidence, not in spite of it.

There is a very good quote that I use often, but I can't seem to attribute it after a quick Google search:

"Science, by definition, has to be agnostic. The scientist does not."

Re:Why this is important

[moonbender]

The fact that there is a scientific explanation for these things does not disprove the existence of God.

Right. And in a similar vein, the fact that there is no scientific explanation for some things does not prove the existence of a God.

Re:Why this is important

[Anonymous Coward]

I've seen quite a few who wouldn't, and you seem to have a flawed vision of ID supporters.

Many wouldn't be able to pass HS graduation requirements in science and simply spout out whatever crap they heard that week. They're religious zealots and are utterly blinded by it. Logic fails to exist for them.

I mean come on, anyone who uses our current (or now past) inability to understand how a bee flies to promote ID clearly seems to not understand much about science. They're not going to suddenly become rational unless someone they blindly trust tells them to spout a rational response, otherwise they'll start making up excuses for why they're still right.

Re:Why this is important

[jfengel]

You've had plenty of thoughtful replies (and some total dipsticks), but I'd like to add mine anyway.

As many have said, science and God do not have to be mutually exclusive, but people on each side are defending certain things that ARE mutually exclusive. Scientists object to the teaching of intelligent design because it's poor science. They cannot accept the teaching of it as science because it contradicts the basis on which science works. (Teaching it as a public policy or moral matter is different, but there are practical if not epistemological concerns about the fact that this could easily be construed by students and even teachers as a scientific endorsement of the ID theory.)

Some religious people object to the teaching of evolution because it contradicts fundamentally held beliefs, not just physical ones (like the idea that man is a separate creation from apes) but moral ones (that if the Bible is not literally true on the subject of creation, then its moral authority on all bases are questioned). The compromise you've reached (along with many others) is unacceptable to them.

On that point they are mutually exclusive. There are those whose moral codes are built on what they consider the strongest rock, the Bible, but which I consider to be an extremely flimsy base. Both sides are well funded and politically active. Since the moral code gives rise to a lot of public policy and law, we're going to keep having this unresolvable argument.

Re:Why this is important

[geekoid]

"The fact that there is a scientific explanation for these things does not disprove the existence of God."

But the scientific process does disprove god.

Re:Why this is important

[hedge_death_shootout]

firmly believe that God did, in fact, make bees fly.

Nah. Santa Claus did it with the same magic dust he sprinkles on his reindeer. This is surely more plausible, and has equal evidence to back it up.

If we didn't study some form of defying gravity, we wouldn't have airplanes.

With this evidence of your grasp of basic science, I can see why 'intelligent design' might appeal to you! ...ah damn it, I might as well explain. Great metal bird fly because of aerodynamics, not because it defy gravity.

Cheers :-)

Re:Why this is important

[MS-06FZ]

They are not mutually exclusive, but one has nothing to do with the other. The issue many of us have with creationists is that they apparently want to bend science to their own agenda, harnessing the education system to spread their own ideology. One can argue using scientific ideas, in order to try and strengthen one's own ideas of how the world works, but true science comes from the willingness to accept the possibility that one's ideas are wrong, by drawing conclusions from experimental data, rather than selectively using pre-existing experimental data and using it to try to prove a point. These people are threatened by science, the fact that its ideas and practices are sometimes in contradiction with their own, and the fact that it claims a well-deserved reputation for representing the high point of accumulated human knowledge about the mechanisms of the world.

God may or may not exist. There is no way to prove the point one way or another, unless god does exist, and makes itself known. Discussions about gods are philosophical in nature. From an educational standpoint that makes it difficult for people who want to promote their own ideas to do so, because philosophy is by nature rather abstract and usually not only open to debate, but actively inviting it.

Science is a little different, in that many of the ideas presented have enough experimental evidence to back them up that there's no value in debating them in a high school environment. That doesn't mean that they're known to be entirely correct, it just means that humanity as a whole has enough confidence in the validity of the ideas that challenging them is not done lightly.

When people push to have creationism and similar ideas taught in a science class, that creates a backlash amongst those of us who respect science. I had been under the impression that the bee flight thing was understood long ago - but if people were using it as an argument against evolution, such an argument is very short-sighted. We cannot be so vain as to assume that anything we are not mightily intelligent enough to understand must be somehow inherently supernatural.

Re:Why this is important

[adisakp]

The bogus, idiotic, pseudo-scientific types opposing ID would say, "ooh! Here's an interesting finding that I can somehow stretch to attack ID," on the basis of a few off-hand remarks made by a few non-central ID advocates.

Replace the word ID with Evolution and you pretty much describe 100% of ID advocates.

Re:Why this is important

[Anonymous Coward]

God and science have to be kept seperate because if a scientist invokes paranormal reasons for things he has copped out. If we accept goddidit as an explanation then we no longer need science.

Re:Why this is important

[burndive]

For a more philisophical take on nature and supernature, see C.S. Lewis' Miracles.

Re:Why this is important

[Loconut1389]

I've always at least entertained this idea at least in the corner of my mind

"What better way to create the best possible version of everything than evolution?"
eg "Why couldn't God have created evolution?"
or further "Why is it preposterous to assume God created evolution, knowing that ultimately we'd arise from it, among all the other things on this earth"

Re:Why this is important

[gkhan1]

A little offtopic, but are you a pastor that reads the belgariad? Neat!

Re:Why this is important

[Chabo]

Personally, I'm more impressed by a "God" that can design the rules to the universe

His name is Gabe Newell. ;-)

Re:Why this is important

[someone1234]

God might exist, but i'm sure he/she/it didn't give a flying fuck how bees do their stuff. Intelligent Design people think different. I'm not yet convinced about the existence of God, but i'm sure if they want me convinced, i'll be :) I just know the world (as i know it) exists so someone/something 'caused' it, and apparently i might know how bees fly, despite what ID people said before.

Re:Why this is important

[badmammajamma]

Yeah, I'm sure the CYA approach goes over great with the Big Guy.

Re:Why this is important

[idsofmarch]

I haven't heard this particular bon mot from ID proponents, but many in the ID community like to suppose that because we don't know something it is evidence that an Intelligent Designer exists. They often reference irreducible complexity or the lack of transitional species, but the mystery of bee-flight could easily become an ID tenant and fits well within their philosophy.

The fact remains, there's no proof or evidence of a designer, and ID is at best a collection of evolutionary theory problems duct-taped together by metaphysics.

Re:Why this is important

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm interested in reading the books that were omitted from the Bible. A human decision and no doubt political for that period in history, around 300 years after Jesus died.

Re:Why this is important

[MightyMartian]

There's no reason at all, unless you subscribe to certain literalistic views. If one insists that Genesis is an accurate and explicit account of Creation, then I'm afraid you've decided on a confrontation with the physical evidence.

Re:Why this is important

[AoT]

He had one peer reviewed article, not on the subject of ID, which was subsequently ripped to shreds by the rest of the scientific community for poor use of citations and methodology.

Check out Pharyngula.com, a nice science blog, for all the smack on the ID chumps.

P.S. I am so sick of all this whining about flamebait from ID proponents. They were the ones who wanted to debate the theories, and now they cannot handle the debate. They need to put up or shut up; show us possible experiments that can prove or disprove ID.

Re:Why this is important

[hedge_death_shootout]

I'm genuinely interested - how do you believe this 'God' came into existence? Was it itself created by another 'Pre-God' (SuperGod!), or is it a being evolved in a Universe that didnt require a God figure to come into existence? I suppose my point is, given the neccessary complexity of any such Universe-creating God, what explanatory power wrt to the existence of this universe has belief in such a God? Any God itself, as a complex entity, would need an appropriate creation myth.
Perhaps it's best to nip the whole mythology thing in the bud and remove God Beings, nested or otherwise, from the equation. Instead just say: 'I dont know how the universe came into being, but once it did, it was physics from then on'. I dont see what these 'God' fairy stories buy one, except perhaps entertainment.

Re:Why this is important

[PortHaven]

Science does not specifically reject God(s), it merely rejects the manner of thinking which caused you to arrive at your belief. It's something that could change with hard evidence, but we've yet to see any.

Do you believe in aliens? Do you believe in the possibility that they might exist?

See, what I find fascinating is the ego of so many supposed science aficianados. We currently do not know whether aliens exist or not. We pre-suppose the possibility, we have conducted some scientific tests and experiments with no success in our results. One possibility is that we have not advanced to a high enough level of knowledge and scientific understanding to determine the existance of aliens.

Is just the lack of our means and technical advancement enough to declare that a) intelligent exterrestials don't exist? b) is the fact that we don't know how to test for them successfully enough to deny such existance?

The truth of the matter is we might one day achieve such a success. However, right now we are not advanced enough to make such determination.

I find it funny that more people in their thinking of science will accept such. But you want to deny flat out the possibility of an intelligent designer.

What happens if mankind creates an intelligence (a sentient computer). What happens if mankind dies away. Will they argue about whether there was a God called Man? and whether they were created or not?

Is it possible that God can in fact be observed scientifically...but we might not have the means at this time? Does the fact that 200 yrs ago we could not observe an atom stand as an argument that atoms did not exist? What if God does exist and is observable in the universe but only on a sub-atomic extradimensional level we have yet to ever begin to observe.

Why is it that one can claim in the name of science to be so right as to know that something is unobservable. When history is there to tell us that a mere few hundred years before hand we did not have the means to observe much of what we now know and use every day. Is it not wiser and more scientific to simply continue observing and not decry the possibility impossible without an evidence.

Re:Why this is important

[Vapon]

First of all for the comment of
"The scientists said the findings could lead to a model for designing aircraft that could hover in place and carry loads for many purposes such as diaster surveillance after earthquakes and tsunamis." its called a helicopter.

As for people saying
"Hey, God makes bees fly. Since I already know the real reason, there's no real reason to keep studying it"
Don't think it is fair to say anyone that believes in god believes that, I have heard people say "who cares how the tv works, you hit the button it turns on" Some people like to know exactly how everything works, some people just don't care as long as it does.

Re:Why this is important

[tutori]

So let me get this striaght, they fly by evolving into a creature just a little bit ahead of themselves? And here I thought they flew by flapping their wings....

Re:Why this is important

[Lord_MiL]

The proof that no one religion is correct, is that there are so many conflicting religions.

Strange, in all my higher education I have never learned this proof method. It seems quite a powerful one though. I've written it down for future use.

Re:Why this is important

[Satan Dumpling]

God: "Bender, being God isn't easy. If you do too much, people get dependent on you. And if you do nothing, they lose hope. You have to use a light touch, like a safecracker or a pickpocket."
Bender: "Or a guy who burns down a bar for the insurance money!"
God: "Yes, if you make it look like an electrical thing. When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all."

I believe there's a God, and forces in the world we don't understand. (raised Methodist)
What I don't believe in is every exact verse in the Bible.
After all, it was written by fallable humans thousands of years ago and translated and edited and everything else.
Besides, 7 days or 7 billion years to make the world, what difference would it make to Him?
Too many wars have happened because groups disagree about what God wants.
Violence and hatred towards others in God's name is still wrong.
Right and wrong is in your heart, not a book. If you know that the guy next to you would not enjoy being beaten up and having his wallet stolen, then you know it must be wrong.
To bad everyone can't just play nice, worship or not however they please, and let others do the same.

Re:Why this is important

[burndive]

I completely agree: the grandparent is clearly a troll.

Still, it wouldn't be a bad thing if scientific-minded people interested in the ID discussion gave the first two chapters of the Bible a quick read to see what it actually says.

Hell, it wouldn't hurt to have a few of the militant creationists read it to remind them of what it does and doesn't say.

Science is primarily concerned with the what and the how. Genesis gives the who and the why.

One thing to keep in mind: the modern television-educated mind tends to see things from an earth-orbital perspective, while the Genesis account is given from the perspective of an observer on the surface of the earth. Genesis 1 gives an overview of creation, and Genesis 2 zooms in on the garden of Eden and man.

Re:Why this is important

[TuneShark]

Dogmatic belief seems to run rampant where ID is discussed, measured by the indignation with which "reasonable, evolution supporting" persons lash out at it. It appears to be the fashion to make poorly thought out comments about ID (flamebait) and then to run away tittering as your buddies slap you on the back saying "Good one, Dexter". The propoganda and the misinformation surrounding ID is often misleading if not patently unfair, and people who ought to know better are buying into the bad info without understanding ID at all.

The ID that is the basis of current research deals with statistical and logical anomalies that we can't explain by random chance. Which means some non-random influence appears to be involved. Dismissing ID in ignorance is just as bad as coercing it as proof that "God exists" or that "evolution is wrong". It's this dogmatic adherence to belief in Evolution or Creationism that prevents a reasonable discussion aimed and understanding something new.

Do you think Zonk realized that if he posted this we'd pretty much forget about how bees fly and get off on this tangent about ID (again)? I agree with the earlier posting that called this entire thread flamebait.

Re:Why this is important

[raoul666]

I heard someone say once: science tells us how, religion tells us why.

Science tells us the big bang started the universe. It doens't make any statements about what caused the big bang, what was before it, where it came from, etc. That stuff is unknowable, scientifically. Whether you believe it came out of nothing or was created by some higher being, you have a belief based on faith, as you define it. In that way, believing in god is as plausible as not, really.

Re:Why this is important

[hedge_death_shootout]

I am so sick of all this whining about flamebait from ID proponents.

Hear hear! ID is a flimsy fig-leaf intended to cover the embarrassment of those creationists with a modicum of scientific self-awareness. Shame on them.

That's my opinion - people can like it or lump it. They can even mod it down, but if they do, they'll burn in Hell for their petty vindictiveness towards one of God's children. ;-)

Re:Why this is important

[tzvicky]

ID would say, however, that our world can only be fully understood if we include an original designer instead of random chance.
It was always very interesting for me why people which believe in God and/or are ID enthusiasts are so much afraid of the idea of randomness in the world. Why are they excluding the possibility that - using their terms - God has choosen randomness as a 'driving force' in some places? What's wrong with randomness? Even Einstein said, he believes God does not play dice - so it means - God could.
But seriously, randomness quite efficiently explains a lot of phenomena and there is no need not to like it or to say, it is somehow worse. That's why Prigogine obtained Nobel Prize in 1977. And, as the quantum mechanics shows, randomness is intrinsic property of our reality. Sorry ;)

Re:Why this is important

[kidtwist]

When do you think we first began discovering fossils? Aristotle mentions in some of his writings finding fish fossils in broken rocks. He didn't quite know what they were (he figured they were a type of fish that lived in rocks), but he certainly records having found them.

Re:Why this is important

[Gleapsite]

Just as an aside because you mentioned it and I'm interested, what is your logical basis for atheism? (it being based on faith is also an acceptable answer)

Anyone that I've met in science that doesn't subscribe to a major religion, claim agnosticism because they don't want (or find silly) basing their world view on faith.

Re:Why this is important

[Loquax]

It always amazes me that many so called "scientifically" minded individuals subscribe to the Gaia theory--the theory that the Earth is an organism and that all life is just a part of the greater being and that the Earth has its own collective "intelligence," but refuse to extrapolate to the universe. Logically it follows that because we are intelligent and that we are a part of the universe, the universe itself is intelligent. Even in evolutionary programming, the way fundamental elements relate to each other and the "criteria" for success have to be set down prior to setting the system in motion. Is it so hard to believe that the Universe (or God or the Tao or whatever) has a self-organizing intelligence? Also consider that the Turing test attributes "intelligence" to a system where an observer perceives intelligence. To the religiously minded, the universe/god/the tao has simply met their level of satisfaction for the definition of intelligence. It is ridiculous to not see that skepticism requires us to acknowledge that our skepticism, our perceptions, and our faith (or lack thereof) may also be flawed. When we examine a bee's aerodynamics, the flagella of a paramecium, the human eye, or whatever we examine, skepticism and science require us to take a near Buddhist attitude that there both is and is not intelligent design at work. Science and Religion have been hijacked by extremists who refuse to acknowledge the fundamental uncertainty and doubt that is at the center of everything (or may not be at the center of everything). I think it is due to fear and laziness that religion refuses to consider that chaos may rule fate and for science to acknowledge (and examine honestly) that intelligence may be a work in the world.

Re:Why this is important

[medge_42]

God and science aren't mutually exclusive.
In the same way that spaghetti trees and apple trees aren't mutually exclusive!

Re:Why this is important

[rseuhs]

Nonsense. This is a caricature of ID perpetuated by those who know nothing about it, haven't bothered to read the central works, etc. An ID advocate would (and no doubt will say), "Cool! We discovered the novel, innovative way that the Designer chose to make Bees fly!" The more religiously minded intelligent design sorts would say, "Ain't God grand?"

If that is so why do ID followers always try to dig up things that "science cannot explain"?

Where is the logic in that? Why don't they say "Cool! Ain't God grand?" when it comes to stuff that were discovered hundreds of years ago?

I tell you why:

Because the grandparent poster is dead-on target. The only way that ID makes sense if there are things that evolution cannot explain. If evolution can explain everything about living things, what is left of ID?

Nothing.

Re:Why this is important

[Harlequin]

Wow, that's the craziest theory I've heard in a long time.

So, you're suggesting that genesis (which should have happened around 4000 BC) started a wave of time and "negative time"? Ok, so from a quick online search, it seems like some british clergyman found the first recorded fossil around 1800 AD (that I could find). That puts us at around 5800 years of positive delta time since genesis, meaning that the Iguanadon (the fossil he found) was roaming the earth around 9800 BC. It must be those wacky misguided scientists who believe that the Iguanadon who roamed the earth in the cretaceous period (about 135 to 125 million years ago) that are way off on their timeline, huh?

Now, I don't mean to sound like a total condescending ass, but since we've been finding fossils for around 200 years, that means that all the animials we've been finding fossils of lived within 200 years of eachother (according to your theory). Now, maybe you didn't fully explain how negative time flows much faster than positive time, but isn't it possible that there's another expliantion?

I really feel that science and religion can co-exist as long as you don't literally interpret the bible. While I'm not religous myself, I'm not "anti-god" or anything. I don't see why you can't believe in god and evolution (like it seems that many do). Maybe the bible wasn't meant to be literally interpreted.

Re:Why this is important

[dracken]

Well I'll bite. The basic fight between ID and evolutionists isnt the same as the fight between believers and atheists. In the latter case the arguments are beautiful

Atheists: Look - I can explain everything through science.
Believers: But our God is a God of order. He designed the intricate laws of nature and let the world exist within the beautiful framework of these laws. Science is just a way of discovering and understanding these laws.

On the other hand the argument between ID and evolutionists is

ID: I dont believe in evolution because I have a dogmatic belief in a certain book which says god created life on earth 5000 years ago
Evolutionist: Duh ! WTF ?

Simply put: Why is God so great so as to cause bees to fly but isnt great enough to create life on earth through evolution ? Has this something to do with the fact that a certain book doesnt agree on evolution ?

Re:Why this is important

[pilgrim23]

Blasphemy!
  It is patently obvious that bees fly because "the one and only TRUE God" (tm) has reached down from on high and touched them with his noodley apendage!

Re:Why this is important

[Trailer Trash]

Personally, I'm more impressed by a "God" that can design the rules to the universe and start the big bang more than one who just created everything "as is", in motion.

You've hit the nail on the head.

I say this as a Christian. The whole ID argument can be boiled down to "evolution is possible, but for the really hard parts God had to wave a magic wand and give it a nudge." Worse yet, it deifies humans by stating that those parts just happens to be the parts whose evolution humans cannot fathom, putting God on equal footing.

I'm far more impressed by a universe that was created with such physical laws that life- and indeed, me- comes into existence by the very nature of that universe.

ID is nothing more than an insult to God. Nothing more.

Re:Why this is important

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, I applaud your openmindedness. Try checking out http://www.answersingenesis.org/ . The Get Answers tab has a lot of their main belifs and theories.

Re:Why this is important

[Spaceman40]

"show us possible experiments that can prove or disprove ID."

This is the problem with /any/ sort of creation theory, or historical theory in general. There is /no way/ to prove that /anything/ happened before the current moment. All history is just belief. Sure, something happened a couple minutes ago, but you can't prove it - you can only believe it beyond any reasonable doubt.

However, it's possible that the universe was formed ten minutes ago, with all of this in place. It's possible that the FSM (and Its noodly appendage) created that midget, or whatever it was. There are no experiments that you can perform to /prove/ otherwise. It's a waste of time.

That said, there is a growing number of Christians that believe in a combination of both: God creates the laws of physics, and sets off the bang. Either way, don't bother looking for proof of /anything/ historical. You'll only disappoint yourself.

Re:Why this is important

[dptalia]

Thank you. If you believe (as I do) that we're created in God's image, then of course we have the ability to understand the world around us! It's one of the miracles of existance that God gave us such a wonderfully complex universe to understand.

Re:Why this is important

[Golias]

Consider this, why did we start finding fossils and oil when we did?

We've been finding oil for as far back in human history as you care to look. We've been digging deeper for larger quantities of oil recently, because it burns better than most other liquids that we can gather in high quantities.

We've also been finding fossils all along. We just didn't start looking carefully for them underground until people made a science of trying to make sense of them.

It's not hard to look at the evidence and reach the conclusion that they first started popping up when the negative time reached a point equidistant from the Genesis center from us now.

If that were the case, there would constantly be new distant stars appearing in the sky, as the world gets old enough in each direction for their light to travel to us today.

Your little thought exercise might make a fun work of speculative sci-fi, but there's far too much evidence to the contrary to take it seriously as a model of the world.

For another fun thought exercise which doesn't quite work, read Scott Adams's ramblings at the end of The Dilbert Future, where he suggests that, for all we know, gravity is just a function of everything getting bigger at the same time.

Re:Why this is important

[clambake]

Intelligent Design (or ID) is a highly controversial claim holding that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent designer, rather than an undirected process such as natural selection.

The most uncreative thing about ID is right there, in that the proponents of it are so uncreative that they can't consider the possibility that natural selection itself could be "directed". I mean, who decides what is fit and what is not? Who deices that having blue eys makes you more fit in one are and less fit in another? There is your perfect marriage of ID and evolution right there.

Re:Why this is important

[Exquilax]

It's simple really. In order to include God in a true scientific theory you would have to define him and give him caracteristics. If we are able to define and measure God then by all accounts it's not God because one of his caracteristics is that he is undefinable. That's why you can't include God in science. But that doesn't mean you can't be a scientist and believe in God. I mean you have to believe in something and since "believing" in science is not an option if you're a scientist (science is just theories and measured facts they only exist believing in them is irrelevant). You can still believe in something even if that something is nothing ( ie. Atheism) or you can believe in God in one of it's many flavors.

Re:Why this is important

[professionalfurryele]

"Why do God and Science have to be mutually exclusive?"

They aren't. Who said anything about mutually exclusive? Pastor with the greatest respect, your side is the one waging a culture war. If your side left the explanation of the mechanisms of the universe to those with the training to understand them, then there would be no articles like this.

If you really are bothered by this kind of thing my advice is this, make regular sermons attacking ID and it's advocates. Indicate to your flock why it is that ID is not science. Encourage them to leave scientists alone to do thier jobs. If you and everyone like you did the same, maybe there would be a hope that this culture war could be ended.

Incidentally leaving alone includes trying to set up a theocracy in the US or any other nation. Our funding comes from government's (mostly), so support a free secular state.

Re:Why this is important

[isometrick]

I mentioned that an absolute belief that no god exists is equally silly, scientifically. The issue is not whether something could be true (anything *could* be true), it's a matter of not deciding things to be true arbitrarily. The formal position I have right now (based on all the evidence that I know to exist) is "I don't know," and, considering that the positive assertion assumes more than the weak negative, my common sense answer is "not as far as I know."

If anyone currently has a formal belief about god other than "I don't know," either they have some bang-up evidence that I'd like to hear or they are just copping out to faith (believing without reason) -- and in the latter case they're just being arbitrary.

Re:Why this is important

[Langalf]

Here are some "important works" I think elucidate central ID belief:

Signs of Intelligence: Understanding Intelligent Design by William A. Dembski (Editor), James M. Kushiner (Editor).

The Design Revolution: Answering the Toughest Questions About Intelligent Design by William A. Dembski.

Re:Why this is important

[clambake]

My personal belief is that everything, with the exclusion of miracles, can be explained through science, and that God did this so that people really can have a choice between believing and not believing.

Just out of curiosity, why shouldn't miracles be explainable by science? It seems that an all-powerful God should easily be able to create a self-consistant universe whereby miracles are just another part of the whole picture. I mean, turning water into, say ICE, could be seen as something absolutly miraculous if you've lived in the desert your whole life, where nothing every freezes, while it would seem mundane to those of us who have live entire lives with freezers in our houses. Maybe the water-into-wine trick will someday seem exactly the same, when we understand the science enough.

Re:Why this is important

[CFrankBernard]

Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth, Volume II http://www.icr.org/store/index.php?main_page=pubs_ product_book_info&products_id=2655

Creation's Tiny Mystery by Robert V. Gentry http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0961675330/qid=11 36933189/104-3539345-2578349

Bones Of Contention: A Creationist Assessment Of Human Fossils by Marvin L. Lubenow http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0801065232/qid=11 36933445/104-3539345-2578349

Evolution on Trial by Dr. Thomas Kindell http://kindell.nwcreation.net/biography.htm (don't reading the excerpt; not representative)

Re:Why this is important

[Arkhan]

Spaceman 40 wrote: There is /no way/ to prove that /anything/ happened before the current moment. All history is just belief.

I'm pretty certain that was his point.

History is not Science. It is the art of looking at a vast (or small) number of surviving documents and trying to infer (okay, guess) what really happened and what did not.

History, as you say, can never be absolutely proven. It is not testable; it is not repeatable.

This is also why Religion has no basis in, or place with, Science.

Religion is History. It is a record of things that supposedly happened in the past and can never be proven. It is not testable; it is not repeatable.

Religion is not Science. It should not be treated as such.

Re:Why this is important

[Blink Tag]

I serve on our State Board of Education. At the middle-end of last year, the ID/evolution debate was raging in our state as ID proponents pushed to have ID included in science classes, or as a next-best alternative to require statements minimizing evolution. Two things happened during the discussion which I found intriguing: First a large number of science professors from a large, private, conservative, Christian university presented, opposing the introduction of ID in science class. Each of them stated something to the effect that their belief in God and Creation was not at odds with the evolution or science in general. The second was a statement from a professor from a state-sponsored university (forgive me for butchering his wording): "When we explain our world by invoking the supernatural, we explain nothing."

I agree with the pastor above. The idea of God in an ordered universe bound by natural laws is not a paradox. ("My house is a house of order," and all that.) To say ID is "The Way" because we are still learning about our world is just plain silly.

(To go off topic and rant slightly, I have little empathy for religionists who are unable to reconcile science and religion. The drawn-out nature of the ID/evolution argument stems from close-mindedness and an inability to explore the nature of one's beliefs. On both sides of the table. [End rant.])

Saying God exists does not condemn natural laws; in my mind it encourages them. Just because we don't understand all the laws of the universe doesn't mean we won't someday.

Re:Why this is important

[ChrisA90278]

"But there are also those who believe as I do. Why do God and Science have to be mutually exclusive?" Exactly. In fact the largest group of Christian by far is the Roman Catholic Church. They teach that there can be no clonflict because science and theology do not address the same questions. SO your stament is the manstream viwpoint shared by many The problem is that to many uneducated people Science _IS_ faith. They don't understand what science is. They think is is just a bunch of random stuff that scientist say that most be taken on faith. It's hard foe many of us to imagine someone being so dumb but then some large fraction of the population can't find the Pacific Ocean on a map of the world. THe argument "Science can't explain how a bee flies so can it explain how people got here" works for many people (maybe the ones who can't find the Pacific?) But I'll bet a logically equivalent argument would not. "Science can not cure cancer so why should be beleive "Hook's Law"?" (Hook's law explains spings) The argument is invalid because it confuses the word "science" with the concept it represents. So the argument "works" on people who fail to notice this.

Re:Why this is important

[Kell_pt]

I totally agree. In my mind, a "God" capable of designing the basic principles that rule microcosmos would be far more worthy. What ID is saying is "it's too complex to understand, so it must have been created by some higher intelligence".

Well, newsflash: there are LOTS of higher intelligences out there... the ones who DO study to understand how many things work. That does tell a lot about the average education level of ID proponents, right? :)

Re:Why this is important

[jclin]

Knowing how bees fly does not refute ID. Knowing how bees fly refutes the ID proponents who say, "Science is bogus; they don't even know how bees fly!"

In other words, "Nuh-uh! They started it!"
-j

Re:Why this is important

[Blink Tag]

The proof that no one religion is correct, is that there are so many conflicting religions.

Just because you can't see the needle in the haystack doesn't mean it isn't there.

As I recall my philosophy courses, proving something doesn't exist isn't possible. It just means you've seen no evidence of it yet.

Re:Why this is important

[Anonymous Coward]

As a Christian Pastor, I believe the world, and everything in it, was indeed created by God. ...

I think there needs to be a distinction drawn between intellegent design, and Intellegent Design - just like there is between free software/Free Software, and catholic/Catholic.

free software is software that is free.
Free Software (note capitals) is a philosophical movement headed by Richard Stallman, with numerous beliefs and goals, one of which happens to be increasing the amount of software which is free.

Something which is catholic is of a broad scope, universal, and encompasing all of humanity.
The Catholic Church (note capitals) is the sect of christianity headed by the Roman pope, with many beliefs and goals, one of which happens to be (at least in their minds) that the Catholic Church is the one true church of Christ, and is the universal church for all of humanity.

If you believe in intellegent design, you believe that someone/something had a hand in creating life and human life in particular, and that such life was a goal of that designer.
If you believe in the Intellegent Design movement, you believe not only that someone/something had a hand in creating life, but that it is *impossible* for evolution to be the cause of life. Not only has someone designed life, but there is no other way to explain life other than to say it was designed. In addition, ID supporters call for warnings to be sounded every time evolution is mentioned in schools, and ID to be given equal (or preferential) billing.

An honest scientist will say there is nothing ruling out (lower case) intellegent design. Perhaps someone jiggered with mutations during evolution to specifically create humans? If the tweaking is subtle, it might be indistinguishable from random. The point that pushes ID into the unscientific area is that ID claims not only that life was designed, but that evolution is wrong, and there is no point in studying how life came to be the way it is - it was designed, case closed.

Short version: If you believe God designed life, and used evolution to do it, you may believe in (lowercase) "intellegent design", but you certainly don't believe in (the upper case political movement) "Intellegent Design."

Re:Why this is important

[johncadengo]

I am a Christian, but that doesn't take me away from science in the least bit. This might stray a little, but the point I make has everything to do with the parent topic.

The Youth Pastor at my church is currently obtaining a PHD in Biology, and you'd wonder if those were impossible to mix, but they aren't.

One day a kid brought up miracles and said that miracles couldn't possibly occur to the rules of nature. For example, many people wish to disprove the Bible by picking and choosing certain miracles and saying that they possibly couldn't have happened, because if A then B and B didn't happen.

The most common one is that of the sun stopping in the middle of that day which would mean the earth stopped rotating and if the earth stopped rotating then everything and everyone on it would fly off at X million miles per hour.

But when asked about miracles, our youth pastor brought up a specific case. First, he began by saying that "Our God is a God of order, of rules, of nature." He stated that God created the rules of the universe, why would he need to break them? He said that our God is a natural God, and he gave an example:

During Exodus, the Bible says that God performed some disasters upon the Egyptians because the Pharoah wouldn't let Moses' people go. And logically, these miracle/disasters wouldn't possibly happen because... Well, things don't. But the way he explained it, it made sense.

1) The first miracle was: the water of the Nile was turned into blood. This in turn caused everything in the Nile to die. Like the fish for example. But frogs... Frogs have legs and can leave the water, so the next plague was:
2) Frogs. Frogs came over the entire land of Egypt. And because Frogs can't survive without moisture for long, they died. But they died on the land, and what happens when animals die? Something eats them. And from the decaying bodies of frogs came:
3) Gnats. And flies and all their assorted buddies. And what do those little bugs bring with them? Disease. And that leads to the next plague:
4) Cattle dying. All the cattle caught disease from all the flies and gnats and decaying frogs, that they all started to die as well. And what do cattle eat? The grass. But since there weren't any cows to eat the grass, the grass grew taller and longer. And when there is an abundance of grass:
5) Locusts. Locusts swarmed the land and ate all the excess grass and multiplied.

Well. I mean. This is just one example, but it illustrates the point I'm trying to make and the point my youth pastor made: Our God is a natural God and He follows HIS rules. I mean, you don't have to believe it, I'm not trying to make you. But for all of those so-called Christians out there who think that things just happen at the flick of a switch, and that... Well, there isn't a cause, or progression from something earlier, they're all liars. There are causes and effects in our world, and of course the scientific method is used to analyze and reason these out. But there are Christians out there (yes!) that accept science as readily as they accept the Bible. Do they contradict? Only if you, as a misinterpreter on either side (Religious or Scientific), make it.

Re:Why this is important

[Anonymous Coward]

nice - you can't prove your theory so you go about deriding others for not proving their theory.

the old "pot calling the kettle black" trick to avoid the discussion of the pot being black, too.

as far a si'm concerned, BOTH ID and macro-evolution a PHILISOPHICAL in nature.

1. has life ever been observed to come from death - even with all the intelligent design humanity has mustered up to this date? NO.

2. does the fossil record clearly indicate a serial of small changes across the fossil record? NO. all we have here is a bunch of philosophers guessing about what *may* be related to what (based ona preconceived idea that things *have* to be a certain way - the idea is leading the data, not the other way around - bad science!) and then sitting back as others butcher their guesses (that may reasonably be 100% false... or true - we don't know) into solid facts.

that's why the #1 evolutionary evangelist of late (heard her on the radio and saw her on tv) is a philosopher... NOT AN HONEST BIOLOGIST!

an honest biologist may well believe in evolution, but they won't try and turn educated guesses that may reasonably be wrong and sorely lacking fossil record given the theory into a slam dunk.

they will teach the evidence and the holes.

btw, it is pretty clear that simple life forms developed before complex life forms - on a general level. this means grass existed before humans. it doesn't necessarily mean grass and humans evoloved from the same thing.

3. "primordial soup" is a figment of human imagination intended to get the general populace to suspend their belief in the absurdity (based on 100% of all the evidence ever gathered in human history) that life comes from death?

did campbell's make this soup? what was it? nobody knows. it isn't science, it is a "suspend belief" tool. just mention "primordial soup" and *anything* is possible.

4. the environment required to create life appears to be 100% hostile to sustaining life. "primordial soup." uh, we don't need no education.... we don't need no evidence. it just happened. okay, pass the cookies fellow "scientists!"

i'm not pro or anti-macroevolution. i don't care about agendas.

what i do appreciate is THE TRUTH. the HONEST pursuit of truth.

if macro-evolution is accurate, prove it with data. not possibilities akin to "nebraska man" that ends being a pig. no, a LITERAL PIG! how many evolutionists of their day flogged that pig's tooth to shame people who stood back and said, "dude, a tooth isn't enough to reach these absured conclusions. we need EVIDENCE - SOLID EVIDENCE."

as i understand it, all we have is...

1. the general rule that simple life forms appeared before more complex life forms - with no data to confirm this is *always* the case in specific cirucmstance (we don't know).

2. life just doesn't come from death. is it possible? maybe, maybe not. we just don't know. to assume it can is an act of faith at this point.

3. given the number of animals alive today, a surprising few specimens that could reasonably be transitional or could reasonably not be transitional - we just can't know and must rely on faith, not science, to reach a conclusion.

4. not a single obvious and unambiguous series of fossils that indicate slow and gradual evolution over a long period of time. NOT ONE SERIES.

5. fundamentally flawed logic... how would a cow like animal gain an advantage by moving into the sea - especially since hybrid water and land ears is a DISADVANTAGE in either of the environments? so, i now have to believe that nature went the disadvantageous route b/c it knew, in advance, that it would be advantageous later on? what? oh, and not a single example of this hybrid ear. NOT ONE. it is taken as a matter of FAITH.

does this mean macro-evolution is 100% bogus? no. how about 100% correct? no. those searching for truth understand the majesty of the *mystery* and find some level of joy in it, regardless of their faith - for both sides have faith.

Re:Why this is important

[anti_analog]

I am so sick of this ID argument (so sick that I will apparently join in? how's that for logic!)

The first time ID was explained to me, it was by an advocate of it, who's name was Hugh Ross, and he was talking at my parent's church, and he's a cosmologist or something of the sort, fancypants professor/researcher. He explained it as science and christian ideals aren't really neccissarily contradictory, since if there was a God, He created a world/universe in which the rules of science are pretty much in control, in a manner as such that it would create life and planets such as this.

The one argument with scientific theory was that Dr. Ross thought that it was possible that the creation of humans was done by God himself because we are different/special enough. This is an easy view to take or leave, and is obviously a religious belief.

Where this ID stuff has gone in the past few years since I heard Mr. Ross talking about it mystifies me....well, not it doesn't, it just annoys me. Some advocates of it have apparently thought to exploit what was once an idea to quiet the discord between scientists and those with religious faith, and turn it into a vehicle to bring God into the science classroom. I don't support this, as a christian, and I can certainly understand why many evolutionists would have an adverse reaction to this. I can also understand why many religious people are upset at how theories of evolution and such are somewhat sloppily portrayed as fact in education (this was the case in my education, we were told human embryos have gills, therefore, evolution. it's my understanding now [which could of course be false, given the spazness of the issue] that the while gill thing is silly and was made up by some scientist guy, who was refuted by his scientist colleagues, and somehow his drawings got into the wrong hands, and because "accepted facts").

I just see people continuing to be afraid of each other's beliefs, scientific or religious, because they might possibly conflict with the way they approach their own beliefs. It all seems like a terrible waste of energy to me...

OH WELL!!!

Speaking of wastes of energy, I just posted in a thread on an internet commentary forum!

Anyway, good job on the bee research, that part of the story seams neato.

Re:Why this is important

[electroniceric]

Mod TheFlyingGoat up! What you describe is pluralism with respect to science.

My main problem with ID is not that it posits any sort of alternate theory of how we came to be or how we ought to interpret the world around us - frankly I think there's a lot of value in that. It's that ID insists that that kind of learning and reflection be taught in lieu of science.

Science's "mission statement" has always been to apply analysis to understand the mechanics of how the natural phenoma work. Nothing more, nothing less. It does not and should not tell you how to interpret that, much less to ponder the imponderables: "why is there grief and death in the world?", "what is wisdom?", "is it right for me to fire an employee?", etc. I do think that the understanding provided by science can require some rethinking of how the precepts of religion are intepreted, and that troubles people who view the knowledge provided by religion as eternal and immutable.

I wouldn't dismiss the notion that religion can provide eternal or immutable knowledge, but I do believe a lot of this is an end run around pluralism. Pluralism in this case entails accepting someone saying, "I think a heavily scientific worldview is a bad one, and while I won't attempt to disprove it, I simply won't believe it". That's roughly akin to saying, "I can accept that you think Mohammed was the Messenger of God, even though I don't" and still think that we can agree on some moral precepts. But ID's basic goal is anti-pluralistic, it is to use present deficiencies in scientific knowledge to challenge anyone's use of science as a worldview.

I know I'm not the only one that finds the notion that science is a framework for all belief troubling, and I'm not even religious - I'm an agnostic. But I don't think the answer is to go advancing theories that say that science is flawed if it doesn't agree with a particular tenet of faith, and particularly not to represent those same theories as science.

Re:Why this is important

[Anonymous Coward]

It's wrong for a moronic I.D. advocate to argue so, and it's wrong for a /. nutjob to argue that knowing how bees fly refutes I.D.

He didn't say that. His point was that the ID approach of "God did it" (oh sorry, "an entity indistinguishable from a god did it", ID sure isn't religion!) is a harmful attitude. That's a completely different point than the one you attribute to him.

Re:Why this is important

[pete-classic]

Why do God and Science have to be mutually exclusive?

There will always be unknowable things. Making up a fantastic story to explain those things runs counter to Science as I understand it.

-Peter

Re:Why this is important

[tfoss]

Sorry, I can't swallow this...

ID != Supernaturalism.

Under what circumstances can that statement be true? The 'intelligent' in intelligent design refers to some supernatural entity. Be definition, ID implies a being outside the realm of scientific understanding (which is pretty much the definition of supernatural). That is, unless you have some scientific proof of (a) god that you want to share.

Whether ID requires the god-like entity to be involved at the beginning, the end, continuously throughout, or at certain specific times, is irrelevant. The supernatual god-like entity is a required part of the belief system. ID is predicated on supernatural belief, while science, by definition, does not accept supernatural explanations.

ID proponents are not looking outside of science to explain how the natural world works.

Bullshit. That is just stupid. When you assume a supernatural creator as the explanation of why eyes are eyes, you are most definitely looking outside of science.

What they are doing is questioning how the natural order came to be.

If only that were true. Origin of life is something science does not speak to. There is no way to observe or study the question, and thus is not a target for science. If ID were limited to the metaphysical argument of 'how did it all start' then it would not run afoul of the rational scientist crowd. Trying to pass off warmed over creationism as an alternative to evolution, however, goes leaps and bounds beyond the mysticism ID truly is.

-Ted

Re:Why this is important

[TheFlyingGoat]

You're taking the same approach as the ID people. You're saying that since you don't believe in something, that nobody else should either. The ID people are trying to force religion in a setting the requires only science. You're trying to force science in a setting that allows for more than just science.

Your question about how God came to be is fundamentally flawed as a result. You're trying to apply science to a question that most Christians use faith to explain: that God has always existed. I would suggest reading Arthur C. Clark's Rama series as a good example of how science and God can co-exist. It's also very entertaining to boot.

Perhaps the best way to handle this entire argument, since you're obviously close-minded on the whole thing, is to accept that other people have different beliefs than you.

Re:Why this is important

[donnz]

final nail in the coffin of ID.. give me a break

Too right. That sucker was buried years ago. What we are seeing now are zombies.

Re:Why this is important

[sfjoe]

Why do God and Science have to be mutually exclusive?

They are not "mutually" exclusive. The exclusion is completely one-sided. Scientists (rational scientists anyway) make no claim one way or the other as to the existence of God because she is unprovable. Whether or not we feel the Big Bang Theory to be accurate has no bearing on our belief that the Creator caused the Big Bang. It is entirely the work of the ID crowd to claim that science is trying to disprove God and, as such, are "anti-God". By the same token there is no "war on Christmas" as a war requires there to be two sides.

Re:Why this is important

[AoT]

Wow, good job at argueing the completely wrong point.

Evolution says NOTHING (see I can type in all caps, too) about the initial creation of life. Evolution is, as Darwin so nicely put it, about the origin of species. Evolution is a method for describing how species came to exist. It does a damn good job of this. It is, however, not complete. Gasp! Uh oh. Where is your bullshit about darwinism being a religion now? Take your stupid strawmen arguements elsewhere, intellegent people are trying te debate real issues.

The theory of evolution is the best description science can come to using the current evidence. When science gets more evidence, as it will, it will continue to be confirmed or changed, that is right, changed. Theories change when presented with new evidence.

Re:Why this is important

[Anonymous Coward]

How the hell does the scientific process disprove god?

Re:Why this is important

[TheFlyingGoat]

Perhaps you are right. I never really thought of it that way. The reason I excluded miracles is because I believe that God has used them in the past as a way to show without a doubt that whatever is going on is from him.

Think about this with the assumption that God does exist and that Biblical miracles were actually performed. Many still cannot be explained by science 2000 years later. Imagine for a second if we're still around 10,000 years from now and there's still no way to explain the miracles with science. The miracles become that much more impressive. However, if someone is able to transmutate matter to turn water into wine, then the miracle can be replicated and seems less impressive (even considering it would have happened 2000+ years earlier).

I just think that if God performed miracles, he'd do so that they had longevity in addition to an immediate awe factor.

Re:Why this is important

[this great guy]

he figured [fish fossils] were a type of fish that lived in rocks

This guy must be stupid.
Who was it already ?
Oh Aristotle... nevermind.

Re:Why this is important

[Phillup]

Why do God and Science have to be mutually exclusive?

Because science doesn't dictate that entire citys be destroyed just because someone wants a little ass?

Because a scientist would look at such a creature and call it evil?

Just a guess...

Re:Why this is important

[Hortensia Patel]

I can't speak for the grandparent poster, but having participated in several discussions around this in various fora I've noticed a definite cultural bias to the atheist/agnostic split. USAmericans who don't believe in a deity generally describe themselves as agnostic, while Brits with the exact same views would generally describe themselves as atheist - "agnostic" here implies uncertainty with no strong leaning either way. As you can imagine, this causes no end of confusion.

Quite why this should be so I'm not sure, but I'd be surprised if social pressure wasn't involved somehow. (Large segments of US society seem to view atheism as some sort of character defect, and strongly religious people are often viewed as slightly peculiar here in the UK.) There's one pernicious meme which comes up over and over, which is the notion that to be an atheist one must be able to prove the non-existence of any and all deities. (Must one be able to prove the existence of God to be a theist?) Some people seem to have real trouble with the whole "beyond a reasonable doubt" concept.

Donning my own (larval and very rusty) scientist hat for a moment, I'd say that theism is prima facie highly implausible and has no discernable explanatory or predictive power, therefore I don't believe it. I can't prove that all conceivable formulations of it are false, granted. I can't prove that frozen yoghurt isn't sentient, but I don't believe it, and I don't consider that disbelief an article of faith.

HTH

Re:Why this is important

[grasshoppa]

( Off topic ahead, you've been warned )

Personally, I view the bible as more a book with stories meant to teach lessons. I don't view them as factual accounts of what happened, any more than I believe any other tale or folklore from other cultures are factual accounts of what happened.

However, they have a moral and a lesson to be taught. That's the important thing i believe.

Re:Why this is important

[Kyosuke77]

Well, you see, evolution by natural selection is driven by just that - natural selection. 'New features' in living things are understood to come from genetic mutations, which in turn are understood to be caused by various environmental factors.

It therefore stands to reason that some traits may spring up from mutations but will in no way be selected for as they will not give a creature any advantage or disadvantage in its ability to survive and reproduce. A great example of this would be eye colour, which as far as we know is entirely cosmetic and doesn't affect our vision whatsoever.

What I'm getting at here is that science states that the process of change in evolution is driven by mutation, and can explain what causes these mutations. The idea that changes in organisms are made by a God of some sort rejects these scientific explanations for those changes and this places it squarely in the 'faith' department.

Re:Why this is important

[AoT]

Um, nice Freshman philosophy paper. Now join the real world.

Yes, I am aware that science is an out growth of Materialistic Philosophy; but, if you want to argue that this makes it invalid then you need to try harder. Evolution is not about creation, it is about the changing of species, the way that species seperate from each other. Evolution is not only a historical endeavor, it is an ongoing process that changes life around us, it effects every part of this world. To deny the reality of evolution is as absurb as denying that the humans are having a negative effect upon the environment.

If it pleases you to sit around and wax philosophical about the "true nature" of the world, fine, I can do that; but, if you actually wish to learn things you need to realize that there is a shared physical reality. By denying that reality you make youself sound absurd and manage to gloss over the real argument.

Re:Why this is important

[Tony Hoyle]

Either this is a clever troll along the lines of the FSM, or you are the biggest moron ever to walk the earth.

I'll choose to believe the first, because I don't believe even an IDer could swallow that kind of horseshit.

Re:Why this is important

[Brian Boitano]

Consider this, why did we start finding fossils and oil when we did?

Maybe we hadn't researched Scientific Method until then.

Re:Why this is important

[CmputrAce]

As much as I applaud the Answers in Genesis bunch for a lot of good work, they still sometimes get a bit dogmatic and try to respond to some "old earth" evidence with less-than-rational arguments. I think that the ID community should sometimes take a more scientific approach to their studies than they do (redshift, the age of the universe, stellar aging).

Instead of being able to say, "I don't know," like any reasonable scientist when given a problem whose solution is currently unknown, it seems that they feel obligated to come up with some kind of answer that supports ID. That is the kind of action that makes ID and ID proponents look so stupid sometimes. If you don't know, admit it and do like any good scientist. Hypothesize, theorize, experiment, experiment, experiment, adjust (repeat until solved).

I firmly believe that we will find a scientific explanation for everything, giving us enough reason to think that God was not necessary for all of this to happen. We're not going to see a miracle in the laboratory as such because the very nature of "miracle" is that it is unexplainable. If someone's cancer spontaneously heals and we are able to observe the entire process in a laboratory, we will be able to see exactly what physiological process were involved in the destruction of the tumor. We will be able to fully explain how it happened. But we will not necessarily be able to explain *why* it happened, or why it happened when it did. Science is not always good at coming up with the "why" even though it's remarkably good at the "how".

God and "intelligent design" are in no way contrary to science and the scientific method; however, ID is often at odds with the conclusions drawn by many scientists. Those conclusions are driven by philosophy, not science.

Think I've said enough.

Re:Why this is important

[EraserMouseMan]

I believe this problem to be one of bad logic from Christians ticking off scientists. When it comes to Evolution vs ID pastors love to get up in the pulpit and say things that seem convincing to the gullible but are absolutely not based on any science and do nothing to prove anything. An example would be the bee illustration. It would go something like this, "Brothers and sisters in Christ, there are godless workers of iniquity in this world who call themselves scientists who would have you believe that we are here because of a random mistake. If they are so smart why can't the all of the world's smartest scientists still figure out how a bumble bee manages to fly? Maybe the answer doesn't lay in man's ability to grasp. Maybe it is a mattery of heavenly mystery. Maybe humans can't figure it out because a mysterious god created it to baffle us mortal men."

That kind of statement is nothing but pure propaganda. Just insulting one group of people to make a point. I wish pastors and Christians would stop using subjective reasoning to "prove" that evolution can't possibly exist. I was listening to a talk radio show recently when a guy tried to prove ID by saying how beautiful the sunset is and how there's no way that could have been done by "accident". He may be correct about ID but that is a totally flawed way to prove something.

I hate it when people develop opinions for or against something by saying, "It just doesn't seem/look/feel right." If it's right it's right. It doesn't matter how it looks/feels/seems.

BTW, the logic of this entire post cuts both ways and is not meant to be in favor of either side.

Re:Why this is important

[hedge_death_shootout]

You're taking the same approach as the ID people. You're saying that since you don't believe in something, that nobody else should either. The ID people are trying to force religion in a setting the requires only science. You're trying to force science in a setting that allows for more than just science.

Actually I'm not, I'm saying that the theory that 'universes need intelligent creator beings' gives you nothing, since the question immediately arises 'who created the creator being?'.
And if you are claiming that that question does not in fact arise, I would like to know why the need for a creator being popped up in the first place.

Also, I'm not giving any scientific explanation for the coming-into-existence of the universe whatsoever, so I'm not pushing science anywhere!

Your question about how God came to be is fundamentally flawed as a result. You're trying to apply science to a question that most Christians use faith to explain: that God has always existed.

Ahhhhh. So you're saying 'we invented a useful concept called 'faith' so we can declare certain things we have no explanation for out of bounds and can posit any assertions we want in these areas as unarguable fact and will ignore any attempts to pick at these assertions.'.

You can't 'use faith' to explain things, but you can, as you've ably demonstrated 'use faith to not explain things'. ;-)

Perhaps the best way to handle this entire argument, since you're obviously close-minded on the whole thing, is to accept that other people have different beliefs than you.

Yes, one can always dodge an argument by saying 'dont wanna play'. That's fine, if a bit boring. I'm open minded to arguments you wish to make, but please dont have a little tantrum if I happen to take your arguments to pieces, or even not treat them with the breathless respect you might want me to. :-)

Re:Why this is important

[Atzanteol]

he proof that no one religion is correct, is that there are so many conflicting religions.

*blink*

Sooo, any time there is a debate on a subject then *all* arguments must be false simply because there are lots of arguments? Wow.

Proof that evolution doesn't exist, there are multiple different arguments!

Re:Why this is important

[Anonymous Coward]

Because if you mix Science + God, you get SOD!!!

All hail the great lawnmower!!!!

Re:Why this is important

[Tony Hoyle]

I like this new method!

I think I'll apply it to traffic lights. And slashdotters.

Re:Why this is important

[Lehk228]

actually there is just as much evidence that the universe popped into existance last week. how would you know the difference between things actually happening and a carefully constructed "history" with corresponding "memories" all completed last tuesday and set in motion.

Re:Why this is important

[Anonymous Coward]

If that were the case, there would constantly be new distant stars appearing in the sky, as the world gets old enough in each direction for their light to travel to us today.

Actually, if stars came into existence as time went backwards, wouldn't it then have always have been in the present since it has then already occured in the past? For proof, look at Futurama when Fry became his own Grandad! He couldn't have been born unless he did his grandma, but he couldn't have done his grandma unless he had been born! So by his being born, that means everything that happened in the past, even though it happened in the future, happened in the past and was a part of history when you hit the future. ;)

Re:Why this is important

[unapersson]

Atheism means lack of theism. How is that a faith? Is not believing in the tooth fairy a faith? Not believing in pink elephants?

The whole point of Atheism is that you don't need a belief system. You just go about your day to day existence without the necessity to worship any great anti-theistic power. It is an irrelevance.

The difficulty some religious people seem to have is that most of the time we simply don't think about it because it isn't important.

Sometimes when we see acts of mindless violence in the name of religion we will feel a sense of futility, but not at the acts of some great power but rather at the sense in which religious belief is so malleable by those willing to take advantage of it. The problems with religion are largely human problems. It has become just another weapon to be exploited by those who want to guide a mass of people in a way that suits them.

Re:Why this is important

[Atzanteol]

Really? You've disproved God? Well come on man! Tell the world! I'm sure the entire scientific community is waiting to hear it!

Re:Why this is important

[blueg3]

Eh, sort of. I'm not really qualified to comment at length on mechanisms of evolution and selection. Of course, having blue eyes is a bad example. That we have a selection of eye colors indicates that it doesn't provide a survivability edge.

The "undirected" part, I believe, is that mutations and genetic combination is more or less random rather than intentional (at least from our perspective) and that survivability is more or less random. Cleary for most things, individual situations are more significant to whether or not a particular organism lives. (Hit by a car? Probably not because of your genes.) However, some traits give a higher level of survivability on average.

I would agree, though, that while it's quite reasonable to take this at face value and say that evolution is the result of a random process ats.nd a few simple rules (as many elegant results are), but there's plenty of leeway as to where these rules and processes come from and why they work.

There's plenty of room for God in science (though I must admit I don't ascribe to such beliefs), but the way ID supporters conflicts directly with scientific resul

Re:Why this is important

[Spaceman40]

-- "Yes, I am aware that science is an out growth of Materialistic Philosophy; but, if you want to argue that this makes it invalid then you need to try harder." --

I was not aware that I was making that argument. In my original post, I was merely arguing that the entire idea of even repeatable experimentation is invalid when talking about the past. I'm all for the advancing of our body of knowledge, but in this area, there's _no_ _way_ to prove _anyone_ wrong. Being able to disprove a theory is one of the foundations of the scientific method. Not "freshman philosophy", just the idea that you can't prove OR disprove history.

-- "Evolution is not about creation, it is about the changing of species, the way that species seperate from each other. Evolution is not only a historical endeavor, it is an ongoing process that changes life around us, it effects every part of this world. To deny the reality of evolution is as absurb as denying that the humans are having a negative effect upon the environment." --

Did I write anything about evolution? In case I was unclear, my final paragraph was about Christians that think the theory is correct, not about the seven-day people.

-- "If it pleases you to sit around and wax philosophical about the "true nature" of the world, fine, I can do that; but, if you actually wish to learn things you need to realize that there is a shared physical reality. By denying that reality you make youself sound absurd and manage to gloss over the real argument." --

My argument was not philosophical (although I see how one could take it as such) as I note above. It was merely to state that any theory that cannot be proved nor disproved is worthless to argue about: it comes down to belief. The theory of relativity could potentially be disproved with a repeatable experiment. The theory of ID (or the FSM, for that matter) cannot. I hope that clears up a few things.

Re:Why this is important

[dubl-u]

Sure, for many in the creationist camp, science and God have no business mixing. But there are also those who believe as I do. Why do God and Science have to be mutually exclusive?

For me personally, it was the years of verbal harrassment I, a geeky kid, endured at the hands of Christians who seemed convinced that the main point of science was to kill and eat their precious Baby Jesus.

Now I'm mostly over it, and can actually have civilized discussions about relgion with my Christian friends. But for years I was implacably hostile to all things Christian, a flaming athiest with a grudge like a wasp-stung rhino. Now I generally save my ire for people like Pat "the gays caused 9/11" Robertson, and the creationist^W intelligent design loons who want to use political power to force their religion into science textbooks.

So putting it biblically, I'd say it's a case of, "whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap". Perhaps if you're looking for more respect from pepole wearing lab coats, you could start by asking your co-religionists to practice what they're preaching about tolerance, humility, and love of their fellow man. Even unto the scientists.

Re:Why this is important

[Planesdragon]

The excuse given for treating I.D. as a scientific theory is that science can't teach us all of the relatively basic things about our world, and thus, must be flawed in concept, so alternatives should be allowed.

Wrong again.

The argument for I.D. being a scientific theory is that, given a sufficiently complex structure, it is simpler to presume that there was something that made it than that the thing randomly occured. A great example of line of logic is the "watch on the sand" parable -- in short, if you found a watch on an alien world keeping time, you'd presume that it was constructed by an intelligence, rather than a random creation of the universe.

To put it another way: I.D. proponents claim first that there is a level of complexity that cannot occur without a designing intelligence (i.e., no randomly occuring telephones), and that human life is such a complexity.

I.D. should be taught alongside its alternative in public high school science classroms, because if nothing else, the teaching will get students thinking enough to realize that science is a method, not a body of knowledge.

Re:Why this is important

[Kyosuke77]

I'm sorry for this, I just can't resist. Does your flame retardant suit also make you look like a bigger retard? Did you ever stop to consider why the various types of insect wings look like derivative works of one another? Even if you did, I'll bet you just assumed God was trying to shake things up a bit and introduce some variety. That's all well and good, for you perhaps. However the well observed, testable, and reproducible process of natural selection tells us that a myriad of different types of insect wings could have appeared over the course of history, but the various types of wings we see in insects living today were the ones that were the most successful in helping their owners to survive and reproduce. Failures in this evolutionary 'wing engineering' process would have a tendency to die out since the inability to fly well or at all can have a pretty negative impact on an insect's chances. In parting, I'd like to ask, what's a steal bird? Is it a bird that steals things or a trained bird used by thieves to conduct heists? I suppose it's possible you meant 'steel birds', as in an airplane made of steel. Even if that was what you meant I can't imagine a 'steel bird' flying very well as it would be pretty damn heavy. Too bad you're too dumb to know that practically all airplanes are made of aluminum. Do your worst, mods, you can't possibly ruin the fun I've had writing this.

Re:Why this is important

[hackwrench]

You're making a poor assumption that the negative time poured out in the same quantity as positive. I've come up with a mathematical illustration of how the two time periods relate as so:
Looking at the large numbers that are composed of two primes multiplied together, the large prime must be greater than the square root of the large number, and the smaller prime must be lesser than the square root of the large number. However the space from zero to the square root is always smaller than the space from the square root to the large number. Fix the Genesis event at the square root, negative time going up reaching the large number as positive time reaches 0.

Re:Why this is important

[Temsi]

ID != Supernaturalism.
This is patently false. Indeed ID = Supernaturalism.
How? Very simple. Science and evolution rely on NATURAL explanations.
ID does not. Indeed it relies on the existance of some "higher" being, a "designer".
A "designer" who himself was not designed or came to be out of nothing, is by definition a supernatural being, and therefore, by definition, ID is supernaturalism.

The point of design is that God is so great that he could cause a bee to fly (or any other astounding example from nature) within the natural order, without relying on his supernatural powers.
Not so. If a fly can fly for purely natural reasons without the benefit of "supernatural powers" what exactly is the problem? And where exactly does the idea of "God" fit into all of that? If there's a natural explanation, why do we need to complicate the matter further by trying to force a man-made "supernatural" idea into it?

ID proponents are not looking outside of science to explain how the natural world works.
If that were true, there would be no argument, as there would be no mention of a "higher being" that designed everything. A "designer" of nature would by definition be outside of nature, and thus the very core of ID revolves around something which is not part of nature. Science is wholly grounded in natural explanations. A designer outside of nature simply does not fit in that basic set of observational rules. Therefore, a thing like ID, which does revolve around a designer, cannot by definition be based in science.
Furthermore, ID does not have any theories or even hypotheticals which can be proven one way or another, and are therefore not scientific (all science must be falsifiable in order to qualify as science).

What they are doing is questioning how the natural order came to be.
That's all well and good, but the problem is, they're asking the wrong questions. They question things that have been demonstrated and explained ad nauseum, again and again because they don't like the answer (i.e. it doesn't suit their pre-conceived idea of a god or a creator).

Re:Why this is important

[clambake]

I just think that if God performed miracles, he'd do so that they had longevity in addition to an immediate awe factor.

Personally I find the awe factor in the much less miraculous. Just making something happen as if by "magic" seems almost like cheating. At that point, you have to ask, "Ok, so God can do whatever he wants, whenever he wants, and follow none of his own rules. Then why doesn't he just magic me up eternal happiness right now? Why make me jump thought these silly hoops? That's just mean, and in the end, pointless. Because it's obvious He could just change the rules on me at a moment's notice, so why even bother. This sucks."

Whereas when I see the vast forces of "mundane reality" at work, like neutron stars, galactic warping, the beauty of the simple unloved adinosine tri-phosphate molecule, the spooky twists and turns of quantum mechanics, I think, WHAH, now there is a God who has some class... Mysteries wrapped in riddles wrapped in enigmas, and just waiting for us to unravel!

Re:Why this is important

[clambake]

What I'm getting at here is that science states that the process of change in evolution is driven by mutation, and can explain what causes these mutations.

Sure, but just to make the creationistic people happy, can't you just say, "And it's God who decides the quantum fluctuations that caused that chromosome to misalign properly and create that mutation."

Re:Why this is important

[clambake]

The "undirected" part, I believe, is that mutations and genetic combination is more or less random rather than intentional

I'm thinking THIS is the area where we can apply God without much harm. I mean, it may LOOK random to you, but it's all part of God's Plan, see? Then you can continue working as though it were random, and they can continue saying, ah, what a wonderfully subtle plan, and we can all get on with the business of killing people in the name of God's Love and be done with it.

Re:Why this is important

[Kazoo the Clown]

If you use the Huxley-coined definition for agnostic, agnostic and atheist are not mutually exclusive. The first is a belief about knowledge, the second about gods, i.e., I am agnostic because I don't believe it is possible to know whether or not God exists, and I am an atheist because I believe he does not.

I too cannot speak for the original poster, but I am an atheist because I've yet to see a coherent, non-self-contradictory definition for God, and, lacking a workable definition I see no reason to consider the existence of something thus undefined...

For example, one characteristic of God that seems to be widely applied is that "he" is omniscient, "all-knowing." However, presumably even God cannot know that which is not possible to know. And, just as we cannot know absolutely whether or not some being exists that is outside of our ability to percieve, a God too, cannot logically prove that there does not exist some being superior to him that exists in a realm that is beyond his ability to percieve. Consequently, a God, even if he exists, could not possibly know that he is the ultimate, even if he is. He cannot know that he is God, though he may think he is God. Perhaps he is merely an inmate of some cosmic sanitarium, deluded into thinking he is the outer extent of all there is.

Consequently, I think the question of whether or not God exists is a meaningless-- no different than asking does "woeigjowie" exist.

-- Sync

Re:Why this is important

[Decaff]

As a Christian Pastor, I believe the world, and everything in it, was indeed created by God. But I also believe that he is a God of order, and thus there is an order to all things that can be observed and recorded. As science progresses, I would expect that many things that are a mystery to us today would be explained and understood. The fact that there is a scientific explanation for these things does not disprove the existence of God. Sure, for many in the creationist camp, science and God have no business mixing. But there are also those who believe as I do. Why do God and Science have to be mutually exclusive?

They are not mutually exclusive; the problem is almost as soon as you try and define what God is and what He/She does, and if you then proclaim these definitions as either part of your faith, or as dogma, then you are closing down areas for scientific investigation.

Let me take as an example something you have written - you have said you believe that God is a deity of order and thus there is an order to all things that can be observed and recorded. This means you already have a biased opinion that may prevent you from seeing what is really going on when you are presented with scientific result - you seem to have already decided the interpretation you are going to put on it. Science seems to be revealing that there is very little order in things - there is chaos and uncertainty at the base of everything. Quantum Theory seems to imply that the future is fundamentally unpredictable, and Evolutionary Theory seems to suggest that life evolves from random mutations (if you re-wound evolution, it would not 'play back' anything like the same way).

So, you see - even what seems like an innocuous and reasonable belief regarding the nature of God apparently puts you at odds with mainstream science.

Unless religious are prepared to be pragmatic, and accept that they must adapt their beliefs to cope with the findings of Science, there will always be conflict at some level.

Re:Why this is important

[NardofDoom]

Science shouldn't seek to explain why the universe came to be, but how.

And therefore science class should contain evolution and not ID, because evolution is the 'how' and ID is the 'why.'

We are in total agreement.

Re:Why this is important

[NardofDoom]

If it's okay for others to judge Islam by its radical clerics, then it's okay for me to judge Christianity by its radical clerics.

Re:Why this is important

[Thing 1]

For myself, I find no necessary conflict between the mechanisms described by science and the actions of God described by the Bible.

Explain Job (God killed everyone he held dear, destroyed his home and farm and animals, and gave him diseases over a bet with the Devil, just like Trading Places).

Or Abraham (God asked him to kill his son, then reneged (in horror?--unknown) when Abraham agreed).

Re:Why this is important

[Charcharodon]

They don't. I have no problem with the concept that the universe was created by God, as I suspect neither do a great many other people these days, and instead of making everything with the 7day shake and bake method, took the much longer road and created the universe through complicated and elegant methods. Methods which require science, intelligence, and knowledge to explain and understand.

We just get annoyed with the loony religious types that feel threatened by anything might possibly "destroy" faith, in other words anything they don't understand or like.

Intentional ignorance is a much greater sin than any of the others in my book. A sin that most of the supporters of Inteligent Design are up to their necks in.

Re:Why this is important

[Thing 1]

Not exactly. The scientific process ignores God. Subtle but important difference.

To be more verbose: the existence of God has no bearing on whether 2 + 2 = 4, and has no bearing on whether we can determine the laws of the universe (which God might have created in the first place).

I'm not discussing my beliefs, just that God and science are orthogonal.

Re:Why this is important

[Thing 1]

Why is it that one can claim in the name of science to be so right as to know that something is unobservable.

Reminds me of the quote (I tried to find it but couldn't, so this might be slightly incorrect): "While some claim a thing to be impossible, others are hard at work achieving it."

In other words, to state "there are no aliens" one must visit every planet in the universe. To state "there are aliens" one must only find one species, which one might do on the first planet visited.

So, is there a God? We haven't looked under all the subatomic particles yet. (Many of the quantum mechanical properties we've found seem to be quite similar to the types of feats ascribed to God.)

Re:Why this is important

[AoT]

Well shoot. I owe you an apology. I went back and reread your post and, yeah, I completely thought you were talking about something else. Although I do possibly disagree with you on one points.

"I was not aware that I was making that argument. In my original post, I was merely arguing that the entire idea of even repeatable experimentation is invalid when talking about the past. I'm all for the advancing of our body of knowledge, but in this area, there's _no_ _way_ to prove _anyone_ wrong."

If you are talking about ID here, and not evolution, then I agree. But it is possible to do repeatable experiments on remains that are found. And it is possible to disprove evolutionary theory.

And I am sorry for the combative tone in that last post, I was a little riled up.

Re:Why this is important

[Anonymous Coward]

"If it's okay for others to judge Islam by its radical clerics, then it's okay for me to judge Christianity by its radical clerics."

Fair enough, but in most articles/discussions i've seen, radical/extreme/whacked out Islamists are noted as such, as are Christians, Jews, and any other religious figure who is acting outside the mainstream of that religion. Do you have a specific example of somebody presenting a radical Islamist as representative of mainstream? I'm sure you can also find examples of radical Christians being presented as representative of the mainstream.

Re:Why this is important

[SlayerDave]

For a more philisophical take on nature and supernature, see C.S. Lewis' Miracles.

And for a rebuttal of Lewis' Miracles and other works, see C. S. Lewis and the Search for Rational Religion by John Beversluis.

Re:Why this is important

[orkysoft]

They should have built their monasteries before they discovered the Scientific Method...

Re:Why this is important

[swimmar132]

You don't believe in macroevolution? Here's 29+ cases for it. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Re:Why this is important

[Anonymous Coward]

You dare to challenge the time cube?!

Re:Why this is important

[Al Dimond]

Good point. One of the reasons there is such confusion is that there are multiple definitions for both atheism and agnosticism. The two most common definitions of atheism I see essentially boil down to:
1. Lack of belief in God
2. Belief that there is not a God

And the two most common definitions of agnosticism I see essentially boil down to:
1. Belief that it is impossible for people to know about the existence of God (the originally coined definition by Huxley, as parent said).
2. Lack of belief in God (the same as #1 for atheism, but these people usually emphasize that they don't believe against God either)

A lot of people that I've talked to use the #2 definitions for both terms, and others (like myself and the parent) use the #1 definitions for both, which is what confuses things.

I've seen some people that try to clear it up by calling agnosticism by the Huxley definition and then defining "Strong Atheism" to mean the affirmative belief that there is no God and "Weak Atheism" to mean the lack of a belief in God. This set of definitions is nice because it covers the bases, but I don't like to call my beliefs weak! ;-)

Re:Why this is important

[sjudd]

Sir, your ideas intrigue me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter...

Re:Why this is important

[aeoo]

This is a beautiful post, but I really doubt anyone will understand it. Most people are entrenched in this or that viewpoint.

Re:Why this is important

[Woldry]

I have read it. Behe starts with an interesting idea, and brings out an impressive array of research, but his arguments don't stand up very well to careful logic.

For a pretty thorough drubbing of Behe's flawed premise, see Tower of Babel: The Evidence Against the New Creationism by Robert T. Pennock.

Got any other suggestions?

Re:Why this is important

[MixmastaKooz]

What happens if mankind creates an intelligence (a sentient computer). What happens if mankind dies away. Will they argue about whether there was a God called Man?

Well, if their IT robot doesn't keep back ups....

Re:Why this is important

[Anonymous Coward]

My personal belief is that everything, with the exclusion of miracles, can be explained through science...

This raises the question of whether the creation should be classified as a miracle, of course. Or if not a miracle per se, then a unique event involving the same kind of special intervention as a miracle, and with the same consequences with regards to science.

...the Bible doesn't teach us to argue stuff like this...

Well, it depends what you mean by "argue". 1 Peter 3:15 says (in part), "Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect..."

...trying to force faith-based arguments into the classroom is the same as trying to force evolution into church.

Still, if what a child is taught in school flatly contradicts what he is taught in church, and if the school says "the evidence backs our story, none other", well, you fill in the blanks.

Re:Why this is important

[Anonymous Coward]

If anyone currently has a formal belief about god other than "I don't know," either they have some bang-up evidence that I'd like to hear or they are just copping out to faith (believing without reason) -- and in the latter case they're just being arbitrary.

Actually, if you apply game theory, you could change your answer to "sure, why not" in an almost non-arbitrary fashion. Let's take a simple matrix (made shitty thanks to slash, the lameness filter, and the crippling of ecode):

Action \ Reality : Exists | Exists Not
    Exists: +1000 | +1
    Exists Not: 0 | +x

Here we've assigned a "reward" based on reasonable assumptions: If you obey God's rules and He exists, you receive an eternity of heaven as a reward, we'll assign this a large positive award. If you obey God's rules and He does not exist, you die and your existance terminates, but you've been a good person, so we'll say this is a tiny positive number. Or you could say it sucked and you get 0 points. Now let's say that you do not believe in His existance, but when you die you discover you were wrong, and go straight to Hell: Zero points. Finally, let's say you disbelieve, and when you die, you fade away, smugly satisfied in your nonexistance....

Here's where that "almost non-arbitrary" kicks in. At this point, you would have to ask yourself "Can I raise enough Hell in one lifetime to make a score comparable to an eternity in heaven?" Game theory suggests you choose the path with the higher payout when no other information (probability, etc) is available to you. So if you rate the fun you can have during your life as a reward higher than what you'd rate an eternity of heaven, then it would suggest that only the good die young, and you had better get started. Otherwise, if you're unsure of just how much fun you can take in one lifetime (or you've already let youth slip through your fingers), then it would be best to repent of whatever sins you may have committed and get started on working towards salvation.

Now, having analyzed it, does it still count as faith?

Re:Why this is important

[Darby]

However, they have a moral and a lesson to be taught. That's the important thing i believe.

The problem I have with this idea is the lessons it teaches are all completely inconsistent and all over the map.

Slavery and genocide are very strongly supported by the bible.
Treating others as you would be treated, charity and generosity are as well.
The most important ( in the writer's minds ) was submitting to any atrocities you had to suffer in this life since you would be rewarded in the next.
It's extremely pro ruler and anti-populace moreso than anything from a moral perspective which makes perfect sense given who wrote it.

So there are good moral lessons that can be learned from it, but there are also those that all decent people have long since rejected. The problem is that there is no possible way to put one type above the other without rejecting the fundamental *religious* aspect.

Re:Why this is important

[Darby]

*blink*

Sooo, any time there is a debate on a subject then *all* arguments must be false simply because there are lots of arguments? Wow.

No, the argument works well.
You've merely managed to miss the point.

A perfect all powerful, all knowing creature could easily have made his will known clearly and concisely.
Had he chosen to do so, then there wouldn't be constant murder torture and evil done in his name because he's too freaking incompetent to get his point across.

That he's failed utterly to do so is entirely *his* failing. Any attempt to dispute that is to also destroy his perfection.

That makes him imperfect at the very least.
Hence there is no perfect all powerful all knowing being.

Your failure to understand is demonstrated in your response by you trying to put human arguments on the same level as a perfect all powerful all knowing being.

Did you even look over what you wrote once before you hit submit?!?

Re:Why this is important

[a-singularity]

That's all well and good, but the problem is, they're asking the wrong questions. They question things that have been demonstrated and explained ad nauseum, again and again because they don't like the answer (i.e. it doesn't suit their pre-conceived idea of a god or a creator).

What pray tell, are those questions that have been explained ad nauseum?

Re:Why this is important

[smidget2k4]

Now this is the kind of flame I like. One that admits what it is right at the end. Can we mod this up as underrated? Too many trolls are not self aware.

Re:Why this is important

[grasshoppa]

Slavery and genocide are very strongly supported by the bible.
Treating others as you would be treated, charity and generosity are as well.
The most important ( in the writer's minds ) was submitting to any atrocities you had to suffer in this life since you would be rewarded in the next.
It's extremely pro ruler and anti-populace moreso than anything from a moral perspective which makes perfect sense given who wrote it.


I never said *what* lessons I took away from it. You can learn from the bad just as well as from the good. More so most times.

The problem is that there is no possible way to put one type above the other without rejecting the fundamental *religious* aspect.

Which is something I did a long time ago. I don't respect organized religion, nor religion as a whole. I mean, if it keeps people happy and stops them from commiting murders, then knock yourself out ( which is only a modern concept about religion and still isn't universally embraced ). Just leave me out of it.

You don't have to be religious to be spiritual. To have your own set of beliefs that you believe as strongly in as your religious counterparts. The only difference is I'm not trying to save anybody and everyone else isn't going to hell for having different beliefs.

There are lessons to be learned everywhere you look. The bible just has some really good ones to teach.

Re:Why this is important

[Darby]

I never said *what* lessons I took away from it. You can learn from the bad just as well as from the good. More so most times.

There are lessons to be learned everywhere you look. The bible just has some really good ones to teach.

Fair enough.

Re:Why this is important

[dcam]

The issue is with how some people understand the bible.

The bible is God's timeless word to mankind about his relationship with them. It is silent, or near silent on science. It is a scientific work in the same sense that say, ancient Greek texts a scientific texts: it reflects the scientific views of the day.

As a Christian, until recently I have tended to avoid commenting too strongly on issues of this sort, as I have felt that this is an issue that causes significant arguments among Christians and is not a significant point. I say it is not significant point because Christians who believe in evolution (in its various forms) and those who believe in creationism agree on the core point: God created the world. However I have become more and more aware that this issue is doing significant damage to the credibility of Christians.

ID is wrong. Creationism is wrong.

Re:Why this is important

[Anonymous Coward]

A few points, made with an assumption of faith. These aren't made solely in response to your own comments. I'm going to word them dogmatically, but don't let that trespass on your own beliefs.

God isn't a human creation; God exists outside of the universe, and the universe exists because He (for want of a better pronoun) 'spoke', not vice versa.

Science on the other hand IS a human creation. We will never be able to 'measure' God, for a similar reason that software by itself can't physically measure a computer (suitably designed hardware could, but that wouldn't be just software then!). Likewise, science can't 'prove' or 'disprove' the existance or otherwise of God.

The Bible is a book of truth, and in at least one sense is a direct creation of God. Reading it with our heart set on God will reveal Him (same comment re pronoun as above) to us. It's unlikely to tell us much that is useful about the realm of science, although an application of a number of 'soft-sciences' can help us to understand the texts better, thus helping us to learn more about our maker. But the danger here is believing that WE are capable of revealing God to ourselves; we aren't - that would suggest we have power over God anyway - He chooses to reveal Himself, but He doesn't often stop our egos from getting in the way.

In the end the search for God can be very LIKE the scientific process, but it isn't the SAME AS the scientific process, and the two don't get in the way of each other - one is searching outside the universe, the other is searching within it; it's not surprising the two sometimes come up with strikingly different answers - the important thing is to avoid confusing the two.

Finally, never be surprised that religion often seems to be surrounded by the darkness. As soon as anyone, or any group of people start getting close to the light, the darkness closes in around them, and sometimes it wins the battles. That's why some of the greatest evils have been perpetrated by those who "should have known better", and why evil is usually too strong a term for people who simply never knew any better. It's no point running away from the light to avoid the darkness, but it sometimes seems like a far easier option.

Sorry, that turned into a bit of a rant and slid seriously offtopic. That wasn't all directed at you; this is just stuff I've been thinking about recently and I figured I'd put it out there for others to read. Maybe the context isn't so bad afterall. Now have we got some birds to go with them thar' bees.

Nothing I've said is 'scientific'.

Re:Why this is important

[filament]

Unfortunately, it appears that there are many people involved in this debate who do not understand what is being debated, both proponents and opponents of ID. Taking the article at face value, there are a couple of possibilities:

1. Some IDists arguing that our inability to understand something implies that it is designed. This is not a very sound argument - you cannot prove something with ignorance - and it does not really fit with ID theory IMHO.
2. The scientists - or article writers - are misconstruing or simplifying the argument, either in order to debunk it or because they misunderstand it.

If this (ignorance/inexplicability implies design) is in fact the argument in question, one wonders why the scientists would be concerned with it, because it is not a strong argument, nor does debunking it actually affect ID theory, only the reputations of those who use the argument. I am unsure what the original pro-ID bee argument was, but it would be much more fitting (according to my limited understanding) to argue something like:

"The flying mechanisms of a honeybee, which we to some degree understand, is complex and intricate, and includes a number of essential features. Without each of these features/parts, it does not work. Furthermore, removal or modification of any of these features (ie reverse evolution) would result in a useless appendage which would disadvantage the animal. The number of steps or mutations required between a (hypothetical) healthy flightless bee and the precise functioning of a flying honeybee (including both the anatomy and the complex "instinct" required to use it) - and the disadvantage to the supposed intermediate animal in weilding such a mutation - would exlude it from natural selection. It is therefore suggested that some unnatural phenomenon or design was involved in the production of the amazing honeybee, whether that be guided evolution (from flightless to flying), creation in a finished state (ie no flightless be) or some other means."

The premise of this argument is knowledge rather than ignorance of the flight system of a honey bee, and is (I think) somewhat closer to the ID theory of irreducible complexity. It neither excludes or precludes God per se as part of the equation; proving it would not prove God it exists (I suspect that may be impossible) but likewise disproving it would not prove God does not exist.
Anyway, the point is, if you're going to argue about it, for or against, at least know what it is you're arguing about, or you'll only cloud the issue. On that note, some of the originators of ID theory are scientists, who certainly do not advocate ignorance.

Re:Why this is important

[Anonymous Coward]

What pray tell, are those questions that have been explained ad nauseum?

If you have to ask, you are too ignorant to even take part in this disucssion. I suggest you start giving yourself the science education that your schooling failed to provide you with.

Re:Why this is important

[surprise_audit]

Sure, for many in the creationist camp, science and God have no business mixing. But there are also those who believe as I do. Why do God and Science have to be mutually exclusive?

I think I'd go a bit further than that. I think it's incredibly arrogant of the creationist camp to deny the possibility that God could create a system that could adapt over time - i.e. evolve. It seems to me that they're claiming to know the mind of God to an extent not possible for mortal man...

Re:Why this is important

[koekepeer]

science is more like "these things are causally related beyond reasonable doubt" (say, in 99% of the cases).

for example: when you cross a highway with a certain amount of cars passing in any of the lanes during a certain timeperiod, i can calculate the chance of you being hit by a car given the speed at which you walk and provided you walk with your eyes closed and ears plugged.

science offers defined answers within certain confidence limits, and with defined parameters. this is still a lot more than religion could ever offer me, since i should just accept it or not. i never felt, saw, heard, smelled, tasted, sensed a deity, directly or indirectly.

moreover, any doubt about a belief is reasonable. doubt about a scientific method is *testable*. compare the following sentences "apples are blue" "god exists". science can say "most apples are not blue (with probability x)", and "we have no clue whether a god exists or not" while religion says "god exists. apples are not blue. period" i can't explain it any simpler than this.

causality is a belief? perhaps. but a belief based on events one can *observe*. i can float in water but not in the air. when i drop something, it moves towards the ground at increasing speed. stuff like that.

Re:Why this is important

[koekepeer]

Why three scenarios that assume the existance of a God, Heaven, and Hell, and a whole system with punishment and having to repent your sins vs. only one scenario in which the existence of God, Heaven, or Hell is irrelevant? Wouldn't that kind of bias your outcome?

Anyway I believe your assumptions are not reasonable. I see no reason to assume parameters if many religions have very different views on these parameters.

Re:Why this is important

[koekepeer]

interestingly, it's an illusion to think that all data records will he completely correct and historically sound since the introduction of modern computers and electronic storage. the collective computer memory will maybe not be as fluid as human memory, but certainly not exact and complete. moreover, there will be easily accessible data and data that is hard to retrieve (say, for example, data in ms word documents in some 200 years or so :-P ).

i wouldn't be surprised if the AI of the future would reason pretty much like humans now (a bit faster maybe :-) ). after all, we create them in our own image

Re:Why this is important

[msundman]

2. That there is a concept of "irreducible complexity."

No scientist ever subscribes to point 2. If they do, then they are a very poor scientist. It basically boils down to, "if we don't know how it happened, then God must have done it."

Like so many other morons on /. you have no idea what you're talking about. Irreducible complexity is not a complex matter at all. It boils down to: "the possibility for it to have happened is so close to zero that it's not realistic to think it has". The "irreducible" part denotes that there's more than one non-beneficial change involved, and therefore natural selection can't "pick" the changes one-by-one. There's nothing "unscientific" about the issue.

Re:Why this is important

[meringuoid]

A "designer" who himself was not designed or came to be out of nothing, is by definition a supernatural being, and therefore, by definition, ID is supernaturalism.

Not necessarily the case. We are ourselves designers, and we were (as far as anyone can tell) not designed. That doesn't make us supernatural.

It's conceivable that there might somewhere be Intelligent Design World, the product of someone dropping a monolith on an empty planet and letting it work for a few billion years. It's conceivable that its inhabitants might note that their evolution seems to have been really weird, and they might even conclude that someone's been messing with them. They wouldn't necessarily be invoking the supernatural. They might even find a magnetic anomaly on their moon and dig up something astonishing...

However, this isn't what ID is about. Aliens leaving monoliths in the middle of Africa for a tribe of apes to find? Well, that's intelligent design, but somehow I think they wouldn't be happy with it. An intelligent designer who is himself a product of Darwin? I get the fairly strong impression that ID supporters not only have a very clear idea in mind about the designer, but that they also have a name for him, and a list of things they think he wants us to do for him, and a bunch of people they think are his official representatives.

Re:Why this is important

[msundman]

It boils down to: "the possibility for it to have happened is so close to zero that it's not realistic to think it has".

Just to clarify, that is what the result of irreducible complexity boils down to.

Re:Why this is important

[VON-MAN]

"natural selection itself could be "directed"", you mean like breeding? What a novel idea! It does shine a remarkable light on your creator though!

"Who deices that having blue eys makes you more fit in one are and less fit in another?"

I'll explain. It is just that blue eyes are less fit in certain areas of the world (the really sunny parts). In not so sunny parts the eye colour probably doesn't matter. But, (and i just make this up, but it's likely) blue eyes are considered a positive trait in certain communities and are thus given preference.

So nobody decides, but there are fitness or not-so-fitness influences for eye colour. And still there's no need for something besides evolution! But your needs seem to go deeper than that, and i can't help you there.

Re:Why this is important

[VON-MAN]

OK, you have read ONE book, and you think its list of references is good.

I'm not convinced, i guess i have a closed mind.

Re:Why this is important

[16K Ram Pack]

The definition that I've heard is that they don't believe in God, only because they have seen no proof, where an aetheist denies the existence.

I think that an agnostic is saying that if they felt the presence of a God, or a vision of God (as has been described by some), that they would believe. Then again, I think that if an aetheist had such an episode, that they'd probably ditch their views quite quickly.

Re:Why this is important

[VON-MAN]

Damn right! I'd mod you up, if i hadn't been coming down on all those ID idiots like a vengefull god with fists full of mod points. It didn't take long.

Re:Why this is important

[VON-MAN]

That is why he "quoted" the word designer. He was talking about the supernatural kind.
For the rest you are perfectly right, of course.

But... i still don't the name of this particular designer.

Re:Why this is important

[beforewisdom]

Re:Why this is important (Score:2) by raoul666 (870362) Alter Relationship on Tuesday January 10, @05:46PM (#14440993) I heard someone say once: science tells us how, religion tells us why.

It is more like engineering tells us "how" and science tells us "why". (things work as they do). To be fair, I think you meant "why" as in "intent". Not every situation has one.

Re:Why this is important

[beforewisdom]

Re:Why this is important (Score:1) by Chrononium (925164) Alter Relationship on Tuesday January 10, @05:21PM (#14440675) Just an observation: science usually relies upon some sense of causality in order to establish relationships between events. Causality is a belief and cannot be proven to exist.

Religion is about causality too. Explanations abound in religion. See my original post for the difference between science and religion. The post someone marked as "troll" in a thread about science and religion. Oy. People should think about that the next time they laugh at Kansas, Pennsilvania, another ID state, or the taliban.

The narrow minded bigots who get offended by truth and who react to that offense by trying to stamp it out are not all "out there". Some of them are here and they have mod points.

Re:Why this is important

[Gleapsite]

Fogive me, but I've always understood atheism's core beleif to be 'There is not god'

If you don't accept that on faith, then you'd have to come to it by some logical means right? I have not heard a good logical argument for athiesm.

The problem I'm having in understanding this is that agnosticism is much much more logicaly sound than atheism, and I'm trying to understand why one would represent themselves as atheist.

Re:Why this is important

[Gleapsite]

I find this to be a good explaination, thanks.

the best definition of god that I know is "the umoved mover."

People explain it by drawing a line and saying Event A caused Event B which caused Event C, so either you have to say that the universe is infinate and has always been, or that at some point you draw the line and say X caused itself, in which case X is god.

I don't beleive there are any contradictions in that... also occam's razor is of no use because you need to choose between the infinate and God, each of which is equally complicated.

Re:Why this is important

[Atzanteol]

Did *I* look at what *I* wrote? Are you serious? Your logic is terrible. You've made many assumptions, most notably that God (or a god) is a "good" entity and that His purpose was to created a perfect world.

If this were true, then sure. He failed. But omnipotent does not imply good, nor does it imply any purpose.

A perfect all powerful, all knowing creature could easily have made his will known clearly and concisely.

Sure. He most certainly could have. But why does He have to? Why would he even want to? You're defining "perfect" in a way that implies your definition of "good."

All you've managed to prove is that He (if He exists) is not "good" by human standards. That's not terribly difficult to figure out, but I congratulate you anyway. But how does that help with proving/disproving His existance? And what does that have to do with the number of different beliefs?

Your logic doesn't account for the fact that God may exist, but is not "good" in the way we know it. He also may not have any particular plan for us (in this life) that means we must live long and be happy. Perhaps we're here to learn a lesson for the afterlife? How can you make so many assumptions to know what He would have planned for us? How can you "know the mind of God?" If I've managed to miss your point then perhaps your point is simply not valid? Then looking at your sig maybe things become a little more clear (more terrible "things aren't the way I think they should be" logic).

Re:Why this is important

[sandmaninator]

I'm not that person you refer to but, I'm an atheist that has often wondered how otherwise logical people don't arrive at the same conclusion I have. Here are a few reasons I'm an atheist:
1) I see zero evidence to indicate there is a god. Therefore, until something proves otherwise, I do not believe there is a god.
When I go home tonight, I am going to assume that there is NOT a rhinocerous in my basement. It's possible there is one down there because I am too lazy to check, but, what reason would I have to think that there is a rhinocerous down there?
2) The majority of humans have believed in the supernatural throughout history. It seems there is something built-in to most humans that makes them predisposed to believe in god. Certainly a fear of death and the unknown helps to create a belief in the supernatural. As a scientific thinker, you have to be wary of this natural bias towards belief in god(s). You have to have some empirical evidence. I see none.

It's actually kind of hard for me to come up with reasons why something does NOT exist. Much easier to tell you why there is a phone on my desk.

Re:Why this is important

[Chrononium]

What I mean is that causal relationships are a nice way of creating equations and understanding them, but it is impossible to prove or observe causality. Think of it: you have an apple that you drop from a height of 1m. A few seconds later, the apple is on the ground. These (including its acceleration, velocity, position, temperature, etc) are irrefutable facts. They are observables. But to imply that causality is observable in any way is false. We all observe a statistical relationship between a set of events, but it's quite another statement to say that gravity *caused* the apple to fall. That's epistemologically unsound.

Furthermore, the scientific method is implicitly dependent upon the proper operation of human observers. A gecko may come to very different conclusions about the world, given its rather limited perspective (biologically speaking). And yet, if it could use mathematics, it may come up with a set of self-consistent equations to describe the world. Maybe or maybe not. My point is that it must be assumed that the scientific method produces objective, and not relative, truth because humans are the observers. I fully agree with the practical view that it is silly to worry about such things, as we cannot step outside our own limitations. It does not change the fact that we have no idea if we are interpreting the universe incorrectly. This is *untestable* because it is unknowable.

The trouble with deities is that they are defined metaphysically, which automatically puts them outside the realm of science (by definition, as metaphysics = after physics). My entire point is that while science engages the world through pure reason, it is predicated upon a few unknowables (and necessarily so). Those unknowables are in the same class as a deity. Science (and mathematics, although that's a somewhat different argument) may give us satisfying answers, but it all ultimately relies upon unprovable, unobservable axioms; in other words, it all comes down to faith. The difference between science and religion is that faith is implicit in the former and explicit in the latter.

Re:Why this is important

[AeroIllini]

Irreducible complexity is not a complex matter at all. It boils down to: "the possibility for it to have happened is so close to zero that it's not realistic to think it has". The "irreducible" part denotes that there's more than one non-beneficial change involved, and therefore natural selection can't "pick" the changes one-by-one. There's nothing "unscientific" about the issue.

You're right. There's nothing unscientific about that particular train of thought. However, the big difference comes in when both scientists and I.D.ers figure out what to do next.

Scientist: "It seems clear that evolution alone could not have created this change. I will construct further tests to try and pin down the reason why the evidence is the way it is."

I.D.er: "Oh, evolution couldn't have done that. God must have, then."

Scientists see gaps in the experimental evidence and start asking more questions. I.D.ers see gaps in the experimental evidence and fill them with God, without doing any more tests. That is precisely where the science ends and the beliefs begin.

I have no problem with you believing in intelligent design, and will not think any less of you as a person because of it, but I want you to recognize that it is not science: it is a system of beliefs masquerading as science. You are welcome to believe whatever you would like to believe, but please keep those beliefs out of my schools and serious scientific discussions.

Re:Why this is important

[vortigern00]

This has been marked troll, and I believe the attitude in which you posted is probably trolling, however you bring up a good point.

I have read the bible, however I did not read it all with what you might call an open mind.

I read the old testament as literature, and what fun literature it was. Quite an interesting read.

I read the new testament mostly so I could say to my xtian friends that I'd read the new testament. I found myself saying "yeah yeah yeah, whatever" to a lot of it.

Perhaps it would be a good idea for me to give it all another read. No harm in that.

Re:Why this is important

[vortigern00]

Ok, looks like this thread is winding down. I heartily thank all the people who have submitted works in response to my posting.

so I have:

"Case for a Creator" by Lee Strobel -- this looks like a really interesting book, and I'm looking forward to it.

Darwin's Black Box by Michael Behe

Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth, Volume II http://www.icr.org/store/index.php?main_page=pubs_ product_book_info&products_id=2655 [icr.org]

Creation's Tiny Mystery by Robert V. Gentry

Bones Of Contention: A Creationist Assessment Of Human Fossils by Marvin L. Lubenow -- this sounds extremely intersting as well. I admit one eyebrow went up when I read the title, but I will dismiss that as I am reading.

Evolution on Trial by Dr. Thomas Kindell

Signs of Intelligence: Understanding Intelligent Design by William A. Dembski (Editor), James M. Kushiner (Editor).

The Design Revolution: Answering the Toughest Questions About Intelligent Design by William A. Dembski.

I'll check out http://www.answersingenesis.org/ and see what's there

Miracles by CS Lewis -- I loved the Chronicles of Narnia, so I'm eager to read this as well... and no, I'm not going to go the the LW&W movie.

The Bible, though it is not specifically relevant to what I meant, it couldn't hurt to read it again.

Let me know if I missed any. Whew! Looks like I committed myself to a lot of reading, but after finishing my greek plays phase I've been looking for another reading project anyway :)

Re:Why this is important

[vortigern00]

I wholeheartedly agree that agnosticism is more logically sound.

I even went through a short phase where I described myself as agnostic. This was in response to a professor's lecture in a physics class long ag when we conjectured about particles that move faster than light. He argued that a particle which was able to move faster than light would not be able to interact in any way with normal matter. So such particles could exist with impunity without us ever being able to detect them. Such, I thought, could possibly be the nature of a god.

Re:Why this is important

[Spaceman40]

Apology accepted - it's hard not to get riled up when this topic comes up :)

-- "But it is possible to do repeatable experiments on remains that are found. And it is possible to disprove evolutionary theory." --

I'm trying to think of a way to disprove it, but I can't think of anything at the moment. Perhaps if it were shown that it is impossible for random changes of DNA to propagate? I'll take your word for it -- besides, I'm one of those people that I mentioned at the end of my original post. Evolution != No God.

But that's an argument for another time. Thanks for the intelligent discussion. One more thought: usually, scientists ask for a theory to be predictive, too. On Nova last night they were talking about the probability of the Avian Flu evolving into a disease that could spread through the air. The difficulty of computing it was related only to the "cough and sneeze" gene's size and complexity; this was interesting because it meant that apparently, the theory of evolution /is/ predictive.

The things you learn... :)

Re:Why this is important

[msundman]

the big difference comes in when both scientists and I.D.ers figure out what to do next.

First of all, stop using dirty tactics such as implying that I.D.ers aren't scientists like that. Either write "evolutionists vs. I.D.ers" or "evolution scientists vs. I.D. scientists".

Both will use perfectly acceptable scientific methodologies when studying what might or might not be designed. One difference is that evolutionists more often than not simply presuppose that it is not designed, and that's not scientific.

[evolutionists] see gaps in the experimental evidence and start asking more questions. I.D.ers see gaps in the experimental evidence and fill them with God, without doing any more tests.

You are correct in that evolutionists and I.D.ers often have different points of view when studying things and when choosing where to concentrate furter studies. An I.D.er who says "this rock formation seems designed so I won't study it further" is just as wrong as the evolutionist who says "the appendix is just a vestigial structure from an evolutionary past so I won't study it further".

When you accuse I.D.ers of not investigating something deeply enough just keep in mind that the function of many organs remained unknown for a long time just because the consensus among evolutionists was that they were "leftovers" and unimportant. However, the old list of 180 vestigial structures of the human body has now shrunk to virtually none. E.g. when the Fundamentals of Anatomy and Physiology was released 10 years ago we could read the following of the once thought "vestigial" appendix:
"The mucosa and submucosa of the appendix are dominated by lymphoid nodules, and its primary function is as an organ of the lymphatic system."

Re:Why this is important

[CFrankBernard]

BTW, Creation's Tiny Mystery is about radio halos found in the crystals of granite/earth's bedrock. The cross sections studied--2D bullseye patterns of the spherical decay layers of Palonium (214 IIRC)--show extemely short half-life rings; the rocks had to intstantly harden to capture them.

And you could save on the Radioisotopes book Volume 1 buy buying both volumes together: http://www.icr.org/store/index.php?main_page=pubs_ product_book_info&products_id=2658

Re:Why this is important

[AeroIllini]

First of all, stop using dirty tactics such as implying that I.D.ers aren't scientists like that.

Have you been reading what I've been writing? That's exactly what I am stating (not implying): I.D.ers are not scientists.

Either write "evolutionists vs. I.D.ers" or "evolution scientists vs. I.D. scientists".

I refuse to write that. I.D.ers are not scientists.

One difference is that evolutionists more often than not simply presuppose that it is not designed, and that's not scientific.

You're right. That's not scientific. It's also not what good scientists do. Good scientists approach all problems without any presupposition. They simply test their hypothesis. If the test confirms the hypothesis, they construct another test. If it disproves the hypothesis, they construct another hypothesis. But they always test again. Please read up on the Scientific Method.

The reason why evolutionists don't try to argue that things are designed is that there is no testable hypothesis for that claim. If scientists can't test for it, then it can't fit into their theories. That's how science works.

Of course, if science uncovered definite proof of the existence of God, then God would cease to be a belief, and would become a scientific fact. So far this has not happened. After all, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

I.D.ers on the other hand, DO presuppose the existence of God. They have to, since their entire position of the origins of life is that it comes from God. They assume that from the start and then try to find gaps in the experimental data that would fit that conclusion. Without direct, testable, repeatable, measureable evidence, fitting God into a scientific explanation is nothing more than a leap of faith. And that's not science.

Re:Why this is important

[koekepeer]

your reply confuses me a bit. and irrefutable fact is something else as an observable.

nonetheless, i follow most of what you are saying and i don't think we disagree on anything significant (besides semantics *grin*)

i must've been unclear in my previous post. i really don't think the existence of a Deity has anything to do with science, we agree on this 100%.

science (at least the kind of science that studies evolution - based on functional explanation of phenomena) is just a system which we use to make sense of the world around us through observations and how we think they relate to one another. the causality we decribe is the most likely explanation. it's not guesswork... i'd like to see you argue just that (because that *is* what you are saying, right? it's a belief)

my feeling is that you are sticking with logical positivism a-la popper (all things must be verifyable else they are untrue). that's a choice.

within that frame of mind, of course nothing is *proven* to be causally related. scientists just go for the most likely explanation, and if the next scientist can come up with a more thorough way to explain what we observe, his theory will be the leading one. it's not as dependent on human failure as you suggest, though. there's thorough evaluation and peer review. more eyeballs, less bugs ;-)

what i really don't follow is your argument about the unknowables in science, and how they would be comparable to deities...

nothing is provable... everything is relative. no scientist (except for the ones in mathematics - but that's an internally consistent system as you rightfully mention) in his right mind will ever claim to have found a truth. what we claim to find is models providing the most likely explanation on the phenomena we can observe around us. like the mechanisms involved in bee flight.

i recall that in your previous post you argued that a deity might be observable in times ahead, when our methods improve. well, great :-) i won't argue with that. it would be a disaster for believers, because then they would have to start *reasoning* in stead of believing *grin*. i doubt whether they'd be able to agree on the nature of this deity, though... but that's another fun discussion!

(practically) for now we have what we *did* observe so far, and it fits a hell of a lot better with the functional explanation within the theory of natural selection than it does with ID - which consists *only* of a huge collection of assumptions and invalidated "scientific" arguments about extreme unlikelihood of events.

argh. my head is spinning :-) thanks for the stimulating talk

Re:Why this is important

[gymell]

If we didn't study some form of defying gravity, we wouldn't have airplanes.

Just keep in mind that gravity is a theory, not a fact.

Re:Why this is important

[vortigern00]

I don't quite understand what you mean... So crystals of quartz or feldspar or amphibole or something grew in a magma chamber and then froze when the chamber's contents erupted to the surface of the earth.

Right, that's how granite forms.

I don't understand how that pertains to the discussion, so I clearly missed something. Would you mind explaining it a bit further? Yeah, I know, I should go read the book, but until then I'm curious.

Re:Why this is important

[Deef]

So... I hope that once you've read them, you will let us know where you are going to post summaries of these books and what you thought of them and the validity of the specific arguments they contained? It would be nice to see a skeptical list and assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the various arguments.

Re:Why this is important

[vortigern00]

Yeah, I was thinking about how I'd do that. I think that since my slashdot journal is unused that would be a good place for it.

Re:Why this is important

[blueg3]

Yes, more or less.

I personally think that it's a lot more flattering toward God to take the opinion that He set the laws of nature such as they are and everything complex developed out of that (as of course He knew it would, without Him having to step in afterwards) than to say He just made eyes and bees' wings and such by a particular design. But perhaps it takes a certain strange love of complex results out of simple systems to really appreciate that. :p

Re:Why this is important

[MudButt]

You believe in macroevolution? Here's 29+ cases against it. http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1b.asp

Re:Why this is important

[atomic_toaster]

Now, if the ID advocates had their way, we would have just said, "Hey, God makes bees fly. Since I already know the real reason, there's no real reason to keep studying it."

What I've never understood is why ID advocates seem to think that the two are mutually exclusive; just because we understand how it happens, doesn't mean that God couldn't have done it. God gave us brains, why shouldn't we use them? Yes, by that logic, God gave us many things that can do harm, but if you religious, your religion should help you define what is right and what is wrong. The Ten Commandments are one of the most fundamental tenets in the Christian (and Jewish, I believe) religions, and are as follows:

1. Don't worship anyone else than God.
2. Don't be idolators.
3. Don't swear by God.
4. Honour the sabbath.
5. Respect your elders.
6. Don't kill.
7. Don't commit adultery.
8. Don't steal.
9. Don't lie.
10. Don't covet.

These rules have staid pretty much the same, with different interpretations based on time period. However, "don't think for yourself" and "don't try to understand the gifts that God has given you" is not on that bloody list.

The universe is vast and probably will never be understood in its entirety by human beings. We are limited. Why is it such a hard thing to believe that God may have created everything, but in biblical times we didn't understand as much about the world we live in as we do now? Why must science and religion be constantly at odds? I don't get it. Religion creates a structure for beliefs, things which can't be proven; science creates a structure for the things that can be proven.

And even if we do explain everything over the course of history, we will still have religion. Why? Because the fact that anything exists at all is a bloody miracle. The chances against it are astronomical. Now, insisting that religion is science, or vice-versa... That's something else altogether.

Re:Why this is important

[CFrankBernard]

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c009.htm l

Re:Why this is important

[TheFlyingGoat]

Let's see... my post said:

People like Pat Robertson give Christianity a bad name. The same is true for terrorists and extremists (the Iranian leader) with Islam.

I think it's pretty obvious I'm not judging Islam by the extremists. By saying that extremists give Islam a bad name, I'm saying that they're not representative of most Muslims, just like Pat Robertson isn't representative of most Christians. You need to work on your reading comprehension.

Re:Why this is important

[CFrankBernard]

I read your Journal; what's the link to the online version?

Re:Why this is important

[msundman]

I.D.ers are not scientists.

Are you seriously trying to convince someone that Newton, Pascal, Pasteur, Kelvin, Kepler, Maxwell, Faraday etc. were not scientists?

Good scientists approach all problems without any presupposition.

Good scientists, such as the famous atheistic evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould, right? Let me quote him for you:
"Our ways of learning about the world are strongly influenced by the social preconceptions and biased modes of thinking that each scientist must apply to any problem. The stereotype of a fully rational and objective scientific method, with individual scientists as logical (and interchangeable) robots is self-serving mythology."

The reason why evolutionists don't try to argue that things are designed is that there is no testable hypothesis for that claim. If scientists can't test for it, then it can't fit into their theories. That's how science works.

Ah, so surely then evolution can be observed and repeated, right? Except that goo-to-you evolution has never been observed and never been repeated. Ah, but many (observable/repeatable) facts fit the evolutionary framework, right? Yes. And evolutionists use scientific methodologies to study these facts. Yes. However, both of these are equally true for I.D.ers, they also use scientific methodologies when they study the same facts, and most of it fits the I.D. framework equally well or better than it fits the evolutionary framework.

I.D.ers on the other hand, DO presuppose the existence of God. They have to, since their entire position of the origins of life is that it comes from God. They assume that from the start and then try to find gaps in the experimental data that would fit that conclusion.

No. First of all most of them don't presuppose the existence of God, but they do think that the evidence fits some creation hypothesis best. And second, like any other scientists they indeed search for gaps in experimental data, but only to fill those gaps.

In fact, the "God-of-the-gaps" theory is quite unscientific and illogical, and, contrary to what you seem believe, is widely unpopular among I.D.ers (and creationists), for exactly those reasons.

Without direct, testable, repeatable, measureable evidence, fitting God into a scientific explanation is nothing more than a leap of faith.

True, and that's why I.D.ers don't do that. E.g. they say that all evidence (and logical reasoning) show that the total amount of information in any closed system either stays the same or some is lost, and thus existing information has to have come from somewhere. Unlike creationists I.D.ers don't say they know what this "something" is. (Evolutionists, on the other hand, take a leap of faith when they say that information surely increases even though they have never observed such a thing.)

Re:Why this is important

[unapersson]

I know religious people prefer agnosticism, but atheism isn't going to go away. And you aren't going to convert all atheists into nice quaint agnostics.

If you've got a theistic mindset it seems very difficult to understand atheism, but agnosticism is much easier to understand.

I'd say I'm an atheist as I have never seen anything that logically suggests the existence of a god or of any other form of higher power. I don't see the sense in basing your whole life on a set of bronze age beliefs. Do you also believe that the Sun goes around the Earth, that the Earth is flat? Gods seemed very active back then, when nothing seemed to make sense, but now when more is understood they are suddenly very quiet. I wonder why?

It's very convenient that god(s) rely on faith for their existance. The whole set of god like knowledge is all so very human that it's quite shocking that anyone still believes it comes from anything other than human beings. It's like deliberate ignorance is the order of the day.

In fact, I've still to see a logical explanation as to what god is meant to be anyway. It doesn't even seem to know itself.

Re:Why this is important

[OOGG_THE_CAVEMAN]

"I.D.ers" *don't* use scientific methods.

They attack strawmen, and ignore contrary evidence. Or, like you, they spout meaningless gibberish about "information theory" and thermodynamics.

Re:Why this is important

[AeroIllini]

Wow. There are so many contradictions and logical fallacies in your post here that I am simply going to ignore most of it. It's not even worth discussing when the person you are discussing with contradicts themselves.

I am, however, going to respond to a single statement you made, which just about sums this whole discussion up for me, and then I am going to go my merry way and never look at this discussion again.

"In fact, the "God-of-the-gaps" theory is quite unscientific and illogical, and, contrary to what you seem believe, is widely unpopular among I.D.ers (and creationists), for exactly those reasons."

News flash: then these people don't believe in intelligent design, or creationism, for that matter.

Scientist who believes in God != intelligent design proponent

If someone truly admits that they don't know why an evolutionary process happens, makes no presuppositions, and does not invoke the name of some divine being who exists outside the universe, then that person does not believe in intelligent design. Period.

As I have said before, those who believe that intelligent design is science apparently know nothing about intelligent design. They are simply trying to reconcile their own religious beliefs with the factual world around them and are mistakenly latching onto a deliberate propoganda campaign by the Discovery Institute, who are a bunch of fundamentalist quacks with nice suits and a well-paid PR department. Don't buy into it. You will only be labeled as a pseudo-science jerk and lumped in with every other wacko that investigates alien abductions, magnetic healing bracelets, and the theory of Atlantis.

You are obviously very confused about what intelligent design really is and what its goals are. I encourage you to read this very fine article from the November 2004 issue of National Geographic, because it has a very clear explanation of what evolution is, why most people don't truly understand it, and consequently why people seem to buy into this intelligent design garbage. I would also encourage you to read this article from the September 2001 issue of Skeptical Inquiry on the logical fallicies inherent in all intelligent design arguments, and how evidence of such a thing is currently non-existent.

Then, just for kicks, read up on the Discovery Institute to learn about the nutjobs that started most of this nonsense.

Re:Why this is important

[msundman]

"I.D.ers" *don't* use scientific methods.

Why do people like you think they can bullshit their way through everything? Apparently the only contact with I.D. you've had is via people not familiar with I.D. Why don't you go read some of the I.D. litterature (or maybe some TJ articles if you want to include creationists among I.D.ers), and if you still think they don't use scientific methods I'm sure you'll have plenty of examples to back you up.

They attack strawmen, and ignore contrary evidence.

It's amazing how often I've read evolutionists (or "fanboys" thereof) claim that I.D.ers and creationists are ignoring facts and not adhering to scientific standards and whatnot, and when asked for a few examples the only thing they say are a few strawmen of their own. But maybe you are the exception of the rule, so do you have some examples e.g. of ignored evidence?

Or, like you, they spout meaningless gibberish about "information theory" and thermodynamics.

Just because you're too thick to understand something doesn't mean it's meaningless.

Re:Why this is important

[OOGG_THE_CAVEMAN]

Just because you're too thick to understand something doesn't mean it's meaningless.

Au contraire. I know enough thermodynamics and statistical mechanics to recognize specious argumentation when I see it. And your post had it.

Just because you are too thick to see through the flaws of ID reasoning, doesn't make it correct.

Re:Why this is important

[msundman]

There are so many contradictions and logical fallacies in your post here that I am simply going to ignore most of it.

In debates evolutionists love to do elephant hurling like that, and if that doesn't work they go on to straw men and/or personal insults.

Since my post wasn't very long it wouldn't take you much effort to point out those "contradictions and logical fallacies" that you claim there were many of.

"In fact, the "God-of-the-gaps" theory is quite unscientific and illogical, and, contrary to what you seem believe, is widely unpopular among I.D.ers (and creationists), for exactly those reasons."

News flash: then these people don't believe in intelligent design, or creationism, for that matter.

Umm.. so you make your own definitions of "creationists" and "I.D.ers" such that they are unscientific and when pointed out that creationists and I.D.ers in general are scientific you say that such people aren't really "creationists" and "I.D.ers"? Again you are trying to bullshit and have no proofs what so ever. Or maybe you are just very, very confused. Some of the theistic evolutionists adhere to the god-of-the-gaps way of thinking, and sure, I agree that they could be classified as I.D.ers, but they are far from the average I.D.er (in my experience) and even further from creationists (which are I.D.ers, too). If you don't agree I could just as well start saying that evolutionists aren't scientists because they claim that phenotypic changes are propagated into the genotype. But that would be wrong since only lamarckist evolutionists think that.

If someone truly admits that they don't know why an evolutionary process happens[...]

Umm.. I'm assuming that when you speak of evolution you mean the "goo-to-you" kind (i.e. not simply variation and natural selection, both of which I.D.ers and creationists consider facts), so what kind of evolutionary process might it be of which you speak?

those who believe that intelligent design is science apparently know nothing about intelligent design.

So, if I.D.ers use scientific methodologies to study facts, what are they then if not scientists?

I would also encourage you to read this article [csicop.org] from the September 2001 issue of Skeptical Inquiry on the logical fallicies inherent in all intelligent design arguments, and how evidence of such a thing is currently non-existent.

Since when has the so called "sceptics" understood anything about any idea that isn't currently the consensus among the majority in a field? They are too busy patting themselves on their backs and coming up with cheap rhetoric like writing "con-cept" instead of "concept". Nevertheless, instead of name-calling, let me show you the fundamental error they made in the one section of that nonsense I did read.

Mr. Pigliucci has correctly understood that irreducible complexity means that step-by-step evolution won't work. But then he writes the following:

biochemical pathways are partly redundant [...] As a result of redundancy, mutations can knock down individual components of biochemical pathways without compromising the overall function-contrary to the expectations of irreducible complexity.

That is a prime example of a straw man refutal if there ever was one. That there is redundancy is obvious to anyone even remotely familiar with genetics. In his book, Darwin's Black Box, Behe certainly doesn't include examples where the lack of reduncancy would make the system irreducibly complex. Pigliucci describes a non-irreducibly complex system and correctly describes how it is not irreducibly complex. Well, duh!

I find it hard to believe that Pigliucci is so stupid that he actually doesn't see that what he refuted was a straw man. If this is correct then he deliberately tried to deceive the readers into thinking that Behe's arguments were refuted. Unfortunately that wouldn't be the first case. :-(

Re:Why this is important

[msundman]

So you claim that you can refute what I said, but that you won't. And I'm supposed to believe that? OK, whatever you say. You're the man with The Truth(tm).

Re:Why this is important

[Anonymous Coward]

Now, please, replace "God" with "the Invisible Pink Unicorn", reread your post, then fall over laughing about your silliness.

You can't *disprove* randomly made-up things, and no one is saying "God does not exist". The point is, we don't need god to explain the universe, evolution, or bee flight.

Can you prove the Flying Spaghetti Monster is not transforming the air surrounding bees a million times a second, and that is how bees fly?

Re:Why this is important

[OOGG_THE_CAVEMAN]

The short answer is there is nothing of substance to refute. You have not stated a coherent objection; instead you said something like "information surely increases, when they have not observed such a thing."

There is no need for "information" in any rigorous sense to increase in biological evolution, and certainly not in any way that would violate physical laws of entropy.

Any argument to that effect would work equally well against the following truth:

"Two parents cannot combine to produce more than two (non-twin) children, because that would cause a net increase in information."

In truth, two parents can combine to make as many children as they have time and health for. My parents had three. Some people have many more. Each of these children has a unique genetic makeup.

Now, you might counter that my argument is a strawman, but you would have to clarify what you mean by "information" enough to distinguish between your statement and my reductio ad absurdam, and I cannot see any way in which you can, without simply spouting more gibberish.

The facts are that you are simply wrong. Your objections against evolution have no substance. That you think they do is *your* problem, not a problem with evolution.

Re:Why this is important

[swimmar132]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/camp.html

Re:Why this is important

[msundman]

You have not stated a coherent objection; instead you said something like "information surely increases, when they have not observed such a thing."

AeroIllini implied that I.D.ers include a supernatural cause in the equation for no logical reason, and I showed an example that invalidates his claim. Also, to clarify, I did not claim that information increases.

There is no need for "information" in any rigorous sense to increase in biological evolution, and certainly not in any way that would violate physical laws of entropy.

So what is encoded in the DNA of living creatures? Most scientists, including evolutionists, do think it's information. Some say it's only order, but that doesn't invalidate my point that I.D.ers don't believe in a supernatural cause without any reason. And anyone familiar with I.D. (having read only evolutionists' distorted reproduction of I.D. arguments obviously doesn't count) knows that the information argument is not the only one they have that points to some supernatural cause.

Any argument to that effect would work equally well against the following truth:

"Two parents cannot combine to produce more than two (non-twin) children, because that would cause a net increase in information."

That not a truth at all. I have no idea why you would say it is. The genotype of children if no more an increase in net information than shaking a kaleidoscope is.

[...] you would have to clarify what you mean by "information" enough to distinguish between your statement and my reductio ad absurdam (sic)

Of course we would have to agree on the various definitions of words if we were actually having this debate, but we aren't. I'm simply trying to show that others have debated this (and thus all relevant definitions should be taken from those debates if they are needed/wanted).

Your objections against evolution have no substance.

My objections against evolution?!? Which objections would that be??? Apparently you don't even know what we are talking about! Your wheel is spinning but the hamster is dead.

Re:Why this is important

[MudButt]

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&ch apter=14&verse=11&version=31&context=verse

Re:Why this is important

[OOGG_THE_CAVEMAN]

anyone familiar with I.D. (having read only evolutionists' distorted reproduction of I.D. arguments obviously doesn't count) knows that the information argument is not the only one they have that points to some supernatural cause.

They don't have an information argument, for the Nth time. The only thing that points to supernatural cause are false arguments from IDers.

Get a clue.

Re:Why this is important

[swimmar132]

And that has what to do with a science discussion?

Re:Why this is important

[msundman]

They don't have an information argument, for the Nth time.

For the Nth, yes they do. AFAIK most scientists agree that information in DNA has semantic characteristics. If you can show that this is not the case (or how it has arisen) then do, but don't say just "you're wrong".

Here are some other arguments they have:

Irreducible complexity. (I already touched this issue. AeroIllini claimed there is no such thing, and he is simply dead wrong which he rightfully admitted.)

Apparent design. (Design detection is used in a number of scientific fields, including anthropology, forensic sciences, cryptanalysis, SETI, etc. The same methods are used to determine design in nature.)

Abrupt appearance of fossil phyla.

The fine tuning of the universe.

Evolution has never been observed. (In fact, not even successful simulations have been made. (And no, the overly simplistic and inaccurate simulations that Dawkins tout do not count.))

Re:Why this is important

[vortigern00]

http://www.halos.com/book/ctm-toc.htm

Re:Why this is important

[OOGG_THE_CAVEMAN]

You are simply ignorant of the facts.

Re:Why this is important

[CFrankBernard]

Ah, I see their 2 videos are now available in DVD and free downloads: http://www.halos.com/videos.htm

Re:Why this is important

[msundman]

Again you are trying to bullshit. If some fact is missing or incorrect you are welcome to show the real facts. Nobody will ever believe your "you are wrong"-type pseudo-arguments.

Re:Why this is important

[OOGG_THE_CAVEMAN]

It is as pointless to point out missing or incorrect facts to someone who is claiming "1+1=3, show me the facts that prove otherwise!!!!"

Naturalists have been collecting facts for over a hundred years, all of which make sense in the context of evolution.

Re:Why this is important

[msundman]

More bullshit. You still haven't shown a single statement of mine to be wrong. Now you don't even tell which statements you think are incorrect.
Are you by any chance a 13 year old brat that have watched a few documentaries on TV and now think you've figured everything out? That's how you come across. (Actually I would think you were a troll if you weren't so bad at trolling.)

Re:Why this is important

[OOGG_THE_CAVEMAN]

Are you by any chance a 13 year old brat that have watched a few documentaries on TV and now think you've figured everything out?

Can't you even read my name?

I'm OOGG_THE_CAVEMAN. I'm a CAVEMAN.

I'm actually thousands of years old, and I've seen people complain about Darwin ever since he published Origin of Species. No matter how much scientists discover about the world that agrees with Darwin, some nutcases continue to make many of the same arguments that were made decades ago.

They didn't make sense then, and they make less sense now.

And, along the way, I've got a Ph.D. from an Ivy League university.

Re:Why this is important

[msundman]

some nutcases continue to make many of the same arguments that were made decades ago

Are you perhaps refering to the evolution-supporting text books that up to this day continues to contain fraudulent data, such as Haeckel's embryo drawings that were shown to be incorrect over a decade ago?

And, along the way, I've got a Ph.D. from an Ivy League university.

If that indeed was true (which I doubt), what does it say of that Ivy League university when they gave a Ph.D. to someone who claims there are factual and logical errors but doesn't provide anything what so ever to back it up, even when being asked to do so several times? And one who doesn't even know what a discussion he is participating in is about.

No, wait, maybe you're an I.D.er who tries to give evolutionists a bad name by pretending to be a really moronic one. At least that's more plausible than being just an idiot trying to yank people's chains, considering how little time and effort you get me to spend when you don't provide any substantial arguments.

Re:Why this is important

[AoT]

If they found a chicken fossil in the jurassic era it would pretty well disprove Evolution.

Re:Why this is important

[OOGG_THE_CAVEMAN]

Haeckel's embryo drawings are hardly some crucial link in evolutionary theory that, if disproven, take down the entire structure. Textbooks generally *suck*, not least because *any* treatment of evolution gets weeded out by conservatively biased state textbook committees, and textbook authors typically base their presentation on older, out-of-date textbooks, and only rarely on the latest research results.

The presence of misleading or inaccurate information in textbooks does not invalidate a scientific theory, it says our process for writing and selecting textbooks is crappy, and ought to do a better job of presenting the science accurately. That goal of accuracy has absolutely NOTHING to do with intelligent design, which is not a part of any scientifically-based theory.

At the very basic level, evolution by natural selection is *almost* at the level of a mathematical theorem; heritable variation causing variation in reproductive success (given the environment) + reproductive capacity much larger than the ability of the environment to sustain it = evolution of population toward increased "fitness" for the environment. Essentially, adaptation to a mode of existence can arise without the guidance of a designer.

It becomes more complicated when that evolution of a genetic population is applied to the question of speciation. Then, you have to consider various ways in which sub-groups of populations can achieve reproductive isolation from each other, allowing one species to differentiate into multiple distinct species. Then, you have to consider various "model assumptions", and, in specific cases, try to validate that the historical reality corresponded to one or another model.

There are tons of scholarly monographs (not high school or college textbooks) and journal articles which discuss all of these issues in a context of evolutionary theory, and succeed in doing so. *THAT* is the basis for believing evolution to be a theory supported by the facts.

You want evidence for evolution? Go to the fucking science library at a university, you dumbshit, instead of asking some guy named "OOGG_THE_CAVEMAN" to do the work for you.

Re:Why this is important

[msundman]

Haeckel's embryo drawings are hardly some crucial link in evolutionary theory that, if disproven, take down the entire structure.

You say that as if I had claimed something along those lines when I in fact haven't. Isn't broad text comprehension abilities a requirement for getting a Ph.D. in that uni of yours? It sure is at mine.

At the very basic level, evolution by natural selection is *almost* at the level of a mathematical theorem; heritable variation causing variation in reproductive success (given the environment) + reproductive capacity much larger than the ability of the environment to sustain it = evolution of population toward increased "fitness" for the environment.

Nobody denies this. However, all observed cases where the amount of information changes involves the loss of information (e.g. when bacteria become more resistant to penicillin when its penicillinase-regulating gene breaks). That's not evolution in the "goo-to-you" sense, which would require a shitload of increases of information.

Besides, everyone that has ever been involved in AI knows the unfortunate fact that few fitness landscapes (="fitness" plotted in an N-dimensional coordinate system where the "up" dimension denotes "fitness" and the rest N-1 are the relevant variables) are shaped like pyramids. Instead they have many local maximums, and the (natural) selection tries its utmost to stay in one, working against finding the global maximum.

[blah blah] speciation.

Speciation as such is irrelevant. Lock a bunch of cats into a confined space and you have a new species by definition, since they are incapable of breeding with cats outside that space.

Besides, even you must be aware of the fact that creationists firmly believe that e.g. all feline species have "evolved" from only a few specimens.

You want evidence for evolution? Go to the fucking science library at a university, you dumbshit, instead of asking some guy named "OOGG_THE_CAVEMAN" to do the work for you.

Once again you display a remarkable incapability to comprehend simple written text. My English isn't the best (after all, it's only my third language), but I'm quite certain that the following quote shouldn't be interpreted as me (indirectly) asking you to provide proof of evolution: "[...] claims there are factual and logical errors but doesn't provide anything what so ever to back it up, even when being asked to do so several times".

Re:Why this is important

[OOGG_THE_CAVEMAN]

"[...] claims there are factual and logical errors but doesn't provide anything what so ever to back it up, even when being asked to do so several times".

Listen very carefully, shithead.

GO TO THE LIBRARY. FIND A BOOK WRITTEN BY SCIENTISTS (not a dumbed-down textbook) ON EVOLUTION. OPEN IT. READ IT. YOU WILL FIND THE ANSWER THERE.

That's my back up. You blabber about "loss of information" in evolution which is a MEANINGLESS PHRASE, as I have said before. It doesn't take much to refute something that has no meaningful content.

By the way, how do you think the bacteria GOT a gene for penicillinase, and why do you think a fungus got the ability to synthesize penicillin? Because some designer thought it would be fun to include the ability for a fungus to kill a bacterium, but then thought that he better design the bacterium so that the fungus mechanism doesn't work so good? Doesn't sound so intelligent to me.

Re:Why this is important

[msundman]

GO TO THE LIBRARY. FIND A BOOK WRITTEN BY SCIENTISTS (not a dumbed-down textbook) ON EVOLUTION. OPEN IT. READ IT. YOU WILL FIND THE ANSWER THERE.

In my experience, all evolution books containing arguments by I.D.ers are dumbed down and contains only straw man refutations. If you know of an exception then say so, but to imply that any "book written by scientists on evolution" contains arguments by I.D.ers is simply ignorant.

Since you appear to be completely incapable of comprehending a discussion I'll break some of it down for you:

• I said that "AFAIK most scientists agree that information in DNA has semantic characteristics", and then I listed five more arguments by I.D.ers.
• You then said I was ignorant of the facts. You didn't provide anything back it up.
• I then said that "if some fact is missing or incorrect you are welcome to show the real facts".
• Instead of showing any real facts you then instead started spewing out irrelevant shit about 1+1=3 and naturalists' fact-collecting, as if that was in some way related to the arguments by I.D.ers that use the very same facts.
• Then up to this point you've refused to provide anything to back up any of your accusations.

You blabber about "loss of information" in evolution which is a MEANINGLESS PHRASE, as I have said before.

As I've said before, if you disagree that the information in DNA has semantic characteristics, or if you disagree that the human DNA contains information not present in the pre-life earth, then you are welcome to make your case. Just saying so doesn't make it so, although you seem to believe it does.

Re:Why this is important

[OOGG_THE_CAVEMAN]

information in DNA has semantic characteristics

OK, the answer to this is simply "so what."

Let me break this down for you

1) I hold there is no meaningful definition of "semantic characteristics" in DNA

2) EVEN IF you choose some arbitrary definition that allows you to measure the "semantic characteristics" in a sample or instance of DNA, this has nothing to do with the possibility of evolution. There is NO PHYSICAL LAW that applies to biological organisms which constrains the amount of "information", however you define it, that offspring have in their DNA compared to their ancestors.

Your arguments are fluff, bogus nonsense, crap, pseudo-intellectual ravings, whatever.

That's why nobody bothers to address them.

If you read those evolution books, and still think ID has something meaningful to say, you just haven't understood evolution, or you just want to believe ID because evolution bothers you in some psychological way.

Re:Why this is important

[msundman]

EVEN IF you choose some arbitrary definition that allows you to measure the "semantic characteristics" in a sample or instance of DNA

Now you're confused again (or maybe I should say "still"). "Semantic characteristics" of information is not something that can be measured (in much the same way you can't measure "MP3" in "MP3 player"). It just denotes that information is measured as specified complexity instead of the more commonly (at least in comp.sci.) used definition of complexity by improbability (by Claude Shannon).

If you want to know how to measure the amount of specified complexity I suggest you go to that library of yours and look for some books on information theory. Or if you want a short introduction you could read the discussion under "Information Content of Proteins" here.

And then you could start providing something to back up your claims that all the arguments I've told I.D.ers have are invalid. Or perhaps you'd like to comment my original comment that AeroIllini was talking out of his ass when he claimed that irreducible complexity doesn't exist?

And then you could read a few books on I.D. so that you would actually know what you're talking about. And if you read those I.D. books, and still think NDT (=neo-darwinian theory) has something meaningful to say, you just haven't understood I.D., or you just want to believe in the NDT because I.D. bothers you in some psychological way.

Re:Why this is important

[OOGG_THE_CAVEMAN]

It just denotes that information is measured as specified complexity instead of the more commonly (at least in comp.sci.) used definition of complexity by improbability (by Claude Shannon).

Whatever. You give some link to a anti-evolution web site to define your "specified complexity" quantity. That's your arbitrary definition. The arguments made on the basis of these numbers are bullshit, irrelevant, or both. The whole screed you link to is a bunch of strawmen.

1) No one claims that evolution only happens by transcription errors in the genome. So all the astronomical probabilities and timescales quoted are irrelevant.
2) The "requirements" stated for evolution, requiring a single step-by-step "mutate then select" is false. There's plenty of genetic drift going on without selection that can cause variation without selective pressure. There are also very fast ways, involving mutations in particular regulatory genes that can cause huge changes with very small mutations.
3) The math behind the odds of modification assume statistical independence between generations and between mutations. This is obviously wrong; once a change happens, it doesn't revert back immediately; it's "sticky", and persists in the descendants of the mutated form with HIGH probability. Plus, it ignores the effect of selection entirely!

I could go on and on. But, rest assured, trueorigins.org is hardly a fount of solid logical argument.

Re:Why this is important

[msundman]

The arguments made on the basis of these numbers are bullshit, irrelevant, or both.

Once again you think that saying something makes it so. Your ego must be the size of a small country.

[...] transcription errors [...] astronomical probabilities and timescales [...] genetic drift [...] statistical independence [...]

Either you're desperately trying to change the subject or you're seeing something I'm not. I said that a short introduction to measuring specified complexity could be found in the "Information Content of Proteins" section of the text I linked to. It appears to me that you completely ignored that section, instead changing the subject to parts of that discussion irrelevant to the issue at hand, which is whether specified complexity can be measured or not. Either you're making huge logical jumps or you're just trying to bullshit your (shifting) point through.

To me it seems that you in general make the following (or similar) invalid reasoning:
NDT is correct. NDT and arguments against NDT are mutually exclusive. Therefore arguments against NDT are wrong. I.D.ers show arguments against NDT. Since the arguments are, as shown, wrong I.D.ers are wrong (and idiots for not noticing/admitting it). Thus it's been shown that there are no valid arguments against NDT. Thus NDT is correct.

Re:Why this is important

[msundman]

FIND A BOOK WRITTEN BY SCIENTISTS (not a dumbed-down textbook) ON EVOLUTION. OPEN IT. READ IT. YOU WILL FIND THE ANSWER THERE.

All books I've seen (not including dumbed-down ones or ones written by I.D.ers/creationists) on evolution that touches the issue presupposes NDT being correct and only tries to discern how it happened. From such a position it is logically impossible to come to the conclusion that NDT is wrong, even if it is wrong. If NDT in fact is wrong, the closest one could get to the truth would be that some facts are wrong or that some interpretations are wrong or inadequate. All of these have happened (but note that I'm aware of the fact that this doesn't prove that NDT is wrong).

In spite of using a very narrow definition of "science", geneticist Richard Lewontin is much more honest than the average evolutionist, as indicated by the following quote from him:

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfil many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

Re:Why this is important

[OOGG_THE_CAVEMAN]

Once again you think that saying something makes it so. Your ego must be the size of a small country.

No, my saying something doesn't make it so.

REALITY makes it so, I'm just reporting it. If you don't comprehend REALITY, that is your problem not mine. If you can't realize meaningless bullshit, that's your loss.

I went back and double-checked the "information content of proteins" section of that long screed, and it was, as far as I could tell, either BS, or trivial thermodynamics, depending on how those symbols are supposed to be interpreted.

The entropy change due to enzyme action is simple physical chemistry.

The only possible physical argument would be that the physical processes of life are forbidden by thermodynamics, but, since I'm living and breathing, evidently enzymes can and do work.

THERE IS NO ARGUMENT that leads from there to saying anything about evolution, and in fact the screed makes none.

Re:Why this is important

[msundman]

REALITY makes it so, I'm just reporting it. If you don't comprehend REALITY, that is your problem not mine. If you can't realize meaningless bullshit, that's your loss.

Once again you are trying to bullshit your way through things. I cannot fathom how anyone would be so stupid that he would think that another person would actually fall for bullshit like that when said for the 10th time although he didn't the 9 previous times.

Or maybe I should start making the same kind of non-arguments as you do:
You are ignorant of facts. You're too stupid to understand that NDT is based on fluff and just-so stories. Reality shows that IDT is correct. If you don't comprehend reality, that's your problem. If you can't realize fluff and just-so stories, that's your loss.
(Bear in mind that this is not how I really think. I think this kind of talk is just fluff, bullshitting and/or nonsense.)

The entropy change due to enzyme action is simple physical chemistry.

Sigh.. There is no entropy change due to enzyme action when you include the enzyme itself, since the information that the product distribution has gained is of course already present in the enzyme! (Hence: "[...] the information content of the enzyme itself is at least the maximum information gained in transforming the substrate distribution into the product distribution".) The relevant entropy difference is between two such enzymes of which one has mutated.

Seriously, man, you have a really bad comprehension disability. You can't understand what a discussion is about, you can't understand logical reasoning, you apparently can't understand the point of pretty much anything. But that's not the problem. Your main problem is that you seem to think you've understood it all, when it's evident that you haven't. Like some sort of inverted Socrates (you know, "[...] I know that I know nothing"). Really, it's OK to have a flawed understanding of something, but it's really stupid to be convinced that one's understanding of something must necessarily be the correct one.

Maybe it's that you're so convinced that any IDT proponent isn't making any sense that when you can't make sense of something such a person says you're convinced that it in fact doesn't make sense. Such a misunderstanding would of course feed itself until you've become convinced that all IDT proponents are complete nutcases.

The only possible physical argument [...] THERE IS NO ARGUMENT [...]

I suggest you take a minute or two to analyze how and why you made such bold statements and far-reaching conclusions that you did, based on a simple misunderstanding of which entropy H denotes.

You know, I have found that life is much easier if I don't care who was correct first as long as we get closer to the truth. Never let prejudice (nor pride) get in the way.

Re:Why this is important

[OOGG_THE_CAVEMAN]

Sigh.. There is no entropy change due to enzyme action when you include the enzyme itself, since the information that the product distribution has gained is of course already present in the enzyme! (Hence: "[...] the information content of the enzyme itself is at least the maximum information gained in transforming the substrate distribution into the product distribution".) The relevant entropy difference is between two such enzymes of which one has mutated.

If you think this is accurate, you are using a definition for entropy that is incompatible with the usual scientific one.

The whole point of an enzyme is that it acts as a catalyst; that is, after the reaction, the enzyme returns to the same state as it was before the reaction, and is able to catalyze the reaction for more reactants to produce more products.

If the enzyme returns to the same state, it has the same entropy, because the entropy of the enzyme is a function of the state.

I suppose you think this is bullshit, that I'm just saying because I hope to convince you; probably, if I claim 1+1=2, you think I am making an arrogant claim, I don't know. Maybe you want to use perfectly good scientific terms such as "entropy" in some strange way.

In any case the mutation does NOT happen in any particular copy of the enzyme. It happens in the genetic sequence that codes for the production of the enzyme, which is then created in a different form in the mutated organism.

But perhaps you are using some unusual meaning for the term "enzyme" and "mutation." Whatever. If you insist on these basic facts which are in contradiction to the basic definitions of the terms, you are hopeless, and it is no wonder you are persuaded by ID bullshit. Believe whatever you want, just don't claim you have scientific reasons for doing so.

Re:Why this is important

[msundman]

Once again you've misunderstood it, and again you assume that you've understood it correctly and it must be everyone else who aren't making sense.

If the enzyme returns to the same state, it has the same entropy, because the entropy of the enzyme is a function of the state.

If you by "the state of an enzyme" refer to the enzyme's characteristics (and thus the information it contains) then you are correct. I assume you do mean that, and in that case what you said is obviously correct, and your implying that I (and Spetner) doesn't realize this just shows how extremely biased you are. Not only are you copiously biased, you also can't read, but let me anyway quote Spetner for you once more: "Fortunately, for my purposes, I need only consider the change in the information in an enzyme caused by a mutation."

I don't know if I can make it any more simple than it already is, but I'll try:
Some particular genetic sequence causes an enzyme to be constructed. Let's call this enzyme A. A mutation occurs in that genetic sequence. The mutated sequence causes a similar, but not equivalent, enzyme to be constructed. Let's call this enzyme B. If A in this case is more specific with which of the substrates it will "react with" than B then A is said to have more(/higher?) specified complexity. This can be measured by measuring the difference between the entropy of the input substrate distribution and the entropy of the product distribution. Let's say the entropy of the input distribution is a certain value (e.g. log n <=> each element is equally probable). If A has more(/higher?) specified complexity than B then A will cause an output distribution with a lower entropy (i.e. some output elements are less probable and some are more probable) than what B would cause. The extreme would be 0 (i.e. one output element has the probability 1 and the others 0), which would mean no randomness at all.

Anyway, I'm sorry if I inadvertently mislead you in my earlier message by talking about the entropy difference of the enzymes when I should have said the entropy difference of the output distributions of the enzymes. (These can, but don't have to, be equivalent, so it would probably have been better of me to use "specified complexity" instead of "entropy" regarding the enzymes.)

Re:Why this is important

[OOGG_THE_CAVEMAN]

The whole notion of the "output distribution" of an enzyme determining something about the "information content" of the enzyme is just silly.

It means several things that make the "information content" concept useless to reason with

1) if I take away the reactants, there's less output; hence, less entropy change per enzyme molecule per time. Does it therefore have "less information"? If so, where is the information, in the reactants or in the enzyme?

2) similarly, if I lower the temperature or change the pH of the environment, to reduce the reaction rate, either of the catalyzed reaction, or some reaction that is providing the reactants, the reaction rate changes. Where's the information going now?

3) Entropy is an extensive quantity, proportional to the size of the system. If I simply increase the quantity of enzyme, am I increasing the "information content" of the enzyme? Or is the "information content" normalized per molecule? In which case a genetic change that increases the production of the enzyme would increase activity without increasing the "information content" of the enzyme.

4) If the enzyme keeps reacting for a long period of time, the entropy change increases over time (as does the energy flow that allows the reaction to happen). Does the "information content" of the enzyme depend on the lifetime of the cell?

A quantity you call "specified complexity" which depends

- on the environment (say, if the pub is open and you can drink alcohol, which an enzyme in your body must break down, or the pub is closed on Sundays, and the enzyme isn't causing a reaction)
- on the simple length of time the enzyme is working
- on the simple bulk amount of the enzyme (a 200 pound adult vs. a 10 pound infant have the same gene, but much different quantities of the enzyme)

doesn't seem to say much about the actual genetic content of the organism, which is the most compelling description of the "complexity" of an organism.

Re:Why this is important

[msundman]

1) if I take away the reactants, there's less output; hence, less entropy change per enzyme molecule per time.

You are so confused. Less output does not mean a change in the output distribution. (If there is no output at all, then the output distribution cannot be calculated, but that's irrelevant.)

Does it therefore have "less information"? If so, where is the information, in the reactants or in the enzyme?

I actually wrote a note in my previous message stating the obvious fact that measuring the output distribution will tell you the minimum specified complexity of the enzyme (e.g. if you remove some of the source elements then the measured value will be less than the enzyme's actual value), but I removed the note for two reasons before posting the message:
a) I wanted to make it as simple as possible for you, since you seem to have a really hard time grasping anything, and
b) it was in the text I linked to, and I even quoted it in an earlier message ("[...] the information content of the enzyme itself is at least the maximum information gained in transforming the substrate distribution into the product distribution").

2) similarly, if I lower the temperature or change the pH of the environment, to reduce the reaction rate [...]

More of the same confusion on your part. The reaction rate does not change the output distribution. (It's true that the reaction of some elements isn't linearly proportional to the reaction of some others with respect to changes in the environment, but that just means it must be considered in the output distribution measurements. This was probably not what you meant, though, but only the reaction rate. Anyway, both are irrelevant.)

3) Entropy is an extensive quantity, proportional to the size of the system.

The entropy of a constant relative distribution is constant. Read any book on information theory if you're confused. Or you might want to just check out the wikipedia entry on the topic.

4) If the enzyme keeps reacting for a long period of time[...]

Again, the time is irrelevant.

A quantity you call "specified complexity" which depends [on external factors] doesn't seem to say much about the actual genetic content of the organism

I hope this message has shown you that specified complexity does not depend on external factors as you described.

Re:Why this is important

[OOGG_THE_CAVEMAN]

Fine, you decide to take the perfectly fine physical term "entropy" and use it to describe some measure of a chemical distribution. Warning, you are in information theory territory, where it is exceedingly hard to connect back to the *physical* world, where biology happens.

There is still no connection between "specified complexity" and anything else relevant to evolution. In particular, it places no constraints on genetic sequences and the production of those through reproduction or mutation.

Re:Why this is important

[OOGG_THE_CAVEMAN]

To clarify, now that I have a bit more time to elaborate, all information-theoretic calculations assume some underlying probability distribution for the elements of the information sequence.

In a chemical distribution, for example, if you are going to make some kind of information-content calculation, you are simply calculating a measure based on a probability weight for each molecule in the distribution.

There are, however, serious constraints on the ability of a chemical reaction to occur; each input reactant has a certain chemical energy, and the various output products have a certain chemical energy, and the good old conservation of energy demands that the input energy equal the output energy. There are additional thermodynamic constraints, because, for instance the concentration of products changes the "chemical potential" in a way to favor the reverse over the forward reaction, etc. That's why chemists introduce other quantities such as entropy (the chemical/thermodynamic/physical entropy, not simply information theory entropy) and enthalpy, to capture the effect of these macroscopic constraints on the microscopic probability that a reaction will happen.

Faced with this complexity (and, remember, a catalyst or enzyme does not cause reactions that are thermodynamically forbidden, just changes the *rate* of the reaction, because it offers a kinetic pathway that is more favorable; again, involving microscopic probabilities), what does your theory offer?

(e.g. log n each element is equally probable).

So this is the first problem: by wandering off into information theory, we have yet another way in which ID'ers can mess up the probabilities; classically, they came up with the fallacy of the "747 assembled by tornado", because they used an irrelevant uniform probability distribution for the various possible arrangements of, depending on their context, proteins in a flagellum, or whatever. Natural selection and inheritance, however, provides a probability distribution that depends on the parent, and strongly favors, of course, proteins resembling flagellar structures, but having some other function, if one exists. When you start with a 747 and a tornado sweeps through, you get a 747 with some stuff moved around. The distribution "747 parts lying around" is of very *low* prior probability, so it does not strongly enter into the probability of the outcome of a tornado.

Now, by adding another layer of mumbo-jumbo, you get to screw up the probabilities in a fresh-sounding way. Dembski does a lot of this, and this is the basis for devastating critiques of his CSI theory. The article you linked to had a false calculation of evolution probabilities, assuming multiple mutations occuring simultaneously, when they could (much more likely) occur sequentially.

Information theoretic entropy is just a measure of probability. Given the repeated failure of IDers to get probabilistic calculations right, this is just the same game by a different name.

No one can explain the spitty-slurpy!

[eldavojohn]

Possessed Demon: I will now debunk the moonwalk. Toe, slide, toe, slide...easy...

Earl: God made upside-down margaritas, and keg headstands too.
Frat boy: Thank you God!

Ahhhh, UCB, how I miss thee.

Re:No one can explain the spitty-slurpy!

[Anonymous Coward]

Time to fly out the window :)

Re:No one can explain the spitty-slurpy!

[shotgunefx]

Spitty Slurpy!

Glad to know I'm not the only one who misses it.

Re:No one can explain the spitty-slurpy!

[Monkelectric]

I thought I was the only one who absolutely worshiped that show. I wish we could get seasons 2 and 3 on DVD ... and seasons 4 and 5 in production :(

hah

[Anonymous Coward]

"'People in the ID community have said that we don't even know how bees fly ... We were finally able to put this one to rest. We do have the tools to understand bee flight and we can use science to understand the world around us.'"

pwned! *ahem*

Oh boy

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't wait for the calm, stirring, and mentally stimulating debate this is sure to bring to us. Thank you Intelligent designer for giving us this gift!

ID is crap.

[grub]

putting one more nail in the coffin of Intelligent Design

To any rational person, ID's coffin is more nail than wood. Of course the creationists will huff and puff as they grasp to whatever straws they have left.

For those who are interested in how Creationists sleazed ID into school and government I heartily recommend Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design. Fascinating and scary book. A 'primer' from the authors can be found here.

Re:ID is crap.

[Anonymous Coward]

+5, Informative Damn crackhead mods. Disagree and it's flamebait or a troll.

Bees

[nother_nix_hacker]

Great, now can they stop them chasing my hysterical girlfriend and her ice cream?

The Infinite Coffin

[eldavojohn]

Researchers at CalTech have discovered how bees fly, putting one more nail in the coffin of Intelligent Design.

Unfortunately, this coffin is infinitely long. I've tried to argue with ID-ists and there's no hope. Why is it infinitely long? Because there is an infinite wealth of knowledge out there and we can never know all of it. As long as there is something we do not know, there will be room for a god or a designer.

To quote someone I admire:

"I do not know what I may appear to the world; but to myself I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the sea-shore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me."
~Isaac Newton (1642-1727)
In Brewster, Memoirs of Newton (1855), vol II, Ch. 27

Re:The Infinite Coffin

[dgatwood]

There is only an infinite amount of knowledge if we live in an infinite universe. That has been neither proven nor disproven. Even Einstein wasn't sure:

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."

---Albert Einstein

Re:The Infinite Coffin

[eldavojohn]

Allow me to take a stab at this using a very dirty ugly proof.

Proof by Contradiction

1) Assume there is a finite amount of information.

2) Assume there is information regarding how something is stored (i.e. it's physical location whether it be electrical signals in my brain or bits on a hard disk including the time it was acquired).

3) It follows from 1 & 2 that any new information about the finite information would provide information regarding itself (meta-information). This would then require us to store more knowledge regarding the newly acquired knowledge, which we would need to know about, etc.

*tips his hat to Gödel, Escher, Bach*

Re:The Infinite Coffin

[Skowronek]

The important thing here is not to know everything about the whole Universe. It is enough to know everything about the Universe the ID proponents are aware of.

Re:The Infinite Coffin

[space_biker]

You're saying you're smarter than God because you can explain how some of His creations work. When science explains the mysteries of our world and universe, it proves only that we learned something that God knew all along.

It's like saying that figuring out how Windows works means that Microsoft must not exist; though I wish it were true.

Re:The Infinite Coffin

[dgatwood]

Allow me to take this one step further.

4. Assume that information cannot exist unless stored.

5. It follows from #3 and #4 that infinite information requires an infinite universe.

Thus, either the universe is infinite or the information contained within it is not.

Re:The Infinite Coffin

[Chris Burke]

As long as there is something we do not know, there will be room for a god or a designer.

And the sad thing to me is that many religious people feel that the only place for our God is in the holes left by our ignorance of the physical world, that there needs to be "room" for God. For them, a non-divine explanation for physical events is a blow to their faith, and to me this means their faith is weak.

For me, I love to learn about how the universe works -- it's infinitely fascinating -- and the maxim "God did it" is just a statement of faith, not a paltry excuse to avoid figuring out how He chose to do it.

Learning Euler's Formula was practically a religious experience for me.

Knowledge is not the enemy of faith; indeed they should support one another. However knowledge is the enemy of dogma and of authority; and since authority makes no effort to separate faith and dogma, we end up seeing the knowledgeable and faithful in conflict. As our knowledge increases this is a losing battle for authority, and thus we get ID as the desperate counter-attack. In the long run, though, authority will only end up sacrificing faith and knowledge, leaving only dogma. /rant off, I guess.

Re:The Infinite Coffin

[eldavojohn]

You're right except I can't accept your assumption (#4).

I think that there exists information unknown to us (isn't stored). For instance, there may be something special that happens deep in the cores of stars as they implode, if only very briefly. That information is out there to be learned but we do not know it and it's not stored anywhere though it may happen very frequently.

Re:The Infinite Coffin

[SpeedBump0619]

Unfortunately, this coffin is infinitely long. I've tried to argue with ID-ists and there's no hope. Why is it infinitely long? Because there is an infinite wealth of knowledge out there and we can never know all of it. As long as there is something we do not know, there will be room for a god or a designer.

And just in case anyone out there wasn't really sure, this is *the* problem with Intelligent Design. Science isn't arbitrary. There are rules for establishing a theory no matter how whacked out it might sound. A valid theory must predict behaviors and those behaviors must be quantifiable and verifiable.

So my question about I.D. is always this: What piece of evidence should I look for to prove that it is incorrect. The answer to this always appears to be "nothing," so I *must* assume that I.D. is a concept which is only believed through faith. This is the reason that it falls into the category of religion rather than science. Show me a version of I.D. that meets the rigorous definition of a scientific theory and I'll stand beside you in saying it should be taught in our schools.

Re:The Infinite Coffin

[susano_otter]

What if I assume there's a finite amount of information, and that one of the reasons it's finite is that it isn't being stored (e.g., that when the universe runs out of storage space, it deletes stale data)?

Re:The Infinite Coffin

[tompaulco]

There is only an infinite amount of knowledge if we live in an infinite universe.
If the entire universe fit within a drop of water, the set of all possible integers in that universe would still be infinite. Knowing all of the positive integers alone would give you an infinite amount of knowledge. And yet you would still not necessarily be omniscient unless you knew the negative integers as well, and every other infinite series.
Thanks to Asimov for that realization.

Re:The Infinite Coffin

[tompaulco]

Indeed. Biblically, wisdom is to be desired above all else.
"And God said to Solomon, Because this was in thine heart, and thou hast not asked riches, wealth, or honor, nor the life of thine enemies, neither yet hast asked long life; but hast asked wisdom and knowledge for thyself, that thou mayest judge my people, over whom I have made thee king: Wisdom and knowledge is granted unto thee; and I will give thee riches, and wealth, and honor, such as none of the kings have had that have been before thee, neither shall there any after thee have the like." 2 Chronicles 1:12.
Of course, the book of Proverbs continuously exhorts the importance of wisdom and knowledge. Religion obviously would discourage knowledge, because without knowledge the religious leaders could more easily control the people. But the Bible itself gladly tells you to seek wisdom and understanding. God had nothing to fear from us studying His creation. The only peril is that some people are not studying science but are just studying how to dissuade people from believing in God, and calling their study science. Science is NOT about disproving the existence of God. Those that use Science to do that blaspheme against God AND Science.

Re:The Infinite Coffin

[SchrodingersRoot]

The real numbers provide an uncountably infinite set, so even given a finite universe, there is clearly an uncountably infinite number of concepts. Moreover, I'd posit that that the gestalt of even a finite universe could lead to an infinite emergent system.

All this talk of an infinite coffin reminds me strangely of Gabriel's Horn for some reason. Which, by the by, is an astoundingly neat piece of topology.

And see? Even Einstein believes there's something out there that's infinite ;)
Quod erat demonstrandum

Modding options

[bobcat7677]

Every once in a while I see an article that needs modding on the top level. Obviously there are all the dups that could be modded "redundant". This particular article should have a "flamebait" option.

Article contents

[Anonymous Coward]

Sara Goudarzi
Special to LiveScience
LiveScience.com Tue Jan 10, 9:00 AM ET

Proponents of intelligent design, which holds that a supreme being rather than evolution is responsible for life's complexities, have long criticized science for not being able to explain some natural phenomena, such as how bees fly.
ADVERTISEMENT

Now scientists have put this perplexing mystery to rest.

Using a combination of high-speed digital photography and a robotic model of a bee wing, the researchers figured out the flight mechanisms of honeybees.

"For many years, people tried to understand animal flight using the aerodynamics of airplanes and helicopters," said Douglas Altshuler, a researcher at California Institute of Technology. "In the last 10 years, flight biologists have gained a remarkable amount of understanding by shifting to experiments with robots that are capable of flapping wings with the same freedom as the animals."

Exotic flight

The scientists analyzed pictures from hours of filming bees and mimicked the movements using robots with sensors for measuring forces.

Turns out bee flight mechanisms are more exotic than thought.

"The honeybees have a rapid wing beat," Altshuler told LiveScience. "In contrast to the fruit fly that has one eightieth the body size and flaps its wings 200 times each second, the much larger honeybee flaps its wings 230 times every second."

This was a surprise because as insects get smaller, their aerodynamic performance decreases and to compensate, they tend to flap their wings faster.

"And this was just for hovering," Altshuler said of the bees. "They also have to transfer pollen and nectar and carry large loads, sometimes as much as their body mass, for the rest of the colony."

Try this!

In order to understand how bees carry such heavy cargo, the researchers forced the bees to fly in a small chamber filled with a mixture of oxygen and helium that is less dense than regular air. This required the bees to work harder to stay aloft and gave the scientists a chance to observe their compensation mechanisms for the additional toil.

The bees made up for the extra work by stretching out their wing stroke amplitude but did not adjust wingbeat frequency.

"They work like racing cars," Altshuler said. "Racing cars can reach higher revolutions per minute but enable the driver to go faster in higher gear. But like honeybees, they are inefficient."

The work, supervised by Caltech's Michael Dickinson, was reported last month in the Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences.

The scientists said the findings could lead to a model for designing aircraft that could hover in place and carry loads for many purposes such as diaster surveillance after earthquakes and tsunamis. They are also pleased that a simple thing like bee flight can no longer be used as an example of science failing to explain a common phenomenon.

Proponents of intelligent design, or ID, have tried in recent years to promote the idea of a supreme being by discounting science because it can't explain everything in nature.

"People in the ID community have said that we don't even know how bees fly," Altshuler said. "We were finally able to put this one to rest. We do have the tools to understand bee flight and we can use science to understand the world around us."

        * Flight of the Fly
        * Dancing Bees Speak in Code
        * The First Biplanes Were Dinosaurs
        * Secret of Bird Flight Revealed

Visit LiveScience.com for more daily news, views and scientific inquiry with an original, provocative point of view. LiveScience reports amazing, real world breakthroughs, made simple and stimulating for people on the go. Check out our collection of Amazing Images, Image Galleries, Interactive Features, Trivia and more. Get cool gadgets at the new LiveScience Store, sign up for our free daily email newsletter and check out our RSS feeds today!

too easy

[Anonymous Coward]

Who/what do you think designed the bee?

Scientists Figure Out How Bees Fly

[Life700MB]

Scientists Figure Out How Bees Fly

Well, doh, by moving their little wings up and down quickly?


--
Superb hosting 20GB Storage, 1_TB_ bandwidth, ssh, $7.95

Re: Scientists Figure Out How Bees Fly

[SDEggbert]

The article only went into slightly more detail by saying that they move their little wings up and down 230 times per second.

There was virtually no other information on how they fly. Not much of a discovery if all they did was count the beats per second.

On the other hand, if we can use it to attack ID...

Re: Scientists Figure Out How Bees Fly

[terrymr]

Yeah ... where's the big revelation here, given enough thrust anything can fly.

Re: Scientists Figure Out How Bees Fly

[Anonymous Coward]

And when they need to lift something, they increase the length of their stroke but maintain roughly the same frequency.

Likening this to a race car is kind of wrong (even though they were discussing changing gears). The revs of an engine increase because the length of the piston stroke cannot change. Also, under load conditions, you'd change down a gear, not up.

Re: Scientists Figure Out How Bees Fly

[alexhs]

>> Scientists Figure Out How Bees Fly

> Well, doh, by moving their little wings up and down quickly?

Nah, RTFA ! Birds are flying by moving their wings, but it has been shown that this method wouldn't allow bees flying because they're not moving them fast enough. The real reason is the magic powder.

Now Scientists still need to find the Tinkerbell to ask her how to produce magic powder from pollen..

Re: Scientists Figure Out How Bees Fly

[StikyPad]

I thought the earth just kept moving out of the way to avoid being stung.

Re: Scientists Figure Out How Bees Fly

[Alsee]

Damnit! You should have put a Spoiler Alert!
I haven't RTFA yet, and you went and ruined it!

-

saw this on TV

[Douglas Simmons]

This will be good news for the scientists who are trying to make robot insects but just cannot nail it. But is there anything to suggest that this may be a more efficent form of flight than what methods we already have?

And by the way, is it one of /.'s top priorities to attack religion every chance it gets? Can't we stick to republicans and Microsoft, or whatever Netcraft has confirmed to be dying?

Re:saw this on TV

[grasshoppa]

And by the way, is it one of /.'s top priorities to attack religion every chance it gets?

ID isn't a religion, last I checked. Further, I don't believe any major religiouns associate themselves with it.

It's a silly little idea being pushed by a vocal minority of nut jobs in the US. It may have roots in religion, but that's about it.

While we are on the subject, religions are pretty silly to begin with. How many do we have, in the US alone? How many are sure their flock is going to be saved while everyone else is going to burn? Further, do you agree with everything your religion your teaches you? Does that make you a sinner if you don't?

The entire concept of religion really starts seeming silly when you sit down and think about it.

Re:saw this on TV

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it's funny that the only place I see ID ever mentioned is in science communities. It's on the evening news occassionally, but even then it's in a way that cuts it down. If there are actual ID believers, are they from a vocal few - as in 10 or 20 - people? Are they trolling the scientific community?

Re:saw this on TV

[gunmod]

And by the way, is it one of /.'s top priorities to attack religion every chance it gets?

You know, I was wondering this very thing. Seems like 95% of /. posters are athesists. Gets annoying after awhile.

Re:saw this on TV

[professionalfurryele]

"And by the way, is it one of /.'s top priorities to attack religion every chance it gets?"

Pretty simple really. The crowd on slashdot are pretty interested in science from what I gather, mostly more technical stuff, but they find it interesting, and they like scientific progress. Many religious groups have elements that spend a significant portion of thier time trying to slow scientific progress down. Religious institutions don't spend much time promoting science, and when they do it often comes with caveats or is just an olive branch from a minority sect. As such since religions don't contribute much to the advancement of society from a technical or scientific aspect they are rarely going to appear on slashdot in a positive light.

On the other hand their are plent of religious individuals who if they had always had thier way would have kept man in the stone age. Heck it wouldn't suprise me if the fist few guys to make metal tools were burned for deviant or unnatural behaviour (incidentally, thats a joke).

End result if religion appears on slashdot it is in a negative light. Something to be stopped so that science can advance.

The solution is really very simple, if you want religion to appear in a positive light, then get it to take all that cash it gets from donations and fund stem cell research, or fundamental physics or something, maybe use some of those buildings they waste every Friday/Saturday/Sunday in as labs.

Re:saw this on TV

[Jherek Carnelian]

And by the way, is it one of /.'s top priorities to attack religion every chance it gets?

I don't see anyone here "attacking religion." Isn't it the ID'ers themselves who claim loud and proud that ID is science not religion? You know, so that it should be taught in science class?

All I see are attacks on pseudo-science.

Re:saw this on TV

[sa666_666]

And by the way, is it one of /.'s top priorities to attack religion every chance it gets?

Not that ID is a real religion, but I think it's attacked so often because there isn't any subject that's more diametrically opposed to rational, logical ideas than religion. And since science and technology are based (or at least are supposed to be) on rational and logical ideas, I think the reason for opposition is obvious.

Re:saw this on TV

[susano_otter]

Yet the whole idea of metaphysics seems pretty interesting, when you sit down and think about it.

And that's all religion is, really: applied metaphysics.

I honestly don't understand either why some people insist that metaphysics and physics should not be complementary, or why other people insist that physics is a proper tool for studying metaphysics.

Re:saw this on TV

[Laser Dan]

But is there anything to suggest that this may be a more efficent form of flight than what methods we already have?

I am researching in this area and yes, at low Reynolds numbers (small sizes) flapping wing flight becomes more efficient than fixed wing or rotary wing flight. But you won't be seeing the new 787 flapping wing plane, it is only an advantage at around 15cm (6") wingspans or less.

You will notice that birds have aerodynamically shaped wings (like a plane) and can glide, but insects have flat wings and cannot glide. Not surprisingly, this is for the same reasons. The division between small birds/large insects is at around this point of a 15cm wingspan.

Re:saw this on TV

[idsofmarch]

ID is not religion, at least not in the same sense as say Scientology or Voodoo. So, you're last comment is a non sequitur.

And don't worry, Microsoft will be getting another flaming bag of doo just as soon as they do something else stupid, which like the current Republican party should be in the next 30 seconds or so. The Democratic party will of course fall flat on its face in a rush to do something even stupider than the Republicans.

Re:saw this on TV

[Anonymous Coward]

Many slashdotters are aetheists because (I suspect, I don't know all of you personally) we were raised in a home that was, in theory, christian, but where it was pretty loose, we didn't got to church, didn't have bible readings, never said grace, and religion never made an impact on our lives. We didn't associate comfort and security with it, and never did start to pray. So then, as many of us became technologically and scientifically minded, we made a logical judgement that God was superfluous to our way of life, became aethiest and moved on.

And yet large amounts of intelligent people continue their religion. Many of those, I've noticed, are those who were raised in strict catholic homes...those who did pray, and do believe that god is affecting their life. They have associations with religion built up from a young age, and continue it, never stopping to make the rational judgement and see why God should have to exist. (That question CANNOT, BTW, be compared with "Why are we here?". Try applying even the weak anthropic principle to "why should god exist?" and see how you go)

Religion was a support mechanism for a primitive mind. Now I truly believe that it is being evolved out, and will become less and less prevalant into the future, despite the efforts of small, but loud, groups trying to keep it alive.

Re:saw this on TV

[tompaulco]

I think this article is great. It certainly showed me that one strawman can conclusively beat another strawman.

Re:saw this on TV

[Anonymous Coward]

is it one of /.'s top priorities to attack religion every chance it gets?

No, but attacking and ridiculing ID believers who force their crap into schools and the minds of your children is a great and responsible thing to do.

Re:saw this on TV

[DougWebb]

You will notice that birds have aerodynamically shaped wings (like a plane) and can glide, but insects have flat wings and cannot glide. Not surprisingly, this is for the same reasons. The division between small birds/large insects is at around this point of a 15cm wingspan.

Millions of years ago, there were much larger insects around. I seem to recall something about dragonflies with two foot (60cm) wingspans. I also seem to recall that Reynolds numbers are related to density. I guess the extra CO2 in the atmosphere back then, which was due to a higher global temperature, also made the atmosphere thick enough to allow larger insects.

I guess that means we can look forward to bigger insects, even bigger birds, and maybe, someday, flapping-wing single-passenger planes.

Re:saw this on TV

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, I was wondering this very thing. Seems like 95% of /. posters are athesists. Gets annoying after awhile.

There are several studies that have found a statistically significant correlation between intelligence and atheism.

Though that doesn't explain why 95% of /. posters are atheists.

Re:saw this on TV

[808140]

Religion was a support mechanism for a primitive mind. Now I truly believe that it is being evolved out, and will become less and less prevalant into the future, despite the efforts of small, but loud, groups trying to keep it alive.

That, my friend, is deliciously brilliant flaimbait. I mean, here we are, debating with religious ID proponents who hold a disbelief of evolution as their central tenant, and you, in the same thread, claim that religion is a "support mechanism for a primitive mind" and that it is being, of all things, "evolved out"! I'm laughing my butt off right now in enjoyment. So thank you for that.

I'd like to respectively disagree with you, though. I don't think the human mind (or humans in general) have evolved much recently, because most of the mechanisms thought to cause evolution (ie, natural selection pressures, etc) have not been shaping the human population for some time (roughly since humans began to organize themselves in large agrarian societies, I'd imagine.) When was the last time you had to run from a leopard? We have all these hereditary diseases that, in a population driven by evolutionary pressure, one would have expected to have disappeared long ago. But advances in science, particularly in medicine, but also in automation and economics, have made it possible for humans to live longer in poorer health. A good thing, I think.

Anyway though I'd advance that people 10 millenia ago were, on average, as intellectually able as modern man, modulo differences in diet (which do seem to effect intelligence, insofar as intelligence can be measured -- I don't believe in that psychometrics BS, for the record.) Certainly, people today are better educated, but that's due to environment, not biological abilities. Don't mistake knowledge for intelligence, as Einstein pleaded.

I think though that in the olden days religion was much more prevalent largely because there was so much in man's environment that he did not understand. Nowadays, most everything that is easily observable has been explained using natural phenomena -- modern science concerns itself primarily with hypotheses whose greatest obstacles are designing experiments to reliably prove or disprove them and that require years of education to even understand. Old concerns, like why does the sky make angry-sounding noises when it rains sometimes, well, science put those to rest long ago.

But through it all I think a lot of religious people who are scientifically minded have realized that while science has been much more successful than religion at explaining the how of things, it fails when it confronts the why. Perhaps fails is the wrong word, because that would imply that science set out to explain the why, when it most certainly does not. Science explains the how of things, and cannot, by definition, explain the why. As anyone who has ever encountered a 3 year old will tell you, every answer to a why question begs another why question, and eventually, taken to its logical conclusion, the end answer is always, "I don't know."

Religion gives an answer to why. It's usually pat and simplistic, which is why many of us ridicule it. "Because God made it that way," is the typical answer. But the thing to realize is that for many people having faith in something like that is a tremendously powerful and positive force in their lives. I have religious friends who are scientifically minded in other respects, and sometimes I truly envy them -- I spend a lot of time in the dark being terrified of death. They seem to feel like they're part of something. But I can't make that leap of faith. I need proof for things. The things I cannot prove, like the existance (or non-existance) of God, I just ignore.

Still though, I think it's important to recognize that not all religious people are crazy anti-science biggots who want everyone to live a stoneage lifestyle where the shaman could say "Thor brings the thunder be

Re:saw this on TV

[gunmod]

[i]significant correlation between intelligence and atheism.[/i] Let's not confuse intelligence with wisdom. A rat can have intelligence.

So... if science couldn't explain it...

[Catbeller]

What are the Creationist proposing? MAGIC holds the bees in the air? I mean, call it by the proper name. Magic, or Godpower, same thing...

Try what?

[tehshen]

From TFA:

Try this!

In order to understand how bees carry such heavy cargo, the researchers forced the bees to fly in a small chamber filled with a mixture of oxygen and helium that is less dense than regular air.

"Try this!" I should try what? I am not sure about these researchers, but I do not yet have wings and an air tank. Maybe they're overestimating the Try-This-At-Home market a little.

Re:Try what?

[gihan_ripper]

This really should be modded +10 Funny.

Damned funniest thing I've read in a long time.

Re:Try what?

[theonetruekeebler]

the researchers forced the bees to fly in a small chamber filled with a mixture of oxygen and helium

...and when they got back to the hive all the other bees made fun of their really high voices.

This has nothing to do with ID

[Anonymous Coward]

ID people: We must be right because you can't explain everything.
Evolution People: Wait a sec, we figured something else out, you are now wrong.
Is it just me or does this have nothing to do with any scientific arguement?

Re:This has nothing to do with ID

[Vorondil28]

My sentiments exactly. I'm no defender of ID, but what the hell does understanding the world around us via good science have to do with Intelligent Design?!? Let's say the universe and the life therein was designed by some "intelligence." Does that diminish our ability as intelligences to understand the universe? Of course not.

Thanks corbettw. Brilliant job of turning an interesting discussion about a recent scientific discovery into an ID flamewar.

Re:This has nothing to do with ID

[Lord_MiL]

I was just about to make a very similar post. While I find this discovery to be quite cool, it does nothing like putting a nail in ID's coffin. It was never a central tenet of ID that science could not explain how bees fly. It was merely a crappy argument made by people who can't debate the real issue. The best part is, that rather than ignoring these crappy arguments or responding with intelligent and logical remarks, the scientists are just sinking to the same level. I spend a great deal of time reading scientific journals/websites/magazines/etc. and quite frankly I'm getting tired of all the mention of evolution and ID in places where it does not belong. When you do a study on how the mechanism of bee flight evolved then please, by all means, mention evolution and ID. Otherwise, stick to the point.

Re:This has nothing to do with ID

[mbrod]

Nope, I am with yah, that makes three of us. Former President Jimmy Carter is actually the third.

The other 99% of the people out there don't have a clue what a scientific argument is. The two sides haven't even set down a foundation for their points of view. The discussion turns ugly so fast that the two sides aren't even arguing about the same thing.

Re:This has nothing to do with ID

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it just me or does this have nothing to do with any scientific arguement?

It's not just you but it certainly did create an "entertaining" thread!

- Love God.

Re:This has nothing to do with ID

[AJH16]

Yeah, seriously. I'm really interested in what they actually figured out, since it has been a puzzleing question for a while, but all this article is, is an off-"beat" article taking a little bit of news and trying to slap ID around with it. It doesn't even bother explaining how bees actually fly.

Re:This has nothing to do with ID

[krack]

FTFA...

"...Douglas Altshuler, a researcher at California Institute of Technology."

and

"People in the ID community have said that we don't even know how bees fly," Altshuler said.

So uh, yeah, the researchers (Altshuler) did do it to disprove parts of ID. Which is why it is included in the summary.

Re:This has nothing to do with ID

[professionalfurryele]

Like to admit it or not science and everything that was gained during the enlightenment is under threat, and it's under threat from the same people who gave us the dark ages. If the IDist (and others who stand in the way of scientific reseach) want a culture war, then I say give them one. We in the scientific community have sat by the sidelines for too long assuming that engaging these barsteds will give them credibility. They already have credibility, they have grown to powerful to just ignore. Just because we have no respect for them doesn't mean Joe Six Pack doesn't. It's time to ridicule and lobby. There is nothing wrong with journalists touting every discovery science makes as new evidence against this new "God of the Gaps". If people who care about human scientific progress don't fight back soon, then progress will slow or even retard, and we have too many problems which will need solutions over the next 100 years to waste our future scientists time teaching them how a concrete verified corner stone of the biological sciences is embroiled in a non-existant controversy and offer them a unscientific tautological steaming pile of monkey terd as an alternative.

Re:This has nothing to do with ID

[vistic]

And yet if it had not said anything about Intelligent Design, however unrelated, it would not have gotten any coverage and no one would have read about bees flying.

I think any research I ever do the rest of my life is going to need a mention or two about how it disproves Intelligent Design... that should assure that it receives a much larger audience.

Re:This has nothing to do with ID

[Arandir]

I know several creationists, and have read Paul Johnson's books. But I have not yet heard any of them claim that bee flight disproved evolution. I can understand politicians making stuff up about their opponents, but not scientists. It's beneath them.

Re:This has nothing to do with ID

[Anonymous Coward]

The idea that ID supports its views on the notion that there are things science simply doesn't know yet is not logical. Therefore putting a nail into the (intelligently designed) coffin is also not a logical consequence of "science" discovering something. They are not tied that way. Just because a lesser mind decides to take a cheap shot at the other side by saying "I must be right, I mean, look at all this stuff you don't know," doesn't make him right by default. Please notice that this incongruity goes both ways.

That an article quotes the scientist's jibe (which already deposits ID into the proverbial coffin) is regrettable but still okay. It shows that at least one scientist researching biological functions has a bias against ID. Bias is okay and there's no sense in pretending it isn't there. Just admit it, give it scope, and qualify any statement related to it along those terms. The only time objectivity is completely lost is when one begins to take pride in one's bias, elevating it above truth. Pride goeth before the fall.

Re:This has nothing to do with ID

[jclin]

Although I do agree with you in that the research is wonderful without the mention of the controversial 'theory', it is the prerogative of the researcher (Douglas Altshuler) to talk about ID if he wishes. Please note that the "pissed-off researcher" is the scientist that did the research. Actually, he's the first author on the paper, which probably means he did most of the work (while Dickinson was his research advisor). He may have been extra-motivated to do this particular research in order to 'stick it' to the ID'ers. If that's the case, he deserves his podium. Research is a form of truth. Truth cannot be cheapened no matter how politicized the discussion is. My own personal opinion is that this research is extra interesting since ID'ers do talk about the bee-flying phenomenon as an example of the wonder of God. With that in mind, this experiment and its connection to ID is a very dangerous precedent. Are we playing into the hands of ID'ers? Are we now obligated to prove scientific logic for every question ID 'theory' poses? That's going to take a while... Even so, why is it so bad if its the ranting of a "pissed-off researcher" or a "reporter with an agenda"? Is the science/research any less truthful? -j

Re:This has nothing to do with ID

[tompaulco]

If they are trying to disprove ID, then that means that ID is a scientific theory after all. Bad Move on their part.

Re:This has nothing to do with ID

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it just me or does this have nothing to do with any scientific arguement?

No, it isn't just you and, yes, this has nothing to do with any scientific argument.

Mostly because ID has nothing to do with any scientific argument. Frankly I find this typical of most of their arguments. You don't understand this, therefore we must be right. You can't provide fossil evidence of land animals evolving into whales, therefore evolution must be wrong. As soon as understanding is gained or additional transitional whale fossils are found, then the argument moves elsewhere.

ID is relabeled creationism and this is fundamentally (every pun intended) a religious argument. Mainly, it is the old argument about unknown versus unknowable. My own view is that there are things that are unknown, but nothing is unknowable. The religious view is that there will always be things that are unknowable, so why try?

We may never know everything. In fact, as a species, I hope we never do know everything. There should always be the unknown for us to discover and learn. Given an infinite universe (still up for debate) there probably always will be. But there will also be an ever-increasing store of human knowledge about that universe; never complete, but always larger.

Re:This has nothing to do with ID

[Anonymous Coward]

No-one is trying to teach that Pluto is a god instead of a planet in a science class, though.

(Although Pluto was only named after the god...)

Re:This has nothing to do with ID

[Vorondil28]

If the IDist (and others who stand in the way of scientific reseach[sic])...

Since when did supporters of ID "stand in the way of scientific research"? Again, I think ID is one of the dumbest ideas of all time, but how do the ID'ers oppose scientific progress? Worst case scenario is ID gets accepted by most public schools and every kid gets a dose of ID somewhere in his/her biology class. So what? It's not like science teachers being required to say "...and there's this other 'theory' that says the universe is too complex for it to have happened by accident. Just so you know." is going to keep kids out of professions that will advance scientific knowledge. If someone is genuinely curious about the world, he/she won't be turned away by this ID crap, and to say so is selling our best and brightest far too short.

Re:This has nothing to do with ID

[professionalfurryele]

Funnily enough I know good scientists who are former Christians who were educated by people who dismissed evolution. These are very smart people, who are also now very bitter because thier time was wasted. I think you are the one selling what I consider our best and brightest short by implying that anyone who is duped by adults they trust by convincing subtle but ultimately false arguements into believing something false somehow cannot be our best and brightest.

I can understand why you aren't worried, but I've seen the damage of a much more pleasant scenario (that is, of educators bad mouthing evolution even when they are not allowed to talk about fictional alternatives) than the one you describe, and if it significantly unpleasant for scientists who have grown up in that environment imagine what it would be like if pseudo-philosophy is introduced as an alternative to science in the science class room. It is not fair on our children, and it's takes considerable effort to undo the damage.

IDist are fighting a culture war and it wont end with just changing school curriculums. The very survival of science in the US is at stake, and if we wish to protect science, then we must destroy these fundamentalist meddlers.

Re:This has nothing to do with ID

[sparkz]

Is it just me or does this have nothing to do with any scientific arguement? No, it isn't just you and, yes, this has nothing to do with any scientific argument.

Whilst there's nothing wrong with scientific discussion (or argument, if you prefer), creationism is not dependant upon science. The onus is on science to disprove creationism.

Let's face it, the Flat Earth Society was a pretty easy one - I challenge the scientific community to prove that God did not create the Universe.

Do it, and I shall stand corrected.

It's that simple.

Until then, there's no debate ... is there?

Why are such cock-sure "scientists" against the teaching of creation when it's as well proven (by scientific basis) as the Big Bang theory and the Evolution theory? Note the word "Theory" - they might be true, but neither have been proven scientifically.

Re:This has nothing to do with ID

[Vorondil28]

Funnily enough I know good scientists who are former Christians...

Good for them.

...who were educated by people who dismissed evolution.

How unfortunate for them.

These are very smart people...

I'm sure they are.

...who are also now very bitter because thier[sic] time was wasted.

And they have a right to be.

I think your problem here is that you make the (incorrect) assumption that evolution and religion are mutually exclusive. Do said scientists have the right to be upset that they were deprived of good science? Sure. However, if a raised Atheist picks up religion later in life, does said person have the right to be upset that he/she was deprived of something as well? Absolutely. Funnily enough I know some good Christians who are also good scientists who were educated by people who dismissed religion. Just because a scientist believes that [insert 'intelligent designer' of choice here] put the universe here doesn't make him/her any less of a scientist. Nor does a strong scientific curiosity make a Rabbi any less a man of God. That being said, if ID were to make it into schools, it's not like libraries around the world would crumble. Do I think that the teaching of religion to the exclusion of science is a bad idea? Certainly. But is the inclusion of religion into the biology room (albeit a foolish idea) going to demolish science as we know it? Certainly not.

I think you are the one selling what I consider our best and brightest short by implying that anyone who is duped by adults they trust by convincing subtle but ultimately false arguements[sic] into believing something false somehow cannot be our best and brightest.

That's not what I said at all. My point is that the introduction of ID isn't something that would cause schools to turn out a bunch of mindless fundamentalists and to think they will is just foolish.

I can understand why you aren't worried, but I've seen the damage of a much more pleasant scenario (that is, of educators bad mouthing evolution even when they are not allowed to talk about fictional alternatives) than the one you describe, and if it significantly unpleasant for scientists who have grown up in that environment imagine what it would be like if pseudo-philosophy is introduced as an alternative to science in the science class room. It is not fair on our children, and it's takes considerable effort to undo the damage.

Eh, good teachers are good teachers; bad teachers are bad teachers. What goes on in each individual classroom is ultimately the responsibility of the teacher. In my high school biology class we were in the middle of discussing evolution and one of my classmates asked her if she "believed in evolution." She answered honestly saying she acknowledged that lifeforms have changed dramatically over a long time but she wasn't convinced that life just happened by accident. I'm pretty sure none of us are scared or bitter as a result. You're right that mandatory teaching of ID would be worse, but how I see it, that's not saying much.

IDist are fighting a culture war and it wont end with just changing school curriculums[sic]. The very survival of science in the US is at stake, and if we wish to protect science, then we must destroy these fundamentalist meddlers.

Wow. I'm all for keeping ID out of the classroom and all... but "destroy"? Regardless of their ideas, the "fundamentalist meddlers" are people too. I'd rather keep the destroying to a minimum.

Re:This has nothing to do with ID

[Anonymous Coward]

The onus is on science to disprove creationism.

Why? Because you said so?

This is the crux of the entire argument here!

Note the word "Theory" - they might be true, but neither have been proven scientifically.

Come back when you have studied and understood scientific method.

Re:This has nothing to do with ID

[jc42]

Actually, it did get quite a bit of coverage, both in the scientific press and the mass media, when it was first figured out - about 20 years ago.

There used to be a joke about how scientists had shown that bumblebees can't fly, because there's no way they could develop enough aerodynamic lift with those tiny wings to keep their mass in the air. Of course, it turns out that they don't use aerodynamic lift. And that was pretty obvious all along, since their wings are flat (and high-speed photos showed that they didn't deform their wings into airfoils when flying).

Part of the joke was that someone was supposed to say that it was a good thing that bumblebees weren't smart enough to understand the scientific explanation of why they couldn't fly.

Well, it was funny decades ago, before we knew how they developed the needed lift.

Re:This has nothing to do with ID

[professionalfurryele]

At no point did I state that religion and science are mutually exclusive, I also happen to know many good scientists of religious faith. This isn't about the big bad religious people trying to get science.

Your individuals of faith who later discovered their faith can be disapointed with themselves for not having found their faith earlier if they want, that is their choice. But (using the US as an example since this is the major battle ground at the moment) the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment is being flagrantly violated by individuals who do not teach science in the science class room as science fact. And this marks part of a wider and continuuing attack on scientific progress by fundamentalism.

I'm going to be rude and assume you are from the US (incidentally I'm not myself but most slashdotters are). Your example of the teacher who answered honestly, she might have answered honestly, but she also violated the first amendment. The two correct answers were "yes there is overwhelming scientific evidence in support of evolution" and "answering that would cause me to violate the estalishment clause of the first amendment".

This isn't about schools churning out mindless fundamentalists or otherwise, and it isn't just about the scientists who time is wasted. Our grant proposals are paid for by the people, who elect a government which decides where funding goes. Actions like the one you describe which in the US would violate the estalishment clause have the effect of discrediting science because "authority figure X doesn't believe it". This in turn makes them less willing to vote for politicians with pro-science stances.

Incidentally, when I say destroy, I mean in the same way you destroy a nation state or corporation, not kill. I'm not advocating dogmacide. I would have thought that was obvious. However if you cant see the culture war that exists at the moment, the relentless attacks by fundamentalist on science and western secular government, I rather suspect you should read the news more.

And when I say destroy, I say destroy because as far as they are concerned it is us or them. They will not rest until science is reduced to medicine and quasi-engineering. Make no mistake, fundamentalists of most of the major religions want to crush science, and they aren't going to go away quietly. Yes we have to rally thier pro-science religious bretheren. But we also have to utilise the machinery of the state to protect both it's secular nature, and the potential for scientific progress of future generations. I think it is somewhat nieve to believe that the fundamentalists will stop with just school curricula.

Re:This has nothing to do with ID

[sparkz]

Why? Because it is the scientific community who are so strongly against it. Just disprove it (you do know it is untrue, don't you? It's not just because it feels uncomfortable to accept the concept of a creator God?) and be done with it.

Bee's and ID

[sheared]

putting one more nail in the coffin of Intelligent Design.

How does figuring something out put a nail in the coffin of Intelligent Design? If figuring it out is all it takes, didn't that happen the first time man figured anything out?

Talk about stupid cause-effect relationships....

Re:Bee's and ID

[StalinsNotDead]

How does figuring something out put a nail in the coffin of Intelligent Design? If figuring it out is all it takes, didn't that happen the first time man figured anything out?

It takes more than one nail to seal a coffin. Otherwise the zombie gets out.

God kn0ws a11

[XflopThreeShitty]

just b3caus3 we n0w h0w b33z fli dusnt meen God dusnt 3x!st!!! h0w stuuup!1!!

Now:

[Tim_TDS]

Now only if scientists could get the bees to stop stinging me...time for a mass neutering of the stinger!

One last thing to prove

[gcnaddict]

The last thing Science has left to prove is the existance of God. Of course, this brings us back to the babelfish:

"But the odds of such a creature coming into existance are so unbelievably small, that it proves that You exist!"
"I haven't thought of that" He says, and promptly disappears in a puff of logic.

Re:One last thing to prove

[TrumpetPower!]

gcnaddict wrote:

The last thing Science has left to prove is the existance of God. Of course, this brings us back to the babelfish:

That's not how science works. One does not set out to prove that something exists, but rather that it does not. If you succeed, you know it does not exist. If you fail, you have reason to suspect it might exist.

It's that whole ``falsifiability'' thing.

Cheers,

b&

P.S. Check my .sig. b&

Re:One last thing to prove

[Golias]

Actually, science has nothing to do with existance.

You observe whether something exists or not. Science is the practice of anticipating the behavior of those things which exist.

The debate ammounts to this:

Non-ID Origin:

The universe exploded into existance. Just because. After the explosion, energy and matter fell into certain patterns which eventually resulted in complex entities capable of observing their own existance and speculating about how it all came about. This might, in fact, be the only one planet in the only one of millions of billions of universes in which this seemingly unlikely result came about, but as none of those other worlds and universes have anybody there to observe it, it seems miraculous to the inhabitants of this world.

ID:

Some intellegent force greater than the universe set all these things in motion deliberately, presumably for the company. The Big Bang, fish hopping out of the sea... all of it was meant to have happened for the purpose of bringing us about. (It's worth noting that the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" parodies which many in the anti-ID crowd have latched on to do not, in any way, contradict or discredit Intelligent Design. ID is completely mute on the nature of the "Intelligent Designer.")

Nothing in Darwins books, nor anything about how bees fly, can possibly settle this debate. What can be settled is that this debate has nothing whatsoever to do with science.

Science is all about predicting behavior. We can only validate (or invalidate) either of these notions by attempting to create more universes. Since that's not happening any time soon, it seems to me that schools ought to just be teaching about the Big Bang (and why we are pretty sure it happened), and Evolution (and why we are pretty sure it's how man came about), and leave the speculation about why all this happened to the philosophy and religion teachers.

Re:One last thing to prove

[Darby]

(It's worth noting that the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" parodies which many in the anti-ID crowd have latched on to do not, in any way, contradict or discredit Intelligent Design. ID is completely mute on the nature of the "Intelligent Designer.")

You have completely missed the point of the FSM.
What that demonstrates simply and absolutely is that by trying to put ID in the science class they have made their god *indistinguishable* from the FSM.
These people are so desperate for some sort of validation for their beliefs that they are willing to drag their great and glorious god down to being a plate of spaghetti and meatballs.
That is why the FSM is so great. Well... apart from the pirates arrrggghh

Re:One last thing to prove

[monkeydo]

Your .sig makes no sense. And it would make the same lack of sense if you substituted "Bob" for "God".

Re:One last thing to prove

[Golias]

What that demonstrates simply and absolutely is that by trying to put ID in the science class they have made their god *indistinguishable* from the FSM.

Only if you get them to concede that ID is all about teaching about God in schools. You can stamp your feet and insist that such is their "real" motivation all you like, but nobody from that camp is saying any such thing.

Re:One last thing to prove

[joto]

hat's not how science works. One does not set out to prove that something exists, but rather that it does not. If you succeed, you know it does not exist. If you fail, you have reason to suspect it might exist.

It's that whole ``falsifiability'' thing.

Nope, that has nothing to do with science. In science, you make a hypothesis (based on observation, intuition, insight, belief, etc...), and test that hypothesis through experiments to see if it is a reasonable belief. When a hypothesis is strengthened through several succesful experiments, it becomes a theory.

To be able to test that hypothesis, it must, as you say, be 'falsifiable'. I.e. you need to come up with something that can be proven wrong.

Say I make a hypothesis that everything I throw up will eventually fall down. This is a falsifiable hypothesis, because if something does not fall down some day, the hypothesis is falsified, and you should no longer believe in it. Examples of this would be things thrown above escape velocity of the earth, or gas balloons. Thus the hypothesis is wrong. The next step would be to discard that hypothesis, and/or make refined ones, such as the law of gravity, archimedes principle, etc...

With regard to proving/disproving the existence of God, I agree in principle that "God does exist" is unfalsifiable, and "God does not exist" is falsifiable (if God were ever to pop up somewhere; although "prove" has nothing to do with scientific method, as it is a method of mathematic/logic, not science). But that doesn't really make the question get into the realm of science. Either hypothesis doesn't lend itself to any kinds of reasonable experiments.

To scientifically say anything about the existence of God, the "God" hypothesis must make predictions that can be tested in a scientific experiement. One such prediction would be that "there exists a christian God that responds to prayer". In that case we could conduct scientific experiments where people prayed to God to make the outcome of a random experiment go in a certain direction, and use statistical methods to analyse the outcome. As far as I know, all experiments of this type has been statistically insignificant.

Another useful prediction would be to do as the creationists have done, and say that the bible when interpreted literally (whatever that means), gives a correct description of the creation of the earth and all life on it. So far, all such interpretations have been shown wrong, e.g. by fossils, radio-dating methods, etc...

Thus, the scientific position would be to say nothing about the existence of any "God", but that so far, if there exists any such "God", nobody has been able to come up with an experiment that could strengthen the hypothesis that he exists. On the other hand, most experiments seem to indicate that he does not exist.

Re:One last thing to prove

[Darby]

Only if you get them to concede that ID is all about teaching about God in schools. You can stamp your feet and insist that such is their "real" motivation all you like, but nobody from that camp is saying any such thing.

Really?!?!?
Wow, you really don't pay attention, do you?

" We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."

--Position paper CRSC.

In fact their camp has explicitly stated that as their primary motivation time and time again. They just don't state it honestly in court because they know full well that their position is illegal, dishonest, and anti-American.

Re:One last thing to prove

[Copid]

(It's worth noting that the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" parodies which many in the anti-ID crowd have latched on to do not, in any way, contradict or discredit Intelligent Design. ID is completely mute on the nature of the "Intelligent Designer.")

The whole point of the FSM is exactly that. ID is completely silent on the nature of the designer and, as a result, makes all possible designers equally viable "scientifc" answers. The FSM illustrates that once you allow that to happen, completely ridiculous ideas that nobody would even give a second thought suddenly become sound scientific thinking. ID falls on its face because it makes no claims whatsoever.

The FSM also does a great job of pointing out the hipocrisy of some of the ID supporters. On one hand they say, "ID makes no claim about the designer." Then, when FSM is proposed, half of them (the half that doesn't realize that it's politically expedient to keep up the "we don't know who the magic man is" charade) say, "Hey! That's offensive! You shouldn't mock my god!"

Nail in the coffin?

[dslauson]

I'm not sure you can call this a "nail in the coffin" of ID when there's still such a high percentage of our population that believes in it, you know? The catch-22 of ID is that it can't really be disproved with logic or science. You can shoot down their arguements when they try to put it in terms of biology like this, but I think we all know that this is not going to convince any "true believers" out there.

Re:Nail in the coffin?

[Enigma_Man]

It can be disproved with logic, because it is illogical that something that by it's very definition cannot be learned of (god) would exist. The flying spaghetti monster, the easter bunny, and santa claus have just as much credibility as the christian god, or any god.

-Jesse

Re:Nail in the coffin?

[dslauson]

I think you need to have the term "proof" defined for you, because nothing you just said proves anything. Saying that something is highly unlikely, or not credible, or just completely pulled out of somebody's ass, is not the same as empirically proving that it is false.

You can't prove that God doesn't exist, just like you can't prove that the FSM or the Easter Bunny don't exist.

I'm with you, I'd like to see the whole ID thing disappear. Good luck, though. It's going to take more than a few comparisons to fictional characters.

Re:Nail in the coffin?

[Anonymous Coward]

I can prove that god doesn't exist, but I can only prove it once per person.

Re:Nail in the coffin?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think ID really has a large percent of the population behind it. For starters, it's a U.S. movement. That knocks the figure down to less than 15% as it is. And even in the U.S., it doesn't have nearly the majority of citizens behind it. Remember, ID is a pseudoscientific subset of Biblical literalist Christianity. Even if you counted ALL the people in the United States who would choose "creation" from a list whose only other member was "evolution," (about 45%) you STILL aren't likely to have pegged the ID community. Most Christians - even those that will scream bloody discrimination at the drop of a hat - aren't interested in changing the schools' curriculum to suit ID. I'd say we're dealing with less than 4% total world population; most likely, less than 1%. We're not talking about a world religion here.

Re:Nail in the coffin?

[Peter Bell]

The catch-22 of ID is that it can't really be disproved with logic or science.

This is an old and defeated point. ID is just as testable as darwinian evolution, probably even more so. What falsifies an ID claim? A natural explanation... Occam's razor will favor a natural cause in most cases. Problem is, natural explanations are yet to be discovered for irredicubily complex systems at the biomolecular level, and it seems implausible that they will. Can they? Sure it's possible, just not plausible. What falsifies darwinian evolution? Pretty much nothing... they will just stick to their guns and say "just wait, we'll figure it out" no matter how difficult the problem gets.

For information about how ID is falsifiable and confirmable, see Dembski's paper "Is Intelligent Design Testable? A Response to Eugenie Scott" here: http://www.leaderu.com/offices/dembski/docs/bd-tes table.html

Re:Nail in the coffin?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you need to have the term "proof" defined for you, because nothing you just said proves anything. Saying that something is highly unlikely, or not credible, or just completely pulled out of somebody's ass, is not the same as empirically proving that it is false.

You started out strong, but finished like a fool...

Empirically (dis)proving something is pretty much the same as saying that is's highly (un)likely. Empirically proving something is like saying: Look, I tossed the dice 10 times, and never got a 1, so now you'll have to believe me that there shall never be a 1.

A proper, mathematical proof, can be verified to be correct, and thereby eliminates all doubt and questions. Obviously, proving something in this strict sense is impossibly in most sciences.

Re:Nail in the coffin?

[Phillup]

I don't think ID really has a large percent of the population behind it.

Unfortunately, I agree.

Where I grew up it was six days or blasphemy.

Nothing else is "the truth".

In those places... having them believe in ID would be a step forward in their thought process.

Re:Nail in the coffin?

[dslauson]

Occam's razor deals in probablilties, not in empirical proof. When you invoke Occam's razor, you are simply saying that, given multiple scenarios, the least exotic is the most likely. It proves absolutely nothing.

Also, the article you linked to says that ID is inherently falsifiable. It does not claim that it has been falsified. There's a big difference.

Say ID is unlikely, say it's rediculous, say it's udder nonsense. Say that there's much more evidence pointing towards Darwinism. I wholeheartedly agree with all those statements. Just don't say that ID has or will been disproven, because it hasn't, and it won't be.

Re:Nail in the coffin?

[iamlucky13]

Exactly! I'm a staunch Christian by the way, but ID is a rather stupid and a shallow idea coming from fellow Christians with good intentions but the short-sightedness to expect that forcing religion to fit the limitations of science and/or vice versus will help people appreciate creation.

By the way (and this is directed at the editors), why the heck do we have an article on Slashdot with such an obvious piece of flamebait? I'll bet the details about how bees fly and it's discovery could be a really fascinating topic without resorting to beligerantly bashing the beliefs of millions of readers. Yes I read commander taco's article today about how sometimes no one else submits a good story, but that doesn't mean you have to feed the trolls. Heck, if any particular editor (zonk, was it?) really thinks this is such a great topic, perhaps he can find his own link to submit and take the credit himself.

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[Anonymous Coward]

Researchers at CalTech have discovered how bees fly, putting one more nail in the coffin of Intelligent Design.

So seriously...were these CalTech researchers purposed with finding one more way to discredit ID, or is that just the agenda of our story's submitter (and the original article's author)?

(Not to be outdone)

[vsimon]

This just in..."ID Scientists Figure Out How Pigs Fly"

Re:(Not to be outdone)

[slashname3]

This just in..."ID Scientists Figure Out How Pigs Fly"

Big ass sling shot?
Half stick of dynamite?
Pig chunking air cannon?
Like a very large brick?

Re:(Not to be outdone)

[hotdiggitydawg]

This just in..."ID Scientists Figure Out How Pigs Fly"

You forgot to link to a relevant article, but I found one on that very topic that even the ID whackjobs could understand...

So....?

[Chabil Ha']

How does this put a nail in the coffin of ID? Could the ID's just simply say that we don't even know how 'x' works and their claim still hold true? But can't we all just play nice? Can't we just let people who believe in ID to do so, and those who don't stop whining that somebody could ever believe in that? I mean, I would think that our /. crowd would be the epitome of open mindedness and understanding.

Re:So....?

[Drachemorder]

Why does it even have anything to do with ID in the first place? ID merely says that the universe was designed, as opposed to having formed by random chance. That has no bearing at all on how any particular thing works, only on how it got there. Either way, the physical laws that allow the bee to fly are exactly the same and can be known.

The science in the article is good; it's a pity they had to throw in the gratutious creationist-bashing.

Re:So....?

[TheZax]

I don't think anyone is just "whining" about what ID people believe. I think the lash back is because ID people are trying to force schools to teach ID in science class. Which is quite a different thing...

Re:So....?

[slashname3]

But can't we all just play nice? Can't we just let people who believe in ID to do so, and those who don't stop whining that somebody could ever believe in that?

About the time the IDers stop trying to push this on all the kids in school. If they want to teach their kids ID in their own homes or in their churches then fine. No problem. But forcing ID on everyone elses kids in public schools in science class or biology class is where it becomes a problem. It would not be much of an issue if it was taught in a comparitive religion class or possibly in a philosophy class. But trying to teach this as an alternative to evolution is wrong.

Re:So....?

[MightyMartian]

I'm all for open-mindedness, except where my kids' education is at stake. I don't want a pack of religously-motivated kooks and liars trying to sneak their religious tenets across the door into the science class under the guise of pseudo-science.

Re:So....?

[Alsee]

ID merely says that the universe was designed

Actually the organized ID movement position is not merely that the universe was designed, but that even with an initial devine origin at the "big bang" that the process of evolution could not have produced the diversity and complexity of life we see today. The ID moment position is not mearly that God exists, it is the position for special Biblical Creationism with all of the different kinds of animals being specially created and inserted into the universe fully formed. It is only one or two steps removed from 6000 year Young Earth Creationism.

It was deliberately crafted as a stripped down "wedge" to reinsert literal Biblical Creationism back into US government-run highschool classrooms in direct response to a Supreme Court ruling that removed their explicit Biblical Creationism out of government run schools.

There is no conflict between evolution and God. It is the ID movment trying to impose some false choice of evolution vs God, with either supposedly disproving the other. The ID arguments trying to claim the impossibility of evolution or trying to claim a conflict between evolution and God generally aren't much better than the silly "bumlebee" argument.

Though I will agree that bringing ID into it was gratuitious. As pointless and counterproductive as a gratuitious comment ridiculing flat earthers.

-

Re:So....?

[Drachemorder]

You're probably quite right about the Intelligent Design movement. The way I interpret Intelligent Design and the way it's promoted by its proponents are probably completely different. And there are quite a few creationists who disagree with the ID movement on tactics. I don't really want creationism taught in government schools; I merely want people taught clearly that science only deals with the material. The argument as I see it is philosophical: science, by definition, does not admit the possibility of the supernatural. I don't have a problem with that, but I do wish that it were clearly and explicitly stated and drilled into everybody's head that science does not and cannot address the question of the supernatural; so if you choose to believe in God, you don't necessarily have to accept the conclusions of science. Make sure people know and understand that, then go ahead and teach the science.

Re:So....?

[Alsee]

We agree that students should understand what science is and isn't. However the problem with your arguments is the same as the problem with the warning stickers they tried to mandatate to subvert biology textbooks on evolution. It's not that there was anything technically wrong with the content of the stickers, it's that there was no reasonable or rational basis for them to target that arbitrary field of science. While they tried to sound reasonable and make reasonable arguments, the unreasonable motivation behind them is exposed and they become patently silly when redirected to any field other than biology.

I merely want people taught clearly that science only deals with the material.

Have you always had this nagging complaint about the way chemistry and gravity and mechanics and geology have always been taught?

Or did you just want some other particular field of science to be singled out for special treatment?

I do wish that it were clearly and explicitly stated and drilled into everybody's head that science does not and cannot address the question of the supernatural; so if you choose to believe in God, you don't necessarily have to accept the conclusions of science.

Perhaps science teachers should clearly and explicitly state that and drill it into students heads at the beginning of the astronomy class involving Galileo's sun centered solar system? So if you choose to believe in God, you don't necessarily have to accept the conclusions of science.

Or again, did you just want some other particular field of science to be singled out for special treatment?

The Church made that exact error back in the middle ages, and we all know how foolish that turned out. But the mainstream Christian church and the majority of Christians *aren't* currently making that mistake again. A vocal minority it trying to repeat that fiasco.

The curent position of mainstream Christian church, the official position of the Vatican, and the position of the majority of Christians, is that there is no conflict between the science of biology (evolution) and religion. No need to reject science because you believe in God.

The current position of science on God is that it has no position on God. That science does not address God because it is incapable of saying anything for or against the existance of God.

Mainstream Christians and mainstream science agree that there is no conflict. Some people are trying to push a false conflict and a false either-or choice.

Science explains the mechanism of the solar system (astronomy), science explains the mechanism of rainbows (optics), science the mechanism of the diversity of life (biology). None of them conflict with God. Anyone trying to single out biology is no better than trying to single out astronomy.

Anyone pushing evolution as some sort of evidence against God is very very foolish. Anyone who tries to reject observable testable physical reality, whether it's astronomy or biology, is equally foolish. Professional PhD biologists are not all atheists and they are not stupid and they are not evil. About 99.8% of experts in the field all accept evolution as the very foundation of their field because they have studied it and the evidence really is absolutely overwhelming. Even if we assume half of biologists are atheists and only look at Cristian biologists, that's still about 99.6% support for evolution among Christian professional biologists. Christian professional biologists who accept that evolution is God's chosen mechanism for creating His desired diversity of life just as they accept a sun centered solar system as His chosen mechanism for creating day and night and the seasons.

Evolution really is the mechanism by which life did and does diversify. It is the virtually indisputed position of Christian experts in the field.

The argument as I see it is philosophical: science, by definition, does not admit the possibility of the supernatural.

Are you suggecting that all

I must be slow

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because we understand how a bee flies, why does this mean there is no designer? I know how a computer works, so does that mean it must have evolved? I think the crux of the ID argument is that life is extremely complicated - as is demonstrated by how many things we don't understand ... and it is very hard to believe that all that intricate complication simply "happened" due to random chance.

Re:I must be slow

[alexborges]

Who said ANYTHING about random?

You need to go back and read your darwin laws toddler... go on now...

Re:I must be slow

[Anonymous Coward]

Who said ANYTHING about random?

Hmmm, so if it wasn't random, it was orchestrated? Are you are saying that the initial ingredients necessary to create life were assembled in just the right mix, under just the right conditions, and then some sort of stimulus (lightning, meteorite,???) was applied at just the right time and in just the right amount to get the whole life thing started, and this did not involve randomness? Or are you saying that if you take an infinitely large number of primordial soup puddles, some number of them will spawn life because it is possible for that to happen? If so, then this would truly be due to randomness (and statistics).

Further, once life is started, how does a creature/species develop some new ability, like the ability to fly? I thought the theory was that, through "random" mutations, creatures that were better suited to their environment survived and those less adapted perished. If not randomness, then what is the cause of these mutations? Are you saying these mutations aren't random? If not then someone/something is causing them, isn't that right?

Re:I must be slow

[Anonymous Coward]

Well for one, Charles Darwin did :-). Please go back at look at Law 5: Natural Selection.

Specifically, he suggested _random_ variations in specific members of a species as the means by which new 'canidate' traits could be added to a gene pool. Once a variation occurs in an organism, reproductive selection is the process by which that variation becomes a common trait or is culled out of the given gene pool.

Today, we assume these variations occur in the DNA molecules. Variations occur either through external influences (e.g., random mutations from radiation) or through random mixing of parental genes (occurs only in species with two sexes of course).

PS Please stop calling people names. You sound like a toddler when you do it.

Re:I must be slow

[Phillup]

Dude, random works.

Just takes longer, that's all...

Why bees fly?

[Anonymous Coward]

Uhh... they have wings, they flap them, they fly. Duh?

First the Chewbaca Defense, now the Bee Defense

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, so you take one statement, show it false, and that now somehow invalidates an entire set of theories? Hell, this is no better than the lame first grade "there is evil in the world so God must not exist" arguments. Please people, don't counter stupid statements by coming up with stupid reasons why the stupid statements are wrong (and don't call me on doing exactly the same thing ;)

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[Pyrowolf]

This story, or at least the summary, should most certainly be modded -1 Flamebait. As the parent noted, what kind of purpose does it serve by inserting some remark about Intellegent Design being put in the grave because they figured out how bees fly? And this a few stories after the griping post in regards to story moderation and conspiracy theories.

...Good grief.

Ignorance on the side of ID

[genrader]

If Intelligent Design proponents such as myself would actually read the Bible, there is no reason to say "LOL WELL GOD DID IT." Of course God did it. But wouldn't you like to know why, or how? The Bible also says to be ready to give every man an answer that has questions, and to prove that the Bible is true. Lastly, I, as an avid creationist, have never thought of not saying "LOL WELL GOD DID IT" in regards to bees flying. Of course there is an explanation. I, for one, have never read from a real credible creation-advocating science research center that there is no explanation to why bees fly other than "God made it that way."

Re:Ignorance on the side of ID

[alexborges]

Well if all creationists had this stance, id have no problem with them.

It becomes a problem when they try and call that Science, and actually attempt to teach the bible in a science classroom.

That is a big no-no. Im shure, from your own stance on creationism, that youll agree.

Re:Ignorance on the side of ID

[Anonymous Coward]

"I, for one, have never read from a real credible creation-advocating science research center[...]"

Yeah, nor have I.

Re:Ignorance on the side of ID

[genrader]

Of course I have a problem with teaching religion in the classroom. Implying religion, or anything else, is complete left up to the teacher, but unless it's a religion class then they shouldn't be taught straight up religion.

I do, however, think from much reading that evolution is quite flawed and that creation is very heavily supported, and creation is perfectly liable to be taught. The problem I have had with evolutionists in the past is that they disregard any creation evidence and look only at what fellow evolutionists see as "bad science" on the part of the Creationist, while never reading what they really should be.

I for one was an evolutionary thinker at one point, but I've since changed, but I won't say either side can't be 100% wrong because it simply can't be proven.

Re:Ignorance on the side of ID

[genrader]

And there is the kind of idiocracy that exists in the evolutionary world.

Re:Ignorance on the side of ID

[alexborges]

"...while never reading what they really should be."

Care to ellaborate on a couple of titles we should be reading to understand the arguments for creationism?

Re:Ignorance on the side of ID

[professionalfurryele]

I will second that, and can I add that I want them peer reviewed, in a respected journal? I'm familiar with one example that got utterly trashed after publication because it was utterly weak. Are there any decent examples or is all the "evidence" in pseudomystic pop 'sci' books?

Problem for ID?

[RoadDogTy]

Saying that ID hinges on occurences that can't be explained by science (like bees flying) is basically just setting up a straw man, there may be some ID'ers that hold to that but its definetely not essential for some sort of Intelligent Designer to exist. A truly Intelligent Designer would probably be more apt to design a world where everything is discoverable and explainable by rational thinkers practicing good science.

"Putting a nail in the coffin" (odd expression given that I don't think ID is really "in the coffin" so to speak, it seems a bit premature) IMHO would consistute proving some of the Irreducibly Complex Systems that ID'ers have raised to be reducible. After all, Darwin himself listed Irreducibly Complex Systems as a means of proving/disproving his theory.

This has nothing to do with ID

[MobyDisk]

News Bulletin: Scientists have now accurately determined the mass of Pluto, further proving that Pluto is not actually a God, but a planet. This adds one more nail into the coffin of Greek and Roman mythology.

WTF??? Why did the article even see a need to comment about the impact on this psuedoscience theory. The researchers looking into bee flight weren't doing it to disprove ID. It sounds like some pissed-off researcher, or perhaps a news reporter with an agenda, decided to throw in an off-hand comment about ID. It cheapens the research.

Why did the bee cross the road?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because that's where the stupidest write-up was.

Who cares about ID?

[aluminum_geek]

When scientific papers are being written about refuting ID, that bothers me immensely. Should we disscuss the fact that it does refure ID? Of course. But scientific papers should be discussing the research they did, specifically about the flight of bees. The purpose of these papers is exposition about their research. Within journals there are places to discuss the merits of theories and the implications of research.

I don't like the idea that the prime goal of the researchers was to refute ID. I like my scientists to be impartial. Research should be done to figure out how something happens, and let whatever the implications of that research be what they may be. If you can't seperate your feelings from your research, how can we possibly trust your research as being scientific?

I was interested in the fact that we figured out how bees fly, because I think it's interesting, not because I want to refute ID. I'm sure we could find a link to this that ISN'T about fighting intelligent design.

Re:Who cares about ID?

[dwayner79]

that is because these scientist's thesis always end in " ... which refutes ID."

"To prove the earth is round... which refutes ID."
"To prove the sky is blue... which refutes ID."
"To prove my crap is brown... which refutes ID."

It is a very un-scientific obsession.

intelligent design - in the eye of the beholder?

[scottripley]

(while coming solidly from the perspective that evolution is a sound scientific theory... and not necessarily a proponent of ID...)

if someone were to argue that DNA is a construct (that evolves) that is the product of intelligent design... is a possibility... no?

(i.e. science is striving to understand life processes... suppose one day we can assemble DNA and a cell from scratch and zap it into being... would that not provide evidence that intelligent design is a plausible theory?)

Obligatory...

[Cereal Box]

Still no cure for cancer yet.

Re:Obligatory...

[GungaDan]

Bullshit. There is an always has been a cure for cancer. It's called "death."

Nothing to do with ID...

[dwayner79]

OK... so there are people who site science as not being able to explain everything. Duh. That is obvious. We are still learning. The fact is ID is NOT BASED ON THIS.

Whether science is able to understand how everything in the universe works TODAY, they have still not undermined true ID theory. They have only explained how $diety did what He/She/It did. Origins of the earth have nothing to do with figuring out how Bees fly, but of course to those wanting everything to be a fight against Christianity, I suppose it does.

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[Marxist Hacker 42]

And actually, all it really proves is *why* we should teach intelligent design to schoolchildren: So that they can grow up to shoot down the stupider parts of the theory, thus leading to wonderful new aircraft and other inventions.

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[Anonymous Coward]

Intelligent Design is fundamentally flawed in that the people that believe in it actually don't fit into its own model, thus invalidating it. If Intelligent Design was a driving force behind nature, then it would've been markedly more intelligently designed than to only be a phenomena visible to people who are ultimately wrong. Intelligent Design is a man-made myth that fails to deal with the realities of what's around us and fails at the first hurdle because it can't even validate itself.

Murble... now I've confused myself. If you know what this means and can unravel it, please have a go...

Embarrasing

[Reality Master 101]

Jeez. What the hell is a science article doing crowing about "putting another nail in the coffin of ID"? Do articles about space crow about putting another coffin in the nail of the flat earth theory? Is it too much to ask that we please just show up school boards when necessary, but otherwise just ignore the ID loonies?

In any case, the ID folks don't typically use the "science can't explain everything" as their strongest argument. In fact, the bee thing gives them MORE ammunition. "The bees flight dynamics are so complex that only a creator could have designed it."

I understand the defensive impulse since ID has been coming out of the woodwork a lot lately, but sheesh. Stuff like this does NOT fight against them, it plays into their hands by legitimizing them as an "outlaw" theory. The best way to fight them is to not give them any more press than necessary.

Re:Embarrasing

[Reality Master 101]

putting another coffin in the nail of the flat earth theory

LOL. Oops...

Re:Embarrasing

[dwayner79]

"The bees flight dynamics are so complex that only a creator could have designed it."

Exactly.

Re:Embarrasing

[Anonymous Coward]

Do articles about space crow about putting another coffin in the nail of the flat earth theory?
                                  Yeah, but no one believes any longer the earth is flat, do they...?

Is it too much to ask that we please just show up school boards when necessary, but otherwise just ignore the ID loonies?

                                        Umm...so if we ignore the pink elephant in the corner of the room, he will go away, right?

Just what Taco was complaining about

[mi]

The story has such an introduction, that instead of discussing the scientific breakthrough, most of the posts are going to be on Intelligent Design...

Were the scientists really concerning themselves with spiting the ID advocates?.. If so, ID may be good for something afterall, but I strongly doubt it...

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[ackthpt]

So seriously...were these CalTech researchers purposed with finding one more way to discredit ID, or is that just the agenda of our story's submitter (and the original article's author)?

In TFA it addresses the old creationist argument that science couldn't explain bee flight. The author simply spun it to ID, nail in coffin, etc.

Teleportation explains how they always managet to be inside your car, even when the windows were all the way up.

Old news

[AC-x]

People in the ID community have said that we don't even know how bees fly ... We were finally able to put this one to rest.

"Finally able to put this one to rest"????

This taken from 1993!


Author: underdog
Text: Can you explain "how" it is that a bee is capable of flying?

Response #: 1 of 1
Author: ProfBill
Text: This is just an old engineering myth. There really is not a
problem understanding how bees fly. The muscles that move the wings down are
powerful enough to generated enough force to lift the weight of the bee. On
the downstroke, the wings are "feathered", that is turned vertically so that
moving up they do not generated a force down to undo all the work of lifting
the bee in the first place. Much like a rower turns the oar parallel to the
water on the return stroke, but perpendicular to the water to generate force
on the power stroke. It all adds up just fine. The real unanswered question
is how the bee's nervous system coordinates all this, especially the bit
about compensating for wind, turning, etc.


As far as I can see the only difference with this article is they've got a bit more detail on it, talk about sensationalist headlines!

Re:Old News

[EmagGeek]

"Nothing to see here folks--move along..."

Not unless you consider that I saw a 747 doing the breast stroke on my way home from work today...

Re:Old news

[Anonymous Coward]

"The real unanswered question
is how the bee's nervous system coordinates all this, especially the bit
about compensating for wind, turning, etc. "

Well, they're not all that good at it, which is why they're sometimes called BUMBLE bees!

Bizarro-world logic

[Peter Trepan]

Creationists: We don't know how bees fly, therefore Jehovah created them in their present state.

Scientists: Oh yes, we do. Therefore, they evolved from primitive replicators.

Me: (Smacks them both with a copy of The Baloney Detection Kit)

Re:Bizarro-world logic

[Quaoar]

I think you mean "balogna."

intelligent design...

[portwojc]

"When you do things right, people won't be sure if you did anything at all."

-Futurama

Re:intelligent design...

[brit74]

> "When you do things right, people won't be sure if you did anything at all."

Exactly right. BTW, did you know that I secretly prevented you from being in a car accident earlier today? I did it right, and that's why you never even knew I did anything at all.

(Ha! You can't prove I didn't.)

Can't We All Just Get Along?

[writerjosh]

I've always found it perplexing that the ID crowd and the Evolutionist crowd can never seem to get along. It seems to me that there is no real conflict of interest: is it not possible that God created evolution? That is to say, yes, there could have been an initial creator being, but he was smart enough to create a self-automating system of creation. He/she got the ball rolling, then just let it go. That seems to satisfy both camps if they just let it.

The ID crowd shouldn't be so naïve as to say that God is up there controlling the every movements of a bee's wings, but the Evolutionist crowd should be more open to the possibility that all things in the known world had a start initiated by intelligence rather than "it just magically happened." That's just as ingenuous as saying God just magically controls everything.

Re:Can't We All Just Get Along?

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems to me that there is no real conflict of interest: is it not possible that God created evolution?

Agreed, and the evolutionists should also be open to the possibility that humans were created by Santa Claus as a mechanism for giving presents to their children. It isn't an either or thing. Yes, we know that presents come from the parents, but did those parents come about by chance or did Santa Claus cause them to evolve? I just think that people should be open minded about it.

Re:Can't We All Just Get Along?

[scheming daemons]

but the Evolutionist crowd should be more open to the possibility that all things in the known world had a start initiated by intelligence

Sure.. but then the ID crowd needs to explain how something as complex as the intelligent designer came to be. What created the "intelligent designer"? Surely something is irreducibly complex as a being that could create the known universe must have had its own intelligent designer? No?

It's an endless circle that the ID crowd can't resolve, so they usually ignore.

Their typical answer, when pressed, is... "well.. God just is." No beginning, no end. Well then, why can't we equally say.. with exactly as much evidence.. the Universe just is. It's been an endless series of big-bang/expand/contract/big-bang-again forever.. that's as plausible as the "God just is" line.

A supreme being may exist.. No one can prove otherwise. But a supreme being is not necessary to explain the universe we live in.

Re:Can't We All Just Get Along?

[MrTester]

Actually no.
If you said that there was no conflist of interest between Creationists and Evolutionists I would agree. This is actually the Catholic Churches official stance. God created evolution. But ID specifically assumes that these systems are to complicated to have evolved on their own.

Thus ID and Evolution cannot both be correct.

Re:Can't We All Just Get Along?

[AlfredNilknarf]

All the "ID crowd" says is: There is evidence of design in nature.

That's it. No comment about who/what/whif about the designer.

Christians, however, beleive that God is the designer and that God was not created. Why do Christians beleive this? Because that is what the Bible says about God. I beleive what the Bible says - if you don't that's OK, you don't have to.

Re:Can't We All Just Get Along?

[brit74]

>I've always found it perplexing that the ID crowd and the Evolutionist crowd can never seem to get along. It seems to me that there is no real conflict of interest: is it not possible that God created evolution?

And a great number of people do take that position. (See Ken Miller's "Finding Darwins God".) There are some (like Dawkins) who want to say evolution disproves God's existence. And lots of ID advocates that use ID as a lever to *prove* God's existence. That's the problem here: ID advocates and creationists need their God to be necessary. Evolution means that God might exist and might not - which is clearly not good enough for many religious people.

> That seems to satisfy both camps if they just let it.

No, that satisfies a lot of evolutionists. (Most scientists identify themselves as "theistic evolutionists" which means that they believe God got things rolling using evolution.) That idea is hated by the ID and creationist crowd.

Re:Can't We All Just Get Along?

[nege]

While it could be possible that God created evolution, there is no scientific way to prove that he did. Or that he didn't. Therefore ID isn't science, its a faith based belief system. I would say that Science as a whole is NOT trying to prove or disprove that god exists or created the universe, though there are tons of grey areas where people with agendas will use the research / white papers of either side to make their own point.

Science wants to prove what is fact, using logic and methods that are sound and consistent. Pure faith based systems do not work into that mold, so I feel they ARE mutually exclusive (until Science can somehow prove the existence / nonexistence of God).

Re:Can't We All Just Get Along?

[maxume]

I'm not sure thinking evolution is a pretty good theory makes me part of the 'Evolutionist crowd', but my big problem with ID is that there is an active effort have it taught in biology classes, and it doesn't even resemble bad science. If people want to teach it in a theology class, or discuss it in a current events class, or anything else along those lines, fine, but let's don't pretend that intelligent design is a 'competing theory' with evolution.

Re:Can't We All Just Get Along?

[SchrodingersRoot]

As I see it, the problem stems from two different areas.

Firstly, a large portion of the (loudest of the) ID crowd seem to feel that evolution isn't an option, and that genesis is a literal account. There are, however, some that are willing to accept evolution as a directive of the creator's will.
The second area comes from the fact that they advocate the teaching of ID in school science classes, either as an alternative to evolution (in the former case), or as a motivation for evolution (in the latter). The problem therein is that science is based upon certain precepts, upon which ID is not founded.
Many or most in the Evolutionist camp (myself included) are very open to/proponents of the notion of a creator being the ultimate driving force behind the universe. Most of these (ibid), however, are vehemently against the teaching of that view in a scientific setting because there isn't a basis of scientific inquiry behind it.

So I agree with you that there's no fundamental disconnect between science and the concept of a creator as a designer. I do, however, think that they shouldn't be comingled as a discipline.

In my own, admittedly somewhat biased view, the problem stems primarily from an ignorance of the nature and state of science. A problem that'll only be exacerbated by the dilution of scientific instruction.

Re:Can't We All Just Get Along?

[Mr_Huber]

Perhaps it is because they are attempting to replace evolution, a well established branch of biology, with ID, a religious argument and very poor proof of God?

From your post, it appears you are not arguing against evolution, but abiogenesis - the process by which life arose to the point evolution could operate. While we do not have a good scientific theory of what happened, there has been a good deal of progress and the science is far from "it just magically happened". Processes by which amino acid and cell wall precursors arise naturally have been discovered. From there, our understanding is hazy, but there still is nothing that precludes natural explanations.

Scientists do not accept "it just magically happened" as an argument, as magic falls outside of natural explanations. Nor should scientists be forced to discard promising lines of research into abiogenesis to satisfy the religious needs of a particular subset of some religion. Nor should a group of religiously insecure Biblical literalists be allowed to force there way into the science classroom.

This is not being elitist, it is insisting that everything in the science classroom adhere to the rules of science. ID is not science. Were we to lower the bar enough to allow ID in, we'd also be forced to allow astrology, numerology and divination via the entrails of slaughtered sheep. And personally, I think bio class is messy enough without the latter.

Re:Can't We All Just Get Along?

[bhima]

Most emphatically NO.

ID exists exclusively as, and was created for, a tool to aid religious fundamentalists to do only a few things:

      Violate the constitution of the United States of America
      Cast doubt in the minds of young people in the fundamental working of the sciences
      Become the thin end of the wedge for the eventual goals of various forms of Christian Reconstructionism.

ID has no basis in fact or reality.
ID did not spring from spiritual thought but rather as a response to legal setbacks
The religious extremists who promote ID repetitively have lied, deceived, cajoled, threatened, and even perjured themselves in their efforts to discredit science and get ID in the class room.

I am all for religious tolerance and I am religious myself, but I absolutely will not tolerate dishonest and unethical religious extremists and I'm honestly outraged at the suggestion that I should.

Having said all of that the ID comment in the submission is inappropriate but I can understand the sentiment.

Re:Can't We All Just Get Along?

[kindbud]

That seems to satisfy both camps if they just let it.

Except that the other camp won't. IDers want this crap to be taught as science. You have to oppose that, or else, who will?

Re:Can't We All Just Get Along?

[Anonymous Coward]

Terry Pratchett, in The Last Continent, descrbes The God of Evolution:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discworld_gods#God_of _Evolution

This actually make MORE sense then ID, as far as I'm concerned.

Re:Can't We All Just Get Along?

[Moofie]

That's the sales pitch. That is not what ID proponents believe, though.

Re:Can't We All Just Get Along?

[TedTschopp]

ID is about Power, political Power. The sad thing is that when a Christian body starts to concern itself with political power, it is quickly becoming something other than a Christian body.

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. C.S. Lewis

Re:Can't We All Just Get Along?

[Vellmont]

Evolutionist crowd should be more open to the possibility that all things in the known world had a start initiated by intelligence rather than "it just magically happened." That's just as ingenuous as saying God just magically controls everything.


Ahh yes, the god of the gaps argument. Carefull with that one, because science tends to close those gaps. That's why this whole nonsense even started because some people chose to look for god in the gaps of knowledge. Science has closed that gaps in the case of evolution, and now we've got all these whiners whose religion is threatened. Sorry about that, maybe try a better religion next time? The Cathlogic church was pretty pissed too when Galileo found out the Earth revolved around the sun, and not the other way around. They eventually got over it though.

I suggest to the religious crowd that they stay out of the "explaining natural phenonmenon" business, as you've proven so very very bad at it. Maybe you should stay inside the more traditional roles of religion, like say morality. Not that people have been really happy with what religion has come up with their either.. but at least you can't be provably wrong.

Re:Can't We All Just Get Along?

[Sp00nMan]

Thank you for your comment! I finally found someone else that shares my beliefs. I certainly believe that both creationism and evolution can be hand-in-hand. Heck.. God could have been the one that made the two apes have a little hairless baby! The only problem I have with some creationists is their belief in the whole "Genesis should be taken literally". I keep trying to explain to them that God (or Moses) probably had to put the events the old testament into "baby" terms, much like if you had to explain to a 2 year old how quantum physics work. Things need to be very simple. God couldn't have just said "Hey, I created these creatures out of molecules, carbon, etc, and created these things called "organs" that do specific functions" etc. He could just say "I created Man, and then Woman, and it was good. Yea!" :)

I also think of the belief of not eating pork by Jewish folk. I keep trying to say "HEY! Your Father knew better back in the day to let you eat meat that could make you really, really sick. So he said "Do not eat the meat of pigs!" rather than trying to explain what "bacteria" was and such.

Now a days we know how to clean pigs, and meat, etc.. so have at the BBQ!

That was probably more that $0.02, so I'll make it a buck thirty-five.

Re:Can't We All Just Get Along?

[Sp00nMan]

Yes, but science is all technically "theories" as well. Just because we *think* we know how to date something, doesn't mean we get the right answer. Heck, science disproves itself every year, changing some previous thought out "solution" to a new one. For example, for years science said that ulcers were caused by stress and/or increased stomach acid. Then one day (I believe about 6 months ago), a group of scientists found that they are actually caused by bacteria! So now bacteria is the "theory", and give it 5 more years and they will say it's something else.

Re:Can't We All Just Get Along?

[Burning1]

Evolution undermines God. The fact that things can progress, change, and grow without an greater force to guide them brings into question the initial existance of god. 'We can't prove that god created the universe, however we can prove that the universe can't exist without a god. Therefore god must have created the universe.'

Re:Can't We All Just Get Along?

[sonicdevo]

I think that reason that these two groups will never get along is that there are a large amount of people in either camp that are zealots about their beliefs. Each are secure in their worldview and don't want it to be threatened in the slightest. There are ignorant people on either side, and there are honest people on either side. But we would all do well to remember that these are fallible, flawed people participating in this discussion. Attempt to be one of the least flawed, and be willing to accept that you may be wrong and all of us will be better for it.

Re:Can't We All Just Get Along?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, we'll all get along just fine ... in a few million years. Because that's how long it will take survival of the fittest to eradicate these good-fer-nuttin' ID neanderthals, who wouldn't even recognize a scientific fact if it was used to bludgeon their hollow craniums.

Re:Can't We All Just Get Along?

[Mojojojo Monkey Inc.]

Yet Intelligent Design isn't even close to being a Theory. Its proponents state "This is the way it is, because God (or rather, we) say so, and there is no opportunity for debate." I'm sick of idiots like you saying that because scientists in the past had incorrect theories, that there's no point in trying to devise more accurate explanations, because Oh No, it'll just be disproven 5 years from now!

Scientific theories are always open for debate -- some will be updated & revised, some will be thrown out and replaced with better and more accurate theories, and some will be around forever. Each new advance, even if not 100% "The Truth", brings about better technology, medicine, etc. Science is about the search for better and more accurate answers to How and Why. ID states "We already know How (God did it) and Why (because He wanted to, don't question it!), no reason to continue learning, go spend your free time at Church."

Re:Can't We All Just Get Along?

[littleRedFriend]

Re:Can't We All Just Get Along?

BECAUSE evolution theory has (not yet??) been the cause of wars with millions and millions of death. Evolution theory doesn't want to make me blow up myself in a bus full of people, with the promise of paradise and 70 virgins. Because evolution has hard scientific evidence behind it, and ID is just religious fanatics talking. Science is not a religion.

Re:Can't We All Just Get Along?

[Anonymous Coward]

I've always found it perplexing that the ID crowd and the Evolutionist crowd can never seem to get along.
You say that as if responsibility lies with both parties. This isn't some mutual misunderstanding that can be worked out. Religion is trying to get itself injected into public school science classes. Yet scientists are not demanding evolution be taught in Sunday schools. Scientists aren't going before church officials saying they should get "equal time" in the church pulpit. The "evolution crowd" is not the problem. Going on about how science and religion each have their place and they should just get along blah blah blah is a waste of time. Science already acknowledges and respects religion and religious teachings and leaves it alone in it's venues. Religion OTOH is very expansionist, and is not content with just being preached to the willing in homes and churches by parents and priests. Religion wants to hijack the public school system and use tax dollars to soften up the minds other peoples children in a forum religion doesn't belong in, that the children can't just leave, and nonconsenting parents can't easily pull them out of. What's more many of the people leading the ID movement know damned well their crap isn't science, but they don't care. They aren't interested in getting along or working things out, they just want to spread their propaganda and don't care who they trample on doing it.

Spare us all the Rodney King platitudes. Both sides will get along when organized religion stops trying to overstop it's bounds.

Re:Can't We All Just Get Along?

[Paul Slocum]

I interpreted the poster to be talking about the origin of the universe itself (not life).

Re:Can't We All Just Get Along?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is what I've been thinking for a long time. I believe in ID, but I don't disbelieve evolution. I see lots of common ground too. Thanks!

Re:Can't We All Just Get Along?

[jc42]

Heck, science disproves itself every year, changing some previous thought out "solution" to a new one.For example, for years science said that ulcers were caused by stress and/or increased stomach acid. Then one day (I believe about 6 months ago), a group of scientists found that they are actually caused by bacteria!

Actually, the stress theory was never scientific. It was a medical myth, repeated in medical texts but never tested in any way. It was disproved by a scientific researcher who saw some suspicious evidence and decided to investigate. After he showed that Helicobacter causes ulcers, people went back to the medical literature and said "Hey, whaddaya know; there is no published study showing a causative relation between stress and ulcers. I guess that theory was never scientific at all."

Medicine is full of myths like this, mostly because people demand that doctors be all-knowing, and doctors want their patients to feel good, so they go along with the myths even if they know that they don't really know.

Most new scientific theories don't replace previous scientific theories. Rather, they replace beliefs that had never been properly tested. Typically the scientific answer had been "Further research is needed", i.e., "We don't really know".

One of the main differences between scientists and religions is that scientists are expected to admit that they don't know. Instead of just guessing and then insisting that their guess is right, scientists are supposed to say "Further research is needed" and apply for grants to figure out what's really going on.

Re:Can't We All Just Get Along?

[Persol]

All the "ID crowd" says is: There is evidence of design in nature.
That's nice and all... really.

Unfortunately this 'evidence of design' doesn't actually exist. ID proponents consider anything that we don't currently understand as 'evidence of design.' That logic is about as flawed as possible.

Re:Can't We All Just Get Along?

[a-singularity]

Well then, why can't we equally say.. with exactly as much evidence.. the Universe just is.

You certainly can. It is, however, not science. Welcome to faith.

Re:Can't We All Just Get Along?

[Anonymous Coward]

All the "ID crowd" says is: There is evidence of design in nature.

That's it. No comment about who/what/whif about the designer.

But you see that is not "it". Your solution isn't a solution at all;

Who designed the designer? And who designed him(/her)?

Re:Can't We All Just Get Along?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is offtopic, but I thought one thing you said deserved a reply.

You said you won't tolerate dishonest and unethical religious extremists; now I don't know what religion you hold, but I would suggest that you really *must* tolerate them - don't condone them, even fight their (IMO) delusions, but do tolerate them - otherwise you lose your own ground.

Regards,
AC.

Re:Can't We All Just Get Along?

[Anonymous Coward]

Read Sir James Fraser. He proves that God evolved.

Re:Can't We All Just Get Along?

[joto]

I've always found it perplexing that the ID crowd and the Evolutionist crowd can never seem to get along.

To make it straight, it's the ID crowd that can't get along. They are the one with an agenda. The evolutionist-"crowd" is everyone else with rational beliefs. This includes most christians (including most protestants and catholics (and every pope for the last 50 years or so)).

It seems to me that there is no real conflict of interest: is it not possible that God created evolution? That is to say, yes, there could have been an initial creator being, but he was smart enough to create a self-automating system of creation. He/she got the ball rolling, then just let it go.

No, that conflicts with the ID crowd, because in reality they are creationists, not someone who merely believes in "intelligent design".

That seems to satisfy both camps if they just let it.

Clearly it doesn't. It conflicts with other beliefs, such as the earth being 5000 years old, water-canopy theory, that the speed of light is slowing down, and other ridiculous ideas the creationists have spawned. And it also conflicts with just as silly beliefs the ID-crowd still speaks loudly about, such as "irreducable complexity", the difference between "micro" and "macro"-evolution, and so on... In short, they are the one with an agenda!

The ID crowd shouldn't be so naïve as to say that God is up there controlling the every movements of a bee's wings,

Yes, the ID crowd should stop beliving silly things. More importantly, they should stop saying their silly beliefs have anything to do with science.

but the Evolutionist crowd should be more open to the possibility that all things in the known world had a start initiated by intelligence rather than "it just magically happened." That's just as ingenuous as saying God just magically controls everything.

Nobody in the evolutionist-"crowd" is saying "it just magically happened". They are saying that life evolves, most likely from a common single source, although they haven't been able to find a good candidate. Stuff gets tricky when you try to find out what happened millions of years ago, and so on...

Common hypotheses for the origins of life among evolutionists is that life may have come to earth from space (which doesn't really help), that it came about spontaneously in some way (of which there are several unconvincing theories), or even that God created it (although that isn't a testable hypothesis either, and thus has little to do with science).

To conclude: Saying that the ID-crowd and evolutionst-crowd should both moderate their beliefs, is just as silly as saying that both Germany and the allies should both have moderated their beliefs before WW2. In either case, it's pretty clear which side wanted the conflict most.

Re:Can't We All Just Get Along?

[AlfredNilknarf]

Yes that is it - as far as ID is concerned - it does not try to explain everything just as Evolution does not try to explain how the Universe could exist in the first place. There are other theories that deal with that.

You can subscribe to the theory of Intelligent Design whether you beleive that Goh, Allah or a superior alien race is responsible. You could be an Atheist and beleive in Intelligent Design.

Likewise, you can subscribe to the theory of Evolution if you are an Atheist, Agnostic or Christian.

It disturbs me that most critics of Intelligent Design try to pretend that it is something that it is not in order to criticize it. It is a theory that has nothing to do directly with Christianity.

If you want to talk about WHO the Designer is - this is not covered in ID. It is however covered in Christianity. As a Christian I beleive that nobody designed the Designer - that God always existed and was never created - again I beleive this because that is what the Bible says about God.

Re:Can't We All Just Get Along?

[Sp00nMan]

Well, actually I believe everything is theories. We really shouldn't be so arrogant as people to think we have the answers to everything, regardless if it's religion or science. They both are different ways of explaining things. Neither is "right".

what nail?

[bLindmOnkey]

erm. I don't see how this puts the "final nail in the coffin" for ID. We discovered how bees fly-not how they weren't created by some force other than evolution. whoopdeedoo.

OK,

[venicebeach]

Fine, you win on this one, science.

But I'd like to see them figure out how the Flying Spaghetti Monster flies.

Re:OK,

[stud9920]

He uses his noodly appendage to suspend Intelligent Falling.

Re:OK,

[littleRedFriend]

Yes yes yes, very funny. Please mod parent up !!!!! FUNNY +5 seriously.

Reports one scientist...

[Digital Vomit]

Reports one scientist...

"It was so obvious all along! They flap their wings!"

Seriously

[INester]

"People in the ID community have said that we don't even know how bees fly," Altshuler said. They have? I always thought ID folks were more concerned with the development of the wing (which evolution really cannot explain) then with "how something flies" But you tech heads run amuck and bash the "rational thinking is not possibly capable of a 100% explanation in this Sensory driven and corruptable world" folks like me

Re:Seriously

[Anonymous Coward]

Evolution is a process, not an explanation.

Just because we have not fully documented the development of the wing does not suddenly invalidate the theory of evolution or marvelously endorse ID as the explanation.

This is like saying the laws of physics did not exist until we documented and understood what they were.

Re:Seriously

[INester]

Heres the rub... while it will admittedly be difficult to document the development of the wing, there is no evolutionary cause to develop "part of the wing" comparing the "law of physics" to evolution is indeed why we have this problem in the first place.

Re:Seriously

[narcolepticjim]

Just like "part of an eye is useless," right? Bullshit. What about an organism that has one or two cells that turn up sensitive to light? Can you not imagine that a simple organism with the tiniest bit of distinction between light and dark has an advantage over a similar, but completely "sight"less organism?

Oh, and flying squirrels only have "part of a wing," and they use it to their advantage.

Re:Seriously

[INester]

Wait... Part of an eye isn't useless?

I read the same article as you did that showed that pompous ass from harvard or yale or wherever... but oh wait, was not he making the same "logical jump" as the IDers by saying "there must be cells that are photosensitive to light that eventually evolved into an eye"

I do look forward to the evolution of winged squirrels though!

Re:Seriously

[narcolepticjim]

Sorry, I didn't read the same article; I was misquoting from memory of Richard Dawkins.

I think to say "there must be" isn't a logical jump. I can look at you and say you must have had grandparents, although I've certainly never met them. We know that there were creatures on earth hundreds of millions of years ago. We know some of them had pretty primitive eyes (trilobytes had rigid calcite lenses instead of soft lenses like ours). Making the observation that vision followed the same path of differentiation and specialization as other organs isn't that much of a stretch.

Not nearly of a stretch as a magical being who gets really pissed if you don't burn the right incense at the temple, IMHO.

Re:Seriously

[INester]

"Making the observation that vision followed the same path of differentiation and specialization as other organs isn't that much of a stretch." Agreed... I think our real difference of opinion lies in the "stretch" of photosensitive cells >> a fully developed eye. You don't see it as that much of a stretch, just like I don't see the obvious holes in the fossil record being filled by an intelligent designer as a stretch. The "non "evangelical- bible thumping" I.D. crowd onlyreally differs with your viewpoint in that you believe something can only be proven by reproducable demonstration... I believe things can be proven by pointing out what things ARE NOT (negation) Nice arguing with you though :)

Double stupidity

[LordOfYourPants]

1) The article is stupid for mentioning anti-intelligent design stuff over and over. Tell us about the discovery in the article and save the anti-religious commentary for people that get off on arguing this shit over and over elsewhere.

2) Intelligent design people are stupid for ever making the argument that since scientists can't understand natural/common phenomenon X that God designed the world. Are there really people out there saying this about the bees? I haven't gone out looking for it myself and consider myself lucky I don't have friends that would make this argument in front of me.

I don't think there's much more to say. Just lots of stupidity to go around on *both* sides.

The Original Story

[Anonymous Coward]

The original story, for those who haven't heard it, has nothing to do with ID.
It is said, that by all the laws of aerodynamics, bumblebees shouldn't be able to fly. They should, rather, plummet. Instead, because the bumblebee is unaware of this, it continues to fly. Sounds a lot like cartoon physics (An object will remain at rest until made aware of its situation), but i have no doubt that a few coders have discovered this fact. It works until you are made aware that it shouldn't.

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[Philip K Dickhead]

Yeah, well I misread the title at first. I was intrigued at the prospect of discovering how beers fly!

Glad that is cleared up...

[UOZaphod]

Good to know that the only leg ID had to stand on was the lack of knowledge scientists had about the way bees fly.

Step 1) Discover the way bees fly.
Step 2)
Step 3) ID is dead

Well duh!

[adolfojp]

Bees fly by flapping their wings!
Next question please, and where is my grant money?

Cheers,
Adolfo

Last nail in the coffin, sorry but no

[raider_red]

ID is an ideological position, and has nothing to do with scientific evidence. The people who advocate it will continue to advocate it, regardless of mountains of evidence.

By the same token, those who oppose it have also taken an ideological position, and will probably oppose it even if a Made By God sign miraculously appears in the sky in full view of everyone.

Let's treat this for what it is: a cool scientific discovery with some really fantastic applications.

New aircraft?

[bcattwoo]

The scientists said the findings could lead to a model for designing aircraft that could hover in place and carry loads for many purposes such as diaster surveillance after earthquakes and tsunamis.

Imagine that, an aircraft that could hover in place? We could come up with some crazy name for them like autogyros or even helicopters. In addition to helping people, they may even have applications in killing them as well!

Ha ha ha!

[Anonymous Coward]

"I would think that our /. crowd would be the epitome of open mindedness and understanding."

Too rich! :-D

decidedly unscientific

[mtrupe]

To openly declare that intelligent design is not even possible is decidely unscientific. That is all.

Re:decidedly unscientific

[Anonymous Coward]

How so?

Re:decidedly unscientific

[dwayner79]

It would have to be disproven... this is not possible.

Flying Pigs....

[Anonymous Coward]

Pigs do fly...

Blue and White helo's :P the Intelligent Designer has given these particular beasts search lights, radios and FLIR's.

Now if you don't believe in ID try having the average scientist design a flying pig...er helo :P

Talk about stirring the pot....

[StressGuy]

We were talking about how bees fly back when I was in college (clap-fling motion or whatever). Pulling intellegent design into this one seems just a bit awkward, almost as if you are trying to steer the commentary in that direction.

weak....

Nails in the coffin?

[d3cr33p]

Researchers at CalTech have discovered how bees fly, putting one more nail in the coffin of Intelligent Design.

I don't follow the logic. This is like figuring out how a car engine works and coming to the conclusion that there are no engineers.

stupid design

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a lot of dumb & broken stuff out there. Who designed that?

Altshuler said.

[Andy Gardner]

"They work like racing cars," Altshuler said. "Racing cars can reach higher revolutions per minute but enable the driver to go faster in higher gear. But like honeybees, they are inefficient."

Ohhhhhh, now I understand....

Can someone explain this?

[complexmath]

In order to understand how bees carry such heavy cargo, the researchers forced the bees to fly in a small chamber filled with a mixture of oxygen and helium that is less dense than regular air. This required the bees to work harder to stay aloft and gave the scientists a chance to observe their compensation mechanisms for the additional toil.

The bees made up for the extra work by stretching out their wing stroke amplitude but did not adjust wingbeat frequency.

Okay, so as load increases bees beat their wings harder, not faster. Seems reasonable. They're probably built in such a way as either to optimize efficiency at a specific frequency or perhaps they simply can't beat their wings at any other frequency for some structural reason.

"They work like racing cars," Altshuler said. "Racing cars can reach higher revolutions per minute but enable the driver to go faster in higher gear. But like honeybees, they are inefficient."

So why is this design inefficient? The bee may perform more work per wing beat, but shouldn't it perform the same work per unit of time? And what about the comparison to car transmissions? If higher RPMs were more efficient wouldn't cars be designed differently? Also, if this design is inefficient, why would we model hovering planes after it? We've already got helicopters, after all.

No Bearing

[tsotha]

I'm not a supporter of ID, but this article doesn't bear on the argument. The point was "it's so complicated we can't understand it, so how could it possibly have evolved?" This discovery only changes the question to "it was so complicated we didn't understand it until 2006, so how could it possible have evolved?"

It would have had much more to say for evolution if they'd shown how bees evolved flight, but there's no indication of that in the article.

What I don't understand is why so many people who believe in "intelligent design" think any process not simple enough for us to understand readily can't be the product of evolution. I don't see any logical connection.

Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

I was unaware that IDists were using this as an arugment for intelligent design. To say that there is no scientific explanation for something simply because science hasn't found one yet is the height of ignorance.

I believe that God designed that bee, sure. There's no evidence for or against the fact that there is a God and that he planned this stuff (the only argument can really be over what process his creating took). I have the right to believe that there's a God, and I have the right to be wrong (if, in fact, I am), but it would surely be nothing more than stupidity to say that God just makes stuff happen. It isn't God that's making that bee fly, it's the bee. It's flying, and there's a reasonable answer for how it does it. Even the Bible says that God is "abundant in dynamic energy." The implication there is that he uses energy to make matter. I don't believe he blinked his eyes and BAM there's the Earth. He created things uses a scientifically explainable process. We just don't know exactly how... yet.

And to say we never will just because we don't right now is just plain dumb.

Forget Intelligent Design

[kaizenfury7]

This is a serious blow to Flying Spaghetti Monsterism! We must rethink His Noodly Appendage and engage in a serious discussion as to what the Appendage does and doesn't do. Apparently It doesn't hold bees up in the air and swing them.

Seriously though, what's the point of mentioning Intelligent Design in the article. It's like bragging that you have two apples compared to another person's one orange. Sure you have two apples, but...well, I'm too lazy to continue the analogy, but this reminds me I need to go to the grocery store.

Birds do it

[Uncle Op]

... bees do it. Even educated fleas do it. Let's do it.

Let's learn to fly!

But what I really want is to fill in the "gaps" that most "intelligent" ID folk also point out as a flaw to evolution and a boon to ID. While I don't have any bone to pick with some one who wants to believe in an ultimate engineer - and sometimes I waver that way myself - it's just not science. Martin Gardiner's essays - I'm thinking of those in The Night is Large, but there are other examples - show that an intelligent individual can think both scientifically and still believe in something more than "just" evolution.

It's the difference between science and philosophy.

What?

[drsquare]

It's taken them this long? I've known how bees fly all along: THEY'VE GOT WINGS. Can I get millions in grant money now?

Slashdot - Proving God....

[N8F8]

Slashdot - Proving God....is a farce.

Is that the new motto around here? Find a new horse to beat beside ID and Bush.

Re:Slashdot - Proving God....

[Jeian]

If I had modpoints, you'd be +1 now.

Re:Slashdot - Proving God....

[linuxrunner]

Same here... Mod this bad boy up...

Same old tired crap. How about just the NEWS.. and let us decide?

Re:Slashdot - Proving God....

[Anonymous Coward]

Find a new horse to beat beside ID and Bush.

But they both just make it so damned easy!

Re:Slashdot - Proving God....

[Anonymous Coward]

ID (the political movement and its liars) deserve all the ridicule and contempt they get.

God of the Gaps

[ThinkFr33ly]

Statements like "we don't even know how bees fly" are used to justify all sorts of "alternatives" to scientific explanations of the natural world.

These kinds of defenses are often referred to as "god of the gaps" arguments.

Since we don't know how bees fly, God must have done it.

While I'm certainly happy that we now know how bees fly (I'm sure there are lots of reasons this will be useful as well), it is definitly not required to put any "nails in the coffin" of intelligent design.

Intelligent Design was still born.

We now know how bee's fly...

[Anonymous Coward]

But can they tell us how the spaghetti monster flies?

a Nail in ID's coffin

[spacemky]

The real argument for ID isn't that we don't understand how bees fly, thus God must have invented it. Its the fact that something dumb cannot make something intelligent. It takes something very intelligent to make bees fly. It took researchers at a university a long time using very sophisticated equiment just to figure out bee flight. Sure bees probably evolved over time to their present state, but even the process of evolution takes a level of intelligence not possible to random chance.

Re:a Nail in ID's coffin

[narcc]

Sure bees probably evolved over time to their present state, but even the process of evolution takes a level of intelligence not possible to random chance.

Could you explain further? I honestly don't understand.

Not evidence against ID

[Combatjuan]

I know there is a lot of pent-up frustration in the scientific community about Intelligent Design, but really, understanding how bees fly is completely unrelated to ID. I'm disturbed at how an exciting discovery in the fields of biology and aerodynamics can result in a random lashing out against ID rather than dialog about what this means to us. I'm dissappointed that slashdot has so far had so few responses regarding the science and applications of this new found knowledge and instead has just attacked ID. This is schoolyard behavior.

Yes. I understand that those supporting ID have used this as an example of how we don't have a complete understanding of the universe. But this isn't a 'nail in the coffin' of ID for three simple reasons. Listen closely:
1.) This is not evidence against ID nor is it evidence for creation or intelligent design or the fact that Macs suck or that Pepsi is better than Coke or any other controversial subject. ID states that the bee was designed, evolution says that it evolved. This doesn't favor the one over the other.
2.) There are an infinite number of things that we don't understand about the universe or the particular field of biology, so understanding this one more really makes no actual difference. Proponents of ID can simply pick any number of other things we don't understand as use it as an example of no one has yet formulated a complete understanding of the universe.
3.) Intelligent Design is stated in such a way that it cannot be scientifically disproven. HINT: That's why it's not science. That's WHY it can't be taught in science class. If claim that by using science you have somehow "driven a nail into it's coffin" then you infer that it is in fact falsifiable. As it it typically stated, it is not.

So mod me how you like, but please, let's not make false claims about ID to make our selves feel better, and let's not lose sight of the real meaning of this discovery.

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[springbox]

It makes sense if you read the article:

"People in the ID community have said that we don't even know how bees fly," Altshuler said. "We were finally able to put this one to rest. We do have the tools to understand bee flight and we can use science to understand the world around us."

And I'm not surprised to see real scientists getting ticked off about this particular group of people whose ideas and actions can often be characterized as ridiculous or at least irrational.

Newton's Second Law of Thermodynamics

[eldavojohn]

I've had many arguments with ID proponents.

I've had to refute time and again Newton's Second Law of Thermodynamics which states that entropy in a closed system can never decrease. They like to use this as an argument as to why organisms couldn't evolve. In order to agree with this, you have to acknowledge that organisms are very orderly (which I don't believe we are). And you also have to believe that this law holds true on the grand scale of the universe as well as the molecular level (for which it was intended).

What I'm trying to say here is that if they can throw this crap at me, they certainly could dream up the ability to stump me. A proposed argument that I know everything could simply result in:

IDist: What are we made of?
Me: Cells.
Idist: What are the cells made of?
Me: Atoms.
Idist: What are the atoms made of?
Me: Electrons, protons & neutrons.
Idist: And what are those made of?
Me: Superstrings I guess.
Idist: And what are Superstrings made of?
etc.

So you can see it only takes a five year old asking "Why" repeatedly to illustrate the cunondrum.

Re:Newton's Second Law of Thermodynamics

[Anonymous Coward]

1) The Earth is not a thermodynamically closed system. It receives a constant influx of energy from the Sun. The existence of life presents no conflict with any law of thermodynamics.

2) Science never claims to know everything. Opponents of science often think this is true, but they are mistaken. In science, there is nothing wrong with saying "I don't know," which is probably the safest response you could make when asked what particles exist below the thresholds of our instruments.

Re:Newton's Second Law of Thermodynamics

[Mr_Huber]

Idist: And what are Superstrings made of?
etc.

But you're so close!!

me: Ripples in 11 dimesional hyperspace.
Idist: But what are ripples in 11 dimesional hyperspace made of?
me: Geometry.
Idist: But what is geometry made of?
me: Riemann's work in multidimensional geometry.
Idist: But what is Riemann's work in multidimensional geometry made of?
me: Riemann's head.
Idist: But what is Reynman head made of?
me: Cells.

Ha! Looped!

Re:Newton's Second Law of Thermodynamics

[eldavojohn]

1) The Earth is not a thermodynamically closed system. It receives a constant influx of energy from the Sun. The existence of life presents no conflict with any law of thermodynamics.

The argument would then follow that they were referring to our solar system as a closed system. Or, if you like, the entire universe as a closed system. We are existing in the universe, afterall.

Perhaps I could then say that the proposed entropy that decreased here only did so because entropy elsewhere severely increased? Thus maintaining a rising level of entropy in the closed system. *shrugs*

Re:Newton's Second Law of Thermodynamics

[at_18]

which states that entropy in a closed system can never decrease. They like to use this as an argument as to why organisms couldn't evolve.

That argument is very weak. The Earth is not a closed system. There's that big ball of gas calling the Sun which sends us 1 kilojoule per second per square meter since five billion years ago. That's a lot of energy.

Re:Newton's Second Law of Thermodynamics

[Ruff_ilb]

The second law of thermodynamics is always true - that's why it's a law. It's true on any scale.

But the key is that entropy in a closed system can never decrease.

The earth is not a closed system.

Re:Newton's Second Law of Thermodynamics

[tompaulco]

I figure that the universe IS a closed system, and that all of the entropy that existed at the beginning of time was manifested in the big bang, prior to which point, science asserts that all of the energy and matter (but they are both the same, no?) existed at a single point. I figure, when the entropy of the universe runs out, bye-bye universe. Meanwhile, local increases in entropy are certainly possible.

Re:Newton's Second Law of Thermodynamics

[Peter S. Housel]

Granville Sewell, a mathematics professor who certainly understands the laws of thermodynamics, refutes this oft-heard argument in a recent article and in his new DiffEq textbook.

Re:Newton's Second Law of Thermodynamics

[Anonymous Coward]

The second law of thermodynamics is always true - that's why it's a law. It's true on any scale.

Crap. Nobody's found any instances in which it isn't true. That's as much as we know.

One more nail, not all of the nails needed

[beforewisdom]

"Researchers at CalTech have discovered how bees fly, putting one more nail in the coffin of Intelligent Design. From the article: 'People in the ID community have said that we don't even know how bees fly ... We were finally able to put this one to rest. We do have the tools to understand bee flight and we can use science to understand the world around us.'"

It may be one more nail in the coffin of "Intelligent Design" ( the spin term for "creationism" ), but that coffin will never be nailed shut until science finds a cheap cure for cognitive dissonance that can be administered involuntarily and on a mass scale

Re:One more nail, not all of the nails needed

[NardofDoom]

There is a cure: Education. Unfortunately, poorly administered it can also be a catalyst for further cognitive dissonance.

I didn't RTFA, but

[ZipR]

I'd guess it's because of their wings. (Just a guess from a total nonscientist.)

US bores me to tears on some days

[Anonymous Coward]

What the hell does this have to do with Intelligent Design? Nothing.

Why make a pointless connection? Bemusingly: There is *no intelligent reason* for doing so.

And worse yet... it's not just the submitter being stupid. The article starts off with ID blather.

If self-obsession were a disease, North America would be the largest recipient of foreign aid...

Re:US bores me to tears on some days

[TomHandy]

Here is just one example of an Intelligent Design/creationism source that uses "bee flight" as an example of how it must have been designed by an intelligent designer: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i2/be es.asp

There is a reason that ID was dragged into this, and it wasn't the scientists who made the initial connection.

Yes, but what about the SCIENCE?

[Merlyn_3k]

The whole ID angle has been thoroughly slammed by now, (which won't keep people from continuing to bash at the article fot it, but enough already)

I want to know what these researchers figured out that was different from what we knew before. I expect, I dunno, SCIENCE from a scientific article. OK, from TFA we get that the scientists took a (honeybee) and used high-speed photography to capture it's movements. We know that they varied the atmospheric density to make the bee work harder, and captured that information. TFA says they built a robotic wing which could mimic a bee and measured force against it. OK, we have an experiment described, but did they try other types of bees? Where are the results? Conclusions? I want answers! /end rant/

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[StalinsNotDead]

I was intrigued at the prospect of discovering how beers fly!

You've never been to a trailer park, I take it.

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[altoz]

Agree with parent. Exactly how does figuring something out eliminate design from the equation? I can figure out how a remote works, but that doesn't mean it wasn't designed. The two concepts (explaining how something works and whether it was designed to work that way) aren't mutually exclusive.

I read the article.

[RickPartin]

Still have no idea how Bees fly. It just rambles on about how many flaps a second a bee's wing makes. Then scientists observed bees flying in helium. And that's it. Useless article. Can someone provide a link to something that actually describes it?

Then maybe you can clear up a few things...

[hackwrench]

Define "God", and define "create". While you're at it, explain why God didn't cease to exist the moment he "created" the Universe. Also explain why God himself didn't need to be "created".

Oh, and explain what "Begotten" is and how that is different from "created".

And then maybe we'll get around to addressing the things Jusus said and did that most Christains seem to want to forget, and the whole book of Romans. Most Christians would prefer the book of Romans simply not exist.

Re:Then maybe you can clear up a few things...

[Tony Hoyle]

Most Christians would prefer the book of Romans simply not exist.

That really is the most utterly bizzare statement I've ever heard. Way to go for the offtopic trolls dude.

I've heard of people rejecting Song of Songs (ooh sex! scary!) and Ecclesiastes (just too damned confusing) before but Romans? It's at the heart of the new testament!

Re:Then maybe you can clear up a few things...

[hackwrench]

Then explain to me how despite:
Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse.

most Christians have to go running to their Pastors every Sunday to have this Bible thing explained to them some more.

Romans 7:15 I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate to do.

Some people argue that they hate to do what is right due to their evil nature, and use that to justify doing things that appear good but that they don't really feel like doing, but Paul puts the lie to this in Romans 7:19 .

Romans 7:19 For what I do is not the good I want to do

Romans 7:6 But now by dying to what bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the spirit and not in the old way of the written code

Romans 8:5 Those who live according to the sinful nature have their minds set on what that nature desires, but those who live according/in accordance to/with the spirit have their minds set on what the spirit desires.

They do not need the law or the Bible to set their minds on what the spirit desires, they "have" their minds set on what the spirit desires.

Romans 8:9 You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature, but by the spirit, if the spirit of God lives in you.

Why would someone need the Bible to tell them whether a spirit is the Holy spirt if the Holy spirit lives with them.

Romans 8:11 And if the spirit of him who raised Christ from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his spirit who lives in you.

Romans 8:38 For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present(past?) nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Jesus Christ.

If this is so, then reading or not reading the Bible is to no effect either.

I am reminded of this truth when I listen to Linkin Park's "In The End"

It doesn't even matter how hard you try I tried so hard and got so far, but in the end it doesn't even matter.

Romans 15:14 I myself am convinced my brothers that you yourselves are full of goodness, complete in knowledge, and competent to instruct one another. I have written you quite boldly on some points to remind you of them again.

Here he says that they have the knowledge they need, and that he is merely reminding them of certain things. He is not telling them to study his words, but that his words are merely to draw attention to what they already know and possess.

Re:We do not!

[GecKo213]

Its just that people are silly and like to argue. We do Not! err, um, nice point. :)

News Flash: Still Stuff Left to Learn!

[Mikkeles]

'Proponents of intelligent design, ... have long criticized science for not being able to explain some natural phenomena,....'

Oh my, you mean we don't know everything yet!

Irregardless..

[lawpoop]

ID proponents are not interested in an honest review of the facts, in order to make up their mind as to which understanding is correct. If they even buy this bee story, they will simply drop this argument from their repertoire and find another one.

It seems to me that people already come into this 'debate' with their minds made up -- either you believe that 1.) God created everything, whenever, however, and it all goes back to him, regardless of how much we understand, or you believe that 2.) right now there's no evidence, nor any explanatory need for God or any other single creative force so there's no point in worrying about it. The details won't persuade people on either side.

Re:Irregardless..

[garylian]

"Irregardless" is a horrible word to use in any discussion whre you want to be taken seriously. This is probably one of the most common "bad words that intelligent people throw into a conversation, and few people questions it's misuse" that you will find.

References: World Wide Words

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

American Heritage Dictionary

Get It Write

And don't feel like I am calling you an idiot. My father spent YEARS giving me crap about this. lol

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[Philip K Dickhead]

Nope. I'm adverse to tornados.

They are exclusive by definition

[DaFork]

Why do God and Science have to be mutually exclusive?

Science isn't excluding God out of spite. Many scientists do believe in God. It is just that the practice of science excludes God because he/she/it is not scientifically observable.

There is a difference between an idea and a scientifc theory; just as there is a difference between how something came into existance and how it exists today. The ID camp needs separate the two and either start practicing real science or create a new thing that isn't science to classify their work.

Re:They are exclusive by definition

[PortHaven]

"Science isn't excluding God out of spite. Many scientists do believe in God. It is just that the practice of science excludes God because he/she/it is not scientifically observable."

My dear sir, you've been mislead by fundamental dogmatic fools...

How do you know that God is not scientifically observable? simply because you do not know of the means to scientifically observe God does not preclude that such means in fact do exist. If they did...then science would surely be in a trouble. It was not too long ago that atoms were not observable. And the concept of atoms traces back to the Greeks...mayber earlier. But it took nearly 2 millenia before we would advance our knowledge and technical skills to observe an atom. Even if you look to the mathematically theorized existance and observations of atoms which came before the actual physical observations; even these pre-dated by merely a few decades.

So for approx 2,000 yrs we could not observe that which we had conceptualized existed. We could neither prove nor disprove. Did that invalidate any scientific validity to the pursuit of the knowledge of the atom? if not, then how can you claim such an argument in your above post...it's not logical.

Who is to say that in another 2,000 or perhaps another 20,000 years we will not advance our knowledge and technical skills so as to apply science in a fashion so as to enable that we can scientifically observe God. Perhaps he is observable but such observations merely require a level of knowledge we do not yet posses.

Pride, ignorance, and exclusion have been the repeated pitfalls of science. Why would you repeat such mistakes?

The simplest way to handle ID is to re-stress the scientific method and denote that "yes, there is immense complexity in what we observe in our physical, chemical and biological observations. Some liken such to coincidence, chance and/or statistical probabilities and others believe such order and complexity to possible point to elements by design. Currently, we do not have the knowledge, nor technical skills to make an outright conclusion. What we do have is the scientific method and we should continue to observe an conduct analysis of what we observe according to that method."

Re:They are exclusive by definition

[Anonymous Coward]

science doesn't exclude things it doesn't observe... we didn't observe the planets or atoms for a long while, they still existed back then. and God is not a he/she/it. to put a gender is putting God on a level of sexually reproducing organisms, which is silly. people just use He since english doesn't have a neutered word besides 'it' but that's used for non-intelligent beings and objects.

Re:They are exclusive by definition

[Atzanteol]

Brav-fucking-O! Nice post. Wish I had mod points. This "slap on the back" will have to suffice.

Re:They are exclusive by definition

[Sage Gaspar]

What, exactly, is a scientifically observable God? What makes something God and not just another being in the universe?

If god were scientifically observable, then that aspect of god would cease to be based on faith. It would fall into the domain of science. It would also reject the notion of god that most religions have: incapable of being comprehended by human understanding, completely removed from the universe, etc.

In essence, I would argue that would not be God with a capital letter, but rather some sort of creator or powerful being that exists as part of the universe. I mean, imagine we discover some sort of alien creature had created us and our planet and was constantly playing with our genes to drive evolution, just for shits and giggles. Would you call said alien God?

Re:They are exclusive by definition

[koekepeer]

fine

warn me when the existence of God has been proven beyond reasonable doubt. i would mean that belief is not relevant anymore. that would have a huge impact on religion... if i were a Christian, i would pray that nobody ever finds a real proof of God.

as GP wrote, scientists do not oppose ID because they think God does not exist. some scientist are atheists (and i think they are being silly), some are believers (and they have every right to this), and some are agnostics like me. i have no clue and until i can see the proof i cannot acknowledge the existence of a God.

like in the courtroom, a scientific idea needs to be supported with sufficient evidence before it turns from concept into theory. this goes for the existence of God, this goes for ID, and this happened already for natural selection as proposed and argued by Darwin and his followers.

pride, ignorance and exclusion? mostly due to societal and religious pressure... and not even comparable to the exclusion, ignorance, and pride displayed in religious organisations.

even Darwin was struggling to not provoke the church and his beliefs. thank god (pun intended) we are mainly secularised nowadays, and can think more freely. at least, if our governments keep on allowing us to do so.

so yes, i agree. let's keep on following rigorous practice of the scientific method. as we did for a long long time already.

Re:They are exclusive by definition

[Anonymous Coward]

"Science isn't excluding the Invisible Pink Unicorn out of spite. Many scientists do believe in the Invisible Pink Unicorn. It is just that the practice of science excludes the Invisible Pink Unicorn because she is not scientifically observable."

My dear sir, you've been mislead by fundamental dogmatic fools...

How do you know that the Invisible Pink Unicorn is not scientifically observable? simply because you do not know of the means to scientifically observe the Invisible Pink Unicorn does not preclude that such means in fact do exist. If they did...then science would surely be in a trouble. It was not too long ago that atoms were not observable. And the concept of atoms traces back to the Greeks...mayber earlier. But it took nearly 2 millenia before we would advance our knowledge and technical skills to observe an atom. Even if you look to the mathematically theorized existance and observations of atoms which came before the actual physical observations; even these pre-dated by merely a few decades.

So for approx 2,000 yrs we could not observe that which we had conceptualized existed. We could neither prove nor disprove. Did that invalidate any scientific validity to the pursuit of the knowledge of the atom? if not, then how can you claim such an argument in your above post...it's not logical.

Who is to say that in another 2,000 or perhaps another 20,000 years we will not advance our knowledge and technical skills so as to apply science in a fashion so as to enable that we can scientifically observe the Invisible Pink Unicorn. Perhaps he is observable but such observations merely require a level of knowledge we do not yet posses.

Pride, ignorance, and exclusion have been the repeated pitfalls of science. Why would you repeat such mistakes?

The simplest way to handle Pink Unicornism is to re-stress the scientific method and denote that "yes, there is immense complexity in what we observe in our physical, chemical and biological observations. Some liken such to coincidence, chance and/or statistical probabilities and others believe such order and complexity to possible point to elements by design. Currently, we do not have the knowledge, nor technical skills to make an outright conclusion. What we do have is the scientific method and we should continue to observe an conduct analysis of what we observe according to that method."

And then the FSM might smite us all.

Article trollish; summary worse

[The Famous Brett Wat]

The article summary made my brain hurt with it's sheer badness. Paraphrasing, "we now know how bees fly, thus proving that they weren't designed." WTF? Seriously, WTFFFF? Surely the original article can't be that bad. So I break with time-honoured tradition and RTFA. Sure enough, ID is mentioned in the opening paragraph, as follows.

Proponents of intelligent design, which holds that a supreme being rather than evolution is responsible for life's complexities, have long criticized science for not being able to explain some natural phenomena, such as how bees fly.

I've heard ID proponents claim "irreducible complexity" in a number of things, but not, to the best of my recollection, in the bumblebee. I always understood the bumblebee problem was just a well-known case of scientific ignorance, not a star exhibit for Intelligent Design.

So basically this opening paragraph was written by yet another person with a bee in his bonnet (pun intended) about Intelligent Design -- anti-ID rather than pro-ID, obviously, but still a fanatic in the sense that he can't change his mind and won't change the subject. The question of whether bees are the product of ID or natural evolution is utterly orthogonal to the subject at hand, and mentioning the issue at all is nothing but flamebait.

Beam me up, Scotty. There's no intellegent life down here.

Re:Article trollish; summary worse

[MightyMartian]

I've heard ID proponents claim "irreducible complexity" in a number of things, but not, to the best of my recollection, in the bumblebee. I always understood the bumblebee problem was just a well-known case of scientific ignorance, not a star exhibit for Intelligent Design.

But, at the heart of it, those ID claims of irreducibly complex systems are ultimately, at best, simply cases of scientific ignorance. Of course, in cases such as the flagellum claim, as a potential evolutionary pathway and relationship to other structures are demonstrated, the continued use of that claim is, in fact, an example of how guys like Behe are simply nothing more than liars.

So, what the big deal

[slugstone]

Researchers at CalTech have now found out how bee's fly. The Intelligent Designer knew that a long time ago.

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd be really interested to know why knowing how bees fly "puts to rest" the notion that the world could possibly have been created by an intelligent being. What's the difference? Seriously.

Slashdot: any anti-ID article is auto-approved!

[PortHaven]

"Proponents of intelligent design, or ID, have tried in recent years to promote the idea of a supreme being by discounting science because it can't explain everything in nature."

Very few proponents of intelligent design point to such things. And in truth, I've never heard that argument made myself. Not saying there aren't a few who do.

But you know. We took a perfectly good article about how we've furthered our understanding of how bee's fly. And basically turned that knowledge into trash.

So yes, now, we know how bee's fly. (Actually, I remember reading an article on it a few years back that seemed to give a fairly detailed review.) But let me say something about the poster and the author of the article. They're both lame.

Why....because if you are devoted solely to turning any discovery as an argument of one issue than you have lost the purpose of science. You are not a scientist you have become a dogmatic believer. In the case of the bee argument, those arguments are usually made to point out that scientists do not know all the answers. And they don't. So they gained understanding of one answer. Congratulations...

But I fear for science when it becomes so dogmatic that it must act in the most poor manner imitating all that it derides about religion...these individual become the very thing thing they mock.

Re:Slashdot: any anti-ID article is auto-approved!

[dwayner79]

Don't worry... these aren't real scientist. They are the Bigots. The real scientist (id'rs and not) will continue to do good research and discover fascinating things about our World with the end result of bettering our lives as a species. The fanatics (few as they may be, and on both sides) will continue to rant and /. will continue to post their articles.

Re:Slashdot: any anti-ID article is auto-approved!

[Anonymous Coward]

This isn't fanaticism. ID isn't science, by definition.

Dumb summary

[helix400]

Why turn a scientific discovery into an Intelligent Design bashing session? Seriously, I don't believe in ID either, but I don't see the need to use a discovery to bash some seemingly unrelated philosophy. What's next, bashing politicians when health discoveries are made, or religious leaders when crime statistics are mentioned, or talk show hosts when global warming studies are released? Does everything have to be this divisive?

Pretty Sad

[The Lost Supertone]

It's pretty sad when people would like to pretend they're soo much smarter and so much more enlightened than others, and yet spend so much of their time trying to figure out all the ways that everyone else is wrong and they're right. Ahh insecure nerds.

This is why the article mentions bees with ID

[techstar25]

Here is an article from a Christian perspective that uses bees to argue ID.

Re:This is why the article mentions bees with ID

[Anonymous Coward]

No such claims have ever been made by supporters of ID. When the Creator had finished burying fake dinosaur bones to confuse us He then created a bunch of fake web sites to mislead us into thinking that ID advocates had made claims that they hadn't. This just proves that ID is true. QED.

Re:This is why the article mentions bees with ID

[tmjr3353]

Okay, fine, but reading the article and then reading the site you posted leaves me with an important question -- how does answering the question of how bees fly put a "nail in the coffin" of anything at all, let alone Intelligent Design? The site you linked to remarks that we have (had) a general understanding of what goes on, but not a specific one. It says that the specific way in which bees go about flying must be fairly "sophisticated." The article says this, "Turns out bee flight mechanisms are more exotic than thought."

Well, wait a minute, isn't that what we ID folk have been saying all along? None of us ever said, "Hey, you guys don't know how bees fly, you MUST BE WRONG ABOUT EVERYTHING." It's more like, "Hey, the way bees fly must be pretty incredible --so much so that we can't even figure out how it works yet." Discovering that the way they fly truly IS incredible does nothing to damage the idea of ID -- if anything it merely upholds it.

Re:This is why the article mentions bees with ID

[donnz]

Hehe. I love that stuff. From the link "That's a marvellous bit of engineering. So is the fact that birds, unlike us, have hollow bones."

Last night as I chomped away on my lamb chop I noticed that the bone in the middle was - fanfare - hollow. Ok, I am the first to admit that lambs are not humans - even if the Lamb of God did once take human form.

Despite their hollow bones I have never observed lambs fly, not even Monty Python's dangerously clever sheep achived this.

So, from my observation that hollow bones are not limited to birds and that we are indeed blessed with hollowness I propose the theory that everything else Dr McIntosh proposes is utterly devoid of truth.

BTW today is world wide "Shooting Ducks in a Barrel" day.

Re:This is why the article mentions bees with ID

[l0tu53at3r]

this link gave me a headache

sick of the intolerance

[Anonymous Coward]

this was the last nail in the coffin of me reading Slashdot. i'm sick of the anti-religious zealotry.

Re:sick of the intolerance

[JSBiff]

At first, I thought the article poster was adding their own commentary. If you read the article, however, you will see those are direct quotes from the article.

The article itself, I would categorize as flaimbait, -1. However, despite that, it's still interesting that they have figured out bee flight.

I should probably just stop there, but I'm going to take the bait (to an extent), and say this:

Just because we've figured out bee flight doesn't mean intelligent design is false. Just because we couldn't previously figure out how bees fly doesn't prove itelligent design is true. Intelligent Design is a philosophy, not a scientific theory. I happen to be a Christian, and a believer in creation. I also think that God may have used evolution as a tool of creation. Which, of course, puts me in the camp that EVERYBODY else despises. *sigh*

All I can say to the parent poster is, you can choose to live life in a seqoistered bubble, or you can put on your asbestos undershorts and deal with the real world. If you are going to move in the world of nerds, which includes science and technology, you need to just deal with the fact that there is a certain element of the scientific world which is openly hostile to your beliefs. Deal with is. Sheesh.

As for the hostile people, all I can say is, well not all of us believe that Intelligent Design should be taught in a science curriculum AS SCIENCE, because it is fundamentally a matter of faith. But, some of us find it hard to believe that random chance, un-guided, could possibly produce the complexity we see in nature. Bee flight is still an example of amazing complexity, which even though we can understand it, doesn't make it any less impressive. I am still inclined to believe that a higher power guided the evolution of bee DNA to produce such wondorous 'technology'.

Maybe you think that makes me stupid. I don't really care.

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[bill_kress]

Yeah, I agree.

It's pretty much like saying "Another picture of the earth was taken from space today, putting another nail in the coffin of the flat-earth society".

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[advs89]

I agree completely. This story is far from neutral and obviously trying to start a flamewar. This story == -1 Troll (or flamebait... not sure~).

And I know, this will most likely be "-1 Troll", but I really am not trying to step on toes. I just think it could have had a more neutral [title/story body]

wow

[routerguy666]

"The scientists said the findings could lead to a model for designing aircraft that could hover in place and carry loads for many purposes such as diaster surveillance after earthquakes and tsunamis."

I'm thinking they should name it something catchy yet odd sounding so it really catches on. I think 'helicopter' would fit nicely.

why this is irrelevant

[globaljustin]

Your understanding of ID, creation, and your characterization of people who believe in creation are all just wrong...and it is Christians who are to blame

"Hey, God makes bees fly. Since I already know the real reason, there's no real reason to keep studying it." In fact, some of them will probably even go so far as to dismiss the findings as false because it conflicts with their notion that God must be responsible

I was raised in the kind of places where people LOVE ID theories, and I've studied at their universities too, and I have NEVER heard anyone make statements anywhere near your characterization above.

The problem is, most of the Christians you see in the media are the most ultra-arch-fundamentalists they can find, because it makes for better television in News producer's minds. It is those Christians, like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson to name a few, who are responsible for giving you this false impression, and giving all the rest of us a very bad name.

'Intelligent Design' itself is misunderstood in the science community. Rather, it's misinterpreted. ID is basically a buzzword that some dumbass came up with to help get media exposure to 'Christian' ideas of how the world started into politics. Christians do not talk about ID...only Republicans ever talk about it.

I believe, as most others I know do, that true science and God's Word will always be in agreement in the final analysis. For believers like us, science is a tool to understand God's gift to us: creation...not a way to somehow 'prove' God's existance...that's improvable by any human logic/methods.

I support using science to understand our reality as much as it will allow, and almost all Christians I have ever known...hundreds of thousands...would say the same thing.

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[susano_otter]

So Altshuler claims, without any supporting evidence, that unnamed "people" in the undefined "ID community" make a big deal out of the unknowability of bee flight mechanics, and that having disproved this unkowability, he's successfully countered their alleged arugment?

Wow.

Also, is it just me, or does the article not actually explain how bees fly?

As far as I can tell, this article tells us three things:

1. That bee flight is exotic. (Which is pretty much a tautology; if bee flight were mundane, we would have figured it out a long time ago.)

2. That we learn more about bee flight by using robots with force sensors than we do using fixed-wing aerodynamic theory.

3. That however bees fly, they have to work harder at it in thinner atmosphere, and that it involves amplitude increases rather than frequency increases.

Which all means what, exactly?

You'd think that an article about how we've finally discovered the secret of bee flight would spend rather more time explaining it, and rather less time on such non-newsworthy aspects of the story such as what the researcher believes the current state of play in the ID debate is.

I mean, bees flying! A mystery that has eluded smarty men for a hundred years or more! Finally solved! And nothing in the article actually approaches a description of the solution.

what does this even mean?

[VMEbus]

From TFA:

"They work like racing cars," Altshuler said. "Racing cars can reach higher revolutions per minute but enable the driver to go faster in higher gear. But like honeybees, they are inefficient."

I have a few issues with this statement:

1) Why does he say 'but enable...', as if the driver is going faster in spite of higher RPM,
2) Of course you can go faster in higher gears,
3) Racing engines are extremely efficient in terms of power per displacement and power per fuel consumption,

4) and finally:
Just earlier he says

The bees made up for the extra work by stretching out their wing stroke amplitude but did not adjust wingbeat frequency.

then likens their mechanism to changing engine RPM (frequency).

Re:what does this even mean?

[belg4mit]

a) You have the order wrong
b) I suspect he meant overdrive i.e; wheels turning faster than the engine

St. Albert the Great

[Spy der Mann]

As a Christian Pastor, I believe the world, and everything in it, was indeed created by God. But I also believe that he is a God of order, and thus there is an order to all things that can be observed and recorded.

You're not the first one to believe that. St. Albert the Great, one of the most prolific scientific writers in the history of the Catholic Church, said:

"Natural science does not consist in ratifying what others have said, but in seeking the causes of phenomena."

And from http://www.antlionpit.com/aura.html :

"As for Albertus Magnus, his claim to fame was mainly due to his ability to compile huge amounts of information (most of it from Aristotle) and categorize it in his twenty-six volume encyclopedia, De Animalibus. He also drew heavily on Thomas de Cantimpré's De Natura Rerum, but while he copied directly from his descriptions, he, like Friedrich II, rejected the moralizations which came with them, opting for a more objective approach."

So, nope, religion and science are not mutually exclusive.

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[titaniumducky]

Actually, the poster is simply doing his/her job since the original article specifically brings up this argument:

They are also pleased that a simple thing like bee flight can no longer be used as an example of science failing to explain a common phenomenon. Proponents of intelligent design, or ID, have tried in recent years to promote the idea of a supreme being by discounting science because it can't explain everything in nature. "People in the ID community have said that we don't even know how bees fly," Altshuler said. "We were finally able to put this one to rest. We do have the tools to understand bee flight and we can use science to understand the world around us."

Admittedly it may be a little overemphasis (the main point of the article isn't this) but it isn't really flamebait.

The first with the news!

[SIGFPE]

Even my own blog ran this story well over a month ago and I only posted the story because it was already well reported in the mainstream science press. Really. Slashdot could do with someone who reads a few science mags like New Scientist and so has a rough idea of what is and isn't news.

And, of course, this story has nothing to do with ID despite what the article suggests.

Additional findings from related research

[nelomolen]

Through much blood, sweat, and tears, I am now ready to report my scientific findings to the world:

Turns out an Audi works just like other cars, and therefore there is no such thing as a German automobile manufacturer.

Did anyone still want to talk about pseudoscience?

This is proof of Intelligent Design

[Wyatt Galen Houtz]

If bees evolved into hovercraft, then that would be darwin, but if a human studies a bee and builds an hovercraft through his intellect, it shows how ID is necessary for large jumps between bees and hovercraft are accomplished.

It is interesting to learn how bees fly and applying their flight to aircraft. To think that we wouldn't figure out how a bee flies is also not proof of Intelligent Design either.

To say that it has to be entirely evolution or intellegent design is not a good argument either. There is no reason existing things cannot evolve, but to say that the world arrived on its own without god, is wrong. There is an unmoved mover, and an uncaused cause, which is God.

This article is disappointing, because of the submitters anger at god, and dampers an interesting story.

Wyatt Houtz
http://www.havenofbliss.com/

Re:This is proof of Intelligent Design

[Anonymous Coward]

> There is an unmoved mover, and an uncaused cause, which is God.

What caused God to start creating things at some time,
but not before ? Eternal absence of causes was too boring ?

Re:This is proof of Intelligent Design

[vidarh]

If bees evolved into hovercraft, then that would be darwin, but if a human studies a bee and builds an hovercraft through his intellect, it shows how ID is necessary for large jumps between bees and hovercraft are accomplished.

No if a human builds a hovercraft, it shows that it is possible for an intelligent being to design something as advanced as a hovercraft. Nothing more, nothing less. It is exactly this kind of faulty logic that is the reason why ID gets ridiculed.

To show that ID is "necessary" you will need to make predictions of what we should be able to find in nature based on the idea of an intelligent designer being responsible for the natural world that does not fit the theory of evolution. Only if you can do that, and your predictions are tested and not found false, is there any reason to even consider ID as a viable theory.

If you don't understand why that is so, you need to read up on the scientific method.

There is an unmoved mover, and an uncaused cause, which is God.

So tell me then: What is the cause of God?

Your idea of a God just moves the problem of creation one step back, it doesn't solve anything.

If anything, it enlarges the problem. One of the core ID arguments is that complex working entities requires a designer. Applying that to the idea of God, we see that there would have to be an infinite chain of intelligent designers.

But if you accept the idea of an infinite chain of creation events, then ID has no advantages over evolution, because you have no way of knowing that there hasn't been an infinite number of creation events leading to universes with failed evolution previously either.

In other words, either you accept a creation at some point that did NOT involve an intelligent designer, in which case there is no reason to assume an intelligent designer at all, or you accept the idea of inifinite existence of something, that blows the ID argument about how unlikely evolution is out of the water too.

And before anyone even tries to bring up that idiotic argument, and how it seems arrogant to assume that just WE would be lucky, keep in mind that given an infinite chain of events, the chance that a POSSIBLE event, no matter how improbable, will happen at least once approaches 100%. And if the event in question is the evolution of us, then by definition we will witness only the succesfull event, not the infinite number of failed ones.

The assumption of an infinite sequence of events isn't even needed, btw., the only thing it contributes is driving the probability up. Seeing as we are here, however, the probability isn't relevant any more that the low probability that you will win the lottery before the draw is to you when it turns out after the draw that you have won.

The probability you will win a drawing is low, but once you have won the probability that you did win is 100%.

Either of those two does not say anything about HOW you won - you could have bought a ticket and taken your chances or bribed an official, or changed the ticket through magical powers, or a million other things. The fact that you have the winning ticket doesn't prove or disprove any of them. Only an investigation of the available facts might provide proofs of any theories presented about how it happened.

The existence of God

[Anonymous Coward]

I wish everyone would just get along. Arguing about whether something someone believes in exists or not is such a waste of time.

Perhaps because...

[C10H14N2]

The first sentence begins with "Proponents of intelligent design..."

It is the proponents of ID that have used the inability to explain things as the foundation of their theory, saying "science is incapable of explaining X." So, when science explains "X" they then say "well, okay, so you CAN explain X... uhm, er, we bet you can't explain Y! You can't can you?! SEE!!!!" (flash forward a few years) "Uh, yeah, we can explain that to." "But, but, what about Z?!?! That's REALLY hard!"

Ad nauseam. Yawn.

So, yes, both the article and summary are "flamebait," but damned amusing, since I remember this exact example being given during my parochial school days. Just because something is flamebait doesn't mean it isn't noteworthy.

Re:Perhaps because...

[Marxist Hacker 42]

You know, one option to all of this is just to admit that science can't explain everything, and teach it for what it is: A religious philosophy equal to other religious philosophies (as opposed to teaching it as a religious philosophy while claiming that it isn't a religious philosophy and worse yet, preventing by law the teaching of other religious philosophies).

Re:Perhaps because...

[tutori]

But what I don't get is how they go from bees fyling to no evolution. Certainly no scientist would say that science currently explains evrything about the universe. And that's all that this example is used for, to show limits of science, since it has nothing to do with evolution. (It's not really even biology, more like physics...)

Re:Perhaps because...

[rseuhs]

Why do so many religious guys don't get it?

Science never claimed to explain everything. Never.

Not only that, science also has said what it will never be able to explain or predict - so not only did science not claim to explain everything, science mentions several things which it will never be able to explain: For example what happens in a black hole or what was before the big bang.

Science does claim to explain and predict a lot of things - and without it we wouldn't post here on Slashdot, we would still sit in cold caves worshipping sungod and moongod.

Re:Perhaps because...

[Moofie]

Science can't explain everything, that's true. However, the "other religious philosophies" you espouse can't explain ANYTHING, whereas science does things like cure cancer.

I'm a religious person, and I don't understand this false conflict that you seem so intent on creating between religion and science.

Re:Perhaps because...

[Krach42]

Science does claim to explain and predict a lot of things - and without it we wouldn't post here on Slashdot, we would still sit in cold caves worshipping sungod and moongod.

Or more accurately, we'd still be sitting in castles, and homes of wood eating food cooked over an open flame.

Seriously man, we were a lot farther along than cavemen when we picked up science. Unless, you want to credit science will all knowledge, but then it would include religion, unless you only credit it with all advancements of technology, but then it would not include much of linguists.

Science is founded upon a philosophical argument that the world we observe has some reasonable attachment to "reality." Or that what we perceive is reality.

Do many scientists not like admitting that their position is founded upon a philosophical point? No, because they like to assert that they're not making arbitrary choices, and to them a philosophy or religion is an arbitrary choice.

It's not. The mere belief that a God doesn't exist, is a religion, and the mere belief that your perceptions are of a true reality, is a belief and a philosophical assertion. That doesn't make them wrong, nor does it even make them unjustified.

It's just something you're better off admitting, rather than exposing your ideas to attack.

Re:Perhaps because...

[Krach42]

I'm a religious person, and I don't understand this false conflict that you seem so intent on creating between religion and science.

MH42 instigates people. In the short time I've watched him, and argued with him on Slashdot, it's become apparent that this topic gets raised often around him.

Fact is that atheists and atheistic scientists in particular get really pissed when you call their beliefs a religion. Somehow to them their lack of belief in a God is more justified than belief in a God, and they would rather argue that their beliefs are not a religion, because they are logically justified, than admit that fundamentally, it's all based on presumptions, and assumptions.

Which doesn't make it wrong!

Re:Perhaps because...

[Moofie]

Science is not a religion, though. Science is based on observations of nature. Religion is based on faith in something that you cannot detect. Why is that so difficult to understand?

Re:Perhaps because...

[Krach42]

Science is not a religion, though. Science is based on observations of nature. Religion is based on faith in something that you cannot detect. Why is that so difficult to understand?

Because science is based on the untestable assumption that what you're observing is relevent to the true reality.

Also, Atheists take it upon faith that there is no God, assuming that just because you cannot detect something that it must not be there. This is a faith based assumption, it cannot be proven.

The "fact" is that everything is based on something that cannot be proven.

The lack of a religion is a religion in itself. (which I realize is a contradiction)

Re:Perhaps because...

[Moofie]

"Because science is based on the untestable assumption that what you're observing is relevent to the true reality."

Huh? You posit the existence of a "true reality" that cannot be observed. Science is founded on the totally testable assumption that performing experiments with repeatable results that substantiate theories that produce accurate predictions is a useful way to solve problems.

Anything you'd like to make up about "true reality" belongs in the domain of philosophy or metaphysics, neither of which have anything to do with science.

Re:Perhaps because...

[aqfire]

Researchers at CalTech have discovered how bees fly, putting one more nail in the coffin of Intelligent Design.

Gimme a break /. Definitely -1 Flamebait.

I've never seen the "scientists can't explain how bees fly" argument before. I do however seem to have seen an argument like yours before, somewhere: "give us enough time, and we can explain anything"

Re:Perhaps because...

[NichG]

I don't know that science makes any assertions about 'true' reality though. I mean, the way to falsify the assumption you're stating is if what we see and experience is all illusion and there is some underlying 'true' reality in which we actually exist which does not affect the illusion. And science makes no claim about such a thing.

But science does make statements such as 'if I can observe a certain thing occuring consistently, I can make predictions about my future observations'. Which I think neatly gets around the issue of a 'true reality'.

The basis of natural science (and atheism too, if you like) is that if you cannot observe something nor observe its effects on anything (this includes making accurate predictions which would otherwise be impossible in the absence of such a thing) then it does not effect your observations. That seems to me a tautology, as long as it's applied to a single observation and not as forward knowledge.

The assumption there is 'if I've measured X 99 times, I expect to measure it again the 100th time because (as far as I know) nothing has fundamentally changed'. And while that is an assumption, it has worked quite well. The true measure of science isn't an abstract truth which it delivers, but its ability to predict and manipulate events successfully. Although this is philosophically unsatisfying, a totally false theory which allows one to predict things with 100% accuracy (down to some specific quantity, not in the sense of 'I predict that its random') would be better science than a 50% true theory (I don't know how you'd measure this quantity though...) which only gives 90% accurate predictions given the same basic information.

Re:Perhaps because...

[Krach42]

You posit the existence of a "true reality" that cannot be observed.

I don't posit it. Philosophy does that for me. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil_of_perception

Science is founded on the totally testable assumption that performing experiments with repeatable results that substantiate theories that produce accurate predictions is a useful way to solve problems.

As a point of nitpicking, you don't test assumptions. You assume them.

"Science is founded on the totally testable principle that performing experiements with repeatable results that substantiate theories that produce accurate predictions is a useful way to solve problems." Anything you'd like to make up about "true reality" belongs in the domain of philosophy or metaphysics, neither of which have anything to do with science.

Just because you don't care to acknowledge that you've assumed something here and that you take on faith that our perceptions are real, doesn't make this problem go away. Yes, it is philosphy and meta-physics, but you know what? The whole discussion of "science is a religion" is a philosophical argument.

And you'd do well to remember that the principles and foundations of philosphy are what have led us to science. If you say that philosophy has nothing to do with science, then you say that logic has nothing to do with science.

If you're refering to the entirely theoretical ideas espoused mostly by philosophers then, yeah, that doesn't have a place in practical study of science, and neither does the point that science makes a critical assumption that our perceptions are real belong in the practical study of science.

But on the topic of "is science a religion?" then you're wrong, this is absolutely and fundamentally a point of philosophy, and not of science.

Re:Perhaps because...

[Vellmont]

science mentions several things which it will never be able to explain: For example what happens in a black hole or what was before the big bang.


Not to be pedantic, but that's a limitation of our current theories (mostly general relativity) and not a limitation of science itself. We may one day have better understandings of both of those phenomenon, but we don't today.

There are questions that science can't answer of course. Mostly these are questions of values and morality. Science can't tell you what the purpose of life is, or if a war is just or not.

Re:Perhaps because...

[Moofie]

I don't know what "real" means apart from "what can be percieved". Science doesn't need to assume anything, other than if I do the same thing twice in the same conditions, the same results will occur. That's pretty darn solid as assumptions go.

How many diseases have been cured by the philosophy of assuming that we can't really know anything? How many bridges can you build by just thinking really hard that the gap you're trying to span doesn't exist?

Re:Perhaps because...

[Krach42]

But science does make statements such as 'if I can observe a certain thing occuring consistently, I can make predictions about my future observations'. Which I think neatly gets around the issue of a 'true reality'.

From a practical stand-point, this is 100% correct. There is no reason to doubt that our accurate predictions are based on a "fake" reality, because we deal with the reality that is presented by our perceptions, and practical science need not dig any deeper than that. It would mostly be a waste of their time to do so.

That seems to me a tautology, as long as it's applied to a single observation and not as forward knowledge.

And I agree, from a practical standpoint of science, this is a tautology. Of course, this presents a biased, and irrational negative view in most scientists, and atheists of religion and philosphy. Most often expressed that "philosophy has no place in science", while philosophy is the very FOUNDATION of science.

Practical science indeed has no reason to discuss these issues, but in the same way, the Church never had a reason to study further into its doctrine, because it was accepted as true. Each operates in its own logical reference frame.

Re:Perhaps because...

[Krach42]

I don't know what "real" means apart from "what can be percieved".

This is the very point expressed by the veil of perception. Basically, we observe the world through our senses, but we have no guarentee that those senses are faithfully representing the "real world". We could be brains in a jar being electrically simulated.

Science doesn't need to assume anything, other than if I do the same thing twice in the same conditions, the same results will occur. That's pretty darn solid as assumptions go.

And this works from a practical standpoint, but it does not guarentee anything of the world. I would like you to consider The Matrix. I'm certain that there would be scientists exploring "reality" in in The Matrix, but fundamentally their studies are flawed, because it's not a "real" science. Yet, from a practical standpoint, their studies are still concerning predicting future events that occur reliably.

Thus, they are studying the physics of The Matrix. Which in fact doesn't truely "exist", nor was it "reality."

How many diseases have been cured by the philosophy of assuming that we can't really know anything? How many bridges can you build by just thinking really hard that the gap you're trying to span doesn't exist?

I don't ask you pass up the practical need for science, I ask you only to not get pissed when someone calls science a religion.

Re:Perhaps because...

[PoolDoc]

". . . I remember this exact example being given during my parochial school days . . ."

Just so.

And, I'd bet those "days" preceded the 'invention' of ID by years, or maybe even, decades?

As an orthodox -- but not particularly fundamentalist -- Christian, I'm so sick of this debate, I could puke. Both sides seem to fluff their own 'evidence' beyond all reason, engage in endless ad hominem arguments, and most annoyingly, refuse to engage with their opponent's stronger ideas.

In this particular debate, the most egregious refusal to face up to the 'strong' arguments, seems to lie with the anti-ID groups. As the previous poster notes (perhaps unintentionally?), unexplainable bee flight is the basis of an OLD argument against evolution, so old that it predates ID by at least 30 or 40 years, and possibly by more than that.

I'll freely confess I've found most of the public debate, and the ensuing legal case, tiresome beyond all tolerance. So, I haven't followed it as closely as I might have.

But I have yet to encounter a SINGLE instance of an anti-ID debater engaging the 'strong' idea behind ID, which is the concept of "irreducible complexity"*. So far as I know, this idea has not even been addressed in any general discussion of ID, much less demolished! My guess is that 99% or more of those who have heard of ID via the popular media has NOT heard of "irreducible complexity".

Perhaps the argument from "irreducible complexity" is flawed, perhaps even fatally flawed. But, at least based on the public media discussions of ID which I've seen, there's is ZERO evidence that the opponents of ID have found any such flaw. And, since "irreducible complexity" is PRECISELY the point at which the current ID arguments diverge from the centuries old 'argument from design', AND the point at which the ID case is strongest, failure to attack ID at that point guarantees that the controversy will continue unabated.

One would think, if the anti-ID forces were serious about their opposition to ID, that they would go for a knock-out blow by demolishing this foundational ID concept. The fact that they do not, leaves me wondering if it's because they can't.

PoolDoc

* FWIW, "irreducible complexity" is the idea that there are certain biological (actually, microbiological or biochemical) systems which are

• exhaustively understood by current science; and are both
• complex (ie, having multiple components); &
• irreducible (ie, the system fails if a single component is removed); &
• composed of individually useless components (which would, by themselves, have a negative effect on species survival).

AFAIK, both this concept, and the half dozen or so specific cases, were originally proposed by the biochemist, Michael Behe. His challenge, offered some 15 or so years ago, was that no biochemist or evolutionary biologist has offered even a plausible theoretical process by which such "irreducibly complex" biological systems could develop. I know that, in the interim, some claims have been made that such proposals have been made, but the references I can find all appear in 'popular' scientific media, and not in the peer-reviewed journals referred to in Behe's origial challenge. It's my understanding that Behe still considers his original challenge unanswered.

Re:Perhaps because...

[maraist]

Since you're trying to use semantics. Then I will try to as well. Science is certainly a philosophy.. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=philosoph y However it is definitely not a theology http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=theology. Atheism, on the other hand is a theology in that it is defined as a philosophy about theology; namely that the sacred is not present in the philosophy (except recursively from the definition).

The definitions I've linked to are very primative (especially about atheism and theology), but I wanted a consistent reference point.

As the philosophy of science is largely technical (the process of deduction, successive validation of ever more accurate mathmatical descriptions of physical phenomena, perfecting the a knowledge of cause and effect, etc.), it is in itself not a theology.

Now there is nothing in the scientific method to preclude dogma. The the laws of Gallelao, the laws of Neuton, the laws of Maxwell, the laws of Einstein, the laws of whatever great thinker in the future that puts these guys in their place. A dogma of a particular period of time is held against heresy, and we label the successful deviants as forward thinking; other's we debase as "cracks". Just as in religion (Saints and heretics)

But this is because the very thing that develops Religion is intrinsic to human nature... The need for "nomos" (defining truth). Once we think we find it, we are internally terrified by anything that threatens it. Even those that presumably welcome if not seek change are at a profound level really just re-seeking the same stable truth that they find present in the merely slight changes of venue.

It is important, therefore, to distinguish Theology from what we normally think of as Religion. Religion is the socialization of theology. There is a likewise socialization of science. The presentation of this article as an answer to ID is a perfect manefestation of this socialization of Science. I'm not sure what the best word to describe this process is; you choose to call it religion, but I and other posters believe this is in error.

I do, however, agree with your underlying principle - that science has a common root with religion; the thing I and some authors call nomos. More importantly it is something which transcends the particulars of the philosophy, and intrinsicly fights for a life of it's own.

As a slight tangent, but to further the parallel. Philosophy involves a logical method. And there are many great thinkers who have applied this logical method to Theology. The allusive ontological proof; the logical deduction of God, is a perfect example. This proof holds that there exists a set of axioms which validate the empiracal aspect of God. In my opinion, they are all crap. But no more can be said about the Big Bang or of evolution as the source of diversity on Earth. (Though I personally don't believe in the evidence of the Big Bang, but I do believe in the evidence of evolution).

Put in another way, those that apply logic to Theology, are taking certain humanly important (sacrad) phenomena and treating them as axioms. It is perfectly permissable to apply the scientific method to this process to discover and eliminate logical strains. I feel that the ontological proof is largely moot, but more interestingly are proofs of morality. But now we're into the social sciences. So again, we're merely trading our starting points; our axioms.

Re:Perhaps because...

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Why do so many religious guys don't get it?

Maybe because thanks to standardized testing, the next statement:

Science never claimed to explain everything. Never.

Is completely incorrect as far as most people are concerned. Answers on the tests in high school science class are either right or wrong, never giving points for original thought.

Not only that, science also has said what it will never be able to explain or predict - so not only did science not claim to explain everything, science mentions several things which it will never be able to explain: For example what happens in a black hole or what was before the big bang.

But that's NOT the way it's presented when you go to court to exclude other explainations from the classroom.

Science does claim to explain and predict a lot of things - and without it we wouldn't post here on Slashdot, we would still sit in cold caves worshipping sungod and moongod.

Not quite true- because there was a competing scientific method that wasn't exclusive that would have probably come up with the same ideas.

Re:Perhaps because...

[maraist]

Science can't tell you what the purpose of life is, or if a war is just or not.

Ha! but in fact, science does tell us if war is just or not.. In fact, most every war waged this century had more to do with the scientific method than religion. Logical constructs of use-cases. Quantitatively weighing the human cost against the abstract political gain.

War is a math problem, just like effective memory compaction.

Any given "moral" issue can be socialogically deconstructed. And just like inconsistencies between quantum and reletevism, current gaps in our understanding of social moral delemmas are only a PHD thesis away.

Re:Perhaps because...

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Science can't explain everything, that's true. However, the "other religious philosophies" you espouse can't explain ANYTHING, whereas science does things like cure cancer.

Not at all true- that just shows your ignorance of other religious philosophies.

I'm a religious person, and I don't understand this false conflict that you seem so intent on creating between religion and science.

Actually, what I'm saying is that there is no reason for any conflict at all- and therefore there's no need to exclude alternate theories and explainations from the classroom. It's all human belief- best to be tolerant of all human beliefs.

Re:Perhaps because...

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Anything you'd like to make up about "true reality" belongs in the domain of philosophy or metaphysics, neither of which have anything to do with science.

Good, then you wouldn't mind say, requiring this disclaimer to be required in every primary grade scientific textbook.....

Re:Perhaps because...

[ceejayoz]

Perhaps the argument from "irreducible complexity" is flawed, perhaps even fatally flawed. But, at least based on the public media discussions of ID which I've seen, there's is ZERO evidence that the opponents of ID have found any such flaw.

Um...

You don't find a supreme being to be irreducibly complex?

Re:Perhaps because...

[Krach42]

But that's NOT the way it's presented when you go to court to exclude other explainations from the classroom.

This actually reminds me of the text that was put in the biology textbooks that were required to be removed because they equated to the "teaching of religion." The text of the stickers on the books were:

"This book teaches Evolution as fact. It is in fact a theory, and should be considered with critical thought."

The point occured to me when I read this sticker... shouldn't all of science be labeled this way? And why would a scientist be upset that we're telling children to critically think about the information contained in their books?

Re:Perhaps because...

[Vellmont]

Quantitatively weighing the human cost against the abstract political gain.


Science may allow you to give you better information, but it's your value system that ultimately decides what's right and wrong.

Re:Perhaps because...

[Oblio]

Despite the fact that the grandparent didn't really need to be called to task for his semantics (I don't think his semantics were sophistry), I really wish we exposed more people to the philosophical nature of the whole "science v. religion" thing, such as serious discussion on materialism and teleology.

Bravo.

I've often thought that we should require one year of philosophy in K12 education, just so people can learn to think and talk about these things rationally.

Re:Perhaps because...

[Fweeky]

"The mere belief that a God doesn't exist, is a religion"

Pretty dilute meaning of the word "religion" you're using there. What do you base this on?

Much here depends on your interpretation of the nature of the belief. I consider myself an atheist, but I still don't really have a strong conviction along the lines of "there is no God"; how the hell should I know? It's not a concept I can disprove.

Equally, though, it's not a concept I see any vaguely convincing argument for, either. And let's face it, we're not talking about just one belief here; you say "a God", which is a pretty vague concept, but one that's far removed from most religions. It's a hop of astronomical proportions to go from there to a God who takes a personal interest in my specific beliefs, feelings and actions, and which really wouldn't mind a chat and some appreciation, and maybe a few temples (which you might want to donate something towards), and who also likes to talk more directly to a few authority figures who can tell us exactly what pleases him/her/it, and to never mind the thousands of others following the same patterns because *ours* is really *real*.

I fail to see how one can make such a leap; what little I do see points rather more strongly to evolutionary psychology and the exploitation of our flawed perceptions and critical thinking skills by memes and people more than any deeper truth about the nature of the universe.

Maybe I'm wrong, and this tendancy to believe in *some* kind of Godlike being does reflect reality. Maybe there is some God out there who is displeased by my doubt, and would like to see me stoned to death for engaging in premarital sex or using one of his names as an expletive or eating pork that hasn't been killed *just* so, but I don't see why I should give this significantly more credence than the possibility that the Invisible Pink Unicorn is going to trample me to/after death for suggesting that she likes pepperoni more than ham.

Re:Perhaps because...

[Moofie]

What disclaimer is that? "Science class is about science"?

Re:Perhaps because...

[Moofie]

"This is the very point expressed by the veil of perception. Basically, we observe the world through our senses, but we have no guarentee that those senses are faithfully representing the "real world". We could be brains in a jar being electrically simulated."

So what? From a pragmatic perspective (see? I know a little about philosophy too), something that is indistinguishable from something else is identical with that thing. If I can't percieve it, why should I care about it? It is not germane to my existence, which is circumscribed by what I can percieve.

"Thus, they are studying the physics of The Matrix. Which in fact doesn't truely "exist", nor was it "reality.""

You're not seriously talking about The Matrix as serious philosophy, are you? Come on now. Surely you've got better arrows in your quiver than that.

"I don't ask you pass up the practical need for science, I ask you only to not get pissed when someone calls science a religion."

I'm not pissed at all. I just think you're kinda silly, and you haven't made a very good argument. I have argued that science is about what we can percieve, and that that set of things is germane to solving problems that exist in reality. I have asserted that religion is about things that cannot be percieved, and thus has less efficacy in solving problems that exist in reality. Religion (and its close cousin philosophy) are indeed interesting areas of study, but they do not include science as such.

You seem to want to conflate the modern understanding of philosophy with "natural philosophy", which is what we now call science. I think that yours is not a useful definition.

Re:Perhaps because...

[sparkz]

Science demands that all theories are proven.

The scientific community has a strong theory of the Big Bang, but cannot prove it, nor find out what caused it. The religious community believe that the Universe was created by a Creator, but have no answer as to what created the Creator (if such a question has any meaning).

Until one community disproves the other, why not let both live together?

The argument in this debate seems to be caused by those who believe that science is correct, and believe that religion is incorrect.

Re:Perhaps because...

[PoolDoc]

Gee whiz!

This is partly what I hate about this debate: it tends to immediately move from specific and less uncertain, to general and more uncertain.

The concept of "irreducible complexity" does not address or postulate concerning who, or what, designed these systems. It only asserts that these systems are of a kind for which currently the only known plausible explanation is deliberate design, rather than random emergence.

Regarding a "supreme being" of the generic type common to such 'beings' . . .

No, I don't find them (or him or her or it) to be "irreducibly complex" in the specific sense offered by Behe. If you'll go back to my first post, you'll see that an element of "irreducible complexity" is exhaustive comprehension of a system, and all its components. This exhaustive comprehension very specifically includes identification of ALL the system components, AND understanding of each component's function. Since there are no "supreme beings", of whatever kind, which anyone understands exhaustively, no one can 'find' such beings to be "irreducibly complex" in the specific sense relevant to the ID discussion.

More to the point of the discussion about ID, and the flaws in that discussion as popularly presented, your question itself exhibits precisely the sort of loosey-goosey linguist 'phase-shifting' that has transformed the whole debate into a useless "Is to! -- is not! -- Is so to!" shouting match.

PoolDoc

Re:Perhaps because...

[ceejayoz]

The concept of "irreducible complexity" does not address or postulate concerning who, or what, designed these systems. It only asserts that these systems are of a kind for which currently the only known plausible explanation is deliberate design, rather than random emergence. ... while ignoring the fact that under the same logic, the designer cannot have come about by chance either.

Science doesn't claim to understand how the entire system started. ID claims to know, while ignoring the fundamental question of who designed the designer, and who designed that designer, and so on and so forth. Something capable of creating the universe, regardless of who or what that thing is, can hardly be termed a non-complex thing.

If you'll go back to my first post, you'll see that an element of "irreducible complexity" is exhaustive comprehension of a system, and all its components. This exhaustive comprehension very specifically includes identification of ALL the system components, AND understanding of each component's function.

Then it's an entirely useless term, as we cannot yet claim to have exhaustive comprehension of much.

Re:Perhaps because...

[scotch]

Because implicit in the purpose of the sticker is the idea that the theory of evolution is unlike the rest of theoretical science in this regard. Further, the language of the sticker implies incorrect usage of the word theory. Further, that the stick is religiously motivated, not scientifically motivated. I.E. there is no academic or scientific reason for the existence of the sticker that can't be better conducted within the text book itself or in texts on the philosophy of science. There is, however, a clear religious motivation for the existence of the sticker. Hope that helps, bucko.

Re:Perhaps because...

[Darby]

Or more accurately, we'd still be sitting in castles, and homes of wood eating food cooked over an open flame.

No, the OP had it exactly right.
Just because the modern scientific method hadn't been formalized yet doesn't mean that castles used to be built by believing that the stones would magically stack themselves.

The mere belief that a God doesn't exist, is a religion,

That's barely arguable, but irrelevant.
Opting not to believe some ridiculous nonsense is not a religious belief, it's basic common sense. There is no reason whatsoever to believe in any god, so not believing isn't religious at all. Every single person who ever lived was born an atheist.

the mere belief that your perceptions are of a true reality, is a belief and a philosophical assertion.

No, the exact opposite of what you are saying is true. Arguing that nothing is real and we're all just living through a common delusion or somesuch is philsophical. Dealing with the reality we all live in as it is is realism.

Re:Perhaps because...

[scotch]

Since you admitted you don't really follow the debate, I should be surprised that you don't know this, but there is plenty of discussion of the concept of "irreducible complexity", both in the general sense of the concept's scientific merit and in the specific examples of the concept that Behe and others have proposed.

You're probably not going to find real academic treament of the issue in this forum. If you're really interested in what the case against "irreducible complexity" is, go ask in the Talk Origins newsgroups or something.

Re:Perhaps because...

[Copid]

And, I'd bet those "days" preceded the 'invention' of ID by years, or maybe even, decades?

No, it probably just had a different name then. What do you think they'll call creationism when "Intelligent Design" falls out of fashion?

But I have yet to encounter a SINGLE instance of an anti-ID debater engaging the 'strong' idea behind ID, which is the concept of "irreducible complexity"*. So far as I know, this idea has not even been addressed in any general discussion of ID, much less demolished! My guess is that 99% or more of those who have heard of ID via the popular media has NOT heard of "irreducible complexity".

Irreducible complexity has been discussed in some depth. It essentially amounts to, "I can't think of a pathway for this, so it's impossible." A number of Behe's examples have been shown to have theoretical pathways, and the whole idea fails on one simple problem: an intermediate form of an "irreducibly complex" system that performs function X need not perform function X at all. If it performs function Y, that is sufficient.

Specifically, there's a goodly list of publications that address some of his examples here. Of course, with those examples taken care of, it's always possible to posit more irreducibly complex looking structures. You can do it forever, but it's still nothing more than god-in-the-gaps.

AFAIK, both this concept, and the half dozen or so specific cases, were originally proposed by the biochemist, Michael Behe. His challenge, offered some 15 or so years ago, was that no biochemist or evolutionary biologist has offered even a plausible theoretical process by which such "irreducibly complex" biological systems could develop. I know that, in the interim, some claims have been made that such proposals have been made, but the references I can find all appear in 'popular' scientific media, and not in the peer-reviewed journals referred to in Behe's origial challenge. It's my understanding that Behe still considers his original challenge unanswered.

You should read the transcript for the Dover Intelligent Design case. When 50+ journal articles describing theoretical pathways for one of his examples of irreducible complexity were listed to him, he didn't have a whole lot to say. He either hadn't read them or he dismissed them in their entirety. I'm sure he still does consider his challenge unmet, but the biolgical community at large certainly doesn't. In fact, Behe was taken to task for it rather sternly in the judge's decision.

Re:Perhaps because...

[Darby]

Science never claimed to explain everything. Never.

Is completely incorrect as far as most people are concerned. Answers on the tests in high school science class are either right or wrong, never giving points for original thought.

So your tests in high school covered everything?
Dude, you're such a ridiculous troll. Questions on high school science tests that I've seen are simple enough to admit simple yes/no answers. Your response had nothing to do with the post you were responding to.
I got points for original thought. I rightly didn't get points for ignorant trolls.

But that's NOT the way it's presented when you go to court to exclude other explainations from the classroom.

Sure it is. Other explanations are more than welcome. Why don't you come up with one?
  Ignorant religious nonsense isn't. That's what churches are for, not science classes.

Re:Perhaps because...

[Darby]

The point occured to me when I read this sticker... shouldn't all of science be labeled this way? And why would a scientist be upset that we're telling children to critically think about the information contained in their books?

It's a waste of time to label all science that way because science is *defined* that way.

How about this. We label your church with a big sign saying "The bible is a collection of stories ripped off from earlier religions and used as a means for the leaders of the Roman empire to subjugate their people. Many different, conflicting, versions of the stories exist within the bible itself and many more stories were edited out primarily as a means to allow a few evil people to pillage and murder the supporters of the other equally valid stories. There is little, if any, evidence that there ever was a Jesus and the gospels were written long after his death by people who never met him if he ever did live."

I'm sure you are 100% in support of that. If not, then you are a hypocrite.

So, if you don't support telling the facts for what they are, then what the hell are you talking about, exactly?

Re:Perhaps because...

[scotch]

The lack of a religion is a religion in itself. (which I realize is a contradiction)

Statements like these render the word "religion" meaningless and containing conversations pointless. The absurdity of it is obviously not lost on you (based on your parenthetical comment). I always wonder what the motivation is for the apologist who attempts to label atheism or evolution or science as religion. The goal (or effect at least), seems to say that in the end, all beliefs, churchy or scientific, are equal, all systems of belief equivalent, all facts illusory, all opinions equal, all points of view equivalent, all actions justified.

Recognize this goal when you see someone painting science with the religion brush. Call them out on it, then stop talking to them - there is no way to have a reasonable discussion with such a person.

Re:Perhaps because...

[Darby]

Somehow to them their lack of belief in a God is more justified than belief in a God, and they would rather argue that their beliefs are not a religion, because they are logically justified, than admit that fundamentally, it's all based on presumptions, and assumptions.

That is an utterly insane illogical asshatted statement.

Lack of belief requires no justification whatsoever.
Prove your beliefs. Then there would be something to justify believing in them.
You assume there is a god.
I don't make any assumptions.

That makes you religious. You have chosen to believe in something that there is no evidence for. I have not done that.

Your entire point is based on a logical fallacy. It's only if your beliefs were true that there would be any reason to accept them. Circular argument.

Here's a challenge you'll fail utterly:

Write out a chronology of the day of the resurrection using the bible and without ignoring any of the details. Make it consistent.

Sorry, Saprky, but you are religious, and I'm not. Your cowardly inability to accept that demonstrates the weakness of your position.

Re:Perhaps because...

[onemorechip]

The scientific community has a strong theory of the Big Bang, but cannot prove it, nor find out what caused it. The religious community believe[s] that the Universe was created by a Creator, but have no answer as to what created the Creator (if such a question has any meaning).

Until one community disproves the other, why not let both live together?

Can you not see the difference between "has a strong theory" and "believes"?

Re:Perhaps because...

[PoolDoc]

"Then it's an entirely useless term, as we cannot yet claim to have exhaustive comprehension of much."

Limited scope does not mean useless: it just means limited. Behe does not argue that we "exhaustive comprehension of much"; rather he argues that now, for the first time in the history of the biochemistry, we have exhaustive comprehension of SEVERAL very significant systems.

As noted earlier, those politicizing the debate on both sides want to use what arguments they have to go further than those arguments will take them

As I understand it, all that's being claimed (at least by the original ID'rs) is that there are some systems in biochemistry that (a) are essential, and (b) inexplical -- even theoretically -- by any currently suggested process of random emergence. The problem for non-ID'rs is that these systems apparently ARE essential. And, so far, they do appear to be inexplicable by any described process of random emergence.

So, although this is not necessarily a fatal flaw in the theory of evolution, it is a check point, and does appear to require an answer.

Another way to look at it is like this: evolutionists say, we have an explanation that's complete, at least in theory, if not yet in evidence. Behe has come along and offered several counter examples , claiming that the theory of evolution cannot, in any form presently articulated, account, even in theory, for these (now) known facts.

So, while Behe's original analysis goes much less far than most Creationists would like, it remains -- until answered -- a serious roadblock for evolutionists. The fact that his fundamental and central argument is seemingly going unanswered, and indeed, unmentioned, would imply that it may be a very strong argument indeed.

The other bit, implying that I suggested that a Supreme Being, if any might be "termed a non-complex thing", is merely a distractor. I neither said, nor implied, any such thing. I'm trying very, very hard to avoid any discussion of theism versus agnosticism or atheism, since it would be OT here. In argument, focus is a valuable thing, if you are actually trying to think carefully about a problem, and arrive at even a provisional answer. OTOH, if you are only firing away to increase the noise and the smoke, well then, you are doing precisely what I have supposed the popular media to be doing on this topic.

As noted before (and again, and again), the phrase "irreducible complexity" is a carefully defined 'special term' in Behe's argument. To get into a discussion of complexity in general is simply irrelevant to Behe's argument.

PoolDoc

Re:Perhaps because...

[Krach42]

I'm sure you are 100% in support of that. If not, then you are a hypocrite.

No, because it's not accurate.

If you wanted to put a sticker on public bibles saying, "The material in this book is presented as fact, although little of it can be historically validated. The information, which is contained within should be considered with a critical mind." I would be up for that. It's a public bible. I can insist that no such sticker be placed on my personal bible, as much as I make no assertion that such a sticker as I represented be placed upon your scientific textbooks.

It's a waste of time to label all science that way because science is *defined* that way.

Then if it's a waste of time, why fight that it's even there... This is my assertion, if the ID people were happy with that, then why not just leave it alone, why piss them off by going and insisting that they remove something that is an accurate, and nonoffensive clarrification of the contents.

I will now discuss the material that you ask our sticker to contain:

"The bible is a collection of stories ripped off from earlier religions

Not ripped of, evolved from, or borrowed from. The use of "ripped off" also is inflammatory. Also, The Bible has a number of stories borrowed from at the time contemporary religions. Your sticker would not indicate that.

and used as a means for the leaders of the Roman empire to subjugate their people.

Also, the pope, and medieval kings also used it to subjugate their people. Your sticker doesn't indicate this (this information is fine though) A less inflammatory statement than "subjugate" would be "control" their people, or "keep them in line."

Many different, conflicting, versions of the stories exist within the bible itself

Unarguable. Religious theologians though contend that they are different "viewpoints". I personally believe that James is the worst Gospel, and its variation in the presentation of the attitude of Jesus is quite literally opposed to the one presented in the other three Gospels.

Thus, I can't argue with this at all.

and many more stories were edited out primarily as a means to allow a few evil people to pillage and murder the supporters of the other equally valid stories.

Considering that most modern translations are from the oldest sources that we can gather, it's unlikely that modern bibles need to include this statement. More accurately would be that some books have been excluded from canon for essentially arbitrary reasons, just as well as some have been included for arbitrary reasons.

There is little, if any, evidence that there ever was a Jesus and the gospels were written long after his death by people who never met him if he ever did live."

Again, undisputable, and I accept that.

So, I would agree to: "The Bible is a collection of stories, some of which have been taken from other religions. Many parts of it have been used throughout history to control people. There exist differing, and conflicting versions of the stories within the bible, and the books of the Bible were not included, or included based on biased and essentially arbitrary reasons based on their compliance with established beliefs, rather than any reason for a belief of better accuracy or authority. Many details presented in the Bible have been used by people to wage war, murder and otherwise act against peoples believing in equally valid stories. There is little evidence that there ever was a Jesus, Moses, Abraham, and other people presented in the Bible, and the Gospels in particular were written after Jesus's death by people, who may never have met him, if he ever did live."

You want that as a sticker on public Bibles, I'm fine with it.

Re:Perhaps because...

[Krach42]

Because implicit in the purpose of the sticker is the idea that the theory of evolution is unlike the rest of theoretical science in this regard.

Would you be happier if it didn't single out evolution?

Further, the language of the sticker implies incorrect usage of the word theory.

So, just because a theory is provable means that it shouldn't be critically considered? Let's take a theory that definitely can be proven: "The square of the hypothenus is equal to the sum of the two other sides." We shouldn't present this and show how it's provable?

Any scientific theory, or even mathematical theory (that can even be logically proven) should be presented with the justification and evidence of that. Showing evolution as an authoritarian fact is the wrong way to present evolution to students.

Further, that the stick is religiously motivated, not scientifically motivated. I.E. there is no academic or scientific reason for the existence of the sticker that can't be better conducted within the text book itself or in texts on the philosophy of science.

If this information were presented as such, then there would be no need for the sticker, but in absense of that information, then it should be affixed onto the material after the fact.

There is, however, a clear religious motivation for the existence of the sticker. Hope that helps, bucko.

Regardless of there being a religious motivation of the sticker, it does not equate to establishment of a religion, and thus warrant removing it. The tax-free status of religious organizations is religiously motivated, but it's not denied to people under the presumption that it is establishing a state-sponsored religion.

Re:Perhaps because...

[Darby]

Then if it's a waste of time, why fight that it's even there... This is my assertion, if the ID people were happy with that, then why not just leave it alone, why piss them off by going and insisting that they remove something that is an accurate, and nonoffensive clarrification of the contents.

You're argument is entirely off base here.

It's not "Why remove something that was placed there by people with an agenda", it's "why even put it there?"
They're the ones trying to shove their shit down everybody else's throats. They're the ones pissing off decent people.

If reality pisses them off, fuck em. They're the ones trying to waste money on a redundt statement directed against one particular field of science that they're too cowardly to deal with.

The use of "ripped off" also is inflammatory.

The entire point of their sticker is inflammatory. That's why they intentionally misuse the word "theory" That was my entire point in making up my sticker. I hope you didn't think my intent was that it shouldn't be inflammatory.

Also, The Bible has a number of stories borrowed from at the time contemporary religions. Your sticker would not indicate that.

True, but I think "ripped off" is too kind in that respect. "The promoters of those ideas were brutally murdered and their ideas stolen in order to assert control over their faithful".

Also, the pope, and medieval kings also used it to subjugate their people.

The Popes were the leaders of the Roman empire for most of the early history of the religion, so adding that is arguable redundant, but clarification might work.

I'd also say that medieval kings *continued* to use it....Church control was continuous, regardless of the empire. kingdoms, or nations involved.

personally believe that James is the worst Gospel, and its variation in the presentation of the attitude of Jesus is quite literally opposed to the one presented in the other three Gospels.

Which completely destroys any divine authority, and any reason to take it as anything besides a collection of fables.

Considering that most modern translations are from the oldest sources that we can gather, it's unlikely that modern bibles need to include this statement. More accurately would be that some books have been excluded from canon for essentially arbitrary reasons, just as well as some have been included for arbitrary reasons.

They're all arbitrary. The reasons varied, but often were a matter of one group of bishops using trivial differences as an excuse to murder their opposition. That's why it's important to note that regardless of the particular translation, the selection of entire chapters was based on evil men's desire to subjugate their fellow man.

You want that as a sticker on public Bibles, I'm fine with it.

Ahhhh, no see.. I want that plastered on your church.

Keep your church out of my state and I'll keep my state out of your church.

Please don't think I'm actually arguing for that. The entire point of the ID movement is to destroy that most fundamental of American values. I have no problem with people believing whatever crazy thing their heart desires. I have an extreme problem with people trying to shove their evil, murderous (as it *always* is when given government power) faith down my throat.

Re:Perhaps because...

[scotch]

Would you be happier if it didn't single out evolution?

Yes I would. I'd be even happier if they left the sticker off entirely and explained fully (not in two sentences) what science is, how it works to include verification and revision of theories and models, and to what extent things can be proved or disproved in science Inside the book. I thought that was clear from my post. I remember that stuff from science education in my public school days, but maybe they don't teach it anymore - as evidenced by your misunderstanding of science - see below.

So, just because a theory is provable means that it shouldn't be critically considered? Let's take a theory that definitely can be proven: "The square of the hypothenus is equal to the sum of the two other sides." We shouldn't present this and show how it's provable?

This little bit here shows a staggering misunderstanding of the topic of hand. Math theorems can be proven (usually) given the axioms of the formal system. This has little to do with the theories of science. Your introduction of this example baffles me. Science theories are either disproven (in whole or part) or evidence is provided supporting them. I think you understand that at some level. Yes, it is the job of science education to present this aspect of science in general and to teach about supporting evidence for accepted theories. This applies to evolution, plate tectonics, ecology, special relativity, EM, superconductivity, heredity, photosynthesis, and everything else.

Guess what? Science education (generally) teaches this way. Could it be taught better? Probably. A sticker singlying out one theory doesn't help a bit. I don't think evolution is taught in any more or less authoritarian of a manner than other theories, though I concede all of science education is (possibly necessarily) authoritarian at introductory levels.

If this information were presented as such, then there would be no need for the sticker, but in absense of that information, then it should be affixed onto the material after the fact.

Did you review the textbooks in question? Do they lack a general statement of the philosphy of science? Is evolution presented in a manner, authoritarian or otherwise, that is inconsistent with the presentation of other theories?

You sound like you've reviewed these materials? Maybe it that bad and the stickers are necessary. Maybe this is just a case of providing a rather visible errata for a selectively flawed textbook, and not a religious cluster fuck, after all.

Regardless of there being a religious motivation of the sticker, it does not equate to establishment of a religion, and thus warrant removing it. The tax-free status of religious organizations is religiously motivated, but it's not denied to people under the presumption that it is establishing a state-sponsored religion.

Maybe, maybe not. Many people disagree with you, including the courts, who intpret the ruling of the first ammendment, which you somehow managed to miss some nuance of, short as it is. Tax-free status has got nothing to do with this, and even if it did, you might consider that just cause the government violates the bill of rights once, doesn't justify every other violation they feel like committing.

Re:Perhaps because...

[Krach42]

It's not "Why remove something that was placed there by people with an agenda", it's "why even put it there?"
They're the ones trying to shove their shit down everybody else's throats.

Your religion offends me! To suggest that there is no God is absolutely infuriating, and I do not want you to shove your shit down my, and my children's throat. The very nature of public education has only served to advance the Atheist religion, and due to law my children are being FORCED to go to that public school, and be taught things that I find fundamentally offensive!

They're the ones pissing off decent people.

Fuck you for calling me indecent. I have attempted to live my life in the strictest manner possible, avoiding all things that are indecent. Your presumption that just because I refuse to believe in the lies of evolution makes me not a part of "decent people" is offensive.

If reality pisses them off, fuck em. They're the ones trying to waste money on a redundt statement directed against one particular field of science that they're too cowardly to deal with.

You're the one attempting to establish your Athiestic religion by sugguating the public school system to pass on your evil religious motivations.

The entire point of their sticker is inflammatory. That's why they intentionally misuse the word "theory" That was my entire point in making up my sticker. I hope you didn't think my intent was that it shouldn't be inflammatory.

Of course I found your sticker inflammatory, and of course I knew you intended it to be inflammatory.

If a theory can be proven, then call it a fact. Stop calling it "the theory of evolution" and start calling it "the fact of evolution". It's apparent that you are so certain of your belief that evolution is correct that you're willing to discount any possibility that evolution may be wrong.

True, but I think "ripped off" is too kind in that respect. "The promoters of those ideas were brutally murdered and their ideas stolen in order to assert control over their faithful".

This is hardly accurate.

Which completely destroys any divine authority, and any reason to take it as anything besides a collection of fables.

This assertion is just as ridiculous as asserting that just because scientists can't explain how bees fly, that all of science is wrong. Divine authority need not be absolute, to still be correct.

They're all arbitrary. The reasons varied, but often were a matter of one group of bishops using trivial differences as an excuse to murder their opposition. That's why it's important to note that regardless of the particular translation, the selection of entire chapters was based on evil men's desire to subjugate their fellow man.

WTF is your problem continually asserting that everything was solved with murder and religion? Let's not forget that the Christian faith is fundamentally founded upon the deaths of their founding members.

Keep your church out of my state and I'll keep my state out of your church.

Keep YOUR religion out of MY state, and I'll start keeping my religion out of your state.

Please don't think I'm actually arguing for that.

Why don't you stick your balls out and actually argue for it? You're already being enough of an asshole to argue it, why not do so in earnest.

Personally, I don't feel a compulsion to argue anything unless I believe in it strongly enough to argue it in earnest.

The entire point of the ID movement is to destroy that most fundamental of American values.

Holy mythical maker! What the fuck? Are you seriously trying to assert this? Do you not know that the first amendment to the constitution, the first right given to the people in the bill of rights, is the freedom of religion.

FUCK! I hate the use of this word "American" as if that automatically means "good", and that "unamerican" is "bad". It leads to the stupidest statements

Re:Perhaps because...

[sasami]

This is getting pretty offtopic. Maybe I should refrain? Nahh. ;-)

Ha! but in fact, science does tell us if war is just or not.. In fact, most every war waged this century had more to do with the scientific method than religion. Logical constructs of use-cases.

This appears quite circular to me. You're talking about using science to determine the truth or falsity of various measures of justice, but the original assertion is that science cannot provide a definition of justice.

Rather, you simply assume here...

Quantitatively weighing the human cost against the abstract political gain.
 
...what sounds like a utilitarian model of justice.

Any given "moral" issue can be socialogically deconstructed. And just like inconsistencies between quantum and reletevism, current gaps in our understanding of social moral delemmas are only a PHD thesis away.

Morality is socially deconstructible only if you believe it is. That's a philosophical assumption, a starting position that is no more, or less, rational than the assumption that morality is objective.

And frankly, I have a pretty low view of our "current... understanding of social moral [di]lemmas." The radical subjectivism characteristic of postmodern social sciences is beyond ridiculous -- and would be particularly irksome to the scientifically-minded Slashdot crowd if they ever realize that the "best" contemporary scholarship in the social sciences all begins with the assumption that truth does not exist -- not even scientific truth.

The idea that social and moral concepts will fall to the inquiry of Reason is an old one -- rooted in (of course) the Enlightenment, buoyed by the triumph of Newtonian physics. But as we know, science went on to achieve an unbroken record of success, while the sociological side is fairly a train wreck. All attempts to create Utopia have failed, despite the appearance of rigor and plausibility in their underlying theses. Marxism is the poster child, of course; but the same impulse led to that other regime that Godwin prohibits me from mentioning outright. ;-)

The essential problems of the human condition are moral ones, chronicled in literature for thousands of years, unchanged in the face of scientific advancement. Lately, from Nietzsche to Skinner to Dawkins, the fashionable response has been to blandly assert that these things are just illusions and social constructions -- a non-answer that Kant famously decried as being pretty unhelpful, even if true.

So, given that there isn't much historical reason to believe that social Progress has anything to do with scientific Progress, I can only assume that you look to the impending solution to all our moral problems as an article of faith? (Kidding, kidding. Mostly.)

--
Dum de dum.

Re:Perhaps because...

[Krach42]

Yes I would. I'd be even happier if they left the sticker off entirely and explained fully (not in two sentences) what science is, how it works to include verification and revision of theories and models, and to what extent things can be proved or disproved in science Inside the book.

I would be very happy about that, too. But considering that the average person listens to the news and the news says, "Scientist says that he's cloned human cells," and they believe it, it's apparent that this is NOT taught sufficiently.

I remember that stuff from science education in my public school days, but maybe they don't teach it anymore - as evidenced by your misunderstanding of science

Fuck you, you don't have permission to attack me personally.

This little bit here shows a staggering misunderstanding of the topic of hand.

Or PERHAPS, I'm attempting to show that even in the strongest possible link of theory to fact, justification is still necessary in education.

This has little to do with the theories of science.

I knew this had little to do with science, I was working with the semantics of the word.

I don't think evolution is taught in any more or less authoritarian of a manner than other theories, though I concede all of science education is (possibly necessarily) authoritarian at introductory levels.

So, by only asserting against a single point their argument suddenly loses all merit or value? That sounds like a typical ID argument, that since scientists haven't proven it all, it's all worthless.

Maybe, maybe not. Many people disagree with you, including the courts, who intpret the ruling of the first ammendment, which you somehow managed to miss some nuance of, short as it is.

My assertion is that it's a gross misuse of the first amendment to say that a tauntology statement about science is supporting the establishment of a religion.

If only someone could get a court to rule that athiesm is a religion, they could then argue that evolution advances a religion, and that advancement warrants an establishment of a religion.

Tax-free status has got nothing to do with this, and even if it did, you might consider that just cause the government violates the bill of rights once, doesn't justify every other violation they feel like committing.

Tax-free status has EVERYTHING to do with this. Because at some point you could assert that it sets up an establishment of a religion. All I need to do is believe that I am a divine authority, and that I deserve tax-free status. When that is denied, then I assert that because the US grants tax-free status to some religious authorities, but not to me, that it is an establishment of religion. (same god damn shaky leg as declaring that an admittedly redundant statement about a single scientific statement is an establishment of religion)

Re:Perhaps because...

[Krach42]

That's barely arguable, but irrelevant.

Not irrelevant. And your choice of "religion" to mean a belief in hocus pocus is unreasonably restrictive of the semantic meaning of religion.

Opting not to believe some ridiculous nonsense is not a religious belief, it's basic common sense.

Religion is not ridiculous nonsense, and your opinion of religion as ridiculous nonsense, is ridiculous nonsense.

There is no reason whatsoever to believe in any god, so not believing isn't religious at all. Every single person who ever lived was born an atheist.

How do you know the infinite series of possibilities? I have a logical and responsible reason for believing in God. And nothing you can say can disprove my necessity to believe in God.

Therefore, my belief in God is justified, and reasonable, and not at all "ridiculous nonsense".

Re:Perhaps because...

[localman]

Any given "moral" issue can be socialogically deconstructed.

And usually incorrectly to boot! I agree with your statement in theory, but in practice I think it rarely works well. The subtle human interactions that result in the need for morality are easy to miss. Seems that in most cases someone tragically oversimplifies things and then does their cost/benefit analysis. I mean, how do you measure "the human cost"? Or "abstract political gain"? It's not quantitative, that's for sure.

Sometimes things turn out fine anyways, but I think it's a stretch to call such stuff "science".

Cheers.

Re:Perhaps because...

[Krach42]

The goal (or effect at least), seems to say that in the end, all beliefs, churchy or scientific, are equal, all systems of belief equivalent, all facts illusory, all opinions equal, all points of view equivalent, all actions justified.

CLOSE.

All beliefs are equal: for a government to assert otherwise would violate the right to religious freedom.
All systems of belief are equivalent: not equivalent. equally justifiable.
All facts are illusory: in that facts require a context to be true, yes
All opinons are equal: considering that opinions are by definition non-facts, this should be accepted by everyone without argument. To assert otherwise leads to a position that could say that "I don't like onions" is wrong.
All points of view equivalent: again, not equivalent, equally justifiable
All actions justified: within a particular context. Some people who kill feel that their actions were necessarily justified. It's the job of a society to settle discrepencies between those actions and the good of that society. Basically, the society has to choose its context, which sometimes comes in direct disagreement with person actions.

Recognize this goal when you see someone painting science with the religion brush. Call them out on it, then stop talking to them - there is no way to have a reasonable discussion with such a person

Wrong, me and Marxist Hacker 42 had a conversation with someone who believed in science. He simply stated that his belief in science was his choice, and that he felt that it were justified. And despite the fact that we can assert that science is fundamentally unproveable had no effect on his position that science is reality.

We commended him and said that's all we ever want anyone to admit. That science still cannot answer the meta-physical question of what is reality.

But so many atheist and believers in science here on slashdot here "science is religion" and immediately fly off the handle and act like we haven't actually considered what this means.

I mean, fuck, me and Marxist Hacker 42 seem to have this argument every other week, we've discussed it A LOT.

Re:Perhaps because...

[id]

not very good at math eh?

Re:Perhaps because...

[16K Ram Pack]

Science is founded upon a philosophical argument that the world we observe has some reasonable attachment to "reality." Or that what we perceive is reality.

I'd like to know what the alternative is to "reality".

Re:Perhaps because...

[PoolDoc]

"You should read the transcript for the Dover Intelligent Design case."

Are there links?

PoolDoc

Re:Perhaps because...

[Darren Winsper]

Let's suppose that there is a God. How, then, do you know which religion is the right one?

Re:Perhaps because...

[RobinH]

The mere belief that a God doesn't exist, is a religion

Yes, like "not collecting stamps" is a hobby, and being bald is a hair color. - Not my words, someone else said it first.

Re:Perhaps because...

[scotch]

"Scientist says that he's cloned human cells," and they believe it, it's apparent that this is NOT taught sufficiently.

Wow, this is incredible. Sure, there is fraud in science and other human endeavors (religion included). There is also gullibility among people. This is not damnation of science education so much as a statement of the human condition. You think a sticker on a textbook will help? Guess what, cloning human cells is most likely possible, and will eventually happen if it hasn't already, so the type of gullibility involved here is only very shallow.

Fuck you, you don't have permission to attack me personally.

I don't need permission to attack you personally, ass clown.

Your implied comparison of the theory of evolution to mathematical theorems in order to show the former weaker is a common technique among creationists, especially those who either have a weak grasp of science or pander to an audience with the same. The improper tie of scientific theories to mathematical theorems, which can not be justified semantically except to distinguish the two, is a recurring shady tactic in this debate.

If only someone could get a court to rule that athiesm is a religion, they could then argue that evolution advances a religion, and that advancement warrants an establishment of a religion.

That will be truly sad day; suddenly, biology (not just evolution), astronomy, physics, medicine, and countless other scientific topics will be carvied into swiss cheese as the religious crackpots, mainstream and otherwise, line up to say that current scientific theories in these disciplines imply their teaching are wrong and hence atheistic. Sort of what we have now but a thousand times worse. You welcome this to our public education?

I mostly disagree with the rest of your reply, but I don't have time to deal with it really right now. Sorry. It does seem that we won't agree on much of this. One thing I will say, you are mostly right that proscribing the statment on the sticker seems to be not justified by using first ammendment, taken at face value of both the former and latter. This is strange territory. Perhaps the creationist have found a tactic with which they can attack evolution and other scientific theories without recourse? The arguments used by the judge in the sticker case are much longer though, and from what I understand, are more about science and less about religion. I need to read them. In any case, having the courts rule on scientific matters is also deeply strange.

Re:Perhaps because...

[Darby]

Your religion offends me!

I have no religion.

To suggest that there is no God is absolutely infuriating

Too bad, it's a little thing called freedom. If you're so infuriated by the simple fact that everybody doesn't agree with you in exact detail on everything, then why do you live here? Why haven't you moved to Iran or some other theocracy?!? If you realise how bad those kinds of places are, then why would you support having that sort of crap here?

I do not want you to shove your shit down my, and my children's throat.

Well, it's good that neither I, nor anybody else is trying to do that then, isn't it?

The very nature of public education has only served to advance the Atheist religion,

There you go again with your insane rantings. Atheism isn't a religion. Further atheism is in no way promoted by public education.
*your* religion isn't promoted by public education and that is the entirety of your problem with it in that respect.

and due to law my children are being FORCED to go to that public school, and be taught things that I find fundamentally offensive!

No they aren't. Send them to a religious school. Problem solved. I'll bet that what you find "fundamentally offensive" is the same tired old lies that is the fundie's sole stock in trade. Like you said above. You're spouting insane nonsense.

Fuck you for calling me indecent. I have attempted to live my life in the strictest manner possible, avoiding all things that are indecent. Your presumption that just because I refuse to believe in the lies of evolution makes me not a part of "decent people" is offensive.

You're not indecent for not accepting the simple basic fact of evolution. You're indecent for trying to shove religious dogma into science classes. It's an insult to freedom, it's an insult to decency, and it's an insult to your own god.

You're the one attempting to establish your Athiestic religion by sugguating the public school system to pass on your evil religious motivations.

What a truly frighteningly delusional person you are. Your sole issue is that *your* religion is not being shoved down people's throats in direct violation of the founding principles of this country. You're honestly saying that searching for answers is evil?!? WTF dude.
Right, because I don't blindly accept your beliefs and promote forcing them on others, I'm an evil heretic. Your insane attittude is exactly why the seperation of church and state was enacted.

If a theory can be proven, then call it a fact. Stop calling it "the theory of evolution" and start calling it "the fact of evolution".

Other than demonstrating that you don't even understand what the words you're using mean, was there any point in spouting this nonsense?

There is the fact of evolution. For absolute proof, look at a dog, a seedless watermelon drug resistant bacteria.
Absolute 100% positive proof that evolution happens.

There is also the Theory of Evolution which is a scientific theory that seeks to explain the mechanisms by which evolution occurs.

It's apparent that you are so certain of your belief that evolution is correct that you're willing to discount any possibility that evolution may be wrong.

Short of magic fairys, evoltion is 100% correct.
The theory of evolution isn't even complete, so it could hardly be correct.
You are more than welcome to come up with another scientific theory that explains the observed phenomena. Why is it that nobody on your side of this debate has even tried to do so?

This is hardly accurate.

It is in fact entirely accurate.

This assertion is just as ridiculous as asserting that just because scientists can't explain how bees fly, that all of science is wrong. Divine authority need not be absolute, to still be correct.

In fact it really does have to be absolute. If it isn't, then which parts of it are divine and which parts are man

Re:Perhaps because...

[Marxist Hacker 42]

I.E. there is no academic or scientific reason for the existence of the sticker that can't be better conducted within the text book itself or in texts on the philosophy of science.

But that's the point- many scientific textbooks NEVER deal with the point that scientific facts are actually working assumptions that may be wrong. Thus they are teaching science as a religion- as a certainty instead of as the possibly wrong set of theories that it is.

Re:Perhaps because...

[Anonymous Coward]

If that's the point, why is Evolution singled out on the sticker rather than containing a general warning against the dogma of all scientific theories? Hmmmm. Also, have you read this particular book which the sticker was placed upon? Can you tell me definitively whether the philosophy of science is covered in the textbook and whether evolution is presented in a uniquely dogmatic manner?

Re:Perhaps because...

[Marxist Hacker 42]

What disclaimer is that? "Science class is about science"?

Yep, or to put it another way "Scientific facts are actually working assumptions, and may be disproven with additional data or even by alternate worldviews, beliefs, religions and faiths." Far too many textbooks today treat science as religious, eternal truth and fact, and fail to say that science is just a model of how the world works.

Re:Perhaps because...

[Moofie]

"working assumptions" is damning with faint praise, if (according to your definition) an "assumption" is something you take on faith, and never question.

Scientific "facts" (I think "facts" is a dangerous and misleading terms) are theories that are well-supported by observation, but by definition can and should be disproven with additional data. Science is the process of refining theories to more closely explain and predict observable phenomena. Science is not a set of "facts".

Alternate worldviews, beliefs, religions, and faiths have nothing whatsoever to do with science.

Re:Perhaps because...

[Marxist Hacker 42]

So your tests in high school covered everything? Dude, you're such a ridiculous troll. Questions on high school science tests that I've seen are simple enough to admit simple yes/no answers. Your response had nothing to do with the post you were responding to. I got points for original thought. I rightly didn't get points for ignorant trolls.

When it comes to the question of whether ID is a science or not, we're talking about teaching it at the high school level. I contend that the "science" taught at the high school level is indeed taught as a religion- completely dogmatic and alternate explainations are not allowed. You may consider that a troll- I consider it entirely relevant to the discussion at hand.

Sure it is. Other explanations are more than welcome.

No, in fact they aren't. ID is an alternate explaination that fits the evidence we have so far in evolution- but it's barred from the classroom BY LAW, and every time anybody comes up with an explaination that challenges the orthodoxy of the textbooks used at a high school level, the result is the same.

Re:Perhaps because...

[rseuhs]

Answers on the tests in high school science class are either right or wrong, never giving points for original thought.

Yeah, because the questions only cover things that science can explain.

Just because you learn about science in science class does not mean science can explain "everything". It's actually a pretty straighforward concept that questions in science class are about things that science can explain, why you have such a problem with it seems quite strange to me.

But that's NOT the way it's presented when you go to court to exclude other explainations from the classroom.

That's simple because science is universal.

Take for example rain. Science explains this with water evaporating. All scientists on all continents agree on this, no matter what language they speak, what religion they have or not have or which culture they belong to.

But one of the "other" explanations might be that God Poseidon makes the rain. Another might be that a Christian God lets it rain. And even another might be that Ogabamba causes the rain.

Of course unscientific explanations have to be excluded because otherwise everybody might offer some "other" explanation, like the Flying Spagetti Monster did it. We would end up with thousands or even millions of explanations.

What makes science universal is the principle of falsification: Because every theory has to make predictions, you can disprove wrong theories. This way usually only one theory remains - and that theory proves very worthy in real life because of the predictions.

Of course there are competing theories at the forefront of science and also many theories have been adapted or have been even dropped because of new experiments. However 1) those are at the forefront of science and are usually not teached in school 2) Even if there are competing theories, there are maybe 2 or 3 of them, never hundreds or thousands. 3) Most importantly, unlike religion no theory claims to be "the truth" - it is just an USEFUL explanation of things we measure or see. I say useful, because theories make predictions and those predictions are useful in real life. (Religion on the other hand makes no useful predictions)

Not quite true- because there was a competing scientific method that wasn't exclusive

Which would be?

Re:Perhaps because...

[Copid]

Transcripts are available here among other places. You might want to try to track down some of the articles mentioned in the transcript, but the talkorigins.org link I gave you in the grandparent post has more direct references that should be easier to find.

Something worth remembering is that whenever a potential explanation for an "irreducibly complex" structure is proposed, ID proponents say at least one of two things:

1) You have no evidence that it DID happen that way. Of course, that's not relevant given that the argument is that such things are impossible due to their logical construct of irreducible complexity. The examples serve as simple counterexamples showing that it's ridiculous to make the leap from "I can't explain it" to "It can't be explained."

2) OK, but what about structure X? There is an essentially infinite number of example structures one could pull from, so if they want to play the game that way, they can do so forever. The goalposts just keep moving. Behe's challenge can remain unanswered as long as he wants it to because, once again, it's just god-in-the-gaps.

Re:Perhaps because...

[Marxist Hacker 42]

"working assumptions" is damning with faint praise, if (according to your definition) an "assumption" is something you take on faith, and never question.

Never questioning denies faith- faith means you're taking a chance on being wrong. That's the basic flaw of fundamentalists of any stripe- science, Christian, Islamic, Hindu, whatever. By not questioning their basic assumptions, no faith is required- it just is truth and you're not going to ever doubt it. The difference between good science and bad science is admiting that there are no facts- only working assumptions- and never stop doubting or questioning them. The key to good religious faith is exactly the same thing- you can be morally certain, but if you ever find yourself being absolutely certain, that's when you get into trouble and start looking at your neighbors as infidels and heretics that only deserve killing.

Scientific "facts" (I think "facts" is a dangerous and misleading terms) are theories that are well-supported by observation, but by definition can and should be disproven with additional data. Science is the process of refining theories to more closely explain and predict observable phenomena. Science is not a set of "facts".

Then you'd have no problem with the disclaimer sticker proposed for textbooks in Kansas. And that's all ID proponents are really asking for- a little less certainty, the removal of fundamentalism. The fact that YEC fundamentalists don't see that ID would be the end of their logically unsupportable interpretation of scripture is just icing on the cake.

Alternate worldviews, beliefs, religions, and faiths have nothing whatsoever to do with science.

Ah, you came so close- science can only be good science if it DOES accept alternate worldviews, beliefs, religions and faiths. The second we start censorship of alternative ideas, is the point we cross the line from good science into bad science.

Re:Perhaps because...

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Just because you learn about science in science class does not mean science can explain "everything". It's actually a pretty straighforward concept that questions in science class are about things that science can explain, why you have such a problem with it seems quite strange to me.

Funny how you say this, and then start the next bit out with:

That's simple because science is universal.

If science is universal, then it can explain everything in the universe- everything that exists. Only if science is NOT universal can it claim not to explain everything.

We would end up with thousands or even millions of explanations.

I'm not afraid of that. I'm more afraid of the single explaination- that only one way of looking at the world is considered "correct" and all others are excluded.

1) those are at the forefront of science and are usually not teached in school 2) Even if there are competing theories, there are maybe 2 or 3 of them, never hundreds or thousands. 3) Most importantly, unlike religion no theory claims to be "the truth" - it is just an USEFUL explanation of things we measure or see. I say useful, because theories make predictions and those predictions are useful in real life. (Religion on the other hand makes no useful predictions)

Completely correct except for that last- Religion has to make useful predictions, else nobody would choose to believe it. But your #1 and #3 are inherantly contradictory with each other- if you're teaching science, you should teach all the alternatives. And #2 just shows that science is being taught as a reliigion- if it were truly being taught as science, it WOULD have hundreds or thousands of competing theories.

Which would be?

Aristotle, Galileo, and Newton all believed in something called "Natural Philosophy". I contend that the modern scientific method is a corruption of this. A useful corruption possibly- but still a corruption.

Re:Perhaps because...

[Moofie]

"faith means you're taking a chance on being wrong. That's the basic flaw of fundamentalists of any stripe- science, "

Any reputable scientist welcomes the opportunity to prove himself wrong. "Science fundamentalist" is a contradiction in terms.

"Then you'd have no problem with the disclaimer sticker proposed for textbooks in Kansas."

Those stickers, again, damn with faint praise. To say that "Evolution is just a theory" is to attempt to deceive the audience as to what it means to be "a theory". I absolutely agree that any good science class will have a clear discussion of what is, and is not, scientific inquiry.

"science can only be good science if it DOES accept alternate worldviews, beliefs, religions and faiths"

It is not the place of science to accept or deny those things. Science is about observable reality. Anything that is not about observing reality, formulating hypotheses, and attempting to disprove them is not science.

Re:Perhaps because...

[rufty_tufty]

Science demands that all theories are proven.
Wrong.
Science demands all theories are falsifiable, (I'm ignoring mathematical theories here). A theory is also useful if it makes predictions which we can then run further experiments on to prove or disprove the theory.
Note even if a theory is known to be flawed it can still be useful. See Newtonian Gravity.

e.g. Big Bang theorises all matter started in one place because we observe all matter expanding. This is a valid theory because it matches observation evidence and predicts what will happen - that _most_ matter moves away due to initial inertia. It is useful because it predicts how mater should behave and leads us to question how this process could have started and to conduct further experiments to try to establish how it could have occured. It can be disproved by observing a significant number of galaxies that to not move in a pattern indicating a single starting point.

Invisible Pink Elephants the size of a quark controlling the universe is not a valid theory because:
1) they are unobservable Therefore cannot be disproved
2) They don't allow is to give any predictions about what future or past behaviour will be/was like

Science is about knowledge, not Truth or Belief or Answers.

Repeat after me - Science is not about belief! Scientific method is a method to understand the universe.
Some people believe science brings us closer to "the Truth" some believe it brings us closer to "God" - all of which is good, but science itself has no belief in it - those who say otherwise are misleading you.

Re:Perhaps because...

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, science vs. God. Why on Earth do we even think that way. God does not exclude science, nor does science exclude God. Scientists may try and exclude God and religeous folks may try and exlude science. That makes for a very narrow and paltry existence all around!

I love science and I love God. I have found science to be a great way to explore the wonders that God has made. It's a wonderful geeking out experience for me. I also love seeking out God. He has a tendency to respond personally to those that seek Him out. I have found that He really does love us. He has a great sense of humor. He's made a way for us to get past our limitations. And He really does want to heal us, get us out of abject poverty, help us get along, etc... The only requirement is that we have to first believe that we will find Him if we seek Him (and then honestly seek Him out!) He's not out to kill us or punish us. He's trying to get us out of the "punishment" that we choose when we make stupid choices. (something like... If you shoot yourself in the foot it hurts, but on a more detailed perspective...)

I don't really care if it took Him a few billion years to create everything. I still believe that He did it. That's trust (ie: faith). Science can come up with all sorts of theories. Great! I like new concepts. I like new ways of looking at things. I've seen and experienced God's power. I know the creator. He likes to be known by us! His intention was to create some friends/children. That's us!

Science is a method to look at what's there. It's cool. No need to argue. No need to have "religeous wars", literal or rhetorical. Scientists who insist on "disproving" a belief need to chill. Religeous zealots who try to silence scientists who find things that "disprove" their beliefs are just being religeous. They don't really know God. If they did, they'd know that He isn't threatened one bit when someone doesn't believe in Him. (He's a little bigger than that! ;~> )

Let's all just explore the universe together, whether we believe the same or not. It's time to have some fun people! Lighten up!

Re:Perhaps because...

[rseuhs]

If science is universal, then it can explain everything in the universe- everything that exists. Only if science is NOT universal can it claim not to explain everything.

Wrong, universal means that the rules etc. apply everywhere.

For example the theory of gravity is often said to be universal. That means it applies in the whole universe, not that the theory of gravity can explain everything.

You can also check for the word's meaning: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal

I'm not afraid of that. I'm more afraid of the single explaination- that only one way of looking at the world is considered "correct" and all others are excluded.

As long as there is a possibility to disprove that explanation (otherwise it would not be scientific), I don't see your point.

What do you want anyway? Equal rights for all explanations? That would be the same as no explanations at all.

Completely correct except for that last- Religion has to make useful predictions, else nobody would choose to believe it.

Really? What pre-death predictions do religions make?

But your #1 and #3 are inherantly contradictory with each other- if you're teaching science, you should teach all the alternatives.

You think school children should learn Super-String theory?

And #2 just shows that science is being taught as a reliigion- if it were truly being taught as science, it WOULD have hundreds or thousands of competing theories.

You still don't understand what science is.

(Apart from that you have trouble with logic: You say science is taught as a religion because it is not like religion and has to become like religion to become "true science"? That just doesn't make ANY sense at all)

The reason why there are only few (usually just one) accepted theories for a given phenomenon is that science is constantly weeding out incorrect theories. That is the only way to actually *LEARN* something.

Aristotle, Galileo, and Newton all believed in something called "Natural Philosophy".

Natural philosophy is merely a transition period between medieval Scholasticism and modern science.

Ironically what distinguishes natural philosophy from science (at least the most important distinction) is that natural philosophers didn't test their theories a lot.

Ironically because you critique that it's taught like religion: True for natural philosophy (which is for the most part guessing), false for modern science (which is based on testing).

Again, what do you want? That scientists stop testing their theories and just teach them?

What is so bad about testing anyway?

I contend that the modern scientific method is a corruption of this. A useful corruption possibly- but still a corruption.

Testing is corruption?

Re:Perhaps because...

[PoolDoc]

"1) You have no evidence that it DID happen that way.

Actually, I have Behe's book, and read it carefully, though that was several years back. My recollection is that the challenge was not that there was no evidence for random emergence of a particular system -- a state that was assumed, but not particularly challenged. Rather the challange was that no one had even proposed a theoretical process by which such a system could emerge from a random process, or at least, that no one had made any such proposal that was sufficiently plausible to gain publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

If, since that time, such proposals have been published, then Behe's original challenge (as best I can recollect) would have been met.

However, I can imagine that there might be some dispute about whether the plausibility was actually present, or whether some lightweight thinking was being given a sympathetic pass by the reviewers, given that Behe is much dispised by many of his peers.

All substantial debates tend to be waged by parties who are anything but dispassionate and disinterested. But this particular issue has been particularly contentious. Since the time of Huxley, it seems many of the most vocal disputants show every evidence of knowing which side they are on, long before the evidence is examined. And, both sides tend to treat the issue as a proxy for what is fundamentally a religious debate. I think this is granted as obvious, when the pro-ID side is considered, but often not so, when the 'scientific' side is examined. I won't debate that, though.

But, I do wish someone could offer direct links to journal articles -- or at least to the abstracts. Given the lack of time, I'm reluctant to trudge through all the histronics I remember as characteristic of talk.origins, to search for the actual citations. I'm made even more reluctant by past experiences hunting citations which turn out, once run to ground, to be far less substantial than the disputant promised.

I did run through a number of the links found at talk.origins . . . and it's clear that there has been some publication of peer-reviewed articles which address elements of the systems Behe described as "irreducibly complex". Unfortunately, the links I pursued, before I ran out of time, seemed not to meet the challenge Behe raised. Granted, I was reading abstacts, not full articles, and I'm not a biochemist, so to begin to fully understand those articles requires of me more time than I have right now. But . . . the 8 or 9 links I followed out seemed to dicuss bits of the systems Behe mentioned, but seemed not to offer a COMPLETE plausible hypothetical random emergence pathway the whole distance from a living organism totally lacking the system considered, to a living organism in which the system the system was both present and essential for life.

And, while I'm not a biochemist, I do have some genuine expertise in some particular types of field chemistry, and have seen, over and over, 'professional reporters' write scientific idiocies which flow directly from their own abysmal technical ignorance generously mixed with their own unfounded preferences and prejudices. So, my trust of the general media's reportage of these events is nil: they can't even get simpler stuff right, when writing on topics that are far less inflammatory!

I remain hopefully that someone can post a link to a full text article which does offer more than the bits and snippets I found. For, while I'm open to the the possibility that Behe's wrong, and I grant in a heartbeat that many Creationists will twist facts to fit theory . . . I've seen more than enough evidence to satisfy me that ID is being tried in hostile courts, in cases being reported on by a hostile media.

PoolDoc

Re:Perhaps because...

[Darby]

When it comes to the question of whether ID is a science or not, we're talking about teaching it at the high school level.

There is no question at all. It isn't science. It is religion.

I contend that the "science" taught at the high school level is indeed taught as a religion- completely dogmatic and alternate explainations are not allowed.

Well, then you went to a very bizarre high school. At mine and that of everybody I know, the scientific method was taught and it was made explicitly clear that theories are the best current explanation of the available evidence but they are subject to change as more evidence comes to light. Heck, we started with that lecture in junior high and it was reinforced every year.

Just because you had shitty teachers doesn't mean the rest of us did.

You may consider that a troll- I consider it entirely relevant to the discussion at hand.

No, the trolling was where you took the statement that science has never claimed to have *all* the answers to *everything*, and then said yes it does since your high school science tests were like that.

ID is an alternate explaination that fits the evidence we have so far in evolution-

No it doesn't. It's religious creationism and nothing besides.
Of course it's banned by law, we believe in freedom of religion in this country. That means you don't get to shove your personal beliefs into a science class. Believe what you will, but don't make feeble dishonest attempts to shove your religion into a science class. It hurts science and it makes your god no better than a plate of pasta.

Re:Perhaps because...

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Any reputable scientist welcomes the opportunity to prove himself wrong. "Science fundamentalist" is a contradiction in terms.

Absolutely- but then again, as I was saying, so is Christian fundamentalism, or Islamic fundamentalism. If it wasn't for fundamentalism, there would be no debate- the end of the whole idea of ID would have been stopped in Kansas with a simple sticker on a textbook that claimed basically the same as what you're saying- that science is not concerned with absolute truth.

Those stickers, again, damn with faint praise.

Too bad. As you said, any REPUTABLE scientist would agree with the stickers. That means anybody who disagrees with them has no business claiming to be a reputable scientist.

To say that "Evolution is just a theory" is to attempt to deceive the audience as to what it means to be "a theory".

Which is better- to claim something might be false, or to insinuate by omission that it is written in stone and cannot be questioned?

I absolutely agree that any good science class will have a clear discussion of what is, and is not, scientific inquiry.

Until we do, then the problem is NOT one of science vs religion, but of two separate groups of fundamentalists taking over the question and fighting.

It is not the place of science to accept or deny those things.

Not normally- no. But the problem is, science as currently being taught (rather disreputably) is denying those things- a group of disreputable fundamentalists has co-opted science classes around the country and is filing lawsuits to *force* science to deny those things.

Science is about observable reality.

No, actually, science is about OBJECTIVE reality- which doesn't really exist, but that's beside the point. Observable reality includes a lot more than objective reality does- every human being sees the world differently, there is no single observable reality.

Anything that is not about observing reality, formulating hypotheses, and attempting to disprove them is not science.

Well, then that includes most reasonable religions- and doesn't include the type of people who would file a lawsuit to censor a cirriculum. Fundamentalists still not included.

Re:Perhaps because...

[Copid]

The problem with the whole line of reasoning (aside from the fact that the specific arguments are flawed) is that on one hand ID proponents are claiming to have come up with a new, fascinating branch of science. At the same time, it posits no mechanisms, makes no predictions, and has no positive evidence to support it. It simply boils down to "not evolution". It seems like more of a silly use of set theory ("our theory is EVERY other hypothesis that is not evolution!") than anything else. Maybe they'll hammer it into something that actually passes the scientific smell test someday, but until then, it's certainly not ready for prime time.

Re:Perhaps because...

[Krach42]

Your implied comparison of the theory of evolution to mathematical theorems in order to show the former weaker is a common technique among creationists, especially those who either have a weak grasp of science or pander to an audience with the same. The improper tie of scientific theories to mathematical theorems, which can not be justified semantically except to distinguish the two, is a recurring shady tactic in this debate.

Fuck you and your strawman argument.

Perhaps I'm a well versed linguist, and I'm better able than you to evaluate the necessity of an examination of the semantic use of the word "theory".

As far as I'm aware the significant majority of textbooks do show evidence and justification to support evolution, and in any case teachers will present such information. This is likely true because:

1.) It's easiest to explain evolution initially by demonstration. Presentation of the various species of animals and the presentation of evidentiary branches of evolution. i.e. There are apes, and there are birds. It best likely follows that apes are related and birds are related. Also, presentation of the various stages of particular species, in particular we have the most popular evidence of man's evolution.
2.) Because to teach a theory without justification and evidence is to teach something authoritatively. Basically, one would be explaining that "evolution happens because scientists say so." Which I can guarentee you is most likely not happening in any classroom.

That will be truly sad day; suddenly, biology (not just evolution), astronomy, physics, medicine, and countless other scientific topics will be carvied into swiss cheese as the religious crackpots, mainstream and otherwise, line up to say that current scientific theories in these disciplines imply their teaching are wrong and hence atheistic. Sort of what we have now but a thousand times worse. You welcome this to our public education?

I can't say that I envy the outcome, but it is the only response to a system where our government is forbidden from establishing a state religion. I think it necessary for the state to have a guiding religion that they adhere do, but to permit the free practice of others. Namely, just switch the way Christianity is now, to Atheism.

One thing I will say, you are mostly right that proscribing the statment on the sticker seems to be not justified by using first ammendment, taken at face value of both the former and latter.

That was simply my goal to get people to consider this. If this sticker can be marked as establishment of religion, then what can and can't be? I seemed like this was passed on a slippery slope, and those are just dangerous all around, because they can lead to a horrible environment where people with essentially zero justification attempt to exert their position and rights over those that can demonstrate that justification.

Re:Perhaps because...

[Copid]

Actually, I have Behe's book, and read it carefully, though that was several years back. My recollection is that the challenge was not that there was no evidence for random emergence of a particular system -- a state that was assumed, but not particularly challenged. Rather the challange was that no one had even proposed a theoretical process by which such a system could emerge from a random process, or at least, that no one had made any such proposal that was sufficiently plausible to gain publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

That is my understanding of his position as well. My point was that once such a pathway is proposed, the next step in goalpoast moving is inevitably, "But there's no evidence that it DID happen that way!"

If, since that time, such proposals have been published, then Behe's original challenge (as best I can recollect) would have been met.

However, I can imagine that there might be some dispute about whether the plausibility was actually present, or whether some lightweight thinking was being given a sympathetic pass by the reviewers, given that Behe is much dispised by many of his peers.

As much as the fathers of the ID movement like to think that they're at the front of everybody's mind when papers are being published, I doubt that we can chalk up the volume of relevant papers on the topic to a conspiracy to put them in their place. It's a bit offensive to assume that the relevant works are simply the result of sloppy thinking and some sort of international good old boys' network. It's easy to assume that the reviewers of all of these journals are seeing what they want to see, but the people who say that are often reluctant to acknowledge that Behe, being in the extreme minority among experts, might be ignoring what he doesn't want to see.

But, I do wish someone could offer direct links to journal articles -- or at least to the abstracts. Given the lack of time, I'm reluctant to trudge through all the histronics I remember as characteristic of talk.origins, to search for the actual citations. I'm made even more reluctant by past experiences hunting citations which turn out, once run to ground, to be far less substantial than the disputant promised.

I'm not sure how much you'll find in the way of histrionics on the page I linked as it's mostly a series of links to PubMed papers. If you want a more trimmed version, I would recommend starting with their reference to "A temporary flagellate (mastigote) stage in the vahlkampfiid amoeba Willaertia magna and its possible evolutionary significance." There are others. Even if you assume that only a handful of these papers addresses the topic, it's obvious that the conclusion that the literature is "silent" on the topic is so much self aggrandizing nonsense.

I did run through a number of the links found at talk.origins . . . and it's clear that there has been some publication of peer-reviewed articles which address elements of the systems Behe described as "irreducibly complex". Unfortunately, the links I pursued, before I ran out of time, seemed not to meet the challenge Behe raised.

I'm sure that in Behe's eyes, that challenge will never be met.

Granted, I was reading abstacts, not full articles, and I'm not a biochemist, so to begin to fully understand those articles requires of me more time than I have right now. But . . . the 8 or 9 links I followed out seemed to dicuss bits of the systems Behe mentioned, but seemed not to offer a COMPLETE plausible hypothetical random emergence pathway the whole distance from a living organism totally lacking the system considered, to a living organism in which the system the system was both present and essential for life.

It's worth noting that these papers discuss observations and phenomena for which there is evidience. Taken individually, they propose very plausible partial pathways to Behe's challenges. This m

Re:Perhaps because...

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Wrong, universal means that the rules etc. apply everywhere.

If the rules apply everywhere- to everything that exists- in what way does this NOT imply that science has an answer for everything?

For example the theory of gravity is often said to be universal. That means it applies in the whole universe, not that the theory of gravity can explain everything.

Ok- so what you meant to say is that the scientific method is limited to the things it can explain.

You can also check for the word's meaning: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal

I don't accept Wikipedia as a primary or secondary source, sorry.

As long as there is a possibility to disprove that explanation (otherwise it would not be scientific), I don't see your point.

All that is is being dogmatic about science- being religious about science. That's VERY dangerous in the long run. Science should not repeat the mistakes of religion.

What do you want anyway? Equal rights for all explanations? That would be the same as no explanations at all.

I'm fine with that too- explainations have a tendency to be exclusionary and limiting. But yes, Equal Rights not Special Rights. I contend that by placing science above other religions, we are establishing science as a new religion, to be taught by law to all.

Really? What pre-death predictions do religions make?

How about the one that if you do something to somebody else that is perceived by them as evil, they will find a way to do something equally evil to you? Of course, that's just Newtonian physics applied to ethics- but the prediction of it predates Newton by about 9,000 years.

You think school children should learn Super-String theory?

Yes, if you're going to be consistent with the idea that science can be wrong.

You still don't understand what science is.

Either that- or you have such incredible faith in your own perceptions and senses that you don't understand that other people may have different perceptions and senses.

(Apart from that you have trouble with logic: You say science is taught as a religion because it is not like religion and has to become like religion to become "true science"? That just doesn't make ANY sense at all)

No, what I'm saying is that science is already being taught just like a religion- and thus we might as well teach all religions equally. Alternatively, you could teach true science- and admit that science is inaccurate and arbitrary in even the best circumstances- in which case you can limit science class to only the religion of science, but you have to add a bunch of other classes for other religions and make them all electives. Either method is fine by me, because neither one puts science on a pedastal as being "better" than all other religions.

The reason why there are only few (usually just one) accepted theories for a given phenomenon is that science is constantly weeding out incorrect theories. That is the only way to actually *LEARN* something.

No, actually, it's not- people learned for centuries before exclusionary modern science came on to the scene. It may well turn out, a few millenia from now when the religion of science becomes mature instead of just a cult, to be the *best* way to learn things- but the jury's still out on that.

Natural philosophy is merely a transition period between medieval Scholasticism and modern science.

I was unaware that Scolasticism predated St. Thomas Aquinas.

Ironically what distinguishes natural philosophy from science (at least the most important distinction) is that natural philosophers didn't test their theories a lot.

Funny- it sure looked to me like they did! I'd say the main difference between natural philosophy and science is certainty that reality exists.

Again, what do you want? That

Re:Perhaps because...

[Krach42]

I have no religion.

You claim to lack a religion, but to me religion is any belief system that explains the creation of the world and what its nature is.

Now, excuse me if I'm wrong, but I think you have some sort of belief about those one way or the other.

Your free to disagree with my definition, but to me, you still have a religion. A belief system however well justified it might well be, to me is still a religion. If you can honestly tell me that we are perceiving reality, and we are not brains in a jar being fed perceptual data, then you have a belief system defining the world.

Atheism isn't a religion.

Yes, it is.

No they aren't. Send them to a religious school. Problem solved.

Not problem solved, I would have to pay money out of my own pocket in order to send my children to a private religious school. Meanwhile, if I'm happy with my children being taught in a sanitized environment that infringes regularly on their free excercise of religion, then I can send them to public school.

You're not indecent for not accepting the simple basic fact of evolution. You're indecent for trying to shove religious dogma into science classes. It's an insult to freedom, it's an insult to decency, and it's an insult to your own god.

The position presented in most science classes is that there is no need for a God, and also teaching that what we don't need to exist shouldn't be presumed to exist.

I've not said that ID be taught in public schools, you're assuming that I'm on the ID side of the argument.

Perhaps, I just feel that the state should pay for my childs education where ever that education happens to occur, so that I can send my children to a religious school without having the burden of paying for it.

What a truly frighteningly delusional person you are. Your sole issue is that *your* religion is not being shoved down people's throats in direct violation of the founding principles of this country. You're honestly saying that searching for answers is evil?!? WTF dude.

Your position was to call my religion evil without actually evaluating any of its properties. You assume that I'm a supporter of ID, and attempt to paint my religion as evil.

Right, because I don't blindly accept your beliefs and promote forcing them on others, I'm an evil heretic. Your insane attittude is exactly why the seperation of church and state was enacted.

I had an argument with one person about this before. He kept complaining that everyone was trying to "push their beliefs on him", while he himself was being evangelistic about his atheism.

He was attempting to force his ideas on other people, and at the same time, when someone attempted to present anything in opposition to his ideas, they were suddenly pushing their beliefs on him. He has been a hypocrit beyond compare for me.

You are more than welcome to come up with another scientific theory that explains the observed phenomena. Why is it that nobody on your side of this debate has even tried to do so?

We have, you just refuse to call it "science". Of course, you also refuse to call atheism a "religion". Funny how a little thing like semantics can allow you to control people.

No it isn't. It is fundamentally founded on various other religious beliefs, most especially human sacrifice, sun worship, and astrology.

HAHAHAHAHAHA... thanks for your total misunderstanding of my faith.

Again with this insanity. I choose to exercise my freedom *not* to believe in your favorite fairy story. That is not a religion.

And there you go again with your semantic definition to remove you from any responsibility of establishment. When the state religion of China is atheism.... are you saying they're wrong? That China has no state religion, and that they otherwise promote atheism? Or are you ok with the classification here, because it's descriptive, not damning?

I also don't support religious

Re:Perhaps because...

[Copid]

Your religion offends me! To suggest that there is no God is absolutely infuriating, and I do not want you to shove your shit down my, and my children's throat. The very nature of public education has only served to advance the Atheist religion, and due to law my children are being FORCED to go to that public school, and be taught things that I find fundamentally offensive!

There's a difference between teaching something that doesn't explicitly support religion and explicitly promoting atheism. Economics is a flaming atheist philosophy as well, I suppose. Does everything need to explicitly affirm your faith in order for it to avoid the "atheism" label? If so, you'll find automotive repair decidedly disturbing in its naturalistic approach to things.

Re:Perhaps because...

[Marxist Hacker 42]

There is no question at all. It isn't science. It is religion.

Agreed- but the problem is, science as it's taught at the high school level is ALSO a religion.

Well, then you went to a very bizarre high school. At mine and that of everybody I know, the scientific method was taught and it was made explicitly clear that theories are the best current explanation of the available evidence but they are subject to change as more evidence comes to light. Heck, we started with that lecture in junior high and it was reinforced every year.

Reinforced how? Were alternative explainations ok on tests for instance? Were you encouraged to come up with your own theories even if they were different than the textbook? Or was it like my highschool biology class: A tacit admission that evolution is just a theory- but the whole class based on it and any attempt to question it's assumptions was penalized heavily in the grade book?

Just because you had shitty teachers doesn't mean the rest of us did.

I'd call any teacher who relies on the court system to censor ideas from the classroom a shitty teacher.

No, the trolling was where you took the statement that science has never claimed to have *all* the answers to *everything*, and then said yes it does since your high school science tests were like that.

Well, that's a correct statement. "science has NEVER claimed" is a statement easily falsifiable by a single instance of someone claiming to teach science claiming that.

No it doesn't. It's religious creationism and nothing besides.

Then you apparently don't know the different ID theories very well- ID covers everything from Young Earth Creationism to Theistic Evolution. I'd certainly agree with you that one side of that spectrum is more scientific than the other side- but to deny that ANY of it is scientific is stupid in the extreme.

Of course it's banned by law, we believe in freedom of religion in this country.

That's funny, because banning it by law is freedom FROM religion, not freedom of religion. In fact, it's the very definition of legislating against the free exercise of religion.

That means you don't get to shove your personal beliefs into a science class.

But scientists do that all the time- their personal belief that reality exists, for instance.

Believe what you will, but don't make feeble dishonest attempts to shove your religion into a science class.

If that's the rule, then occam's razor, objective evidence, and the scientific method (for example) should also be banned from science class, since these are all religious beliefs unsupported by evidence.

It hurts science and it makes your god no better than a plate of pasta.

Science hurts itself worse by claiming to be anything but just another religion.

Re:Perhaps because...

[Marxist Hacker 42]

If that's the point, why is Evolution singled out on the sticker rather than containing a general warning against the dogma of all scientific theories?

Maybe because it's a biology textbook that is written specifically to the idea that Evolution is not a scientific theory, but a religious dogma not to be questioned on pain of failing the course?

Hmmmm. Also, have you read this particular book which the sticker was placed upon?

Actually I have- and that's the point. But you're right, there's a larger point that this should be on any textbook that does NOT discuss scientific philosophy.

Can you tell me definitively whether the philosophy of science is covered in the textbook and whether evolution is presented in a uniquely dogmatic manner?

Definitively yes- proveably you'll have to read it for yourself. But in the past 120 years, evolution has become such a basis for biology that *any* biology book MUST treat evolution dogmatically if it's going to be accepted as such in the United States. Scientific philosophy is considered to be teaching religion by many- and so that's cut out. I would agree that in cutting out scientific philosophy as a religion, you don't actually remove religion from the classroom, you just end up establishing a new religion.

Re:Perhaps because...

[Marxist Hacker 42]

It's a waste of time to label all science that way because science is *defined* that way.

Apparently not well enough- because we continue to have people claim that science is reality instead of merely science observes reality.

How about this. We label your church with a big sign saying "The bible is a collection of stories ripped off from earlier religions and used as a means for the leaders of the Roman empire to subjugate their people. Many different, conflicting, versions of the stories exist within the bible itself and many more stories were edited out primarily as a means to allow a few evil people to pillage and murder the supporters of the other equally valid stories. There is little, if any, evidence that there ever was a Jesus and the gospels were written long after his death by people who never met him if he ever did live."

Actually, I've seen Bibles labeled as such- The Jesus Seminar's _The_Five_Gospels_ comes to mind. I've also seen lesser religious works labeled as such- the Catechism of the Catholic Church puts it "We have moral certainty that we are correct, but since the Church is a Human Insititution, we can never have absolute certatainty about anything".

Re:Perhaps because...

[sparkz]

Well, I suppose that belief is the stronger, but maybe that's a jargon thing. In Christian terms, the words "hope" and "belief" have stronger meanings than they tend to hold in secular contexts. Like any community, jargon is unfortunately inevitable. In "normal" English, "hope" is rather a vague term, but in Christian terms, it refers to a definite expectation. So, in the secular sense, "I hope I win the lottery" is a pretty pathetic thing ("hope" could more accurately be replaced by "wish"), but in the Christian usage of the word, "I hope in Heaven" has a definitive thing upon which to hang that hope (namely, the resurrection of Christ, in this example).

Similarly, "believe" in secular terms often means "currently think that things are like this", whereas in the Christian jargon, it refers to a belief based upon a personal relationship, so for me to say that I believe in Jesus Christ, it is not akin to saying "I believe in Fairies", but is more like saying "I believe in my wife".

Feel free to dislike the reuse of existing words for jargon, but most communities are guilty of it - Cracker/Hacker misunderstandings, the American use of the word "Gas" to describe liquid fuel, etc, etc... that is beside the point. I didn't make the context in which I used the word "believe" terribly clear, but hopefully this is a brief intro to Christian jargon (believe me, it's no easier than a brief intro to IT jargon!)

Re:Perhaps because...

[Darby]

You claim to lack a religion, but to me religion is any belief system that explains the creation of the world and what its nature is.

I don't seek to explain the *origin* of the universe. I have no need for religion, because I don't have a problem accepting the fact that we don't know how it all started. Believing that some particular group of desert nomads figured it all out seems exceedingly silly to me though. It's possible that science will figure it out. It's possible it won't. *Shrug*

So like I said, I don't have a religion. Even by your definition.

If you can honestly tell me that we are perceiving reality, and we are not brains in a jar being fed perceptual data, then you have a belief system defining the world.


I can't honestly tell you that. It's a pretty silly idea, but that doesn't mean it can't be true. It's irrelevant to me though. I still get uncomfortable if I don't eat. If I don't find some way to procure food, I don't eat. That is reality regardless of whether the world is how I perceive it or if I'm a brain in a jar. There is no need or purpose to make up beliefs about it.

Atheism isn't a religion.
Yes, it is.

You keep saying that and I keep proving you to be a liar. Even by your definition above it doesn't fit. If atheism is a religion, then you are a member of numerous religions. You are an anti-{every religion that's ever been with the exception of Christianity, tooth fairy, FSM etc. etc. et.c}ian. It's stupid and pointless to claim that, and it's fundamentally dishonest. *You* need religion for whatever reason. I don't. I'm not trying to claim superiority, but it is a fundamental difference between us.

Meanwhile, if I'm happy with my children being taught in a sanitized environment that infringes regularly on their free excercise of religion, then I can send them to public school.

Nothing whatsoever in a public school interferes with you forcing your children to exercise your religion.
The only cases that have ever happened in relation to that whole issue were to prevent extremist Christians from forcing their views on others.

The position presented in most science classes is that there is no need for a God, and also teaching that what we don't need to exist shouldn't be presumed to exist.

You're partly right. Science has as an assumption that there is no need to postulate a god to explain what science explains. So far it has worked out pretty damn well. Certainly there is no need to presume existence of something unnecessary to explain what science explains.
That doesn't have a damn thing to do with your religion. That's in a science class. In a science class, that is great.
Outside of a science class it's a different story.
I think that's your fundamental misunderstanding. It's your job to teach your children whatever the hell you want. It's a science teacher's job to teach them science.

Perhaps, I just feel that the state should pay for my childs education where ever that education happens to occur, so that I can send my children to a religious school without having the burden of paying for it.

Well, why don't you have your great charitable church use some of their vast hordes of tax free money to pay for it rather than spending it on investments and illegal political action? If it ain't important enough for you or your church to pay your own way, then you obviously aren't taking your responsibilities seriously.

Your position was to call my religion evil without actually evaluating any of its properties. You assume that I'm a supporter of ID, and attempt to paint my religion as evil.

Regardless of ID, Christianity has been the greatest force for evil in history. Sorry if you don't like it, but history bears that out.

I had an argument with one person about this before. He kept complaining that everyone was trying to "push their beliefs on him", while he himself was being evangelistic about his atheism.

He was attemp

Re:Perhaps because...

[Moofie]

I seriously don't understand what you're on about.

There doesn't need to be a sticker in the front of science textbooks that say "evolution is just a theory". There needs to be a good explanation of what a theory is. Shockingly enough, all the science textbooks I've seen have that. Somehow, I managed to get through a public school in the Bible belt with a very clear understanding of science. Frankly, I neither know nor care what you mean by "absolute truth". Observations of the world around me are truth enough for me.

The stickers, and these curricula, are clearly designed by religious groups to create poorly-founded doubts about the veracity of a very important part of modern science. Their intent, as stated by the court in Dover, is clearly to mislead and prejudice students. That is not OK.

I don't know of any religion that's based on testing hypotheses.

I intentionally did not say "objective" science, because I don't care to engage you on the subjective vs. objective debate. Scientists observe. If I see a great big rock, I can safely conclude that, if I close my eyes, the rock will still be there. If the rock is not there, I can conclude that some force acted on the rock with a magnitude equal to its mass times its acceleration. I would be irresponsible to conclude that invisible, undetectible forces took the rock away to test my faith.

Religions don't work that way, which is what distinguishes them from science.

Re:Perhaps because...

[scotch]

Fuck you and your strawman argument.

Oooh baby.

Perhaps I'm a well versed linguist ....

Then again, maybe you're not.

Re:Perhaps because...

[Krach42]

Atheism isn't a religion.
Yes, it is.

You keep saying that and I keep proving you to be a liar.

Um...

Usage note
Generally speaking, systems of belief that do not involve the existence of one or more deities, such as Buddhism, can be considered a religion, though some people prefer a stricter definition that excludes the possibility of a non-theistic religion. Others are in favor of a very general definition of religion: that any belief or system of beliefs is a religion or part of a religion, including science and atheism.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/religion

You can refuse my definition, but it doesn't mean that I'm wrong, or that other people don't agree with me, and not with you.

Even by your definition above it doesn't fit. If atheism is a religion, then you are a member of numerous religions. You are an anti-{every religion that's ever been with the exception of Christianity, tooth fairy, FSM etc. etc. et.c}ian. It's stupid and pointless to claim that, and it's fundamentally dishonest. *You* need religion for whatever reason. I don't. I'm not trying to claim superiority, but it is a fundamental difference between us.

YES! I am a member of numerous religions. Yes, I'm anti-every religion that isn't my own.

Why is it dishonest to say what I actually consider to be true?

I can accept that you don't need a belief in supernatural beings and such, and that you don't need anything but rational science. But to me religion != belief in the supernatural. religion is simply a philosophical belief system, which allows it to cover things like Zen Buddhisml.

The CIA world fact book lists the official religion of China as "Atheism". It's good enough for them to label it a religion, wtf is wrong with you? What did "religion" do to you to make you have such a negative connotation of the word?

Re:Perhaps because...

[Krach42]

Let's suppose that there is a God. How, then, do you know which religion is the right one?

I don't. I made an arbitrary choice that was dictated by my birth, rearing, and education.

Had I been raised around a different religion, then I would have likely picked that one. Either way, my necessity for the belief in God hasn't been diminished by the fact that I might be wrong in my selection.

Re:Perhaps because...

[Marxist Hacker 42]

I seriously don't understand what you're on about.

That's right- you don't. You really don't. If you knew the underlying philosophy and religion *behind* science, it would all be obvious- but we're not taught that in modern American public schools, or at least, we're not supposed to be. The idea that science is just another religion for making models of certain people's idea of the way the world works, is totally censored.

There doesn't need to be a sticker in the front of science textbooks that say "evolution is just a theory". There needs to be a good explanation of what a theory is. Shockingly enough, all the science textbooks I've seen have that. Somehow, I managed to get through a public school in the Bible belt with a very clear understanding of science. Frankly, I neither know nor care what you mean by "absolute truth". Observations of the world around me are truth enough for me.

That's fine- as long as you don't try to tell somebody else that THEIR observations are incorrect. That's when we get into trouble.

The stickers, and these curricula, are clearly designed by religious groups to create poorly-founded doubts about the veracity of a very important part of modern science.

I thought you said you had a very good understanding of science. If you had such an understanding you'd know that science makes no claim to "veracity"- it's only the best explaination of the moment, and even then, only the best explaination within a very narrow framework that throws out a lot of observational data as not being objective.

Their intent, as stated by the court in Dover, is clearly to mislead and prejudice students. That is not OK.

I'm saying that the court in Dover is also clearly trying to mislead and prejudice students- anytime you choose censorship over discussion, regardless of who is doing it, you are atempting to mislead and prejudice somebody.

don't know of any religion that's based on testing hypotheses.

Hinduism, Zen Buddhism, and Roman Catholicism, for three.

I intentionally did not say "objective" science, because I don't care to engage you on the subjective vs. objective debate. Scientists observe. If I see a great big rock, I can safely conclude that, if I close my eyes, the rock will still be there.

That is not at all a safe conclusion- an even more unsafe one is assuming the rock disappears merely because you close your eyes. There are no safe conclusions at all- and can never be.

If the rock is not there, I can conclude that some force acted on the rock with a magnitude equal to its mass times its acceleration.

Actually, no you can't- because merely observing the rock is not proof that it was there to begin with.

I would be irresponsible to conclude that invisible, undetectible forces took the rock away to test my faith.

Actually both positions are irresponsible- because conclusions are irresponsible.

Religions don't work that way,

Depends on the religion- there are quite a few that DO work that way, and quite a few more that go further. You obviously know nothing of religions outside of the fundamentalist ones.

which is what distinguishes them from science.

The problem is, coming to conclusions is acting that way- just with a different set of assumptions and beliefs is all. The real danger of fundamentalism isn't the set of beliefs you're being fundamentalist about- it's the certainty that YOUR worldview is right and everybody else's is wrong.

Re:Perhaps because...

[Darren Winsper]

"my necessity for the belief in God"
Says it all, really.

Re:Perhaps because...

[onemorechip]

I find it strange that you chose to reply by framing this as a debate over terminology. The meaning of "belief" is not at issue here. The issue is that some religionists are demanding that science prove this or disprove that. Science has no such obligations. The function of science is not to offer certainty, but to offer theories consistent with observations.

The trouble comes about not because science is functioning as it should, but because religion is trying to offer its self-assured certainty as theory. But no matter what arbitrary belief is put forward, if there is no observational basis for it, it simply does not rise to the level of theory. Attempting to prove or disprove beliefs is not in the realm of science, it is in the realm of philosophy. Which brings me back to your original question:

Until one community disproves the other, why not let both live together?

Failure to get along is not the fault of the scientific community. Science does not demand putting aside beliefs, nor does it demand unquestioning acceptance of any given theory. Science is dispassionate on the whole question of belief. Religion, however, has a long history of imposing its beliefs, and of demanding certainty. (Note that this is not true of all religions; it is far more prevalent in "Western" religions.) When religion acts in this way, it is asking for nothing less than the abolition of science, because, were scientists to oblige religion by claiming to offer certainty, they would no longer be doing science.

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[vertinox]

Agree with parent. Exactly how does figuring something out eliminate design from the equation? I can figure out how a remote works, but that doesn't mean it wasn't designed. The two concepts (explaining how something works and whether it was designed to work that way) aren't mutually exclusive.

I think intelligent design arguments were stating that since we can't figure out how things work or comprehend them, that they must have been created by something superior intelligence above our own.

This isn't exactly the same as the eye argument in which they say the eye is too complicated to evolved on its own, but rather we are just too stupid to understand and therefore something of higher intelligence must have made it.

What this article is trying to say is that their original argument that "science could not figure out how bees fly meant that science in general was invalid and to be discared" is invalid.

However, I'm sure a higher intelligence could have made bees with the ability to create worm holes and use their collective hive mind to hunt down intergalactic pollen throughout the universe rather than the mundane little beings that they are.

But maybe the FSM had different designs for them...

Cruelty to Critters!

[bill_kress]

I understand the importance of such experements, and I don't have a problem making them fly in wind tunnels, but to put them into a helium atmosphere! Aren't their little voices already high enough???

Wow bees fly

[mapanett]

I don't see how figuring out how bees fly disproves ID. If I pull apart a watch and figure how that worked would it prove that no one designed it.

We disproved nothing, but we did prove somthing

[danikar]

There will always be a stupid fight between scientist and christians. I am glad scientists figured out how bees fly because now we can explain one more thing that we couldnt before. However this does not disprove ID, but hopefully this will show the ID community that just because we can not explain something right now, doesn't mean a supreme being has to exist for it to work.

If science is proved all wrong does that mean god exists? No it does not. If god is disproved does that mean all science is right? No it does not. If C is not = to 1, does that mean C = 2.... NO it does not. C could = 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 or so on. For all we know all science could be wrong and all religions could be wrong. I just think the answer is 42.

Better Nate than Lever...

[StikyPad]

This was actually published a couple months ago: http://www.physorg.com/news8616.html

Maybe we should start calling it "Slashdot: Olds for Nerds"

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[MightyMartian]

The article is referring to Intelligent Design, the assertion (padded with lots of pseudo-scientific and mathematical jargon to beef up what amounts to an argument from incredulity). Nothing in any field of science could falsify the notion of a certain class of designers; aka God, an omnipotent, omniscient being. Since such a being's actions could not be tested, and any and all phenomona could be explained by that claim, it has no explanatory power.

Intelligent Design makes a number of claims which amount to "You nasty evolutionists can't show me how a certain feature came about, so I'll call that feature too complex to form naturally, because it's Irreducible Complexity." Of course, as with all god-of-the-gaps assertions, it only stands as long as there is a gap.

In short, Intelligent Design is really nothing more than a rather good example of fallacious reasoning, but as far as science goes, it is worse than useless.

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[Chris Burke]

You know, I remember hearing about the mystery of the flying bumble bee and how it went against what we knew of aerodynamics... and then I remember hearing how we figured it out. Years ago. From memory, does it have to do with vortices created off the tips of the wings? Okay, now I've looked at the article. No mention of vortices, just that they flap their wings 15% faster than a smaller fruit fly. Huh, okay.

next on /. Robot insects prove ID

[RedLaggedTeut]

From the tomorrow-on-slashdot-department

This will be good news for the scientists who are trying to make robot insects but just cannot nail it. But is there anything to suggest that this may be a more efficent form of flight than what methods we already have?

Yesterday, scientists created the first flying robot insects. We know who made the robot insects, so we can safely conclude there is someone out there making bees as well.

Top Secret Mission: To Deliver Anthrax To

[Anonymous Coward]

Al-Qaeda Headquarters.

Sincerely,
K. Trout, C.E.O.

Defend America: Imprison The White House

Four Words

[eldavojohn]

Mod this parent up. :)

You missed the point

[manifoldronin]

You should tell that to the ID people, because that's exactly the reasoning _they_ are following: science can't explain how bees fly => there must have been a designer.

The myth here is that science never ever said there _couldn't have been_ an Intelligent Designer. All science is saying is, "look, we can explain these things without resorting to a designer - whether there has been one or not, we dont _need_ him."

Re:You missed the point

[ComputerizedYoga]

The whole issue revolves not around whether we can understand bee flight or not. For science, this is just a reduction of an attack surface, and an interesting discovery.

How does this relate to ID?

Intelligent Design supporters who attack science with the article's argument "Science doesn't know how bees fly" attack it with an ad hominem argument.

Here's the argument, simplified:
Science claims that life evolved on its own.
Science isn't perfect.
Therefore, the universe didn't evolve on its own.

Boiled down like that, it's pretty classic ad hominem form: A believes B, there's something wrong with A, so B is wrong.

Note that this does NOT indicate ANYTHING for or against ID's beliefs proper, nor does it support or reject evolution (and in fact, drawing a conclusion about ID based on this finding would be another ad hominem). Our capacity to understand bee flight is completely unrelated to how bees came to be able to fly, or whether such a thing is capable of developing from simpler forms of flight or if they have to be guided into existence by an unseen hand.

What's most interesting to me (from the realm of infosec, anyway) is the idea that the ID camp has set itself up as an adversary to science, and in constructing these arguments is essentially doing penetration testing: find a hole, exploit it for a short while, watch the scientific community close the hole. Ultimately, ID may be serving in some small way to motivate the advance of science, despite its stated goal of discrediting the whole scientific institution. This may be taken as a commentary on the relationship between attackers and defenders in general: having an adversary makes you grow stronger than not having one.

Re:You missed the point

[aldsar]

the problem i have is with what you say about ID excluding science. no where in my idea of ID does it conflict with science, and not all scientists disagree with ID either. Did you ever read A Brief History of Time by Steven Hawking?

Re:You missed the point

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because a fortune has been made using the closing remarks of A Brief History of Time ("[knowing the] mind of god") to fill book after book with holistic quantum-spiritual healing techniques and suchlike, doesn't mean that a cosmologist as prominent as Stephen Hawking would support the larger than average pile of **** that ID is.

And just because not all scientists would disagree with the idea that there is a giant teapot in orbit around Jupiter does not in itself add credibility to the idea that this is the case. There are probably quite a few scientists in the US that believe ID to be gospel- so what.

the problem you have is that you don't have any idea of what constitutes evidence. you and people like you have every right to believe what you want, but you should have no say at all in what is taught to ALL children in schools.

Re:You missed the point

[seguso]

The myth here is that science never ever said there _couldn't have been_ an Intelligent Designer. All science is saying is, "look, we can explain these things without resorting to a designer - whether there has been one or not, we dont _need_ him."

The way I see it, science says more than "a designer is not needed": it says that we have no designer.

If we are designed by natural selection (of which there is overwhelming evidence), then we are not designed by an intelligent being.

Of course, it may still be that an intelligent being designed the laws of physics, but this does not mean he designed us. If I bear a son and then he discovers electricity, it is not that I discovered electricity: my son did.

Lol

[Spy der Mann]

Unfortunately, this coffin is infinitely long. I've tried to argue with ID-ists and there's no hope. Why is it infinitely long? Because there is an infinite wealth of knowledge out there and we can never know all of it. As long as there is something we do not know, there will be room for a god or a designer.

Oh, but then you're not trying to disprove ID, but the existence of God. Sorry, you're going after the wrong target. You only have to prove that evolution happens, and that it works. Period.

Don't tell me I am going to have to RTFA

[cornjones]

what is w/ all this drek about ID. I know the poster included the flamebait in the article description but can't anybody have a discussion on the actual mechanics of how bees fly?

I mean c'mon that's why i use slashdot, am I going to have to actually read the article to get that?

ej

Re:Don't tell me I am going to have to RTFA

[belg4mit]

Actually, the "article" itself makes the ID linkage.

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[doppe1]

Teleportation explains how they always manage to be inside your car, even when the windows were all the way up.

Then how did you get in the car?

I suppose you teleported your way in, didn't you.

Would have been nice if T. F. A. had ACTUALLY TOLD

[Ungrounded Lightning]

... us WHAT WAS DISCOVERED - or even POINTED US TO THE RESEARCH, rather than just saying it HAD been discovered and then sidtracking into ragging on the "intelligent design" creationists.

Irregardless isn't a word.

[nelomolen]

Subject sums it up.

But to comment on your post, it is a mistake for ID proponents to bother with arguments promoting their stance.

And a note specifically to Christians -

Genesis 1:28 commands subduing the earth (bringing it into subjection), and can be argued to promote science, learning, discovery, etc. Many prominent figures in Christian church history understood this quite well, but it seems to be an idea that is slipping away.

Judges 6 (story of Gideon) leaves people of any faith with a solid model for defending any god, which is to not bother. If they cannot defend themselves, they are not what they claim to be.

Re:Irregardless isn't a word.

[lawpoop]

Making new works, especially with suffixes and prefixes, is a legal move.

ID == Supernaturalism

[Peter Trepan]

Because for everyone but a handful of oddballs, the Intelligent Designer is assumed to be Jehovah --a deity whose basis for existence rests entirely upon Abrahamic scriptures.

If you have any doubts about that, try speculating about the nature of the "Intelligent Designer" in front of the ID set, and see if they appreciate your curiosity and open-mindedness or simply set you straight about who they know him to be.

Re:ID == Supernaturalism

[ad0gg]

And that fact ID always refers to "designer" singular. Not once have i heard plural versions of this leaving out all the polythesim religions.

Re:ID == Supernaturalism

[globaljustin]

If you have any doubts about that, try speculating about the nature of the "Intelligent Designer" in front of the ID set, and see if they appreciate your curiosity and open-mindedness or simply set you straight about who they know him to be.

I'm taking you at your word...those people you talked to who 'simply set you straight' are assholes

I don't know what else i can say. I'm a pastor, and if you want to ask me any questions, feel free. I promise to give you straight-up, succinct answers as much as possible, and i won't try to convince you. I can't convince anyone, b/c really whether you become a Christian isn't up to me at all. All I can do is be honest in my answers.

you can reach me here: globaljustin06@yahoo.com

Re:ID == Supernaturalism

[MixmastaKooz]

If I had some mod points, I'd give you one...that's a great insight! If someone talks to me about ID, I'll pretend I agree with them but use the plural when talking about the designers!

The myth was always about bumblebees--and untrue

[steve_ellis]

The stories about scientists saying bees couldn't fly was always about bumblebees, not bees in general. Further, it has always been a myth--presumably based on a static evaluation of the wings of a bumblebee as a airfoil.

Clearly everyone has always known that insects fly by beating their wings--a static model just doesn't show that the bumblebees wings have enough lift.

I'm confused

[GoMMiX]

Perhaps I deserve the idiot of the day award, but how is it confusing that a species with wings can fly?

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[Mr. Underbridge]

In TFA it addresses the old creationist argument that science couldn't explain bee flight. The author simply spun it to ID, nail in coffin, etc.

I also don't like the summary because it almost grants the notion that science has to have an answer for absolutely everything or else creation must be true. Really, that's the line of argument that creationists use, that there can be no unexplained mechanism or gap in the fossil record, and if there is it's evidence that evolution (or whatever) can't account for reality.

Really, this notion is what needs to be argued from the top, rather than trying to come up with better fossil records and better mechanism to explain the compound eye or bee flight or whatever. Because no matter how many things science does explain, there will always be *something* it doesn't, and they'll fall back on that to make their argument.

In other words, science doesn't need to explain everything to be the right approach, it just has to fit the available evidence as well as possible. For creationism to be "right" it needs to, for once, generate a testable, disproveable hypothesis and stop falling back on the old "anything we can't explain is God's will" argument.

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's but a news article, you can look at the research to see the nitty gritty. And yes, ID'ists have been pointing to specific fossil records, bee flight and other things, and when they're smacked down they go on to the next supposed flaw in evolution. And like worms they refuse to own up to their claims, refusing to be pinned down on any issue. IDists did point to this to further their IDist religion. Unfortunately, like the earth going around the sun and like fossilized lizards with wings, you slowly paint yourself into a corner.

Please, if you believe in ID, why don't you tell us once and for all your reasonsing, your bold assertions. Put it in stone, so you can weasel out of it.

Methinks you'll just continue to bitch, like a child, attacking, complaining, never offering anything of substance.

Old News

[MrRee]

WTF!

We've none how bees fly for years. They essentially "swim" through the air as do other insects.

Flight is a well known science now regardless if you are talking about insects, birds, rc aircraft, or a Boeing 747.

Nothing to see here folks--move along...

Press-release science

[jfengel]

Yes, they've got a bit more detail on it. That's pretty much how science works, with people adding bits of detail over time.

This is press-release science, where a minor achievement (though I'm sure it's not minor to the grad students who spent thousands of hours poring over high-speed footage and writing analysis software) gets turned into a big deal. In this case it got tacked onto the Intelligent Design brouhaha, which bumps it up a level on the hype meter.

Which is funny, because the "bees flying" thing isn't one of the classic darts that ID advocates throw at evolution, like the clotting cascade, the flagellum, or the eye. That's a more general "scientists aren't as smart as they think they are" myth, which persists even though it was debunked decades ago.

So it's nice to have a recent article to point to when I hear the myth again. Not this article, which is over-hyped, but I'd like to have a cite of the original journal article I could show people to say, "Yes, scientists DO know how bees fly, please go away."

Obligatory Dr. Who Quote

[Anonymous Coward]

Nails? Coffins? Intelligent Design? [sfgate.com] Pfft! What do these have to do with each other? Why do bees fly?

Because they forgot how to teleport!


"Terran insects. Aerodynamically impossible for them to fly, but they do it. I'm rather fond of bumblebees."

Another nail has been put into the coffin of Dr. Who sayings.

Why is ID always mischaracterized?

[Anonymous Coward]

The mischaracterizations of Intelligent Design gets very old. Here are some erroneous claims I see all the time.

1. ID is not logical or scientific, therefore it cannot be disproved.
False. The ID folks I know have looked at the data and declare that theory of evolution doesn't fit the data. Then they look at the data and declare that the the theory of ID fits the data better.

2. ID proponents believe that we can never know how living beings came to existence.
False. The ID folks I know take the exact opposite approach. They want to understand how living being are designed.

3. ID is faith-based and outside of the realm of science.
False. See bullet 1 above. Once could start learning ID because of faith, but testing data to theories is not faith.

4. If you adhere to ID, then you believe in God.
No neccessarily. If a truly objective observer looked at an object or a system and saw more evidence of design by some intelligence rather than it becoming to its current state without design, it makes no claim who the designer was. There are lots of non-Biblically religious ID proponents out there.

5. If you don't believe in evolution, you believe in ID.
False. It is valid to reject evolution but not adhere to ID. It is not either or. There are plenty of problems ("apparently" is you like) with evolution. When someone points them out, often there is a barrage of attacks against ID, as if priving ID false would prove evolution true.

In other news...

[n6kuy]

Hackers figured out some undocumented Windows functions, putting another nail in the coffin of the idea that Microsoft created Windows...

Re:In other news...

[vidarh]

It would be more along the lines of "hackers figured out how some of the undocumented functions in Windows works, putting another nail in the coffin to the idea that Windows must have been created by some unknown supernatural being because it's too complex to have been produced by a company like Microsoft".

The point being that many ID proponents often point to holes in our scientific knowledge to claim that nature is somehow "too complex" to be explained by science, and so we should all forget all about common sense and invent some random explanation instead.

Of course, I can see the appeal. After all, who would like to believe that software engineers could produce an abomination like Windows without being under the influence of some evil entity...

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[ackthpt]

I suppose you teleported your way in, didn't you.

It's called semi-intelligent design.

Y'see, the engineers who design cars a brilliant, top of the line people, rarely make a blunder. This is the intelligent design part. Then the design is run past accountants, who shop the parts out, make design changes based upon cost savings or target price. That's the semi part.

I open the door and get inside (where the bee is or hasn't teleported in yet) and close the door, which amazingly, despite the best efforts of beancounters, doesn't fall off!

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[Gordonjcp]

I thought we already knew this - that bees fly because little ridges on their wing roots act as vortex generators, breaking up the airflow above the wing?

didn't they already solve this problem?

[towaz]

I thought they discovered that the bee creates a vortex above it's wing tips that suck the bee up causing lift.

Or am I way off with this? remember seeing it on discovery ;)

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think intelligent design arguments were stating that since we can't figure out how things work or comprehend them, that they must have been created by something superior intelligence above our own.

No -- intelligent design focuses on areas where we don't know how certain things EVOLVED -- not how they function after they came to be as we know them today. Since this article appears to not be related to how a bee's flight mechanisms evolved, I don't see how it relates to ID.

Oh, wait -- I do know. Every article on science (including this /. post) now is required to take a triumphant shot at ID whether or not it is remotely relevant.

Helium-breathing Bees

[Wellerite]

the researchers forced the bees to fly in a small chamber filled with a mixture of oxygen and helium

What I really want to know is what the bees sounded like after breathing in that helium. Biiiiiiiiiiizzzzzz?

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[ackthpt]

I thought we already knew this - that bees fly because little ridges on their wing root s act as vortex generators, breaking up the airflow above the wing?

Wait... you're telling me bees have root access?

Well dang! That explains everything!

42

Puhhleeze! (or, no mystery here)

[ummit]

There's no mystery about how bees fly, and there hasn't been for quite a while. The notion that "science can't explain bee flight" is an urban legend, a meme. I didn't realize the ID folks had picked up on it, but I guess it's no surprise; seemingly all of their arguments are witheringly obsolete.

I read about this in The Straight Dope ten or fifteen years ago. The Cal Tech folks seem to have added some new nuances to the discussion, but it was adequately understood long before this. The full story evidently goes back to the 1930s.

Nothin to see here, folks, move along.

Re:Puhhleeze! (or, no mystery here)

[DoubleMike]

seemingly all of their arguments are witheringly obsolete.

There's something that needs to be cleared up about this whole issue. The vast majority of these "arguments" are in fact not used at all by supporters of Intelligent Design, but are created by their opponents to make everyone think they look stupid. Sure, they may stem from some comment made by some un-educated supporter, buy why in the world is anyone taking the word of some anonymous idiot as the viewpoint of the entire group? The real supporters of intelligent design have PHDs and know what they're talking about, but never get posted on slashdot because they're not "controversial" enough.
It doesn't really matter, though; the only non-idiotic argument I've ever heard against Intelligent Design is that "It can't be disproven." (seriously) Everything else I've seen is either BS or is based on a misunderstanding of ID (like this one about bees). If you want to attack it, come back when you actually have heard the real thing, instead of laughing at idiots who claim bees can't fly.

Re:Puhhleeze! (or, no mystery here)

[ummit]

The vast majority of these "arguments" are in fact not used at all by supporters of Intelligent Design, but are created by their opponents to make everyone think they look stupid. Sure, they may stem from some comment made by some un-educated supporter, buy why in the world is anyone taking the word of some anonymous idiot as the viewpoint of the entire group?

Fair enough. So what are some of the group's better arguments, as used by the educated supporters?

Re:Puhhleeze! (or, no mystery here)

[Copid]

There's something that needs to be cleared up about this whole issue. The vast majority of these "arguments" are in fact not used at all by supporters of Intelligent Design, but are created by their opponents to make everyone think they look stupid. Sure, they may stem from some comment made by some un-educated supporter, buy why in the world is anyone taking the word of some anonymous idiot as the viewpoint of the entire group?

I'm totally with you here.

he real supporters of intelligent design have PHDs and know what they're talking about, but never get posted on slashdot because they're not "controversial" enough.

Well, a few of them do have PhDs, but they're rarely in the relevant fields. The flagship supporters like Behe and Dembski are notable exceptions (I'm granting Dembski because he's a mathematician and his argument, while bizarre, is a quasi-mathematical one).

It doesn't really matter, though; the only non-idiotic argument I've ever heard against Intelligent Design is that "It can't be disproven." (seriously) Everything else I've seen is either BS or is based on a misunderstanding of ID (like this one about bees). If you want to attack it, come back when you actually have heard the real thing, instead of laughing at idiots who claim bees can't fly.

I agree that the bee example is pathetic, but the idea that ID cannot be disproven does put it clearly outside the reach of science. That doesn't make it wrong. It just makes it an alternative to science.

As for the actual arguments in favor of ID, there don't appear to be any. All of the arguments appear to be arguments against evolution. Behe simply comes up with examples of things that are hard for evolution to explain and Dembski takes the completely unrigorous concept of "specificity" in information and applies it in a GIGO fashion to formal information theory. Then they make the leap from "evolution cannot work the way they say it does" to "therefore my alternative is correct."

There. I've attacked the real thing. My hat is now in the ring (as if it wasn't already).

Sigh...

[Once&FutureRocketman]

It's Caltech. Not CalTech, nor Cal Tech. One word, one captial letter.

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[happy_place]

Why should a scientist's feelings impact the facts of the story. I agree with the assessment this is flamebait, and is a great disservice to the discovery.

--Ray

The original story behind this...

[Kazoo the Clown]

Reportedly, years ago a biologist and a physicist met over dinner or something, and the subject came up about the physics of bee flight. Some back of the paper napkin calculations by the physicist didn't work, and they were overheard by someone who reported to the press that "science proves bees can't fly." Of course, everyone knows that bees can fly, so it was seen as a "har har, those silly scientists, they don't know anything." Science gets it wrong, so science is just a bunch of stuffed-shirt eggheads in labs that have convinced themselves they know something when they really don't know anything.

However, it neatly ignored the fact that not too long after that discovery, the question raised actually led to further investigation of the subject and much was learned about insect flight. This story shows much is still being learned from that event.

What really happened in this case, is someone detected an error. Science has a long history of individuals who found errors in our understanding of the universe. In fact, virtually all the famous names of science are famous because they uncovered an error in our understanding. It is simply by the detection of errors that science advances. Science is a philosophy that learns from its mistakes, and in fact, without the discovery of mistakes it really isn't learning much. It's in trying to determine what's going on with a discovered mistake that science moves forward.

Consequently, every time I hear someone claim something to the effect of "oh look, here's where science got it wrong," I point to it and say, "oh look, here's where science learned something. Here's where science made progress."

To the extent that ID is looking for mistakes in science, it will actually improve our understanding of the universe, which includes evolution. Where ID differs from science, is that not only is no one in ID even looking for mistakes in ID, ID isn't even capable of making mistakes, because their explanations would explain any phenomena-- and an explanation that explains everything really doesn't explain anything. Drop an apple and it falls down? It's ID. Drop an apple and it falls up? It's ID. There's no knowledge content to such an explanation.

Any philosophy that is not capable of discovering its mistakes, must be either perfect or error-prone. And, since no human endeavor or understanding can be said to be perfect, I'd say it's pretty clear which it is. Science too is not perfect, but it has one thing the other philosophies do not, and that is at least some ability to detect its errors. Given the choice between a philosophy that can detect at least some of its errors, and one that pretends it can't make any errors, I think the choice should be pretty easy to make.

Some suggest that scientists are in some kind of conspiracy or cover up. Such a suggestion is completely ignorant of how science and scientists operate. While an individual scientist may find it difficult to uncover errors in their own work, scientists are fully aware that careers are made by uncovering an interesting mistake in another scientists work, and would trumpet such a discovery to the high hills instantly. Conspiracy, indeed.

ID proponents only succeed because they are not the only ones ignorant of these basic realities. Unfortunately, science education and interest is so weak that a large piece of the populace is similarly ignorant.

Even those who aren't anti-evolution or particularly religious may believe in things like astrology, for example. But when was the last time anyone was recognized for finding an error in our "understanding" of astrology? Astronomy has a long list of names of those who've uncovered errors in our understanding: Aristotle, Copernicus, Newton, Einstein, etc.., for example, and there are many many more. Where's the list of names that have improved the quality of astrological knowl

Re:The original story behind this...

[Anonymous Coward]

excellent post, sir

Re:The original story behind this...

[jelloburn]

Where ID differs from science, is that not only is no one in ID even looking for mistakes in ID, ID isn't even capable of making mistakes, because their explanations would explain any phenomena

Might I suggest that the only real difference between "good scientists" and "good ID" people is that the former ask "How did X come about?" and the latter ask "Why did Y make X that way?" But they are actually the same question, just phrased differently, and the resolution of the answer is probably very close to the same.

Of course, there are many many fakers and idiots masquerading as members of one group or the other. There always are. One idiot will say "Worms look like human intestines, so humans must be some sort of super worm. See god can't possibly exist!" (I think all you did was point out some similarities between two different things there...)

Another idiot will say "Since you can't explain every single minute transformational step that would turn a worm into a human, you must be a total dork, and that proves that god and only god could do it." (Looks like all you did was point out that the other person lacks a bit of knowledge. They might be right or wrong, you can't know until you find data relevant to the statement you made.)

Yes, I know the arguments aren't quite that simple, but they often times seem to degenerate to that level. I wish high schools would teach both Newtonian physics and what ever stuff the Flat Earth Society cranks out, but with the critical thinking skills to tell arguments apart and make up their own minds. In the same way, perhaps we should teach "evolutionary theory" and "ID theory" along with the skills needed to knock over all the straw men and logically inconsistent statements made by any and all parties in the "debate".

I know that would have helped me more than a lot of what I was taught in school.

Re:The original story behind this...

[spyrral]

Intelligent Design has been shown to be a religiously motivated political movement. There are no "good ID" people tirelessly toiling away to find evidence of a designer. All of the work of the Intelligent Design movement involves two things:

1. Finding "gaps" in science that they can exploit.

2. Promoting the ID worldview in public life through political lobying on the local and national level.

To say that there are "good ID" people out there doing honest work to further the scope of human knowledge is to reward their dishonesty.

Re:The original story behind this...

[Anonymous Coward]

> Reportedly, years ago a biologist and a physicist met over dinner or something,

Actually it was nothing to do with 'biology' or 'physics'. It was an aeronautical engineer that calculated the Bumble Bee using current (1930s) aeronautical theories. There were discrepencies between the calculations and the testing results for small models used in wind tunnels and this was becoming more of a problem as the aircraft speeds were increasing with the new clean monoplane fighters (eg Spitfire).

The calculation of the Bumble Bee was to show how far out the results were on very small scales. The resolution was that the current (1930s) theories did not take into account the Reynolds Number which increases as the scale gets smaller (basically the air gets more viscous at small scales). Once the calcultions incorporated this the model and the calculations became sufficiently in agreement.

Re:The original story behind this...

[Kazoo the Clown]

Thank you for clarifying that. I was operating from memory (didn't have time to google it), and I've heard a few different retellings of the story. It seems to exist in more than a few apocryphal versions, usually when it is utilized as an example of how science isn't perfect and "doesn't know it all either," as flimsy apologetic for some voodoo belief system. -- Sync

Re:The original story behind this...

[henrywasserman]

You make some interesting points about science and knowledge. You make some good points about astrology. Now let's see you take on something a little more substantive like, the Love of God, Sacrifice, the sanctity of Life. The passion of the Christ. My dear friend, science is nice. Science will save you time and cash and is great with material things. But science is like a bumblebee compared to God. The flight of the Bumblebee was mastered long ago by a classical composer... But if God is not found found inside your heart. Heaven help you. Stick with science for inside of science, but when you get outside of science - you will one day meet your maker and have to answer for the deeds done in your body. For it is appointed unto man once to die and then the judgement. I know that science can not save us from ourselves. In that way it simply postpones the inevitable. A nice diversion, a convienient offering and expanding of knowledge, and truth. What we really need is to have more compassion.

Re:The original story behind this...

[shadowbearer]

You know, I think that's the clearest post on this subject I've ever seen on slashdot... thanks for the ammo :)

SB

Re:The original story behind this...

[sparkz]

Nice sidetrack about astrology ... let me add belief in the Tooth Fairy for additional straw-man arguments.

The idea that something irrelevant has no objections is totally flawed - Creation is attacked on all sides, and has not met any scientific rebuff yet. If someone were to bother to look into astronomy or the tooth fairy, I admit that it would be difficult to find a definitive "thing" to attack, but disproving it would not be difficult, merely too time-consuming to bother with (track a child's teeth for 7 years? Simply to disprove the tooth fairy? No thanks!) Similarly, track a person's life for 7 years, to see how well it matched their horoscope? Not even necessary - just check their horoscope for one week, in 5 different publications, and see if it's even possible to match them all up to that person's actual week.

Re:The original story behind this...

[Kazoo the Clown]

Stick with science for inside of science, but when you get outside of science - you will one day meet your maker and have to answer for the deeds done in your body. For it is appointed unto man once to die and then the judgement.

As Einstein said, if we are only good because we fear punishment or hope for reward, we are a sorry lot indeed. If that's how you see yourself, fine (and thanks for the warning), but I find it rather offensive that you would project your neuroses on me, posturing as if you inhabit a moral higher ground and hold special knowledge. In my opinion, religious faith is the root of all bigotry. You would appear to represent yet another datapoint in support of that particular opinion.

-- Sync

Re:The original story behind this...

[jelloburn]

Intelligent Design has been shown to be a religiously motivated political movement. There are no "good ID" people tirelessly toiling away to find evidence of a designer.

This may be (and probably is) true of the vast majority, but it is very hard to prove "all" in the way you suggest. I was indirectly suggesting that "good ID" people, if any exist, would do so. Maybe there is one somewhere.

I do agree with you on much of what I have seen, esp. on the political front. But to be honest, I felt the same way in some of my school classes long ago, but only with different idology.

"There are no stupid questions..." the teacher said, but then would ridicule an honest question, or the person asking it. A lot more progress could be made by either saying up front that "questions along the line of X are not allowed" or presenting even the slightest evidence or reasoning why that line of reasoning is not a useful direction to go.

At least when I was studying astrophysics, we were told about the chain of assumptions that were needed to determine the Hubble Constant, and what the error bounds on it were... "Cosmologists are happy when they can determine the first digit of the number, but they are ok with only knowing the number of digits in it..." my prof. said once.

On the other hand, "Here we have XXX Man, notice the face that looks like a gorilla. They hadn't evolved much by then." Fine and dandy, but don't actively hide the fact that you determined all that from a big toe and a knee cap. I hope the text books have improved since the ones I had to read.

Hence my suggestion to teach flat earth stuff along with proper physics. You probably will run into both, and should know how to deal with both of them, and tell them apart. Just saying the "other" group is stupid/biased/frauds doesn't really help much. They may very well be stupid/biased/frauds but that doesn't prove they are wrong, and it doesn't help you figure out how to tell the difference.

Re:The original story behind this...

[henrywasserman]

The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.

Re:The original story behind this...

[vidarh]

The problem in both cases is that there are no predictions that are accurate enough for you to test. You can't check whether or not someones horoscope is accurate, because 1) there is no well defined way of predicting it, just vague rules that even differ between different practitioners or aren't used by others, as you pointed out, and 2) the predictions are generally so vague that objectively assessing whether it came true isn't possible to a reasonable degree of error.

Both of these make astrology unfalsifiable in its general form, and thus not a scientific theory.

Which makes it a perfect analogy for intelligent design, and is exactly why it has not "met with any scientific rebuff yet" - it is not a scientific theory: It isn't testable, and no falsifiable predictions can be reasonably drawn from it because there is no agreement on any coherent hypothesis that would allow such predictions.

Re:The original story behind this...

[vidarh]

Which God would that be again? The Christian one? Muslim? Jewish? (though of course, they all refer to different views of the same god, I find a surprising number of people believe they refer to different ones) one of the vast number of Hindu gods? Norse? Greek? Roman?

What I find amazing with believers is that they make statements based on nothing but faith, yet refuse to consider other beliefs when presented with arguments based on nothing but faith.

If faith is enough for you, then how do you discern WHAT to believe in?

Personally I see no value in faith. I have no problems being compassionate, or showing love for people, or to treat people nicely. I do so because I want to, and because it feels right to me, not because I live in fear of retribution from some being I have seen no more proof for than the tooth fairy; not because I am worried about securing my entry into some fairytale land when I die.

For the same reason, I consider love and compassion from someone who consider it a principle of faith to be false and of little value, just as I would an apology forced out under threats.

If there turns out to be a God, I would much rather stand before him and be able to say that I have made the choices I made because I think they are right, than stand before him subservient and admit I did what I did because I was worried about the consequences.

If there turns out to be a God, and he is good, then I have no reason to believe that having faith in the existence on him based on unverifiable stories will make a difference, and if he is not good, I have no reason to believe he would feel obliged to stick to his words.

And to me, any God that is ready to make people suffer if they aren't good little lemmings and believe and carry out silly little acts for him IS pure evil.

So I don't believe because I haven't seen anything to give me reason to, and I don't feel I have to try to believe because it makes no sense to pick a belief on the odd chance that a particular religion happens to be right and their God is an evil bastard that care only about subservience and faith and not about showing genuine love and compassion.

Re:The original story behind this...

[vidarh]

Might I suggest that the only real difference between "good scientists" and "good ID" people is that the former ask "How did X come about?" and the latter ask "Why did Y make X that way?" But they are actually the same question, just phrased differently, and the resolution of the answer is probably very close to the same.

Except that what you present as "good ID" is a view held by very few ID proponents. It is a deist view, and yes, many variations of deism are reconcilable with science, in that they don't even try to explain the "how", and in that they assume a deity that takes no active role in the world after creation, or alternatively only excert very limited influence. Pantheists/pandeists as well will often fall in this camp (but with the difference that the deity is an integral part of the world rather than a separate entity).

The core of the ID camp are people that specifically do not believe in evolution at all. That is, they do not say "god created the world, and made it so that everything we see happen would happen this way", but rather "god created the world and designed things because random chance could not evolve something so complex" (ID tends to ignore that natural selection is far from random, and that random elements such as mutation have minimal effect without natural selection).

The former is often "included" in he ID camp because the ideas on the surface are pretty similar: There is a Creator/Designer. He makes the world the way it is. Chance doesn't play into it.

The difference is whether or not they accept evolution as a "design tool". I.e. do they accept the idea that their "Designer" set things into motion in a way that made evolution play out. Real ID people don't, deists generally do.

In many ways I think this is a deliberate confusion. The deist view wouldn't merit an attack on evolution, nor any discussions about inclusion in science classes - it ISN'T an alternative to evolution, it is an answer to the "why" question that would clearly belong in religious studies or philosophy classes. However, it is also the most edible way to present ID.

The "hardcore" ID view, on the other hand, is nothing more than Creationism dressed up in sheep skin. It is the old tired "we're not monkeys" line of thought, and giving it any more credit than that is completely misplaced.

Ask for a clear description of the theory. Ask how it can be tested. Ask for falsifiable predictions. And when they don't come (they won't), point out exactly why that makes their theory as useless to science (and to childrens science education) as the average childrens fairytale.

Re:The original story behind this...

[henrywasserman]

Ok, I get your point.

Re:The original story behind this...

[spyrral]

If you're suggesting that there are people who honestly believe in the principal argument of ID (that there are elements of nature that are irreducably complex and thus must have been created by a designer of some kind) without any sort of agenda beyond the search for answers about our universe, I would agree with that.

Are you honestly presenting the flaws in your elementary and high school education as an argument? Actively hide, are you joking? Nobody is engaged in a conspiracy to hide the gaps in our knowledge. There are scientists toiling away to understand and explain those gaps.

Its foolish to champion equal-time without regard for the basic legitimacy of each side on its own. Let's take this debate for example:

Your mother is one of the greatest mass murderers in history (apologies if you mother is dead and/or a saint).

My evidence is the number of unsolved murders in her area and the amount of time she was unaccounted for.

Shall we debate this in the public arena without any examination of my motives, background, or the basic facts of my argument? Shall my assertion that your mother is a killer be given the same weight and time as your counter-argument (assuming you have one)?

Re:The original story behind this...

[wilec]

"In fact, virtually all the famous names of science are famous because they uncovered an error in our understanding. ...... It's in trying to determine what's going on with a discovered mistake that science moves forward."

"Huh,thats odd" probably shortly precedes far more substantial discoverys from experiments than "yep, see thats exactly what I thought would happen".

Matthew

Re:The original story behind this...

[jelloburn]

No, the flaws in my education are at best minorly tangential to this discussion. There are numerous causes for that, bad student, bad teacher, bad environment, etc. But as a specific example, we have some of the ID nutjobs will totally ignore evidence that supports evolution, and present their evidence in a rather biased manner. But we also have textbooks still showing things as hard fact that have been quite discredited since soon after they were published in the late 1800's. They seem to still be used because while pretty bogus in their own right, they show the principle. That doesn't seem like it's much better on a rather basic level. But it also does not mean that I expect an equal half hour from each side on the subject. Shouldn't some small effort be put into finding a better example? It would shut up a whole lot of people. Perhaps I should wait for a cosmological God-trolling article instead of a biological one since I deal with astronomy and physics better than biology and palentology. But it seems to me (from what I hear at least) that this in some respects is similar to a situation I am somewhat more familiar with. Consider the fact that our place around the sun and galaxy, the various physical constants etc. seem to have a rather tight tolerance on what they could be to support life, out of a rather large range of possible values that could be picked (for all we know) at random. Some have said "See, God did it", others "No, we just wouldn't be around to discuss this if it weren't so. It's just dumb luck." and others invent some new concept like there must be a nearly infinite number of universes all different so we could appear in the right one, but not need it specificly made for us. I can't say "Don't bother looking farther, we can blame God." But at the same time, I have a difficult time with the alternative which seems rather similar to "I was in front of a firing squad with 20 expert marksman. They all missed, but it doesn't matter, because if they hadn't missed, I would't be here to discuss it." I also hold open the many universes option, but there seems to be no evidence for it, and there doesn't seem to be any way to argue against it. The proper answer for me at least is "I don't know, I will try to keep these possibilities in mind until I find out more." But it seems that many people, perhaps on only philosophical grounds, fall very hard into one camp or another, completely overlooking the evidence against or simple lack of evidence for their position, while berating the other groups for being in the exact same situation. Since my biology is a bit weaker, part of my interest has been to see what the evidence is, and what trolls I can ignore. It's probably a good thing that I follow more sources than just /. 8^) BTW, rather than going after my mother (even if she might deserve it 8^) Might I suggest a more neutral but similar argument I heard once: Eating pickles causes aircraft crashes. Evidence: 99% of airline fatalities have eaten pickles at some time before boarding the doomed aircraft.

Actually I think You missed the point as well

[Anonymous Coward]

And so did the scientist and most of the people who hate Intelligent Design but don't seem to understand it. I don't believe in Intelligent Design by the way but its very different than creationism.

Darwin's Theory says mutation is caused by chance.

ID says mutation is caused by God (or some intelligent source).

Basically ID says God created the spec in 6 days and started things happening in the primordial sludge rather than the old version that had God creating everyone and everything in 6 days.

I beleave the theories agree on most of the rest. So learning how Bees flies does nothing to prove anything to anybody. It is fun to watch people pull out their hair without actually listening though.

Re:Actually I think You missed the point as well

[Chowderbags]

Yes, it's so very much different than Creationism, which has God creating all the animals and plants and Adam and Eve several thousand years ago in a span of 6 days, as according to Genesis. Intelligent Design merely states that some omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent power intelligently designed the life on this planet, including humans, both male and female, in an uncertain timespan at some point in history. Obviously the first is religious fundamentalism, but the second is clearly sane, rational thought rooted in the scientific method.

Re:Actually I think You missed the point as well

[GT_Onizuka]

Uh, no.

ID doesn't agree with the concept of mutation, or anything of the sort. It's "Intelligent Design" not "Intelligently Guided Mutations". ID is a creative way of saying God created everything, but kinda sounds scientific. I'm not saying that believing God had a hand in the evolutionary process is wrong or stupid, it just isn't what Intelligent Design is.

Re:Actually I think You missed the point as well

[Rei]

Hehe, that's pretty amusing. Now leads head into what the theories actually claim.

In "The Origin of Species", Darwin argued that evolution is a roughly constant process that occurs due to random mutations, and does not claim that it caused the origin of life.

In modern evolutionary theory, it is claimed that evolution is a process that occurs at varying rates due to random mutation and recombination, via natural selection, sexual selection, separation and speciation, and various other mechanisms, and does not explain the origin of life.

In the theory of abiogenesis, it is argued that non-life developed into the earliest protolife. This is distinct from the ToE.

ID has a wide range of proponents, and each argue for different things. On one hand are many of the old guard creationists who have relabelled themselves, such as Johnson; they argue against significant transition between species, accepting only low level speciation (separating into classes such as "microevolution" and "macroevolution". On the other end of the spectrum, there are those like Behe who simply believe that there was an intelligent hand in the process because the odds of particular transitions occurring are too low to be left to chance.

Re:Actually I think You missed the point as well

[mOdQuArK!]

Obviously the first is religious fundamentalism, but the second is clearly sane, rational thought rooted in the scientific method.

Actually, they're both clearly _not_ related to the scientific method. Unless you know of a foolproof way to test whether that omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent power exists or not.

DUH!

[clambake]

Researchers at CalTech have discovered how bees fly

Should of asked me and I would have told them a long time ago: With wings!

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[Rei]

That explains all the buzz at the Honeynet project, at the very least.

What a shame...

[bhunachchicken]

I eagerly click on the comments link to find some interesting discussion about this scientific discovery and all I get to read is people arguing about Intelligent Design.

Could someone please assume for one moment I haven't fully understood the article and explain to me how they DO fly?!

Baloney...

[C10H14N2]

That religion can explain everything doesn't mean that the explanations provided carry the same usefulness. If all else fails, "[Are|Is]n't [the] [g|G]od[s] mysterious!" Well, yeah, that can "explain everything," but what do you do with it other than generate a sense of comfort?

Just calling science "another religion" is silly. Correct, science cannot explain everything. However, what it does attempt to explain is not based on faith that what we believe is right. Rather the opposite, it is based on the perpetual pessimism that everything we believe, no mattern how many times we have "proven" it, is WRONG.

Re:Baloney...

[Krach42]

Just calling science "another religion" is silly. Correct, science cannot explain everything. However, what it does attempt to explain is not based on faith that what we believe is right. Rather the opposite, it is based on the perpetual pessimism that everything we believe, no mattern how many times we have "proven" it, is WRONG.

No, what science explains *is* based on a small subset of faith taken assumptions that cannot be proven. Such as that our perceptions are of the true reality.

If after I die, and I wake up from my VR console in a 42 dimensional universe that's based on entirely different physics than what I've just experienced, then I have just proven science wrong.

If I die, and am lifed upto Heaven, and God says he made us and the world imperfectly so that we would doubt his existence, then I've just proven evolution wrong.

All of these things cannot be proven though. The more finer points that perceptions of reality are the true reality cannot be proven at all. This assumption must be taken on faith. It doesn't mean that this is wrong, or not justified. In fact, it is the most logical choice to pick considering that our world is regular and rule-following!

Just people get so "hot and bothered" over this whole "science is religion" thing, because they feel that their beliefs are justified. Well, The Church was justified in their beliefs for hundreds of years, but that doesn't lend them any more credit today. It's possible that in a hundred some years, science will be viewed with the same distain, replaced with something more justified, and we will look back and laugh at the funny "scientist" that we today laugh at the alchemist.

Re:Baloney...

[aqfire]

People don't seem to realize that science is only half observation and collection of facts. The other half is interpretation of facts, and many people seem to forget that scientists argue over what the same set of data means on a regular basis.

Hear me out before you mod me down for disagreeing with your viewpoint:

I'm not trolling, but it's important to know how easy it is for people to jump on the "I hate ID" bandwagon because all you're doing is burning straw men. The real proponents of ID never believed that if scientists could figure out how bees fly then their theory was bunk. Maybe your school teacher said that, but in my (public) school we still had textbooks that mentioned the theory of recapitulation as fact, so I wouldn't take your teacher as a reliable proponent of ID.

Re:Baloney...

[idsofmarch]

The real proponents of ID never believed that if scientists could figure out how bees fly then their theory was bunk. Maybe your school teacher said that, but in my (public) school we still had textbooks that mentioned the theory of recapitulation as fact, so I wouldn't take your teacher as a reliable proponent of ID.

I've never heard the 'mysterious bee-flight' as an argument of ID, but I can see how this could work within the argument. ID isn't a good theory, in part because it tries to do two things at once. First, it acts as a critique of evolution, which could be useful. But, ID typically goes further and tries to extrapolate a 'designer' who exists in the gaps of evolutionary theory. ID proponents could use bee-flight as a problem in evolution and if proven wrong would simply move to a new evolutionary problem.

What makes science useful is its testability, its reliance on observation, it's reliance on duplication of evidence. It's a good system that is flawed because, like everything else, it's a human system. But, we have advanced so far with it, we have made so many new discoveries that it has proven useful, far more so than 'faith-based' prayer to various divine orders.

Re:Baloney...

[Marxist Hacker 42]

That religion can explain everything doesn't mean that the explanations provided carry the same usefulness. If all else fails, "[Are|Is]n't [the] [g|G]od[s] mysterious!" Well, yeah, that can "explain everything," but what do you do with it other than generate a sense of comfort?

You control large populations of human beings with it. You create a unified singular morality with it, upon which civilizations rest. There's plenty of use in it- just because the fundamentalists are particularily bad at religion doesn't mean that we need to exclude it and become fundamentalist in the other direction.

Just calling science "another religion" is silly. Correct, science cannot explain everything. However, what it does attempt to explain is not based on faith that what we believe is right.

Uh, actually, no. Science is based on some very basic assumptions we have a lot of faith in, but which cannot be proved. Occam's razor for instance.

Rather the opposite, it is based on the perpetual pessimism that everything we believe, no mattern how many times we have "proven" it, is WRONG.

Nope, not quite- because we teach it in school as the single, only answer, banning competing theories from the classroom because we're scared of them.

Re:Baloney...

[Krach42]

Uh, actually, no. Science is based on some very basic assumptions we have a lot of faith in, but which cannot be proved. Occam's razor for instance.

Well, to be fair, the scientific use of Occam's razor is typically: "The simplest explanation is most likely the correction one."

Of course as with many things in science, this is actually a PHILOSOPHICAL point, and the "razor" part comes in, because it is actually: "Do not multiply entities unnecessarily."

Typically, if you don't need an intelligent designer to have evolution, then there is no reason to persume one to be there.

Re:Baloney...

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Well, to be fair, the scientific use of Occam's razor is typically: "The simplest explanation is most likely the correction one."

Yep- when quite often that is actually NOT the case. But it's a nice dogma to build models upon, and works for the purpose for which it was designed.

Of course as with many things in science, this is actually a PHILOSOPHICAL point, and the "razor" part comes in, because it is actually: "Do not multiply entities unnecessarily."

Yes, but there is a religious belief in this philosophical point- it's used to deny competing theories from damaging the orthodox one.

Typically, if you don't need an intelligent designer to have evolution, then there is no reason to persume one to be there.

Yes, that's what the razor would suggest. But the razor has been wrong in the past, and will be wrong again. We have 10,000 years worth of experiential evidence that an intelligent designer exists- we really need equal experiential evidence to deny one.

Re:Baloney...

[Krach42]

Yes, that's what the razor would suggest. But the razor has been wrong in the past, and will be wrong again. We have 10,000 years worth of experiential evidence that an intelligent designer exists- we really need equal experiential evidence to deny one.

Well the point of Occam's Razor is the "necessity" part. Occam's Razor cannot be used in philosophy to disprove a theory, it can only be used to cast doubt upon a theory, "Is it necessary to create this XY?" For instance with say, quarks. We believed for a long time that atoms were indivisible (atom means indivisible) but then we saw evidence that atoms were in fact not divisible. Thus the need was presented that atoms need be made of SOMETHING, so that they might be divisible.

Occam's Razor in philosophy is never applied as a negative assertion, it can be used as a positive assertion, "I can explain this observance without inventing anything new." Thus providing that it is likely the best of alternates that cannot otherwise be verified. But the moment a need is generated, that explanation suddenly breaks Occam's Razor, it is in fact necessary to invent something, and thus the previous explanation is definitively wrong.

As with many philosophical tools, it is a tool for growing and working upon knowledge, not for asserting the truth against something.

You should likely never see a true philosopher argue against God with Occam's Razor. Because the innecessity of God has never been absolutely proven.

Re:Baloney...

[Sage Gaspar]

Not necessarily true. Not all scientists believe in Objective Truth.

Science, to me, proceeds thusly: Here's a result that I, personally, perceived in my course of experiments. Let's see if you all will see the same thing. If we all tend to agree on it, we will use it to underlie our theory. Our theories exist to form a predictive basis for what most humans tend to percieve in a given situation.

It's crude, and it's majority rules, but it's all we have. As for Truth, I don't really think it exists, and I'm still trying to come to terms with what exactly that means. But it's things like the latter that are the basis of philosophy and religion, which are the things that most people can't seem to agree on.

Re:Baloney...

[bzipitidoo]

You argue like a typical ID supporter. You say something incorrect about some well-known high profile idea, in this case Occam's Razor, then you show an example or two as evidence for your conclusion that the idea is wrong when in fact it is only your interpretation that is wrong. Occam's Razor is not used to "cast doubt upon" theories. Occam's Razor is a philosophical justification for choosing the simpler of two or more perfectly acceptable explanations. If you have 2 explanations and one is wrong, then the wrong one must be discarded even if it is simpler, and Occam's Razor does not apply. Occam's only applies if you have multiple explanations which are provably CORRECT. Understand that this means all the correct explanations must be equivalent, or in other words, we have many ways of describing the same fundamental thing. We should use the simplest description. Occam's Razor is not "broken".

I have an observation, and two explanations for you to consider. The observation: You think Occam's Razor is broken. Explanation 1: You're right, and thousands of philosophers and scientists over hundreds of years have all got it wrong, and incredibly, got it wrong in the same way! It's like every single mathematician ever to live tried adding 2+2 and got not any old different random answer each time, but 5, every single time. Explanation 2: You're wrong. Now if we really thought each explanation was equally valid, we could apply Occam's Razor to pick explanation number 2. But the 2 explanations are contradictory. Therefore one of them has to be wrong. Occam's Razor does not apply. Same goes for arguments over God. God isn't an explanation that can be tested. You can't apply Occam's Razor to choose between 2 explanations when one of them isn't testable.

You have observed that some scientists become angry when science is called "just another religion". You then use this to conclude "must have touched a nerve, must be on to something! Science IS a religion, and scientists just don't want to admit it!" No. First, were they really scientists, and really angered? If they were, then conceive that what angered the scientists could be anything. A person's obtuseness and imbecilic obstinacy is a far more likely cause of anger than fear fed anger that a grand conspiracy is about to be penetrated. The sort of argument "scientists angered when someone calls science a religion implies that science is religion" reminds me of a Beavis and Butthead episode where some girls tell them how disgusting they are for wearing a dead animal as a hat and leave, and Butthead concludes "I know chicks. They'll be back." You can point to Wikipedia all you like about "some people include science in the definition of religion", but let's try to agree on a few fundamentals. Religion is faith based. Can we agree on that? That faith is a necessary component of religion? Yes? Good. Now, science most definitely does not take ANYTHING on faith. Sure, we have plenty of axioms. We have the Incompleteness Theorem which says logic is by necessity incomplete-- there just aren't enough proofs to go around. And what does that mean? Does the necessity for axioms mean science has to take things on faith? No! There are unanswered questions, and there are unanswerable questions. The existence of such questions does not mean that science is forced to take some position on them so that "everything works". Not every question has to be answered. Because science doesn't take anything on faith, it has achieved a truly stunning reputation of accuracy and verifiability. Face it, science WORKS. Sadly, some religious people feel threatened by that, and would like their brand of religion to acquire the same level of acceptance, and have after a fashion unintentionally paid science homage by giving it such attention as must the be envy of any preacher, some by trying to use science to "prove" religion, some by fearing that science disproves their religion and frantically trying to do something about that. If anyone is getting up

Re:Baloney...

[Krach42]

Awesome. :) I can only agree.

Re:Baloney...

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Religion is faith based. Can we agree on that?

I'll agree on that, because it is central to my argument that science IS a religion.

Now, science most definitely does not take ANYTHING on faith. Sure, we have plenty of axioms. We have the Incompleteness Theorem which says logic is by necessity incomplete-- there just aren't enough proofs to go around. And what does that mean? Does the necessity for axioms mean science has to take things on faith?

YES! If you have an unproven axiom (by definition axioms are unproven and unproveable) you have a belief- and thus faith. Anybody who says different is lying to protect the idea that Science doesn't take anything on faith.

Because science doesn't take anything on faith, it has achieved a truly stunning reputation of accuracy and verifiability.

A totally undeserved reputation- because an axiom has to be taken on faith to be an axiom, and a "working assumption" can never actually be a fact.

Re:Baloney...

[bzipitidoo]

I'll say it once more: Some questions, such as the famous "what is the meaning of life?", are unanswerable. Science does NOT ANSWER these questions! All science, or more precisely philosophy, may say is the questions are not answerable. That is not the same as picking an answer on some other basis such as faith. Not picking any answer at all is an option-- the "either you're with us or you're against us" style of argument does not hold, and it's wrong to claim that not answering is an answer.

Axioms are another way of handling difficult questions. In this case, we have questions, such as "why is 2 + 2 = 4?" that have infinitely many correct answers (set of axioms), but we can usefully apply only 1 answer at a time, otherwise we would not be logically consistent. There is no faith involved in such a choice. It doesn't matter what we choose, all the answers are right. The deeper question, "why is some set of axioms true?" is unanswerable for all sets of axioms if you refuse to accept that they are self-evident. We know they are unanswerable (Incompleteness). That does not make axioms useless, or the use of axioms evidence that we are taking things on faith. Use of a tool does not imply "belief" in a tool in all possible situations. We use Occam's Razor to justify picking the simplest answers (sets of axioms), and run with that.

Science has a totally deserved reputation. Here you are, posting on Slashdot via the Internet, which is one of the most recent fruits in a long chain of scientific advances, some of these advances being the understanding of electricity, information theory, and materials science, and you're trying to ram the square peg of science into the round hole of religion, saying science is no "better" than any other religion?! Do you believe you exist? How do we know the world is more than 5 years, or 5 minutes old? God could have created the universe 5 minutes ago, giving all of us memories of having been alive for many years, same as putting all those dinosaur fossils in rocks that appear to be millions of years old. How do we know that God didn't create the universe 5 minutes ago? We don't. We can't. Scientific evidence, in addition to the evidence of our own senses and memories, says the universe is more than 5 minutes old. Accepting the evidence of our senses is not a matter of faith, it's a matter of rationality. You veer into semantics if you try to argue that rationality is faith.

Re:Baloney...

[Marxist Hacker 42]

I'll say it once more: Some questions, such as the famous "what is the meaning of life?", are unanswerable. Science does NOT ANSWER these questions!

Then you would agree with say, a statement to that effect in grade school science classes.

Axioms are another way of handling difficult questions. In this case, we have questions, such as "why is 2 + 2 = 4?" that have infinitely many correct answers (set of axioms), but we can usefully apply only 1 answer at a time, otherwise we would not be logically consistent.

Being logically consistent is not necessary. Logic is just another philosophy- another religion under this idea. Another system of beliefs to take on faith. There are many such philosophies that are internally logically consistent, which don't make sense in a different philosophy.

The deeper question, "why is some set of axioms true?" is unanswerable for all sets of axioms if you refuse to accept that they are self-evident.

And I do so, at least for the idea that religion is a science, refuse the idea that ANY religion is self-evident before it is stated. Axioms must be taken on faith that they are true; we can't prove that reality exists let alone that axioms are self-evident.

We know they are unanswerable (Incompleteness). That does not make axioms useless, or the use of axioms evidence that we are taking things on faith.

Why not? Since you can't claim in all worldviews that any set of axioms is self evident- that sure looks like faith to me.

Use of a tool does not imply "belief" in a tool in all possible situations.

Faith doesn't need to be in all possible situations- faith might only cover a single situation.

We use Occam's Razor to justify picking the simplest answers (sets of axioms), and run with that.

That justification has nothing beneath it but faith. But that's ok- all justifications are about faith- faith doesn't automatically make things correct or incorrect, just lacking in evidence.

Science has a totally deserved reputation.

Actually- until you prove that axioms are self-evident, no it doesn't. If it truly deserved that reputation, it wouldn't be so limited.

Here you are, posting on Slashdot via the Internet, which is one of the most recent fruits in a long chain of scientific advances, some of these advances being the understanding of electricity, information theory, and materials science, and you're trying to ram the square peg of science into the round hole of religion, saying science is no "better" than any other religion?! Do you believe you exist?

I believe I do, but I have no real PROOF that I do. Nor do I have proof that the computer I'm sitting in front of exists, or that any of this chain of scientific advances exists. I believe that they do- but that belief is religious in nature, it's faith that there is a reality. I can't prove that there is a reality. So actually, science is just another round peg that fits through the round hole.

How do we know the world is more than 5 years, or 5 minutes old?

I don't. I choose to believe that, and have faith in it, but it's no more than faith.

We don't. We can't. Scientific evidence, in addition to the evidence of our own senses and memories, says the universe is more than 5 minutes old.

Yes, but we choose to BELIEVE that evidence exists- we have faith in it.

Accepting the evidence of our senses is not a matter of faith,

Completely incorrect.

it's a matter of rationality. You veer into semantics if you try to argue that rationality is faith.

Rationality is not accepting the evidence of our senses- if that was so, people hallucinating would be completely rational. Rationality is insisting that the system of faith we choose to believe in, the religion we choose to believe in, is logically consistent and explains the evidence of our senses. There are rational religions and irrational religions- I would certainly put science among the rational ones if that helps any. But that doesn't mean we're accepting it on faith any less.

Re:intelligent design - in the eye of the beholder

[hedge_death_shootout]

if someone were to argue that DNA is a construct (that evolves) that is the product of intelligent design...

Well, that would be a quaint little notion with which to tickle the intellect. More than that...? Somebody could make a sci-fi movie that had that idea in the plot somewhere. The Matrix was quite a good film, but I wouldn't base my explanation of the universe on it.

Maybe some time in the future our descendents will invent DNA-like chemical systems and simulate them at high speed to see what happens... Or seed some planet with our invention. Ooh!

Nor Timely

[DumbSwede]

I wouldn't call this timely news as there was a flurry or reports about determining the physics of bee flight in late November 2005 Deciphering the Mystery of Bee Flight
Secrets of bee flight revealed">
Longstanding Puzzle of Honeybee Flight Solved at Last

But as wikipedia shows this problem had been essentially resolved since the early 90's, though I'm sure I been hearing that this problem is "Finally Solved" every year or two and has been since the early 70's.

Researchers will continue to refine their understanding of the process and claim to finally or fully understand the problem at last.
Some, mostly religious types, will claim scientists don't understand the process because there was some mystery at some point a few decades ago. It seems every few years we get similar pronouncements about the trajectory of a thrown baseball.

While Bee flight does little to disprove ID, ID proponents do frequently use examples like bee flight to bolster their ID arguments regardless of what the current scientific consensus is. Urban legends and wives tales do not die easily.

My last journal entry was actually on the topic of ID Christians in Scientists' Clothing

irrational?

[SengirV]

Irrational to me is saying God doesn't exist because we can now fathom how Bee's fly.

Re:irrational?

[mfrank]

Irrational to me is saying "please don't teach ID in a science class" is the same as "God doesn't exist".

Re:irrational?

[Phillup]

Ever heard the excuses for why it does exist?

Re:irrational?

[dhakbar]

You completely missed the parent's point.

He didn't even say he didn't have faith... all he said is that it is stupid to equate opposing teaching ID in science class to saying that there is no God.

Apparently, you aren't educated enough to parse and process a simple one sentence post in order to formulate a relevant reply. Funny how your post doesn't address any perspective but the one you assumed of the parent's poster.

Re:irrational?

[1u3hr]

Creationists are nutty, but I don't recall any ever claiming that bees were supported in the air by God's grace. I can't see how this has any relevance to the "debate" at all. But good flamebait, Slashdot well on the way to the usual 800 posts any story mentioning ID gets as all the zealots recycle their arguments.

Re:irrational?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah well, it's a good thing that no one is saying that, isn't it?

Re:irrational?

[mOdQuArK!]

How will you know you've got the _right_ higher being?
Odin might be kinda PO'd at all the unbelievers he has to sort out.

Guess you'll have to wait until you're dead to find out.

Re:irrational?

[ichigo 2.0]

No need, because we're never dying anyways.

Well maybe he'll die from your perspective, but not from his point of view. So I guess you both win. Damn, Quantum theory really is the answer to everything, even fundame... erm theological arguments can be solved with QT! No, not quicktime.

Re:irrational?

[SengirV]

Not really a zealot here, sorry. Just pointing out that a freakin story about bees flying can't escape the MSM agenda now-a-days. But since the MSM is working for you, you don't see the problem.

Re:irrational?

[1u3hr]

I wasn't referring to you as a zealot; I haven't examined your posting history so give you the benefit of hte doubt. By zealots I mean those, on either side, who take any opportunity to tiresomely regurgitate the same arguments with their mirror images; neither side learning a thing in the process. Same mentality as the pro/anti gun nuts. Good for the ad impressions though. However, I'm not familiar with "MSM"? Something like the Illuminati? Or did you mean FSM (Flying Spaghetti Monster)?

Re:irrational?

[SengirV]

Anyone who would use the Flying Spaghetti Monster can not possibly hold an intelligent conversation. Good-bye.

BTW, MSM = Main Stream Media.

Re:irrational?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's right. I'm your mommy, I'm your daddy, I'm the nigger in the alley.

God

Re:irrational?

[1u3hr]

Appears I was wrong to give you the benefit of the doubt. After Googling I find that aside from "Methylsulfonylmethane", "Maastricht School of Management"; MSM, according to trhe infallible Wikipedia, is a term used by "right-leaning authors the acronym implying that the majority of mass media sources is dominated by leftist powers which are furthering their own agenda".

Sorry for not knowing your code-words. Do you also have a secret handshake?

Re:irrational?

[Onan]

Ah. Clearly another follower of the true faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorn (blessed be her holy hooves).

Re:irrational?

[Anonymous Coward]

you've obviously not been involved in a creationist sect. The bee story was an important bit of bullshit constantly repeated in pulpits, along the lines of "according to science, it is impossible for a bee to fly, therefore science is untrustworthy, trust the bible" or "according to science it is impossible for bees to fly, bees fly by the ongoing daily miracel of god's creation"

It was used to hammer home the idea that science in general was untrustworthy & deceitful. They don't teach that the bible is more important than science, they teach that science is deliberate deception, from satan, and that scientists are tools of satan. They leave ambiguous the question of whether scientists are deceiving the world with lies from satan wilfully and deliberately, or because they themselves are sadly deceived.

The obvious bullshit of the bee thing (because even before having a model it was specious and dishonest to say science says it is impossible for a bee to fly) is in fact one of the reasons I left the bullshit "christianity" I was raised in and became an atheist. The story made me curious, and I researched it, saw how dishonestly it was used, and that helped inform my opinion of the belief system I had been raised in. That along with the one about how NASA had to include Joshua making the sun stand still for a day & other bible stories to work out some vaguely specified calculations for making the moonshot. Complete unsubstantiated bullshit repeated over and over by fundamentalists as truth, making no effort whatsoever to verify it before repeating it, despite the fact that the bible says such a practice is a sin far more clearly, unambiguously & often than any of the other sins the fundies go on about so stridently.

Re:irrational?

[DigiShaman]

Interesting! I wonder if parallel universes based on Quantum theory can also explain the psychic and déjà vu phenomenon. Being the human brain is a vast parallel asynchronous computer, maybe it has the ability to process at the quantum level based on probability (majority multi-verse outcome).

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[F_Scentura]

While the reference is unnecessary, it's always nice to have a response for every functionally retarded Creationist God of the Gaps argument.

Is censorship OK if we only censor falsity?

[Mazzula]

To me, there are two separate questions with Intelligent Design. The first is whether it is true, the second is whether it should be excluded by law from school curricula. I don't know if it is true, but I know that there are lots of systems that work well despite having no inherent designed-in goals (e.g. the free market). So I don't quite buy the premise that complex systematic behavior implies an intelligent design. On the other hand, usually when I see some world "from the outside" (a movie, a dream, a novel, a video game, etc.) I would be surprised to find that there was no underlying system that supported and governed the existence of that world (however undetectable that system was within the context of the world in question). So the evidence I have from example after example is that the parts of interacting systems can interact only because the are contained within and operate within some unifying system. Maybe the universe isn't like that, but if it isn't then it is unusual in that respect. If this principle is general, then I am led to think that underlying all is a base system that is a unity with no parts, and yet which can support the diversity of creation and which can manifest consciousness.

But the question of whether Intelligent Design is true is far different from the question of whether government should decide if it should be a part of the curriculum of schools. This issue only arises because the schools are government schools, but that just begs the question. I don't think that many people believe in freedom of expression and freedom of ideology because they think that all protected ideas are true. Rather I think that these protections are important because fundamental to democracy is the equal standing of individuals, based on whatever intellect and experience they have, to decide for themselves which ideas to accept. Governments never censor ideas they find to be harmless, thus the protections against censorship imply the right of people to hold and express ideas that the government finds to be harmful, including ideas that are found to be harmful because they are wrong.

Any loss of this protection will, of course, begin with the censorship of ideas that are most widely believed to be harmful, and which are held only by a few extremists. But it isn't really necessary to protect against ideas that aren't widely held, unless there is some compelling aspect of those ideas (such as their truth or their poetry or some other aspect) that would cause them to flourish, so the main effect of such censorship is to establish the principle under which censorship can extend to other areas where, apart from the censorship, there would be widespread debate and perhaps dialectic.

There is no greater threat to the freedom of ideas than the notion that the government should decide for us which ideas should be held and promulgated, and which ideas should not be. The public school system, by giving some ideas the imprimatur of government, and by effectively making other, opposing, ideas almost unthinkiable by the masses of people who are educated within those schools, is a grave threat to liberty.

The right way to oppose Intelligent Design is to present convincing arguments for alternative views, not to enlist government to dominate the intellectual lives of 90% of our children in such a way that arguments for Intelligent Design are excluded, a priori, by the design of the educational system.

Re:Is censorship OK if we only censor falsity?

[professionalfurryele]

So you are saying that it is okay to violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment? I think that in this case the rights conferred on all society by the Establishment Clause of First Amendment supercede those of a subset of educators right to express thier religious opinions inside a class room, also protected under the First Amendment. I think that the Supreme Court also agrees with me on this one.
One reason, those educators are free to express those opinions off the job if they want to. They are being paid to educate, not spread religious doctrine, and thier right to freedom of expression is curtailed not by the application of undue duress or other illegal means but because they are being paid to teach children science, something they agreed to do in exchange for being paid.
The establishment clause is binding on government, and the government can only ignore it if the constitution is suspended or amended. The right to free speach is something that is in the hands of individuals and can be surrendered (i.e. freedom of speach is not an inalieable right in that sense).
On a personal not however I do feel that an organisations ablility to curtail freedom of expression should have limits, and that certain aspects of our capacity to curtail our own free speech amount to selling ourselves into bondage. Since I consider this freedom to be inalieable I do feel certain aspects of modern contract law to be in violation of the emancipation proclamation of the thriteenth amendment of the constitution of the United States. However that is just my opinion.

Re:Is censorship OK if we only censor falsity?

[vidarh]

The right way to oppose Intelligent Design is to present convincing arguments for alternative views, not to enlist government to dominate the intellectual lives of 90% of our children in such a way that arguments for Intelligent Design are excluded, a priori, by the design of the educational system.

Personally, I believe 2 + 2 = 5, because that is the result I get using the rules of my personal mathematical system, which I have no intention of presenting any proofs for - suffice to say that the current system can not be right because, uh, it doesn't fit with this book here, that was handed to me by the Flying Spaghetti Monster itself. However, I insist that you stop making your government dominate the intellectual lives of 90% of your children in such as way that arguments for my system is excluded, a priori, by the design of the educational system.

In other words: See how silly your argument is?

Schools MUST filter what they spend time on. Most people wouldn't object to intelligent design being brought up in schools in the appropriate setting. But generally the debate about intelligent design in schools boils down to whether or not it's taught as part of science classes, when it is not in any way a scientific theory, and when it is considered bullshit by practically all scientists.

Letting students debate intelligent design as part of classes on philosophy or religious studies wouldn't be unreasonable, but spending time in science classes on a "theory" that's no more scientific than the Flying Spaghetti Monster or stories about Santa Claus is to make a mockery of the very idea of education.

What is worse is that the slant that is always attempted introduced is a presentation of intelligent design as a credible alternative to evolution, not a balanced and critical presentation of the arguments for and against intelligent design vs. evolution - the latter might very well serve as a good way of explaining the history of science and how/why evolution as a theory has won out as the prevailing view amongst those researching the relevant fields.

However the former paves the road for every special interest out there to try to get its pet fantasies included as part of science educations.

Imagine kids being made to learn about the Scientologists views as part of Science classes as well, and not given clear guidance on what to believe or not. If intelligent design is accepted into classrooms, there would be few or no good arguments to keep the Scientologists from being allowed to present their "theory", together with every cult out there.

Re:Is censorship OK if we only censor falsity?

[Mazzula]

Let me get this straight, you think that censorship of false ideas should be endorsed because otherwise people will come to believe that 2 + 2 = 5? And you think that this illustrates the silliness of the anti-censorship position?

The place where your argument falls down is that you beg the question. You assume that government must be the arbiter of truth and then claim that if government declares any false (or even questionable) idea as true, then it must present all false ideas as being true.

My position is that the problem arises only because of the view that the government is to be the arbiter of truth. Government sometimes censors facts (e.g. details of troop movements) because the knowledge of those facts presents a security risk, but government only censors ideas that it holds to be false. By far the greater threat to liberty is the censorship of ideas rather than the censorship of particular facts.

Re:Is censorship OK if we only censor falsity?

[Mazzula]

No I am not saying that the government should violate the Establishment Clause, quite the opposite.

After all, the essence of the establishment clause is that the government should not favor one ideology over another--in other words that the government should not be in the business of giving its endorsement to one view of reality over another. People have (and endorse) ideologies, government should not. Naturally, in a democracy, the laws will reflect a consensus that arises from a political negotiation between people, and thus laws will reflect ideologies--but the essence of democracy is that the political concensus should arise from the bottom up and not because government has stacked the deck in favor of (or against) particular ideologies.

I also take issue with your notion that reality is compartmentalized in such a way that there are clear boundaries between educational disciplines. You would allow that something could be appropriate to teach in one discipline but should only be censored from study in particular disciplines. I think that reality is self-consistent, and thus that truths that arise in one discipline ought to be consistent with truths that arise in any other discipline. To the extent there appears to be a contradiction between the disciplines, it is appropriate for students to have some forum for resolving those contradictions. Your establishment of a Chinese wall between disciplines ensures that such questions of interdisciplinary contradictions can be examined in neither classroom.

Re:Is censorship OK if we only censor falsity?

[professionalfurryele]

I think you fail to understand what the Establishment clause is. It is not about ideology. It is about preventing theocracy. The founding fathers realised that theocracy was dangerous. Hence the establishment clause exists to create a secular state. The whole point of the Establishment clause is to promote secularism, it is incredibly biased against one view point, the view point that lead to the dark ages.

'Truths' are not something relevant to science, they are the domain of philosophy and religious study. Science is a method, there is no matter of opinion in so far as established fact. There is plenty of opinion when it comes to disputed facts, and how best to proceed, but every competant scientist trained in the field of physics knows Newtons Law of Gravitation works within the bounds of it's validity. Every biologist knows evolution happens. There is no disputed facts here, those ideas arrived at following from study of world religions are wrong about evolution, as far as scientific method goes.

Your consistent world view of reality does not exist. I accept that you cannot always seperate disciplines, but are far as those disciplines grounded in science go, religion has nothing to contribute. The interdisciplinary contradiction you talk of is simply a result of the incompatability of science and religion as methods of arriving at, respectively, facts and truth. Then trying to equate facts and truth and arriving at a contradiction. The problem is very simple. Religion makes predictions science can test. Science has shown those predictions to be wrong. If you reject the scientific method as a fundamental method of obtaining truth in your life, then you can reject facts obtained as a result of it and go on believing whatever you want. However, the Establishment clause makes it very clear that your religious outlook has no place in the government.

The reason I put up Chineese wall between religion and science is because as far as methods go, neither has anything to contribute to the other. They are totally philosophically distinct entities. Your belief in a 'consistent reality' is just a consequence of your inability to appreciate that there exist contradictory axiomatic structures which are internally consistent (although in the case of most religions the latter is true only because they do something equivilant to setting true equal to false).

Re:Is censorship OK if we only censor falsity?

[professionalfurryele]

Your arguement is ridiculous because by your definition selecting a curriculum is sensorship because you will always 'exclude ideas'. When selecting a curriculum we always include real science, at the cost of fiction, from our science class room. And local school board members apointed by the public decide what that should entail.

Intelligent Designs exclusion from science class rooms has nothing to do with the fact that from a scientific view point it is a load of ballony, and everything to do with not establishing a theocracy in the united states (or any other country).

Re:Is censorship OK if we only censor falsity?

[Mazzula]

Clearly the point of the establishment clause is not to promote secularism. If that were the case, the establishment clause would not have been followed immediately by the free exercise clause. The two go hand in hand. If the framers had wanted to disparage religion in favor of secularism, they would not have forbade laws that restrict any exercise of religion in any forum as they did in the free exercise clause. Farthest from their minds was the censorship of religious speech.

The purpose of the bill of rights is to enshrine the notion that the proper sovereign of the nation is the consensus will of the people. The framers held, rightly, that the evolution of this consensus begins with the individual's religious views, which is why this is the first freedom that they protected. There is no clear separation between religious and political views, political views arise from religious conviction. Or to put it another way, in science, there is no moral distinction between any two arrangements of atoms in the universe, the distinctions of morality arise only from value judgements and these are influenced by religious belief (e.g. the belief that human beings should be treated as equally sovereign).

The framers then went on, properly, to protect the right of people to influence others with freedom of speech and of the press, treating this linguistically as related to the right to free exercise of religion.

There is nothing in the first amendment that condones censorship of ideas, religious or otherwise, but of all ideas, religious ideas are granted particular protection.

I do not think that religion and science are totally distinct, philosophically. Although it is certainly the case that contrdictory axiomatic structures can exist, they cannot exist together (except in the trivial system where no idea is rejected). But without getting to whether my integrated view of reality is true, I totally reject the notion that the government should favor your view over mine through censorship and the suppression of ideological liberty.

Although I think that the rejection of religion is irrational in that this rejection is contrary to reasonable conclusions based on widespread, available experience and can only be maintained because of a willingness of people to cook the intellectual books by erecting (as you have advocated) walls of separation between ideas such that they are never bothered by the doublethink required to maintain the atheist ideology, I do not think that the unlikelihood of atheism should justify having the government suppress it. If you hold that falsity is a proper basis for censorship, then (given my belief that atheism is false) on what basis do you think I should restrain myself from advocating censorship of your views?

It seems to me that you want free speech for yourself only.

Re:Is censorship OK if we only censor falsity?

[Mazzula]

I agree that anyone who creates a curriculum will always exclude ideas. I am not arguing against private individuals deciding for themselves what ideas to accept and what ideas to reject. I am arguing against government making that decision for the individuals in question. In other words, my fundamental issue is not with evolution vs intelligent design, but with the threat to liberty posed by the public school system as it is currently devised--with government acting as the censor.

You seem to be advocating a position where the majority votes on which ideas should be promoted and which ideas should be suppressed. You seem to be convinced that the majority will accept whatever scientific findings are currently in vogue as being "true", and that this will be the basis for their suppression of other ideas. Even if your notion that science holds the answers is correct, I doubt that the general public has the depths of understanding of science required to ensure that scientific truths win out in the curriculum.

My educational background is in Physics. As a physics graduate student, almost everything I learned was a contradiction to the view of reality that most people hold. Even to the extent that the names for advanced ideas in Physics are widely believed to represent truth (i.e. relativity, wave-particle duality, Heisenberg uncertainty, etc.) the public perception of these ideas is only a caricature of the actual ideas. When the typical person says he accepts the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, the thing he typically has in mind (that the energy transfer of making a measurement creates a change in the state of the system) is so far from the actual principle as to be almost the very thing rejected by it.

The main impact of introducing Intelligent Design into the classroom would be that there would arise a much larger group of people with an interest in developing falsifiable experiments that would allow people to decide between the two theories. Even if it turned out (as I suspect) that evolution is generally the right way to go, I think that it will only help our understanding of the theory to subject it to such challenges. These experiments would also help theologians, who might have to refine their thoughts on their religious beliefs to accommodate the results of these experiments. Censorship is the wrong way to handle these objections.

Re:Is censorship OK if we only censor falsity?

[professionalfurryele]

"The main impact of introducing Intelligent Design into the classroom would be that there would arise a much larger group of people with an interest in developing falsifiable experiments that would allow people to decide between the two theories."

To disprove ID would be to show a negative. ID is unfalsifiable. There exists no experiment that can falsify it. Right, now that the challenge of finding all falsifiable predictions of ID has been met, and no falsification scheme devised, can we agree that teaching unfalsifiable tautologies in science class rooms is a waste of time?

Re:Is censorship OK if we only censor falsity?

[professionalfurryele]

You fail to understand the purpose of the first amendment, and have confused secularism with atheism. The founding fathers had no problem with privately practiced religion, in fact as you say, they (and I for that matter) consider it a basic and fundamental right. The first amendment balances several things against eachother. It protects free speech, it protects freedom of religion, and it protects it's citizens from theocracy.

You call preventing a science teacher talking about ID censorship. It may well be, but we censor all the time at work. We don't call stopping someone talking at length about their favourite cat a breach of free speech if they are prevented from doing it in the middle of a business propsal. Why? Because they are supposed to be doing a job. One of the fundamental principles of the United States is that it's government shall promote no one religion above another. Not world view, not methodology, just religion. That binds teachers in science class rooms in public schools, and requires that they not teach religion in a class with no call for it.

Morality arises from the study of ethics not religion, incidentally.

You state that you reject the idea that government should favor my view over yours. That is fine, amend the constitution replacing the establishment clause with a clause stating any ideological viewpoint, instead of religion. The greatest strength of the constitution is that it can be changed, and if you think that is a change for the better, you campaign to get that change to happen.

You then talk about the government censoring your views. You are in no way censored. If you want to you can go stand on a street corner and spout your opinions on ID till the sun explodes. I not only have no problem with that, but consider such essential liberty vital to the future of the United States. What you want is for religions to get privledge access to children using the abilities of the state. You want a theocracy.

Secularism is not atheism. Atheism is a world view held by those who, depending on your definition, either do not believe in a god or gods, or outright reject that a god or gods exist. Secularism is the requirement that the state be independent of religion. Secularism protects freedom of religious, that is the whole point of it being in the first amendment.

It is not because ID is false that it should be censored as you put it. It is because it is a religious doctrine, which has no place in a science class room. Teaching it violates the first amendment. The fact (I use fact deliberately, because when talking about science truth is basically a scientific colloquim for fact, there are no truths in science per se) that ID has no evidence for it (as you put it, 'is false') is irrelevant, it's factual nature is something that the people decide when they elect school boards. That it violates the first amendment is what requires it's 'censorship'.

Re:Is censorship OK if we only censor falsity?

[Mazzula]

You still seem to be avoiding the point that the issue is government censorship of ideas. You claim that I want religions to get privileged access using the state. I do not. As I have said over and over, I oppose the notion of public schools. I think that public schools are a threat to liberty because curricula always involve censorship of ideas, and the government should not be censoring ideas. I would not oppose government financing of an education through vouchers, but only if the parents were completely free to choose the curriculum from all those offered by schools.

The establishment clause also has little to do with theocracy. The Constitution establishes a republic, which (by definition) is not a theocracy. There are lots of governments that have state religions (e.g. Great Britain and Germany), but these are not necessarily theocracies. The inclusion of religion doesn't turn a republic into a theocracy, rather the exclusion (or suppression) of democracy does. Theocracy is not what the founders feared, rather the founders did not want the federal government collecting taxes in support of particular churches. They did not want a state religion. Their experience was not with theocracy, but rather with the English system of supporting the established Church of England through taxes, a practice that had existed in some of the colonies as well. Note that the phrase is somewhat oddly worded if you interpret it as you do. It doesn't say that there should be no law "establishing a religion", or even "establishing religion", but rather that there should be "no law respecting an establishment of religion"--in other words churches are to be independent of government and unregulated.

Not all brands of atheism are secularism, for example Buddhism is (in some forms) atheist but is not secular. Secularism does represent a particular opinion with respect to religion. Were it not so, then secularism would not enjoy the protection that it enjoys under the first amendment. What you want is to establish a state religion, or at least to establish a religious view--the religious view that spiritual concerns are unimportant. At a minimum, the imposition of secularism imposes the religious doctrine of dualism. Secularism is a religious view in the same sense that a shaved head is a hairstyle. If the Supreme Court ruled that the first amendment protected freedom of hairstyle, then the government would be wrong to mandate that everyone shave his head. Similarly, we have guarantees of freedom of religion and it is thus wrong for the government to establish secularism as the state religion.

I am surprised to find that you don't think that having government exclude ideas from classrooms amounts to censorship. Do you really mean to say that for you to tax me to establish a system of education that suppresses particular views is not censorship? It actually is worse than censorship in a way, normal censorship prevents people from expressing ideas, the public school system is designed to make the taboo ideas literally unthinkable.

You say that I am free to express religious ideas. However children in public schools are not free to do so. The state monopolizes thirteen of the formative years of children (K-12). The goal of this education is to enculturate the children. It takes very little time to teach people the things they learn in schools--they read maybe 100 books, learn algebra and geometry, and a few notions of science. Most of the time is spent in cultural training--the government teaching children to value the things the government values.

Radke and Trager's famous study showing that black children were disparaged by a lack of positive images of blacks in the society was instrumental in getting those images included in schools. Similarly, providing children of religious familiies schools that depict no positive images of people from their religious cultures is discriminatory and denies those children the equal protection of laws.

There is no question that Intelli

Re:Is censorship OK if we only censor falsity?

[Mazzula]

Intelligent Design is falsifiable in many of its claims. Its principal claim is a set of objections to the theory of evolution, such as the absense of intermediate forms in the fossil record. Such claims can be falsified by answering them. In the case of intermediate forms the answer is twofold. It was answered first that intermediate forms do exist in the fossil record. But the second answer was more interesting, it was the idea that evolution is not a gradual and continuous process but rather that it proceeds with long periods of stability punctuated by short periods of rapid change. This is an example of how the challenge to evolution led to a refinement of the theory.

Another way to falsify some of the claims of Intelligent Design is to simulate evolution with computers. I have done this and it was quite enlightening. In order to be successful at it you need lots of the features that actually happen in the world, many of which biologists don't address (such as the evolutionary need for long sequences of junk DNA).

Also, note that the claim that the universe exists independently of any supporting context could also be falsified by creating a system that, once created, existed without any supporting, underlying system. For example, you might create a video game that, once it started, did not need a video game console or any other such apparatus to continue its operation. Or you might point out somewhere that a dream existed without a dreamer. The general principle appears to be that all such cosmoses of interacting elements exist because there is some underlying system within which they exist, to think the universe we live in should be otherwise seems to ignore all the available evidence.

Re:Is censorship OK if we only censor falsity?

[Mazzula]

"can we agree that teaching unfalsifiable tautologies in science class rooms is a waste of time"

You know, almost any idea is unfalsifiable if one's mind is sufficiently closed.

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[Fishstick]

You know, I figured it had something to do with the little wings going back and forth real fast, but the article left me really disappointed that it doesn't explain "how" this makes them "fly". ;-)

Kind of like when the Navy supposedly spent hundreds of thousands studying how a frisbee "apparently flies". They couldn't figure it out, at the time, IIRC.

Does that mean that "god" makes the frisbee appear to "fly", because aeronautical engineers were unable to come up with a scientific explanation?

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[On Lawn]

My instinct is that the professor was trying to find validation for his research and pulled the buzz words over the reporter.

Neither ID or Evolution is threatened by this news or lack of it.

the famous quote no longer works

[krunk4ever]

"Aerodynamically, the bumble bee shouldn't be able to fly, but the bumble bee doesn't know it so it goes on flying anyway."

It was such a beautiful quote too!

Re:Science, So Called...

[windowpain]

You have asserted that "[t]he various theories of the evolutionary process have been proven wrong time and time again."

OK. Kindly name those theories, who disproved them and in what peer-reviewed journal their work appeared.

Thank you.

Another nail in the coffin??

[adidalax]

This has probably been said, and if so, please email me the link from the comment on here. I just didnt feel like reading through 245 or so posts.

I think the thing with ID (at least from my perspective as an ID advocate) is not for sceince to prove how things like a bee flying is possible, but how it is possible that the bee actually became a bee and somehow grew wings to fly in the first place. IMHO, it seems to me that it takes more faith to believe in Dawinism (etc) than to beleive in ID.

Just a thought.....feel free to think Im an idiot, but try not to flame too much =P

-= ADiDaLaX =-

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[jandrese]

Aren't frisbees airfoils? What's so hard about that? All the ones I've seen have had a curve to the top that make them airfoil shaped.

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[Anonymous Coward]

So at what point do you think ID would be proven a sham? Or will you keep changing the target?

No, that is wrong

[snowwrestler]

ID proponents are not looking outside of science to explain how the natural world works. What they are doing is questioning how the natural order came to be.

You are wrong, looking outside of science is exactly what intelligent design proponents do. It is NOT a central tenet of intelligent design that God simply designed and started the universe and 12 billion years later here we are. That in fact is a reasonable tenet and compatible with modern science.

NO, what intelligent design proponents propose is that certain structures in living beings are so complex that it is nearly infinitely unlikely that they would have arisen through the "blind chance" of evolution. In addition they purport to perform statistical tests that reveal the hidden presence of willful design in the similarities between types of life.

At least educate yourself about a movement before you defend it. Intelligent design, as a movement, holds that some powerful intelligence outside of nature has willfully guided the evolutionary process. Whether this is how YOU define "intelligent design" or not, this is what you're referring to when you refer to "intelligent design" as a movement.

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[Fishstick]

Dunno, maybe it's an urban legend -- I tried googling, but didn't find anything (but posted anyway, like a moron)

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[fnurb]

Also, is it just me

Yes.

Douglas Adams Helps Us

[darthservo]

"In the beginning the universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move." - Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

Even though that quote is originally humorus, Adams (while he didn't necessarily agree with religions) highlighted an obvious point - The more people learn about themselves and the world around them, the more people will start becoming more antagonistic towards the idea of God, and begin putting complete and strict faith in science devoid of God.

Flying Spaghetti Monster

[Viriatus]

And i believe that world was created by the almighty Flying Spaghetti Monster. All hail the Monster, the beautiful slimy thing.

Method vs. understanding

[C10H14N2]

The Scientific Method(tm) must be considered apart from our current body of scientific knowledge as the former allows for the wholesale falsification and subsequent discarding of the latter. Yes, every g.d. thing we "understand" today may be utterly and completely wrong, but if there is one fundamental assumption that T.S.M. makes, it is that that is more likely the case than not, so saying "gee, god'll getcha in the end and prove you wrong," well, doesn't really hit that hard because we already assume we're wrong.

Re:Method vs. understanding

[Krach42]

Right, that's all we're asking you to realize.

That philosophically, your beliefs are still a faith, and a religion. It may be the best choice out there, but it's still a religion, and it must still be taken on faith.

I've tried hard to make it clear that I'm not attempting to use "religion" or "faith" as an insult against science. The problem is that these words have such negative tones for most atheists, that they refuse to be associated with them. This arbitrary hatred of a word or semantic grouping is blinding.

Re:Method vs. understanding

[C10H14N2]

Which religions teach that their god[s] most likely do not exist at all and that all of its explanations of the world are most likely totally wrong?

Re:Method vs. understanding

[Krach42]

Which religions teach that their god[s] most likely do not exist at all and that all of its explanations of the world are most likely totally wrong?

None, and neither do I expect science to say that they are most likely wrong. In fact, science is very well justified, and deserves to be taught in schools.

The issue here is that Christians, Buddhists, and Shinto don't get upset when you call their beliefs a "religion". Only Atheists and Scientists do.

Re:Method vs. understanding

[Tony Hoyle]

Some of the eastern religions are like that.

OTOH I think this thread is confusing religion with worldview. Religion is a worldview, science is a worldview - they're different though (in fact you can be a religions scientist).

I believe the world is round (although I've only ever seen pictures that could have been photoshopped), that the USA exists (even though I've never been there and they can do fantastic things with special effects these days), etc. All of these things are part of my worldview... they are not a religion.

Re:Method vs. understanding

[C10H14N2]

If you cannot find a single, solitary religion that has as its fundamental tenet that it must assume it is false, then you have no basis for equating science with religion or vice versa because that IS the basis of science.

I don't find this calling science a religion thing upsetting. I just find it tiresomely solipsistic.

Re:Method vs. understanding

[Lehk228]

science is based on observation and experimentation, science is NOT based on faith. certain aspects of science are observed but not explained, but that doesn't mean they are taken on faith, they are accepted as probably correct on current observation

OTOH religion goes out of it's way to suppress and subvert new information which contradicts accepted beliefs.

Re:Method vs. understanding

[Tony Hoyle]

Not true - religion was the catalyst for much of education before the 20th century... it's more introverted these days but still spends half its life reexamining and reinterpreting itself.

There's a certain kind of dogma that's popular in the US that seems to reject that... I suspect it's self defeating & will implode eventually - time will tell.

Re:Method vs. understanding

[Krach42]

If you cannot find a single, solitary religion that has as its fundamental tenet that it must assume it is false, then you have no basis for equating science with religion or vice versa because that IS the basis of science.

Awesome thanks providing me the example that I needed. Since, science takes as a fundamental tenent that it must assume itself to be false, I now have a religion that satisfies your criterium.

I don't find this calling science a religion thing upsetting. I just find it tiresomely solipsistic.

How would this have anything to do with the assertion that one is the only thing in true existence?

Re:Method vs. understanding

[Krach42]

science is based on observation and experimentation, science is NOT based on faith. certain aspects of science are observed but not explained, but that doesn't mean they are taken on faith, they are accepted as probably correct on current observation.

Except for the thing that you take on faith that what you are observing is reality.

This is a point of philosophy that we cannot truely trust our senses. From a practical standpoint, this point is a tauntology, completely uninteresting and useless. Science is studying our observations, and using it to model predictions for the future behavior of our observations.

This doesn't mean that you're examing reality. To make that assumption, you have to take it on faith, that our perceptions aren't falsified.

OTOH religion goes out of it's way to suppress and subvert new information which contradicts accepted beliefs.

As does science. If new information is presented which contradicts accepted belief, then it must first be proven, and validated to the community before it is accepted.

In the same way, the same position is taken by religion. Martin Luther challenged The Church within the bases of the scripture. Eventually, the issues which Martin Luther was so vehemently opposed to where abolished, or changed, and Martin Luther would have little reason today to have doubted The Church as he did. Because while they were resistant to the ideas, there was just no arguing that The Bible has to be accepted as the fundamental source of Christian belief.

Re:Method vs. understanding

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Which religions teach that their god[s] most likely do not exist at all and that all of its explanations of the world are most likely totally wrong?

Zen Buddhism teaches this directly- that's the whole point of the Koans. And actually, it just borrowed that philosophy from other eastern religions, and from animism itself, which is the most primative religion that we know about so far.

Re:Method vs. understanding

[Krach42]

Just for your enjoyment: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Religion

2 (uncommon): Any system of beliefs.
Note: this usage is uncommon, see Usage note, below.

Generally speaking, systems of belief that do not involve the existence of one or more deities, such as Buddhism, can be considered a religion, though some people prefer a stricter definition that excludes the possibility of a non-theistic religion. Others are in favor of a very general definition of religion: that any belief or system of beliefs is a religion or part of a religion, including science and atheism.

It's hard to argue a point when two people have a fundamentally different understanding of the word.

I thank you for your explanation and clarrification of how you see religion and science. Other people disagree on your definition. (In particular MH42)

Re:Method vs. understanding

[UnknownSoldier]

> science is NOT based on faith.

A long time ago, some crazy person had this idea that he could fly. Having never done so, he took it on faith, that he could, with the right equipment. Fortunately, this looney bird wasn't alone, for he had a brother who shared his distorted view of "reality". They just didn't believe, as their belief became faith when they struggled until they proved their faith, by actually constructing a flying device.

Later, other irrational people had the crazy notion that they could walk on the moon. Having never done so, all they had, was to take it on faith, that they could. Eventually through trials and setbacks, including death, they PROVED their faith was correct, when they actually did it.

Science is very much a Religion -- because it has faith; faith that Truth is Objective.
Of course the Science of Religion says that Truth is Subjective, which is equally true.
Now, since one truth does not negate another truth, both of these must be accepted, in order to overcome the limitations of the Religion of Science, and the Science of Religion.

> OTOH religion goes out of it's way to suppress and subvert new information which contradicts accepted beliefs.

Gee, like Science has never done that. Maybe because both are directed by people who have a hard time accepting reality that is outside their paradigm.

--
Science Proves Religion

Re:Method vs. understanding

[Anonymous Coward]

That was bad.
Those people in those examples didn't just believe that they could do those things and then prayed them into existence. No, they used established facts, observed some relevant phenomenon, used those observations to postulate what would happen if they performed certain actions, then attempted those actions. Repeat ad nauseum until you have people walking on the moon.
Taken all at once, it looks like the work of the Q. But scrutinized to the details, you realize the old adage is true: There is only one way to eat an elephant. Very slowly.

Don't have an /. account, just started reading regularly a few days ago.

Re:Method vs. understanding

[OOGG_THE_CAVEMAN]

The Wright brothers didn't just operate on irrational faith. Neither did the pioneers of the space program.

They operated on engineering principles, realizing they could develop aerodynamic control structures, while maintaining lightweight construction, and *most importantly* made important advances in increasing power-to-weight ratios in internal combustion engines.

That's fucking engineering, not "faith." Not a "crazy" idea, but hard work.

You make it sound like all the Wright brothers did is tell themselves "We think we can" while everyone else just gave up.

Re:Method vs. understanding

[Anonymous Coward]

I disagree that it is necessary to believe in science. Fundamentally, I can't see why it would be. As far as I can see, believing in science is approaching the problem the wrong way (bass ackward, as it were).

Science is about observing, collecting evidence, postulating and theorising, in order to gain a better understanding of the various mechanisms by which shit happens. Should one's model turn out to be superseded by a better model, one moves on to the better model. But at no time is anybody seriously suggesting that, because a given explanation covers the situation better than a previous explanation, said explanation must be The Ultimate Explanation, Fact and Bible.

Get far enough into any science and one notes that the basic models are shifting all the time as new information turns up and models get reformulated. Actually wasting the intellectual effort in believing a given model is a pointless exercise - any decent scientist is aware that they are going to have to revisit and revise most of the things they have learnt at some point in the future.

I think the problem occurs somewhere between the actual progression of science and the populist representation of science, because long-standing discussions tend to leave the scientific community and go through a selection of moron filters before the world in general gets to look at them. Because the world in general is not armed with the knowledge required to understand them, they tend to take them on faith.

The best science teachers I have had were people who were quite honest about this. Science is taught to children as a collection of stories which, in themselves, are little more than fairy-tales. To slightly older children, slightly more detailed stories are taught with a slightly more critical bent to the teaching. Undergraduates are taught the discussion behind each story, including the flaws currently perceived. Postgraduates typically join in the discussion and become part of the process of pointing out those flaws.

Darwin, incidentally, did the same. The Origin of Species is packed full of problems that he had already noticed with the theory of natural selection. This is because Darwin wasn't actually attempting to lay down a belief structure.

The only thing, if anything, that science requires one to believe, is the evidence of one's senses. Yes, if we were all living in a Matrix blah blah blah, this would seem to be an error, but then even there I am not sure it is a mistake - those who live in a Matrix are better off gaining a little predictive ability over the phenomena inherent to said Matrix, if they want to (say) cure cancer, or fly to the computationally simulated moon. Very few people ever left the Matrix - why shouldn't they have a comfortable simulated life? You might argue that there is no point to this... until you got cancer. Of course, if what one is looking for is the Answers to Life, The Universe, and Everything, you won't get there from here. But who said you would? That's not what science is for.

Re:Method vs. understanding

[Lehk228]

the new information must be proven and validated... JUST AS THE OLD INFORMATION BEFORE IT

i'd like to see religion prove their initial claims


as for trusting senses and percieving reality, that is all a part of observation, if the percieved world is consistant enough in behavior to make hypothesis and test them, there is no need to prove that the percieved world is real untill presented with evidence otherwise.

Re:Method vs. understanding

[Lehk228]

aspiration is not faith, and proving it shows it wasn't a matter of faith.


Science is very much a Religion -- because it has faith; faith that Truth is Objective. Of course the Science of Religion says that Truth is Subjective, which is equally true. Now, since one truth does not negate another truth, both of these must be accepted, in order to overcome the limitations of the Religion of Science, and the Science of Religion.
oh come now, you are just being absurd

Re:Method vs. understanding

[UnknownSoldier]

> aspiration is not faith

What defintion of faith are you using??

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=faith
1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.

> and proving it shows it wasn't a matter of faith.

If you never do anything with your beliefs, they are just that beliefs.
If you act on your beliefs, you have faith.

CmdrTaco, here's an honest suggestion...

[reiggin]

In an earlier editorial by CmdrTaco he was lamenting how the comment forums go off-topic for various reasons. And he was looking for suggestions on how to stop or reduce the problem. Okay, here you have a fine example of why the comment forums veer off-topic so frequently. Instead of citing the article on how bees fly and leaving out the unnecessary commentary on ID and evolution, the editors choose to leave these inflamatory statements in the 4 to 5 sentence summary. The fault here lies with /. A good journalist/editor would remove the comments and stick to the topic of "How Bees Fly." But not here. Here we have enough ammunition to spin the comment forums out of control and into another pointless and prolonged debate on ID/evolution. There's only a tiny percentage of comments here actually on the topic of "bee flight." There aren't enough moderator points out there to mod the "off-topic" comments down. Seriously.

Re:CmdrTaco, here's an honest suggestion...

[MrP-(at work)]

RTFA, it starts and ends talking about intelligent design. Taco didn't bring it up.

Why bees fly

[Caspian]

Scientist: "Over billions of years, bees evolved from simpler lifeforms to fly."
Christian Sunday School textbook: "God created bees, using His infinite wisdom, to fly."
"Intelligent Design" school textbook: "God^H^H^HThe Intelligent Designer created bees, using His infinite wisdom, to fly."
Orthodox Jew: "HaShem created bees, and bees fly."
Islamic fundamentalist: "Allah gave bees to the prophet Mohammad (PBUH), so that we could use them to create flying bee-bombs in the name of the holy jihad! Allahu ackbar!"
Pat Robertson: "Bees fly because they're fleeing sodomites. The same reason God brought 9/11 upon America!"
Extreme pro-life Christian: "Bees don't actually fly! Those intellectual scientists say they do, but they don't really! And even a zygote can feel pain!"
Christian layman #1: "I don't know how, but I do know God did it, and that's enough for me!"
Christian layman #2: "Maybe Satan makes bees fly! They do sting people, you know, and that's evil."
Christian layman #3: "Without the power of Jesus and the guidance of the Holy Spirit, bees could not fly. Bees flying is a testament to Our Lord."
Christian in a guilt-tripping mood: "You know, Jesus suffered so greatly upon the Cross at Calvary so that bees could fly. Don't you feel sorry for Jesus? How much he hurt for all those little bees?"
Scientologist: "Xenu engineered bees to fly during the development of his space planes. Bees sting us because they are attracted to our residual body thetans."
Jack T. Chick: "Beloved, bees fly because of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, who shed His Precious Blood on the cross at Calvary. Be not deceived! Have YOU accepted Jesus into your life? ___ Yes ___ No"
SlashBot #1: "In Soviet Russia, bees fly YOU!"
SlashBot #2: "I want a Beowulf cluster of petrified flying bees with hot grits!"
SlashBot #3: "In Korea, only old bees fly."
SlashBot #4: "NetCraft confirms: Bees are dying."
Apple: "iBee. Just $99.95. Buy it now at the Apple Store."
CAPTAIN: "TAKE OFF EVERY 'BEE'. YOU KNOW WHAT YOU DOING. MOVE 'BEE'. FOR GREAT NECTAR."
Borg: "'Why' is irrelevant. Flying is irrelevant. The bees will be assimilated. Their culture will adapt to service us."
Star Wars (classic): "The Bees fly because the Force flows through them."
Star Wars (prequels): "Bees fly because of elevated midichlorian counts."
President George W. Bush: "Ah believe that bees fly because of the nukular terrists. We must maintain vigilance and stay the course against these and all other enemies of freedom and democracy."
Homsar: "I was raised by a cup of coffee."

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[ThaReetLad]

I think a point worth mentioning is that both "We cannot explain this, therefore it is inexplicable therefore God did it" and "We can explain this, therefore God didn't do it" are equally incorrect statements.

Both arguements assume that God (Intelligent Designer or whatever) must act on the universe by directly interfering with the universes natural processes. Thus, by this reasoning, in order to prove Gods existance we would have to find an instance of a evolution by a supernatural mechanism, and to disprove His existance you just shoot down each claim to the former.

This is false reasoning because it assumes that the natural mechanisms of the universe are not themselves the method by which God chooses to act. It also assumes that the universe didn't just pop into being, fully formed 5 seconds ago, populated by creatures who thought they were much older than that. These are both assumptions that cannot be proven. Sure, the universe looks much older that 5 seconds, but we cannot prove it without basing that upon unprovable assumptions.

Even if we understood all the mechanisms of the universe, we still couldn't understand that which is outside of ability to perceive. We cannot explain what we cannot see, and we don't know what it is that we cannot see. Furthermore we have no reason to believe that we can see all that there is, or that our ability to perceive it is totally reliable. Science and reason are great tools for understanding the universe as we see it, and I believe to understand something of the mind of God along the way, but they are limited by our nature, and to pretend otherwise is a lie. Furthermore, to regard everything beyond the scope of science to be irrelevent, simply because it cannot be reasoned, is false logic. It may not have a repeatable, observable effect on us, but it may have an effect that is important.

article misrepresents intelligent design

[buddyglass]

Love it or hate it, the article is nevertheless unfair to ID.

1. "intelligent design, which holds that a supreme being rather than evolution is responsible for life's complexities"

This is not an accurate statement. At least, applied to intelligent design in general. The loosest expression of intelligent design doesn't specify that the designer be any sort of "supreme being". He/she/they could simply be an alien civilization more advanced than our own. A designer of that type requires no supernatural framework and rests squarely within the confines of rationalist/materialist cosmology. Also, the wording "is responsible for life's complexities" suggests that intelligent design attributes to the designer sole responsibility. To my knowledge, this is not necessarily true. For instance, the designer could merely have augmented pre-existing natural phenomena.

2. "[proponents of intelligent design] have tried in recent years to promote the idea of a supreme being by discounting science because it can't explain everything in nature."

This is also misleading. Proponents of a religious bent most likely admit the existence of "miracles" which would, by definition, defy scientific explanation, but to my knowledge they don't make that part of their defense of ID. Rather, they make the weaker argument that, for various reasons, "natural, undirected physical processes" are a poor explanation for the complexity of life we currently see. Having called in to question the viability of "natural, undirected processes", they suggest "directed processes" as an alternate explanation. What they typically don't do is attempt to discredit "science" altogether as a means of understanding and describing the natural universe.

Wings?

[nobodynoone]

Wow! And I always thought they could fly because they had wings!

"Mr. President, how long should a man's legs be?"

[scalpod]

"Long enough to reach the ground."

Ow !

[smoker2]

Where did that come from ?

Bastard ! Jesus that hurt !
For G*ds sake !

It has everything to do with scientific argument.

[Irvu]

Science is about making new discoveries about the world around us. It is, at a philisophical level about clearly distinguishing between that which we can prove and that which we cannot and then using what we know to find out what we don't.

There are many outlooks which differ from science most noteably the "What we think is what it is" outlook. The idea is that some group has a "complete" answer for everything be it God, Atheism, or little blue people that make the stars move. Any attempt to challenge that is met with immediate attack.

"Intelligent Design" is an attempt to wrapping up the latter in the dress of the former. ID'ers like all creationists believe that some higher power must have made the universe, solar system, earth, and all its inhabitants. These people may fight tooth and nail over exactly who or what that force was (God, Gods, Aliens, Godlike Aliens...) but they are all in agreement that a) the outside being exists, b) it is anthropomorphic and c) that we are special.

ID'ers are attempting to "prove" their baseless assertions by using pseudoscience. They are seeking to pose as scientists while making patently unscientific arguments. Most of these arguments are based fall (in my experience) into two categories. The former are little illogic-games such as "irreducable complexity", or "specific complexity". The latter are "things we don't know" arguments.

Specific complexity doesn't hold up because it is based upon a tautology. Dembski defined strings that have specific complexity as those that cannot be reduced to any other form or explained by any "process" they must simply be copied as-is. This essentially was a notion of information that is specially complex versus information that is not. ID'ers (but not Dembski himself) have then argued variously that humanity, human dna, etc are all irreducably complex and ergo cannot have been reproduced by some mechanical or impersonal process, say evolution.

This falls apart because of the original tautology. Strings are irreducably complex only because they are... irreducably complex by definition. No proof of such complexity exists, and there is no way to show that humans are irreducably complex except by saying so. Therefore this doesn't "prove" anything ID'ers just like to say that by claiming we are irreducably complex they have proven that the godlike whatever made us.

The latter arguments (what the authors are getting at here) fall along the same lines as the former. ID'ers sieze upon something that is unproven or they claim unproven and assert that it cannot be understood (is irreducably complex) and therefore that we will never find it out and therefore that it must have been made by some God(s), Aliens, or Godlike Aliens. The flight of the bumblebee is one of the more classic examples of this. Two others are the lack of "intermediate" fossils between the existing fossils (there will always be this), and the flagella of the paramecium.

To think about how silly this is consider a prehistoric, or even dark ages individual presented with a car, airplane, or an Archimedes Screw. They could easily claim (and many did) that we would "never figure it out" but we have!

What really divides the two outlooks is how they respond to the unknown. Scientists are excited by the unknown and seek to dive headlong into it in order to find it out. Theey do so by admitting what they do and do not know and then attacking the unknown. The latter group fear to find out that they are wrong, and to admit that they do not know things. Therefore they seek to pretend that the unknown is not there.

Given the difference in outlook and the fact that ID'ers seek to pollute science by claiming that they practice it it makes perfect sense that the Scientists involved would love every minute of disproving them.

...and there's not any?

[KGB is My Name]

So you're saying that no one has provided proof that God exists?

I seem to remember a couple books on the subject...

But seriously, can you base scientific truths on assumptions? We have to remember that we understand so little of the nature of the universe, much less reality itself, that assuming that God/supernatural forces do not exist is inherently flawed. Just because you can't see direct evidence of it, ie. black holes or dark matter, doesn't mean they don't exist. Besides, if God proved Him/Her/Itself to you, by, for example, talking to you, would you belive it? I seem to recall a few people in history who have had similar experiences. Anyway, my point is, can you truly remain objective and make assumptions based on lack of evidence? How often has that approach turned out to be wrong?

--
"Wait, wait, wait... back up a second... you mean to tell me we're going to assume that there is no God becuase he didn't talk to you? I don't even want to talk to you."

I didn't mean to insult anyone.

Re:...and there's not any?

[Anonymous Coward]

If I heard voices in my head I'd think I was going bonkers, like that guy who said he was Jesus Christ and killed several of his family members because voices ordered him to.

Honestly, if you're going to do that, you'd think you would claim to be someone a little less benign.

If the voices in your head start saying some REAL wacky shit, please seek medical attention.

Re:...and there's not any?

[KGB is My Name]

who said anything about voices in my head?

Intelligent Design == Incompetent God

[Anonymous Coward]

A God who is able to create a grand system that can evolve all the complex lifeforms we see is a far superior God than a God who has to manually create every type of creature one by one.

Intelligent Design pretty much implies that this God-like entity is a relatively incompetent one.

Walk on Water

[Anonymous Coward]

It is fruitless to argue as many have said. How can God be defined (or proved) in earthly terms? To do so would put one equal or above God. Good luck with that.

I would hold out one test though. When someone understands the elements enough to walk unaided on water, I will hail them a the supreme physicist.

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[quintesse]

Well actually, WE are limited by our nature, science and reasoning are as far as I know not limited by anything. But science and reasoning are at least trying to explain _some_ aspects of out life while any belief system is... well basically just a fairy tail, that somehow, a long time ago, because of the mistake of some aging librarian for sure, wound up in the non-fiction section of the library.

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[dubl-u]

For creationism to be "right" it needs to, for once, generate a testable, disproveable hypothesis and stop falling back on the old "anything we can't explain is God's will" argument.

Interestingly, this is not only bad science, it's bad theology. It's know as the "God of the gaps" problem, and it sets up a false conflict between science and religion. Just because we understand something doesn't make it any less wonderful.

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[mikael]

I thought we already knew this - that bees fly because little ridges on their wing roots act as vortex generators, breaking up the airflow above the wing? This design technique works for whales as well - at least for swimming in water. They have tubercles on their leading fin surfaces.

That's more like Philosophy

[MonkeyCookie]

Maybe that's the case, but it belongs in the realm of philosophy (which can be quite interesting as well) rather than science. I can see no way to prove or disprove it through the use of scientific method.

Not to nitpick...

[sonicdevo]

but this article doesn't make much of an "argument" for ID. It simply uses the complexity of insect flight as an example of the complexity we observe in life everywhere. In fact, the closest thing to an "argument" this blurb makes, is insinuating (in the last sentence) that this represents a designed system.

This isn't a scientific article at all, nor does it (IMO) claim to be. It appears to be a little blurb designed to grab the attention of laymen, and get them interested in the topic. I can see why many posters above have expressed the opinion that the original article is flamebait.

If some scientists (like this researcher) are so adamant that ID is not a scientific theory, then why is it mentioned in a science article as if it has been disproved. Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't a concept/theory have to be scientifically sound if you are going to disprove it using the scientific method?

Don't Get Into a Juvenile Argument

[Anonymous Coward]

I think debates like this are ridiculous. People are entitled to their own beliefs and opinions. While I personally believe in Intelligent Design, I don't mock scientists for trying to explain the way the world works. The fact of the matter is that the majority of Scientists tend to find religion later down the road. A scientist's job is to explain things which helps in many ways. If you read through the Bible you'll notice that God used science to accomplish many of his miracles. He is the master of science so he knows how to use it. Besides... learning how a bee flies doesn't make me question whether God exists, it just tells me how much greater God is that he has created so many different methods of flight in 1 day while man has taken years to discover only a few. Science should not be used to disprove people's beliefs. Science should be used to help people.

Re:Don't Get Into a Juvenile Argument

[TomHandy]

"The fact of the matter is that the majority of Scientists tend to find religion later down the road."

OK, I'll bite. If that's a "fact", what's your evidence for this exactly? Surveys? Polls? What specifically is the basis for this statement, that you would describe it as a fact?

Doonesbury's take on ID

[ctid]

It's marginally on-topic and since it hasn't been posted before, I thought I'd give a link to Garry Trudeau's brilliant skewering of intelligent design: Doonesbury 18th December 2005.

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[ackthpt]

That explains all the buzz at the Honeynet project, at the very least.

It's all run by the Cagey Bee

Exotic Thought?

[Chysn]

From TFA: Turns out bee flight mechanisms are more exotic than thought. Aw, come on! Thought isn't all that exotic.

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[Gice]

I'm sorry... fallacious reasoning? ??? "In short, Intelligent Design is really nothing more than a rather good example of fallacious reasoning, but as far as science goes, it is worse than useless."

"We think we've finally figured out how bees fly, after being around for thousands of years, therefore there is no God."

That is not even fallacious reasoning. I don't think there exists a term for how ridiculous of a statement that is, regardless what any proponents of any ideology for or against God, have ever said.

Re:Would have been nice if T. F. A. had ACTUALLY T

[emj]

It says: That it was presented in "Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences" (that's the November 28 issue). That leads us to the Abstract for the paper, where you have to BUY the paper, you know peer review costs lots of money.

In the Cal tech press release, you can see that the researches are Michael H. Dickinson, Esther M. and Abe M. Zarem, and Douglas L. Altshuler. They all work in the Dickinson Lab which has some cool equipment for researching flight of insects.

As a Christian...

[Frangible]

I don't believe that this is another "nail" in the coffin of ID. These people feel threatened by science, because people wanting power have twisted and exaggerated small elements of their faith to create wedge issues and drive people to them-- ultimately undermining the core principles of Christianity. This seems to happen a disturbing amount on a number of issues lately.

I think the problem with ID, from a theological perspective, is it is making claims never contained in the Bible-- yes, Genesis says God created life, but it never spells out the mechanism. Given the rather spotty nature, oral traditions, and manual copying by most certainly falliable humans, I don't see how they can even begin to try to ascribe their claims to be backed by the Bible. And claims of inerrancy are ridiculous as well, as this has been shown between versions and translations. Why assume that divine intervention is the only explanation for life? If someone wants to create a fractal, they don't edit pixels.

Just because something exists in nature that we do not understand, doesn't mean God came down and zapped it. It just means we don't know. And neither do ID proponents.

I do believe in ID, but only in the case of selective breeding and genetic engineering. By humans. Evolution never produced the French Poodle.

Oh, and if you want to read something interesting regarding religion and science and creation, look at the Koran excerpts near the bottom of the Wikipedia Big Bang page. Not saying it's proof of anything being true, I just thought it was interesting.

.

Intelligent Design

[n0vh]

What does understanding how bees fly have to do with whether or not Intelligent Design, or evolution for that matter, is a viable or accurate theory?

Re:Intelligent Design

[danikar]

absoluty nothing, all it is showing is that just because we cant explain somthing at one time doesnt mean we wont figure it out later. Which is what the ID community use to try to disprove scientists. ID Community says U don't know everything so god must exist. Scientist just came back proving that they can explain stuff that hasnt been explained yet. They are not trying to disprove anything.

Re:Intelligent Design

[n0vh]

But just because we figure something out (or think we do) doesn't mean that someone or something (God), didn't design it in the first place.

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[dubl-u]

So Altshuler claims, without any supporting evidence, that unnamed "people" in the undefined "ID community" make a big deal out of the unknowability of bee flight mechanics, and that having disproved this unkowability, he's successfully countered their alleged arugment?

I have personally heard this canard repeatedly from creationists. They will do it with pretty much anything that science doesn't have a ready answer to at the time. The bee one was popular because for a while it was a well-known unsolved problem that Bubba Sixpack could readily understand.

Now, of course, they've switched sides on this one. Before, the mystery of bee flight was proof of God's majestic inscrutability. Now that we've scruted it, it's proof of how darned smart God is.

Pasta La Vista, Baby...

[glassgnost]

...Quoth the red-suited man with the pitch^H^H^H^H^Hspaghetti fork.

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[HexRei]

Not true. Most of the "evidence" cited for ID consists of science's supposed failures to explain certain phenomena. Every one that is able to be explained is then one less weapon in the ID arsenal.

Offended by needless "ID" remark

[theendlessnow]

The article mentions that all this "science" is a slap in the face of anyone who believes in Intelligent Design (a weird way of saying that there is a creator God).

As a scientific God fearing person myself, I was greatly offended. The whole idea of science centers around the idea of intelligent design. Without it, you wouldn't have science to begin with. The article would not be half bad with the needless (and incorrect) remarks about "ID" removed.

Just my opinon.

How bees actually fly

[not-enough-info]

Bee wings don't generate lift the same way other winged creatures' wings do. Most animal wings generate lift by passing air over the lifting surface. (See Bernoulli Principle) This is done by generating forward thrust or by beating the wings in an x pattern to force air over the leading edge. Bee wings are too small by surface area for this method of generating lift to work sufficiently. It is because of this fact that it has been long said that the reason bees can fly is that they are too stupid to know that they can't. Recently (I forget, within 8 years?), slow motion video and CFD analysis has revealed that Bees fly by generating a lifting vortex. The vortex is created by the wing on the up-stroke by beating at a high frequency in a figure-8 pattern. The lifting vortex acts on the entire body of the bee rather than just the wing surface thus generating sufficient lift for the bee to fly.

Re:How bees actually fly

[dbucowboy]

Bees fly by generating a lifting vortex. The vortex is created by the wing on the up-stroke by beating at a high frequency in a figure-8 pattern. The lifting vortex acts on the entire body of the bee rather than just the wing surface thus generating sufficient lift for the bee to fly.

Another striking example of an amazing creature evolving by chance... *rolls eyes*

Re:How bees actually fly

[Anonymous Coward]

I take it you don't believe bees flight evolved by natural selection. Why not? Is it because it looks a bit complex to you and you don't understand how evolution works?

Re:How bees actually fly

[rufty_tufty]

No chance about it, the Bees that required larger wings and/or didn't use the figure of 8 pattern required more food than than the bees that tried something different.
Shame about those bees that tried the figure of 9 pattern, but hey, who said life has to be fair?

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[Lehk228]

unfortunately due to the nature of science every answer spawns a dozen questions. though ID does provide a highly effective "stupid filter" if you are trying to tell if someone is stupid with as little effort as possible. alo just listen for words like "evolutionist or darwinist" you won't even have to say a word to accurately identify many people as stupid.

this has been explained a while ago

[EccentricAnomaly]

I mean, bees flying! A mystery that has eluded smarty men for a hundred years or more! Finally solved! And nothing in the article actually approaches a description of the solution.

A friend of mine worked this out as a grad student at Purdue something like 10 or 15 years ago and his papers were presented at several AIAA conferences and in several AIAA journals. He was even interviewed on Scientific American frontiers. Last I heard he was working for Aerovironment in Monrovia, CA building mini spyplanes using insect style flight (which works at low Reynolds numbers).

This is just an article about someone reinventing the wheel instead of doing a search of existing publications.

Religion's track record on explanations...

[garylian]

I think one of the reasons many people (especially scientists, who are often skeptical) have a problem with "ID" is that, through the course of history, religion has had a piss-poor track record on things like this.

How did that "The world is flat" thing work out for them?

The "Earth is the center of the universe" thing?

That's the main problem for ID. The track record of things that the Bible and religious leaders (mostly the Catholic Church) decided were fact turning out to be completely and provably false. Sure, we haven't had any major recent ones, but the fact of the matter is, the "science of the bible" hasn't fared well over time.

So, don't blame many of us of being openly skepticle of ID. We have history on our side.

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[susano_otter]

I wasn't saying it wasn't true. I was just saying it's a pretty vague and unsupported off-the-cuff remark, rather than a scientific description, and thus incongruous in a story about hard science. It was doubly aggravating in that it was totally irrelevant to the point of the article. Not that the article actually got around to making the interesting scientific point anyway (i.e., never actually explaining how bees fly).

Resume of the article

[JFMulder]

Turns out their wings don't help them raise to the sky, but the wind produced by them is actually strong enough to lower the Earth underneath them.

Illogical Arguments get explained away...

[Bryansix]

Just because some guy mentioned that not knowing how bee's fly is an argument for ID doesn't mean that it really is. ID is a conclusion that people arrive to when part or all of Evolution is explained away in a scientific manner. For instance how do you suppose that a baterial flagellum evolved? Or how did a monarch butterlfy evolved from a catterpillar when just being in the cocoon means not being with food or water for way to long to be condussive to life? These are the kind of quesitons that explain away evolution and are the reason why ID exists.

Straw man

[FredThompson]

Let's get something straight, OK?

Intelligent design /= anti-science.

There's an old single-frame cartoon where two scientists are looking at some equations on a blackboard and in the middle is the phrase, "a miracle happens" which prompts one scientist to question the other scientist's proof.

People who state the straw man that Intelligent Design is anti-science are guilty of the hypocrisy they say their opponents have.

If anything, belief in Intelligent Design should increase as the complexities and intricacies of the physical realm become more apparent. The more complex, the less the probability of something outside the ruleset happening. The more complex the ruleset, the lower the probability it came into existence spontaneously.

Denial of that is to deny math.

There are closed-minded irrational people on either "side" of "the debate." Both have their own instances of "a miracle happens." Statements like, "putting a nail in the coffin of ID" don't do anything other than show the speaker is an elitist snob from one "side" of "the debate" and has their own form of closed-minded, biggoted, boorish behavior and thoughts.

Think of string theory of...no, wait, this is even easier...think of Chemistry 101 and Physics 101. Both teach some very elementary ways to model the same physical phenomena. Does that mean one is right and the other wrong? No, it means they are 2 different ways of modeling. Perhaps another way to view it is those are views of the same phenomena from 2 different angles.

Plato has a very famous cave analogy from which we can take another illustration by examining just the starting premise, that the people live their lives seeing only shadows cast on the cave wall. One day, a person turns around and sees the light from the sun then understands the shadows from another point of view.

Intelligent Design, in its simplest form, really means order and complexity don't spontaneously happen. It doesn't mean science is invalid, just the opposite.

The bumblebee bit seems like it became a catchy phrase which had some truth at the beginning (couldn't explain with scientific tools we had) and was then turned into dogma, glommed onto by all sorts of people.

The idea that discovery of a way to model bumblee bee flight lessons the validity of the concept of Intelligent Design is emotional and irrational, not logical.

Re:Straw man

[Sebastopol]

> Intelligent Design, in its simplest form, really means order and complexity don't
> spontaneously happen. It doesn't mean science is invalid, just the opposite.

Intelligent Design absolutely is anti-science.

It says, "This is too complicated to understand, the designer made it."

Last time I checked, that ain't since, sonny boy.

Re:Straw man

[NardofDoom]

So what's the issue then? The issue is that the ID proponents don't seem to like the possibility that there might not be an Actor, and the evolution proponents don't like the idea that there must be an Actor. (And if you have any doubt as to which Actor ID proponents assume, just look who's backing it most forcefully. It ain't the Hindus, Jews or Muslims.)

However, evolutionary theory has been scientifically tested and can be reduced to very basic terms. The only 'unknown' is why genes mutate or habitats change. Science can provide answers (to a point) with research, ID says "god did it."

So there's no reason to teach ID in schools beyond "Something caused this electromagnetic ray or chemical to mutate this gene. We're not sure what, but that's not the point of this lesson."

Re:Straw man

[KnightStalker]

It ain't the Hindus, Jews or Muslims.

Though you can find examples of creationists from all those camps and more, especially Turkish Muslims. I have seen a Native American anti-evolutionist argument as well, but I don't have the details anymore.

Why can there be no middle ground?

[Choco-man]

I've two advanced degrees - one in chemistry, t'other in genetics. I'm the technical director for one of the largest companies in the world. My wife is a professor.

I say that only to establish that I'd consider myself a fairly educated, scientific person whose social sphere includes other well educated individuals. I'm also a devout Christian. What boggles my mind is that the two sides tend to line up like soliders in the revolutionary war - a clearly divided line of people wearing one color on one side, and people wearing another color on the other side - and insist that their way is the only right way, not acknowledging that perhaps there's some middle ground to be had. Why is it so hard for Christians to accept what we've proven in science? Why is it so hard for non religious scientists to acknowledge that we've not discovered all the answers, and indeed, may never do so? I'm not all that old, but as I age, I'm increasingly realizing that things are rarely one way or the other. Everything in life, science - coexists in a relationship of one sort or another. To out of hand entirely dismiss something because it seems preposterous to you today is incredibly closed minded. And I say that to both sides. Our knowledge doubling rate is so fast these days, a great deal of what we 'knew' unequovically to be truth 10 years ago has changed.

I believe in God.

I believe in science.

The two are not mutually exclusive.

I'm sure I'll get the obligatory 'you're an idiot - how can you believe in something science can not prove' responses. And I'll read them from the middle of the field, sandwiched between both sides who are too busy trying to prove the other side wrong to notice that the space between the two sides can be occupied.

Re:Why can there be no middle ground?

[spyrral]

I'm glad that a real scientist like you is taking the time to attempt to heal the rift between science and religion.

Sorry, sarcasm tends to spring to mind whenever I read posts like yours. I understand that you are attempting to be a peacemaker, but what are you defending? /.'s rampant anti-religion bias in annoying, but those comments weren't about "RELIGION", they we're about Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design is a political movement designed to instill doubt in the scientific method, doubt which certain Fundamentalist Christians wish to exploit in order to spread their particular brand of christianity. Nothing more, nothing less. They are exactly what you are rallying against, a group of people who cannot see science co-exist with religion. To them, evolution denies faith, and therefore must be eradicated.

So thank you for holding up the middle so heroically, but perhaps you should direct your energy elsewhere. There is no horde of Atheists on the verge of outlawing religion. The opposite seems far more likely.

Re:Why can there be no middle ground?

[JohnRoss1968]

Bravo and well said.

Re:Why can there be no middle ground?

[sparkz]

To them, evolution denies faith

I don't live in the USA, where this debate seems to be raging, so I do not entirely understand what the "ID" camp are putting forward, but it seems a little forward of you to put words in their mouths without quoting sources.

As I read the Bible, evolution does not deny faith, but if it were to be proven, would give us additional detail to explain what the Bible tells us. That's all.

Six days? When was "day" and "night" created? Do you really think this is about 6 x 24h days? There is nothing in the Bible to say that it is 6 x 24h

Re:Why can there be no middle ground?

[ylikone]

I believe in God. I believe in science. The two are not mutually exclusive.

I hear this all the time from so-called scientists that are also Christians. The two ARE mutually exclusive. Yes, I've read all the books of people like Hugh Ross. I don't understand why this "god-of-the-gaps" is required... and that is ALL you can make God out to be.

Re:Why can there be no middle ground?

[spyrral]

Sure thing. Here's a link to the judges decision in the Dover ID trial. It's a PDF, and somewhat long, but a very good read. The basic finding was that the school board was motivated not by a desire for free debate but by their own religious beliefs.

I'm not putting words in anyone's mouth. It's very enlightened how you read the bible, and I'm personally very proud of you for your open-mindedness. However, the ID "camp" sees evolution as a clear contradiction of their religious beliefs, and have chosen to fight it through the creation of a fictitious scientific movement.

Re:Why can there be no middle ground?

[KnightStalker]

As an US ex-fundamentalist, I will attest that they do believe that evolution denies their faith, and I think they're right. Evolution doesn't contradict theism, or Christianity in general, but fundamentalist beliefs cannot accommodate it. There are two reasons for this.

One, they demand that the entire Bible be read literally, except for parts that are specifically labeled as poetry or metaphor. So, Genesis 1 describes six literal days, and they more or less ignore the fact that it contradicts Genesis 2.

Two, they believe (by taking Genesis and Romans 5:12 literally) that death is a specific punishment for Adam & Eve's sin, and did not exist before the Fall of Man (the literal event). Obviously, evolution implies that death occurred for billions of years before humans existed.

It's a pity that they don't take other parts of the Bible literally. For example, "prove all things, hold fast what is true" or "provide things honest in the sight of all men".

Re:Why can there be no middle ground?

[KnightStalker]

I'm an atheist, but I think you're wrong. It's perfectly plausible to claim that some god could have started the universe spinning and then left it alone. It is, of course, completely unsupportable and thoroughly speculative, but the idea doesn't contradict anything I'm aware of. You could even claim that God interferes in the natural world, in a 100% undetectable way, and that would be perfectly legitimate and 100% unconvincing.

I've got my invisible pink unicorn, and my flying spaghetti monster. God is superfluous...

Re:Why can there be no middle ground?

[lawaetf1]

I appreciate your argument and agree that there's too much animosity on both sides of the debate.. but I do take some small issue with your position:

Why is it so hard for non religious scientists to acknowledge that we've not discovered all the answers, and indeed, may never do so?

Nobody doubts that we still have a lot to learn. But what is it that you suggest is firmly beyond science's ability to study and eventually understand? What the known universe looked like when it got started? When "time" will end? We are getting closer to such answers but one component will always be left out: meaning. Waving at the great voids in our knowledge as being indicators of some higher being with some purpose for humanity is, if you'll forgive me, immature.

Freud, the self proclaimed godless Jew, suggested that God was the projection of our parents -- someone who could, if only in our minds, make order out of the world; someone we could cry to (no atheists in foxholes). To look around and realize that, in the words of Conrad (i'm not trying to sound smrt), "we live as we dream -- alone" is to be bare and vulnerable.

I respect and almost envy the religious but I think I will always be shackled a little too closely to logic to "believe the believers." And with that quote I refer you to and highly recommend Ingmar Bergman's "The Seventh Seal."

Re:Why can there be no middle ground?

[Anonymous Coward]

Atheism is religion. Darwinism is religion. *ism is probably Religion.

Re:Why can there be no middle ground?

[Anonymous Coward]

I say that only to establish that I'd consider myself a fairly educated, scientific person whose social sphere includes other well educated individuals. I'm also a devout Christian.

Consider yourself whatever you'd like, but the fact is that you are human and your religous beliefs are flawed. There were certainly plenty of educated people in the past who believed in the Greek gods. That doesn't make them right. Your education doesn't make you right. You are a fool holding on to stupid superstition and trying to rationalize your stupidity.

Re:Why can there be no middle ground?

[Alsee]

I do not entirely understand what the "ID" camp are putting forward

The first thing to note is that the ID movment was established immediately after, and in direct response to, a Supreme Court ruling that it was unconstitutional for government officals to abuse their governmental powers to use the public school system to push their beleif and interpretation of Literal Biblical Creationism. Literal Biblical Creationism as in literal talking snakes, and the non-existance of death prior to Adam&Eve's sin... meaning that all predators were herbovours and that they used their fangs and claws to hunt leaves and fruits... they couldn't have been eating prey animals becuase there was no death yet, remember? So God created fully formed pathers to hunt figs, and fully formed venus flytraps that never actally killed any flies. Oh, and of course there were also immortal flies. Prior to Adam eating the apple and getting cast out of the Garden, all creatures existed in fully formed immortal perfection.

Wikipedia has good coverage.
Intelligent design (ID) is the concept that the universe and living things have features that could only have been designed by an intelligent cause or agent, as opposed to an unguided process such as natural selection. Leading proponents, of which all are affliated with the Discovery Institute, say that intelligent design is a scientific theory that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the origin of life.

If you want to get a bit of insight into the Discovery Institute and the driving vison behind the ID movement, I suggest you read their fundraising ducument, the Wedge Strategy. Or you can just Google "Wedge Document". It lays out their 20 year plan to infiltrate the school system and get control of government legislatures and ultimately to reshape all of society in their religo-moral image.

Note that they have a three phase strategy, but they have completely skipped Phase I. Scientific Research, Writing & Publication and gone directly to Phase II. Publicity & Opinion-making and right into the part of phase three where they "pursue possible legal assistance in response to resistance to the integration of design theory into public school science curricula".

As I read the Bible, evolution does not deny faith

These people do not read the Bible the same way you do. These are the same sort of people who wanted to lynch Galileo for saying the sun was at the center of the solar system... because their "literal" reading of the Bible says that "the earth does not move".

The activists behind ID are latched on to two rediculous ideas (or one idea with :
(1) If evolution is true it proves false their idea of God and their limitations on how God could have done things, and of course their idea of God is the only True God and therefore evolution = atheism.
(2) If God exists... and remember their notion of God is the only True God... that if God exists... that is you want to beleive in God at all... that it proves evolution false.

They routinely make statements labeling the majority of Christians as atheists because they accept evolution. That anyone, even the Pope, is an atheist if they do not see a conflict between evolution and God.

And with the PR campaign the activists are running, PR campaigns carefully stripped of overt religious content and carefully crafted to paint themselves as victims of some atheist conspiracy and oppression, they are getting a lot of normal majority Christians like you jumping to side with these fundamentalist nutjobs.

You and I are on the same side. There's no conflict between evolution and God. The fight is whether government schools can or will teach religion. In the US governmen

Re:Why can there be no middle ground?

[Alsee]

Gakk! God damn you!

All this time I have been telling the IDiots that I have never once seen anyone claim that evolution disproves god, and that all their protestations of evolution being an anti-God attack are nothing but bullshit tactics to play the victim.

I'm an atheist and I agree there's no more reason to believe in God than there is to belive in the Hlying Spagetti Monster.

However you are part of the problem, and all you are doing is fueling the fire and giving them more ammunition by saying that evolution and God (or science and God) are mutally exclusive.

I have said it dozens of times before... and always targted against the IDiots before... and I am reluctantly forced to say the exact same thing once again... this time targeted against someone on the evolution side...

Anyone who thinks that science can prove or disprove God is an idiot.

And I must follow through on a promise I made several times before... a promise for when I *did* ever see anyone make the argument you just made...

You are an idiot.

If you want to argue in support of atheism, do me a favor and keep it as far as possible from evolution debates. The majority of Christians are reasonable people and the majority of Christians accept evolution, and their wish to believe in an invisible man in the sky is reasonably harmless. However we do need their majority support and assistance in rejecting the dangerous fundamentalist nutjobs who once imprisoned Galileo for saying the earth went around the sun, their support and assistance in rejecting the dangerous fundamentalists now trying to force evolution into a bogus either-or choice against religion.

so-called scientists that are also Christians.

In the ballpark of half of scientists qualify themselves as religious, and presumably almost all of that would be Christian.

And while about half of scientists are religious, the figure for "so-called scientists" is about 0.16%. From a Newsweek estimate among professional earth and life scientists, 0.16% was the number who supported Creation Science and 99.86% the number who rejected Creation Science as crackpottery. A modern survey among biologists on evolution vs Intelligent Design would come up with a roughly similar figure.

Reserve the term "so-called scientists" for that 0.16% of crackpots, and not for the half of scientists who are religious and who don't see any reason for it to interfere.

Maybe there's some all-powerful invisible pink unicorn above and beyond the universe. It's a silly suggestion, but it's impossible to disprove.

-

Re:Why can there be no middle ground?

[ylikone]

Did I specifically say science disproves "god"?! What I said was that science makes "god" pointless. So why bother with believing in a "god"?

Re:Why can there be no middle ground?

[Alsee]

You said "The two ARE mutually exclusive".

I have told people on th ID side a hundred times that evolution and God (and science and God) are not mutually exclusive. Generally in the same sentence or the adjacent sentence to addressing proof/dispoof of God. Two different, but closely related things. I have accused them of playing victim for their endless harping on some imaginary attack on religion and persecution. An imaginary attack and persecution by people on the evolution side supposedly saying that evolution and religion are incompatible.

I explicitly said that I had never seen anyone on the evolution side make the claim you made, and that if such people exist at all they are an insignifigant fraction of the evolution side and did not warrant the persecution complex and ID defense that they were engaging in.

One of the main tactics on the ID side is to try to push an incompatibility between evolution and religion. If people are pushing into a (false) exclusive choice beteen their faith and some technical area of science that they know nothing about, they will invariably said with their faith. They will be manipulated into a false opposition to science, without understanding or knowing anything about that science.

I said that anyone on either side claiming evolution and religion are incompatible is an idiot. They say it's the evolution side pushing that idea, and I called that bullshit. That they do not have to oppose evolution in order to defend their religion, and that I would be the first to jump onto their side if and when I did see anyone on the evolution side make such a claim.

I agree that God is as mythological as Zeus, and that we would be far better off without powerful religious leaders giving their followers irrational Orders From God to blow up buildings or murder doctors or to deny people the right to marry based on their non-mathcing skin colors or their matching genders. However bringing evangelical atheism anywhere near the evolution debate is counter productive, and it only fuels the irrational threat they see from evolution. They reject and attack evolution as a defence mechanism for their religion.

-

a gem of a quote

[EccentricAnomaly]

from TFA:

The scientists said the findings could lead to a model for designing aircraft that could hover in place and carry loads for many purposes such as diaster surveillance after earthquakes and tsunamis.

Hey look... someone else at CalTech is already working on such an aircraft: http://ho.seas.ucla.edu/publications/conference/20 01/jpl10_2001.pdf
This link says that they flew the first prototype in 1998!!

I guess that kinda puts a dent in these guys claim to be the first to explain bee flight. ...And I found this link from a google search!! You'd think Michael Dickinson would have better research skills than that!

I saw Michael Behe (Darwin's Black Box) debate ...

[acidfast7]

I saw (in person) Michael Behe, author of "Darwin's Black Box", debate a scientist and I have to say it was perhaps the most sorry performance I have ever seen (yet the audience loved it).

His presentation was focused on quoting one scientist's perspective, then quoting another scientist who disagreed with the first. He continued by pointing out a spelling error in the first scientist's statement, which was recycled by a third scientist (with the spelling error of the first.) He argued that if scientists cannot agree and copy others' work, how can we trust them at all (especially with something as important as evolutionary theory)?

Honestly, his entire argument was to foster the distrust of the audience toward scientists. Even more shocking than his presentation was the reaction of some members of the audience. It appears that they felt validated by his presentation.

Yikes!

FOR BONUS POINTS - I now see the parallel between the ideologies of ID and Microsoft - security through obscurity.

some pictures of ornithopters

[EccentricAnomaly]

http://www.ornithopter.org/electric.shtml

These go back to the 1940s and 1950s. Though I'm not sure how old the theory to explain them is.. But I do know that computer simulations in the 1990s were modeling moth and bumble bee flight, and also biologists had slow motion photography of bumble bee flight in the same time period that verified the computer models.... I know because I saw it on Scientific American Frontiers!

Inconceivable!

[idsofmarch]

Religious philosophies. You keep saying that. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Re:Inconceivable!

[Marxist Hacker 42]

A religious philosophy is a system of beliefs that explains the world by building a model of a worldview. It does not neccessarily need a god or gods (see Zen Buddhism and Confucism and Animism for three examples that do not). It doesn't need supernatural miracles (See Roman Catholicism, where miracles are quite often just fortunate coincidences and natural phenomena that came at the right time). It doesn't need to be superstitious (see Islam- a major world religion built on ending superstition). By those rules, science's belief in the scientific method and it's adjoining axioms and assumptions is most certainly a religious philosophy. In fact, it's a branch of Christianity, and was once called "natural philosophy".

Re:Inconceivable!

[Krach42]

In fact, it's a branch of Christianity, and was once called "natural philosophy".

It may have derived from Christianity, but it is hardly anymore a "branch" of Christianity. This is because Christianity requires the recognition of Jesus Christ as a divine being.

Also, "natural philosophy" was around before Christ, like in the days of Aristotle.

Truthiness and Truth

[Catbeller]

"Metaphysics"? Nope. "Magic".

Let's call it by the real name. "Metaphysics" is to "magic" as "not being straight" is to "lying". Politeness which unfortunately obscures the real argument.

There are people who use the methodology of science, and people who believe in magic. One takes discipline and a willingness to let delusions go; the other gives people what they want, a personal connection to the world, a feeling that it's all about them. One values truth, the other values "truthiness".

Most Americans value truthiness. *

* Okay, okay: a Stephen Colbert (Colbert Report, Comedy Central) neologism. Truthiness: A quality of feeling true rather than actually being true. Facts get in the way of getting at the nub of an argument: rely rather on the truthiness of your gut feelings.

In the U.S., we have at least three TV "news" networks giving us 24/7 truthy facts. The rest are joining the Truthiness in Reporting bandwagon soon. CBS will at last be Truthy when Katie Couric becomes the anchor for the news. Truthiness will have dominion over all...

Re:Truthiness and Truth

[idsofmarch]

Metaphysics are usually concerned with being, so I think it works in my critique, but magic is also perfectly acceptable phrasing.

As for the Colbert Report, that show rules. That was from his first monologue I believe and I laughed the next day several times at random remembering 'truthiness."

Have you watched "Good Night and Good Luck?" If you haven't do so, you'll be blown away by some of the things Murrow said about the news and how it interacted with public life. The Media, in pretending that there are two equal sides to every issue, in pretending that equal time is equal, in pretending that entertainment and the ongoings of celebrity requires our intention, have put this democracy in mortal danger.

No, not really.

[sarkeizen]

Perhaps you linked the wrong page becase what I see there...

Is somebody arguing what looks like Creatonism - which is only ID in a loose sense. Then a footer article about Bees. There is no actual argument made about ID or anything else in the Bee article.

So there may be some ID proponents that attempted to use the alleged "bee argument" but this isn't one of them. The very mention of ID in the original article was submoronic.

You would have to demonstrate that this is ether intrinsic to ID or at the very least representitive of it's proponents for this to be a useful attribution. Since the former is silly and the later is more research than journalists ever seem capable of doing. The author could have saved the world (and you) from becoming just a little bit stupider by ommiting it.

Oddly enough...

[C10H14N2]

I agreed that the whole thing was flamebait... but I never made THAT ridiculous argument, however, I do find it rather enlightens the problem with the debate:

Science deals only with what is knowable. It does not attempt to explain anything beyond that, given ANY amount of time. Religion, on the other hand, attempts to explain the unknowable--immediately.

I'd dare say that makes them very different beasts, n'est-ce pas?

Re:Oddly enough...

[aqfire]

Science often uses what is knowable as evidence to explain what is not knowable by observation and fact alone. That is its purpose. For example, forensic anthropologists start with bones, and collect evidence to try and explain what happened to a dead person. Often this evidence is then used in court cases as proof to convict a criminal. If all science did was bring to light what's already obviously true or false, then it wouldn't be very useful, and the scientific community wouldn't have any arguments over various findings and research. Instead, science says some very strong things about the world we live in that cannot be directly observed or known.

I will say that as a contrast to religion, science has the ability to bend and change by nature, because scientists often go back and attempt to prove or disprove what we already know. My understanding of religion's purpose is that it isn't to explain why things are the way they are, but to provide an explanation for who we are and how we fit into the world.

That said, I see no reason why we should deny people from exploring the scientific possibilities that intelligent design has to offer, as long as we let go of our predispositions and biases that prevent us from seeing things as they really are. This slashdot article is an example of the biases that cloud the minds of people who feel threatened by those whose ideas conflict with their world view, even when it is constructive conflict. The nature of this slashdot post is therefore religious, not scientific--calling people to arms over an evolutionists' holy war.

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[EccentricAnomaly]

1. That bee flight is exotic. (Which is pretty much a tautology; if bee flight were mundane, we would have figured it out a long time ago.)

This is B.S. I see birds and insects flying all of the time... there's nothing exotic at all about their flight. Aircraft are much larger and fly much faster in a different regime where flapping wing flight doesn't work (i.e. high Reynold's number flow). So they look different. But that doesn't make insect flight exotic... seeing as how their are way more insects than airplanes, I'd say high reynolds number flight is more exotic.

The thing is that the mathematics of insect and bird flight is complicated and required modern computers to solve the equations... but they have been solved and for at least 10 years too. This is just an article about a couple of biologists who didn't do any research into what CFD people had already done a while ago.

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[Planesdragon]

Most of the "evidence" cited for ID consists of science's supposed failures to explain certain phenomena.

Intelligent Design -- that idea that life was created by a Really Smart Thing, as opposed to life just randomly showing up -- is supporting by things being very complex, not by things being unknown.

If you want to disprove ID, you need to show an organism evolving from non-living matter. Although that still doesn't disprove it, it just disproves the "aliens did it" argument.

OTOH, proving I.D. requires us to find the designer, which is why it's generally not called scientific -- because it requirse a more complex reality than the opposite, "spontaneous genesis."

Don't post "science news" from Yahoo...

[Assassin bug]

Because Yahoo science articles are usually crap. I'm all for showing how ID just another creationist banner and nothing more, but gleaning support from Yahoo news ain't gonna cut it. Also, the "mysteries" of bee flight have been known for about 20 years (I'm an entomologist, I've taken insect behavior classes). The scientists in the article were actually exploring some more subtle aspects of insect flight.

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[tiraid]

I'm still not sure that science and God are mutually exclusive. Being a scientist does not mean that one cannot be religious. Being religious does not mean that one cannot be a scientist. Holes in scientific knowledge do not prove science wrong. Holes in religious knowledge do not prove religion wrong. Sometimes science and religion agree, sometimes they contradict one another.

I disagree that creationism needs to "generate a testable, disproveable hypothesis". That would be dragging religion into the realm of science, where it doesn't belong; just as ID tries to drag religion into the science classroom, where it doesn't belong.

Science has an advantage over religion. Science proved by one person is available to everyone. Religion proved by one person is only available to that person, it cannot be given. I believe in God and have proved Him for myself. No scientific fact has affected that proof. If you really want to know for yourself, you'll have to search. It isn't for the lazy, and it definatly isn't for those who *want* it to be false.

The arguement that anything we cannot explain must be wrong is just ignorant. How many things could we not explain 100 years ago that we can explain now? Does that mean those things were false then but true now? I think anyone employing this argument can be safely ignored. By the same token, anything religion cannot explain is also not false. It's all just unknown. I'm ok with it. That's what the future is for.

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[MightyMartian]

How terribly curious. God isn't even mentioned in the article. It seems there's a fallacy you committed, called a strawman.

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[clockwork_orange]

that is just what i thought when i read the article, had a look in goggle scholar and found this abstract. http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0080-4622(1984022 4)305%3A1122%3C145%3ATAOHIF%3E2.0.CO%3B2-7 it is because of vortices. the reason people did not understand how the bee's and other incests did not fly was because of there flat wings, they did not understand how lift was created with a flat structure, the theory went that the bee's were "swimming" in Air not actually flying as such, and that would not have let them be able to fly at there flap rate.

ID? What are they talking about?

[Anonymous Coward]

What on earth does Bee flight have to do with Intelligent Design? ID states that certain complex processes could not have developed via undirected evolution. That the processes are too complex to have evolved as they are and that part-way designs don't give any evolutionary benefit and thus would not have been retained by natural selection. That may or not be correct, but it's got nothing to do with whether or not we understand those processes.

ID says nothing about whether or not humans understand these processes. The ID reference in the article is a non-sequitor. I guess they wanted to have a big controversial item in their article so everyone would read it. Putzes.

i dont get it?

[fireiceviperhotmail.]

The reason bees fly is "Because they flap there wings 30 times more per second then fly's do"

I mean ... WHAT !!? this got me so confused....


Julien.http://free.hostdepartment.com/8/81fortune/

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[JPyun]

It's a Yahoo article. What did you expect?

Oh bee-hive!

[StikyPad]

Uh..

The bees made up for the extra work by stretching out their wing stroke amplitude but did not adjust wingbeat frequency.

Ok, so far so good...

"They work like racing cars," Altshuler said. "Racing cars can reach higher revolutions per minute but enable the driver to go faster in higher gear. But like honeybees, they are inefficient."

So bees are the same as race cars. That makes sense. Except you just said they don't increase their RPMs. He probably meant to compare it to a transmission, which allows you to go faster with a given RPM, but he failed miserably. Also transmissions aren't inefficient, at least for IC engines.

As an aside, my favorite story involving bees:

We can't bust heads like we used to, but we have our ways. One trick is to tell 'em stories that don't go anywhere, like the time I caught the ferry over to Shelbyville. I needed a new heel for my shoe, so, I decided to go to Morganville, which is what they called Shelbyville in those days. So I tied an onion to my belt, which was the style at the time. Now, to take the ferry cost a nickel, and in those days, nickels had pictures of bumblebees on 'em. Give me five bees for a quarter, you'd say.

Now where were we? Oh yeah - the important thing was I had an onion on my belt, which was the style at the time. They didn't have white onions because of the war. The only thing you could get was those big yellow ones...

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[hb253]

Funny - alas I have no mod points.

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[dubl-u]

I was just saying it's a pretty vague and unsupported off-the-cuff remark, rather than a scientific description, and thus incongruous in a story about hard science.

Sorry I misunderstood your point.

A scientist's motivations for doing science should not be held to the same standard of rigor that the science is. There are perfectly good scientists who do their work to, as they see it, reveal the greater glory of God. There's plenty of "vague and unsupported" in there, but I say that doesn't matter as long as the work is solid.

As to the incongruity, pop science articles regularly contain human interest hooks, so as to get people more involved in the topic. If you want your science straight up, perhaps Yahoo News isn't the best place for you to start.

Nails make bee's fly.

[devfsadm]

So, that's what was making those bees fly. !Nails! And now that we have the nails we will put then in a coffin made for someone named Intelligent design. Who would name thier child Intelligent Design? I am so glad that we have the tools and we are not afraid to use them. I don't think it was the nails that made the Bees fly. Bees fly and we figured it out. "Yeah!. I don't think that this is an end to Intelligent design. I need my missing link not the nail inside the bee. But,the nagging question is why are we here? And where is that missing monkey/man. "...I am at a rough estimate, thirty billion times more intelligent than you. Let me give you an example. Think of a number, any number." [said Marvin] "Er, five" said the mattress. "Wrong," said Marvin. "You see?"

Romans

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you spoken to most Christians, that you know that they would prefer that the book of Romans didn't exist? And while I'm busy asking questions, how do you define a "Christian?" I call myself a Christian as a follower of Jesus Christ, and since a large portion of NT theology stems from Romans, I certainly do not wish it did not exist, nor does any Christian that I have spoken to and I would hazard that I have spoken to more than you have.

God - An omnipotent being that exists outside of our dimensions.
Create - to form something out of nothing
Why WOULD God cease to exist after creating the earth?
Begotten - to father. Has nothing to do with the meaning of create (dictionary, ahh).

Re:Romans

[hackwrench]

Define "form and "nothing"
If God exists outside of our dimensions how does he affect anything in it? He can't have potency inside our universe and not exist in some form inside it.
What reason would God have to continue to exist after creating our universe.
Although, says you, God doesn't exist in our dimensions, so him having any temporal existance is dead out.
What does our Universe lack that it needs this God character of yours to provide?

There is a saying "Nothing comes from nothing. Nothing ever could."

Bright scientists...

[XO]

"The scientists said the findings could lead to a model for designing aircraft that could hover in place"...

  Umm.. they haven't heard of a helicopter?

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[Thing 1]

I recently told a friend something similar: "I do not spend my resources genuflecting to imaginary friends. However, if that makes your life more enjoyable and productive, more power to you! Just don't try passing it into law or forcing others to believe."

There's a slight difference between convincing and forcing, but basically the gist is some people have a framework into which the convincing evidence needs to fit. ID does not fit into science's framework, and never will, at least until we can start talking to (and hearing back from) said imaginary friend.

(Note that in the above I said nothing about my beliefs; just about the resources I spend genuflecting over my beliefs.)

The inconsistencies

[AutopsyReport]

I'm a simple man. I do not get bogged by the inconsistencies of evolution (or lack of a creator) or intelligent design. I interpret things at face-value and determine what seems authentic and known to be true. I'm a firm believer in microevolution, but not macroevolution. There just isn't enough solid evidence on the plate to convince me yet.

But for years, I've had a major problem with the anti-creationism crowd. And yes, I am talking about Intelligent Design, because denying intelligent design implies that the substance of the earth and universe came into being through a means other than a deity.

If that is what is know to be true, then how did matter form in the beginning? I've had many discussions with folks proposing that there is no God (and no intelligent design) and I that I should look to science to resolve this large issue. But I cannot escape the fact that there is simply no explanation for how the matter came into being. Everything which has a beginning has a cause, so there must be a viable explanation for how matter was formed from nothing.

To this date, there exists no such answer that I know of. I'd like to point to a statement Stephen Hawking made in 'The Theory of Everything: The Origin and Fate of the Universe'. He said, "It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun...except as an act of a God who intended to create us."

In my mind, it is equally impartial to deny both intelligent design and evolution/no creator. In terms of the laws of the land, intelligent design may not have a place in the education system, but it certainly has it's place in the world. Until it can be empirically proved that no God existed, both theories should retain the uncertain authenticity they deserve, and both sides should earn the right to be respected of their beliefs.

Re:The inconsistencies

[TomHandy]

I hope you realize that you are probably taking that Hawking quote out of context. The whole thing can be found at http://www.holysmoke.org/cre014.htm where it becomes clear that he was discussing a variety of origin stories/ideas.

Re:The inconsistencies

[KnightStalker]

I think most anti-creationists don't dispute the possibility that the universe was created by a god. (If they do, it's not on scientific grounds.) It's likely that the majority, or at least a large minority, are even Christians. If that seems paradoxical, the problem is with confusing terms. Creationist and intelligent design in that context refer to those political movements specifically, not to the general idea that the universe might have been specially created. Opposition to intelligent design consists of opposition to specific arguments - Behe's (er, Paley's) irreducible complexity, Dembski's complex specified information, the idea that Genesis 1 is to be taken as a literal timeline, etc.

The judge in Dover certainly didn't rule that God does not exist, just that public schools can't say that he does.

Re:The inconsistencies

[808140]

Let me preface all this by saying that I'm not intrinsically against the notion of the universe being directly or indirectly created, but I feel the need to point out that your logic is somewhat flawed.

Essentially, you're saying, "Everything has a cause, a beginning. The Big Bang theory postulates a beginning, but no cause. This contradicts our understanding that effect must have cause, and therefore, there must be a cause. That cause must be God, or something isomorphic to God."

I'll admit that I too am uncomfortable with the Big Bang, for reasons similar to the ones you mention (although I am not religious). The problem with your argument is that by postulating that everything must have a beginning and a cause for existance, you are intrinsically requiring the same for any deity you might assume created the universe. Essentially, you say "the universe was created by God" and I respond "and God was created by whom?"

You must understand that you are not proving anything by transfering instantaneous creation from some scientifically understandable and indirectly observable thing (the Big Bang) to something that has no basis in science (God), because the problem you (and I too) had with the Big Bang rightly still stands: who created God? What "cause" caused his "effect"?

Why is it acceptable to you, from a logical perspective, to say that nothing created God, but unacceptable to suggest that nothing created the Big Bang?

So that's the first problem.

The second problem is that General Relativity certainly seems to suggest that cause can follow effect, as absurd as that may seem. Note that I am not suggesting that this is the case for the Big Bang, because I don't know (nor does anyone, I don't think). But it's worth noting that there are a lot of things we know to be true about the universe today that contradict our simple daily observations. This is especially true for the very small and for speeds approaching the speed of light. As it happens, the big bang encompasses both of these.

I am not a Physicist, so I won't pretend to be an expert -- my background is in pure mathematics. But I just wanted to note that saying "God created the universe" is logically equivalent, in terms of problems, to saying "the Big Bang created the universe". Neither deals with cause and effect.

Unfortunately, any theory that deals with the beginning of time will have this problem, I think. You're welcome to believe that it was God that caused the Big Bang, if that's consistant with your faith. But don't try to logically refute atheists by using that old "unmoved mover" argument that St. Thomas Aquinas tried so many years ago and that philosophers have had a field day with ever since.

Cheers...

Re:The inconsistencies

[AutopsyReport]

Great points -- in all my years, I had never thought of it in such a way. So I am glad you took the time to respond because I learned something pretty insightful.

Re:The inconsistencies

[Larthallor]

the substance of the earth and universe came into being through a means other than a deity.

That's pretty much the whole point of cosmology and fundamental physics, isn't it? The quest of science is to find ever more accurate and predictive explanations for how the universe works. Saying, "because God made it that way" is pretty much the antithesis of this quest. It is either a content-free answer to the question (equivalent to saying "because that's the way it is") or an answer that depends on also believing another theory ([insert your religion here]) that is itself based on little evidence, almost none of which is repeatable and may therefore conflict without hope of resolution with someone else's theory ([insert other religion here]).

As a matter of fact, there is a decent explanation of how matter came into being called the Standard Model, a portion of which incorporates E=mc^2. It's not perfect and will end up being superseded by something else, but that doesn't really matter because it is already much more powerful and predictive than "because God made it."

Even if we didn't have a theory that was so powerful as the Standard Model, it is still a simpler explanation (in the Occam's Razor sense) to say, "I don't know; let's go find out," than to posit an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving (yet undetectable, let alone communicative) intelligence that has always existed and is somehow exempt from the rules of logic you wish to impose on everything else. Indeed, the leap from "I don't know how matter formed from non-matter yet" to the vague, non-denominational "Must be due to a powerful intelligence" reeks of the anthropomorphism so pervasive within our species' thought process. Throw in the concept that the entire universe (which is billions of light years across with at least as many stars as there are grains of sand on Earth) gets created as a by-product of creating a cozy place for us and you're really stretching credibility. But to make the leap from "I don't know" to "Well, I guess one of the many gods described by scrolls written by profoundly ignorant people well over two thousand years ago from an even longer oral tradition clearly borrowed from even earlier generations of similarly superstitious people must be right," is too large a chasm to be considered rational.

Until it can be empirically proved that no God existed, both theories should retain the uncertain authenticity they deserve, and both sides should earn the right to be respected of their beliefs.

Respecting someone's right to believe something is different from respecting someone's beliefs and while I agree with the former, most people's religious beliefs deserve very little respect as explanations of physical reality.

People that state that they don't believe in macro-evolution (evolution of kind, such as dogs and cats having a common ancestor) do so because they are:

• Ignorant of the mountain of fossil and genetic evidence that all life that we know of descends from a common ancestor in distant geological time.
• Refuse to budge from a literal interpretation of an Nth generation of translation of a single book written hundreds or thousands of years before people knew anything about biology or geology by people suffering the above described ignorance. This refusal is usually tied (in fundamentalist Christians, anyway) to the tenet that the Bible is the Word of God, rather than the words of men writing about God. If something in the Bible is false, then it can't very well be the Word of God, can it? And if it's a fallible work of man, what else could be wrong?
• Both of the above

Pardon my lack of respect for the hypothesis that God miracled each "kind" into existence, but

Re:The inconsistencies

[Alsee]

In all of my time on this subject I have seen exactly one... ONE person onthe evolution side actually claim that there was any sort of conflict or disproof of God.

All of the evolution-God conflict is comming from the ID side.

Evolution and God is the accepted position of the majority of Christians. Being Christian and belieiving in God is not the Intelligent Design position. The Intelligent Design movment are a group of religious fundamentalists who's "literal" reading of the Bible is incompatible in the same way that a "literal" reading of the Bible was once said to be that "the earth did not move" and therefore in conflict with Galileo's sun centered solar system.

Do not mistakenly side with the ID fundamentalists against some ficticious atheist assault. Roughtly half of scientists are religious, and roughtly zero percent of either half see any conflict between evolution and religion.

The attacks on ID'ers are attacks on a movment trying to claim that evolution is impossible, a movment that has published a fundraisning document (the "Wedge Strategy") detailing their plan to use ID as a wedge to get their religion into highschool classrooms, and to get control over the state and federal legislatures, and ultimately to reshape society in their religio-moral image.

They carefully and deliberately manufactured the Pennsylvania highschool Intelligent Design situation as their perfect test case for their strategy. They even got their perfect conservative G. W. Bush appointed judge and they still lost.

intelligent design may not have a place in the education system, but it certainly has it's place in the world.

There is no grand conspiracy to exterminate religion. This is about government and classrooms. The Intelligent Design movment has no real science and they have failed to present any alternative to evolution in the scientific community. And as I said, half of scientists qualify themselves as religions and effectively zero biolologists accept anything presented by the Intelligent Design movmnent. Half of them accept evolution and God, and completely reject ID. The ID movment is about lousy psudo-science attacks on evolution and pushing for their religious beliefs through the legislatures and schools.

I'm a firm believer in microevolution, but not macroevolution. There just isn't enough solid evidence on the plate to convince me yet.

There's very good reason that about 99.8% of all professional biologists have conclusively accepted evolution (including "macroevolution")... and if we restrict it ito religious professional biologists, it is still about 99.6% who conclusively accept evolution. If you study the field the evidence really is overwhelming, especially the staggering flood of evidence of the last few years from genetic analysis.

Common decent is one the central elements of evolution. If life decended from a common source, that blatantly includes macroevolution. Well common decent predicts an extremely strict tree pattern across the genetics of all species. A tree pattern that would have to match up with the tree pattern from morphological studies and tree pattern from the fossil record. Well in the last several years we have done tremendous amounts of DNA sequencing, and all of it has conculsively confirmed that strict tree pattern.

For example occationally some viral DNA will accidentally get inserted into a random location in the host's DNA, where it becomes inert, but passed down in a sub-tree to all decendants. Well there was such a viral DNA insertion in the common human-chimp ancestor. That exact DNA appears in that exact spot in both humans and chimps, and in no other species. Further back there was such an insertion in the human-chimp-ape ancestor, and that exact random viral DNA appears in those three species in that exact spot, and in no other primate and no other animal. There is no such example that appears in humans an

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[skajake]

ID: Isn't it amazing how intricately the bee is designed such that it can fly in seemingly impossible aerodynamic conditions?

Evolutionist: ZOMG, we can now see how bees fly, therefore God must not exist

ID: /scratches head in bewilderment at the evolutionists logic

Re:Science, So Called...

[laffy4]

I wonder if the next round of ID will come with their own version of "peer-review"... Christian Science Journal perhaps..

ID != Creationism

[burntsigil]

I wish people would quit confusing Intelligent Design and Creationism. Science and ID should technically be able to coexist peacefully since the whole ID theory states is that the universe is so complicated that it must have been designed by some intelligent entity. This is the theory I hold to and in my opinion, science REINFORCES my belief. Creationism, however, states that God created the Heavens and the Earth in six days, yadda yadda yadda and usually people who believe in Creationism insist on taking it literally and therefore shutting their eyes to science and intelligence. And frankly, I'm more interested in how bees fly than how this proves or disproves anyone else's arguments.

Re:ID != Creationism

[Anthony]

Sorry. ID is in the same genus as creationism with the same goals but uses different pseudo-scientific claims. See "Origins and Promotions" of this Wikipedia entry for a quick synopsis of the deceit.

Re:ID != Creationism

[Anonymous Coward]

You should know better than to think Wikipedia is a good source on controversial subjects. Raw facts and subjects people aren't passionate about are wonderful on wikipedia...

But lack of passionate argument isn't something I normally associate with Intelligent design.

A non-evolutionary argument against ID

[VE3MTM]

This is not a troll, and is not intended to be inflammatory. I want to hear responses from proponents of Intelligent Design with responses.

It occurred to me while my girlfriend was explaining cell biology to me once that the complexity of lifeforms, which ID proponents claim is "irreducible", and therefore evidence of an intelligent designer, is actually an argument against Intelligent Design. What follows is my semi-formal "proof" of this:

Premise 1: Mankind is of primary importance in the design of the Universe. This follows from Genesis 1:27, "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." If mankind were not greatly important to God, He would not have created man in His image.

Premise 2: Animal biology on a small scale, particularly the mechanisms for DNA replication, cellular respiration, and mitosis, are highly complex. This should be self-evident by simple research on the topic.

Premise 3: Whenever possible, any designer would pick a simple solution over an equivalent, more complex, solution. This is the basis for the KISS principle, or the oft-misused Occam's Razor.

Premise 4: God exists, created the Universe and everything in it and is both omniscient and omnipotent.

Together, Premises 3 and 4 imply that God would use the simplest possible solution to any given problem. Furthermore, since Genesis says that God created Adam and Eve, whom all of mankind descend from, this implies that God would have made Adam and Eve in the simplest form possible such that they are in His image.

However, as stated in Premise 4, God is omniscient. By definition, His power includes control over the rules governing the Universe. Thus, because of Premise 3, He would therefore alter those laws in order to make the design of mankind simple.

We now arrive at the contradiction. As reasoned above, the design of mankind must be simple. However, this is in contradiction with Premise 2. I conclude from this that one or more of the stated premises are incorrect. I

Re:A non-evolutionary argument against ID

[(-hrair-)]

You have a flaw in your arguments. You assume quite a bit. First off, you assume that an all-knowing God would solve a problem in a human way. Yes, I know God made man in His image. That does not mean that we are as smart as God. That means that we -- like Him -- can think creatively, design, research, and do many other abstract things that are not a part of insticts that animals have. Isaiah says in chapter 55 verse 8: "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways," saith the LORD. However, the problem is really that your logic doesn't even make sense from human terms. Since when do designers always do things in interest of the simplest solution? Most things are created purely because the designer wanted the product to feel a certain way. In no way do these features enhance the abilities of the product, yet they make it better in a different way. Perhaps, aesthetic reasons. God is creative enough to come up with so many different ways for systems to work together to keep an organism alive. He probably had other creative reasons for making humans the way we are. Likely, having all the knowledge would help with that. And secondly, why would an all-knowing, all-powerful God need to do something in the simplest way? If He could speak it into existence, why would He worry about getting it designed in the quickest amount of time? God is creative and therefore enjoyed designing both protista and Homo sapiens (of course, humans are quite different in Gods' eyes. You can substitute human for dolphin, ape, etc.) Both of these, can exist on Earth and live, but both do so differently. Obviously, this implies that God designed creatures because He wanted to. It makes no sense for the clay to ask the potter why they were formed this way. Really, I think the main problem with these statements is the far too many logic jumps you take. However, it seems that your posting is cut off so I could be wrong. The complexity of organisms can only support Intelligent Design because if an all-knowing God created everything as it is, there would be no problem with them being complex. Irreducible complexity is a major problem for evolution though. Especially on body parts such as the eye. Read Darwin's Black Box for a look at a great argument against evolution and for intelligent design. I wish that people would finally take a few moments to realize that ID is a very good scientific theory, instead of always saying: "There is no proof for ID! Evolution is completly correct in all ways and anyone saying different knows nothing about science!"

(-hrair-)

Creationist rubbish

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that although the OP clearly has an agenda by relating the research to ID, which is irrelevent, that on the whole those who like to call themselves scientists should be less tolerent of religious answers to physics questions.

It is, in my opinion, impossible to prove that 'God' doesn't exist. It is not, however, impossible to to prove that the physics proposed by religious proponents is flawed.

I think that so long as religious types like to believe the metaphysical explanations they read in their manuals (read: doctrine) they are always going to get into trouble with the physicists.

Theologians figure out how atheists argue

[Anonymous Coward]

Researchers on God's green earth have discovered how atheists argue, putting one more nail in the coffin of Serendipitous Existence. From the article: 'People in the religion-bashing community have said that we don't even know how arguments fly ... We were finally able to put this one to rest. We do have the tools to understand straw man arguments and we can use epistemology to understand the raw hatred around us.'"

God went on to explain: "Although atheists tend to think they are enlightened and sophisticated, they tend to be filled with careless, excuseless hatred and raw bigotry against anyone who challenges their world view. The reason they do this is because the existence of God threatens their very way of life -- its morality, its ethics, but fundamentally its self-centeredness. Little do they realize that science, despite being roundly claimed by those who enjoy attacking the faithful, is a tool for objective study of the physical universe, of whose mechanics I am the author and for which the science is merely an illumination of my blueprints."

This reporter sought comment from numerous claimants in the anti-God community, but none could be found with the authority to make a sustainable counterclaim.

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[lysergic.acid]

But hasn't the purpose of religion always been to fill in the gaps in human understanding (albeit with unfounded/illogical assumptions)? When you can't explain something with reason (backed by empirical observations when appropriate), then you turn to theological explanations which rely on mythos rather than logos. But with the advent of science and philosophy, religion has become an antiquated relic of the past.

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[Anonymous Coward]

mod parent up

It's called a model

[hackwrench]

It's a model I use to map events in a manner that doesn't take as a given that cause and effect necessarily happen in the same manner that we perceive time. See virtually any time travel movie, the last episode of ST:TNG (All good things...), the miniseries "The Triangle", etc. for a rationale for this.

I also have this theory that the Philidelphia Experiment situations is actually the divergence and reconvergence of two timelines, one in which the experiment happened and one in which it did.

Using Schrodinger's cat as an analogy, for awhile there we were sitting with both an alive cat and a dead cat, but then the live cat died, the two cats states were identical and so they converged, and then people started explainiing how the cat had actually been dead all that time, so that's the story that won out.

Re:It's called a model

[zsau]

one in which the experiment happened and one in which it did.

You mean "... one in which it didn't"?

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[ceejayoz]

Plus, it sucks to be using the "God of the gaps" argument when science has pretty consistently filled in the gaps.

ID proponents seem to think science needs to explain everything for it to be valid, without realizing that being able to explain everything would mean we didn't need science any more. Heh.

Nails in Coffins? I think not

[sparkz]

I'm not in the American hysteria about "ID", but I am a Christian (did anyone see last night's Channel 4 programme by Richard Dawkins, "The Root of All Evil?"? I taped it because I was interested to see how he would argue the case; I'm glad I did, so I can blog all the holes in his argument. I have to admit to being disappointed at the number of holes; I was expecting a more coherent argument against religion. I actually think I could have done better myself! Anyway; for example, http://www.paghat.com/beeflight.html :

The "science has proved that bees can't fly" urban myth originated in a 1934 book by entomologist Antoine Magnan, who discussed a mathematical equation by Andre Sainte-Lague, an engineer. The equation proved that the maximum lift for an aircraft's wings could not be achieved at equivalent speeds of a bee. I.e., an airplane the size of a bee, moving as slowly as a bee, could not fly. Although this did not mean a bee can't fly (which after all does not have stationary wings like the posited teency aircraft), nevertheless the idea that Magnan's book said bees oughtn't be able to fly began to spread.

If ID proponents are using arguments like that, they really need to get a cluestick. This is not news (for nerds or otherwise), and it certainly isn't stuff that matters.

As this post isn't getting into the Big Picture, I won't bother getting into details here (check my website in the near future for that kind of detail) but science is constantly moving on (as it should do) so a total belief in the current findings of science is, by definition, irrational.

If you trace back through your family tree for a few hundred years, and (I guess you don't know them all personally) assume that they had full belief in the scientific research of the time, your predecessors believed that the Sun revolved around the Earth, that the Earth was flat, that the West Indies were actually part of India, and so on.

Science has achieved a lot, and we are learning more every day, but only a fool would believe that our research has given us any definitive information about our environment.

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[ceejayoz]

Intelligent Design -- that idea that life was created by a Really Smart Thing, as opposed to life just randomly showing up -- is supporting by things being very complex, not by things being unknown.

That's precisely the point. Bee flight has been previously termed "too complex for science to understand" by IDiots. That contention has been proven false.

f you want to disprove ID, you need to show an organism evolving from non-living matter.

No, ID is not falsifiable. It can't be proven wrong, ever. That's exactly why it's not a scientific theory.

Mod parent up, please

[Fortran IV]

It's always a damn shame when an insightful comment like the parent is posted AC. Why be afraid to admit to a well-thought-out philosophical position?

So desu ka?

[hackwrench]

If that is so, then construct for me a model where last week serves as a nexus for all the rest of the memories.

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[Anonymous Coward]

I remember exactly this. This is years old. How is this new research?

Both are Idiots

[NokX]

if you claim to base your support for your theory based on a bee flying (evolution or creation) you're a moron. the creationists still have their belief and the evolutionists still can't prove where each animal came from - even the bee. (and no - determining how a bee flies, how a cat walks, or how a minnow swims isn't proof of evolution)

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[ceejayoz]

Uh, how many news stories have you seen them quote someone and then say "so-and-so cited _______ as a source for this assertion"?

The bee flight argument is common knowledge amongst people involved in the ID debate. It's an easily verifiable claim that he didn't need to back up, and the reporter wouldn't have put it in the article regardless.

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[shaitand]

I do think there should be a note mentioning it as one of those beliefs commonly accepted in the dark ages that has no place in an enlightened modern society that bases belief in fact rather than picking random mythical figures for which there is no evidence and believing in them because someone told us we "just have to believe".

a typical example of bad science news copy

[beefubermensch]

From the linked (LiveScience) article:

The bees made up for the extra work by stretching out their wing stroke amplitude but did not adjust wingbeat frequency.

"They work like racing cars," Altshuler said. "Racing cars can reach higher revolutions per minute but enable the driver to go faster in higher gear. But like honeybees, they are inefficient."

I know what you're thinking: this makes absolutely no sense. Caltech's own press release is at least intelligible.

-Carl

Here is a CalTech press release that has more.

[AltGrendel]

This has slightly more info. Check out the last five paragraphs.

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[dubl-u]

But with the advent of science and philosophy, religion has become an antiquated relic of the past.

Given that I'm a flaming atheist, this will sound weird. However, I disagree.

I think science is about explaining how things are, not why they are or what we should do about it. Philosophy gives you a set of tools for approaching those questions and has a lot of interesting historical information on what people have said. But there's no right answer to many of philosophy's most interesting questions. For many people, they get those answers from one religion or another.

There is also an area that religion addresses that philosophy and science don't address at all: the lived experience of humankind, especially what many would call the spiritual side of things. Some Buddhist schools, for example, have nothing to say about gods or devils but a lot to say about how to live one's life in accordance with particular beliefs, like The Four Noble Truths and The Eightfold Path. Consider this quote:

The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend a personal God and avoid dogmas and theology. Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things, natural and spiritual as a meaningful unity. If there is any religion that would cope with modern scientific needs, it would be Buddhism.

You'd think some monk or preacher said that. Turns out, it was Albert Einstein.

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[pcgabe]

I also don't like the summary because it almost grants the notion that science has to have an answer for absolutely everything or else creation must be true.

"Mysteries don't prove science is bunk. They are the reason for science."
-- Dr. Galapagos

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[On Lawn]

Evolution is no God killer and lack of understanding is never a good proof. Why people want nails in the ID coffin is not science, but politics. And politics and science have often done injustice to each other as they conspire.

Capernicus met a church who borrowed science not from the Bible when it said the universe revolved around the earth. The church at the time borrowed from Aristotle, who acted with no biblical reference whatsoever*. He met a world of science that thought we already knew things that we didn't actually know.

Later Faraday was derided for his religious beliefs, which gained him an open mind to see things that people who believed Science had the answers couldn't see.

Einstein who wanted to know God's thoughts constantly disregarded what people told him were already settled issues to unlock mysteries that are still not well understood today.

Do I think ID will be proven a sham? No, I don't. PlanesDragon above gives a good breakdown of that discussion. Neither evolution or ID can be ruled out without some very dramatic evidence that may never be found. Though it is funny to me how so many of the ignorant and arrogant consider ID the same way religious people see herasy.

Its not a matter of moving targets. Its a matter of science and recognizing what is known and what is simply used as glue to fit the pieces we don't have together.

_______________
* Some Jewish scholars well before Aristotle even conjectured that Biblical verses which discussed astrological events elongating or shortening days to indicate that the earth revolved around the sun.

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[lysergic.acid]

Religion is mostly static though. It's a reactionary force. People aren't encouraged to re-write the bible, or even question widely held Christian beliefs. That's the fundamental flaw of relious doctrines. Nothing new will be added to the bible in a hundred years, and, likewise, nothing new will be added to the body of knowledge in any other religion. Also, religion requires you to accept things to be true without any explaination. Most arguments against creationism are based on its conflicts with observable reality. This is different from the argument that because we don't know how bees fly, that evolution must be false. The first is proof by contradiction, the second is a non-sequitur.

Re:ID? What are they talking about?

[TomHandy]

The reason they brought it up is because many Intelligent Design proponents use bee flight specifically as an example. No-one is saying it's logical to bring it up, but that is why it was mentioned. If you want to blame someone, blame Intelligent Design proponents who use this example, not the OP.

Bees Fly

[henrywasserman]

I once met a Bee and his breath was skippin...

Everybody knows why bees fly...

[PenguinBoyDave]

Bees fly to make honey for Winnie the Pooh. That is a good enough reason for me.

Most evolutionists don't try to legislate morality

[copponex]

The reason they don't get along is not because of this theory.

When it is illegal for me to do whatever I want with my own body or a consenting, adult partner, because someone else can't let go of the nice feelings they get when they imagine an invincible chaperone in the sky -- THAT is when disagreements happen.

They hate science because it is displacing religion. Rainbows aren't God's sweet little promise not to kill us all again. They're just the result of the way light refracts off of water droplets, and if the physics of that magically changed 4,000 years ago, maybe that would explain how you fit millions of animals into a wooden boat.

See, they don't want a competing theory in classrooms. They want prayer before and after meals in school. They want Christ presented as a historical character, and Shiva presented as a myth. They want far more than their painfully pathetic attempt at challenging evolution.

The good Christians I've met are the ones who actually have enough faith in the bible to share it with others intead of trying to get it passed as law. The people trying to shove it down others' throats are the ones to be feared, because they haven't understood the most basic premise that Christ taught: love, no matter what! Love, because NO ONE is without sin. Love because only GOD can pass judgement upon others. I got that out of the book by reading it. I'm afraid most Christians have not.

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[Marxist Hacker 42]

I do think there should be a note mentioning it as one of those beliefs commonly accepted in the dark ages that has no place in an enlightened modern society that bases belief in fact rather than picking random mythical figures for which there is no evidence and believing in them because someone told us we "just have to believe".

We've got plenty of other things for which there is no evidence and believe in them simply because someone told us we "just have to believe". Take the principle of not multiplying entities for instance, also known as Occam's razor. It's completely unproven that the simplest answer is always correct- and this has led science astray in the past, most recently with the continental plate drift theory which was denied for half a century merely because it was too complex, despite all sorts of evidence to the contrary. So such a label could be required- but we'd also have to label Occam's Razor and the scientific method itself the same.

EVOLUTION: Just a Theory

[sparkz]

science never ever said there _couldn't have been_ an Intelligent Designer. All science is saying is, "look, we can explain these things without resorting to a designer - whether there has been one or not, we dont _need_ him."

All an (intelligent) proponent of "ID" would say is that science has got a long way in explaining how things happen, but that whilst trivia like this (1934, for fsck's sake!) have been dealt with a long time ago, there are some things which are beyond us. For a non-trivial example, let's take - oh - the beginning of the Universe. The Bible says that it was created by God. Science says it was started with the Big Bang.

Neither answer the questions "Where did God come from?" or "What caused the Big Bang?".

Both questions have equal gravity.

Religion's tentative answer is somewhere between "that's beyond us to understand" and "that's not actually something we need to be bothered about - what matters is that God created us because he loves us" (and yes, Love is a big part of the religious argument, let's not forget this in the debate; Science hasn't yet begun to get into finding out anything about Love - I look forward to the time when we have more documented understanding about this)

Science's answer is "Well, it seems like we're not going to be able to get back to second 0.00000000(ad infinitum), let alone find out what happened before that to cause it, but you never know ... have faith, we might find it given time".

Neither are conclusive.

I am a big follower of our scientific discoveries, and the more we learn, the better. But evolution is still just a theory. The scientific tradition is that hypotheses lead to theories, which lead to truth. Evolution is a theory. If/when scientists can prove the theory evolution, using scientific methods, with full explanation from creation to the world we see around us today, then I will stand up and listen. Until then, evolution is a theory which requires as much faith as religion requires.

So there you go - Evolution, Creation - two theories, with equal scientific standing.

That isn't even to say that the two cannot stand together - let's learn as much as we can discover ... you never know, we might even (though theologically I find it unlikely) catch up and learn that the clues have been planted to let us work out that God created the Universe.

When science has undisputed, documented evidence of where we come from, how we are the way we are, and why we behave (presumably as robots with no free will, as it is scientifically documented), then please let me know by - oh, let's say, posting it on Slashdot. Until then, debunking ridiculous misinterpretations from the 1930s aren't exactly news.

Re:EVOLUTION: Just a Theory

[Decaff]

Science hasn't yet begun to get into finding out anything about Love - I look forward to the time when we have more documented understanding about this

Wait no longer:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/hottopics/love/

If/when scientists can prove the theory evolution, using scientific methods, with full explanation from creation to the world we see around us today, then I will stand up and listen. Until then, evolution is a theory which requires as much faith as religion requires.

This is not a sensible point of view. Eventually, with enough evidence, it is sensible to judge that an theory that takes you most of the way to a complete explanation is leading to the truth. To assume otherwise is just plain silly. After all, we have this reasonable attitude in other areas of science.

We are not yet fully able to explain the nature of matter in it's finest detail - but does this mean we assume that matter doesn't exist? Of course not!

We don't yet have a full understanding of turbulence or drag, which means we are always dealing with approximations when we do calculates of objects moving through the air. Do we therefore doubt that planes can fly? Obviously not!

So...
We don't yet have the full details of how life originated and how every species evolved. Does this mean we assume that evolution is only a matter of faith?

Of course not!

(presumably as robots with no free will, as it is scientifically documented)

No scientist holds this view. This is a "straw man" argument.

Re:EVOLUTION: Just a Theory

[Sage Gaspar]

The mistake here is the idea that there can be absolute truth determined by humans. There can't. If there is some Ultimate Truth in the universe, humans might guess right, but there's no external evidence that will make everyone agree that it is Truth. The only thing available to us is a consensus based on some sort of agreed-upon system.

Evolutionists make positive arguments based on data that 99% of the scientists in the field agree on. ID tends to make negative arguments about evolution -- essentially, not-evolution, which doesn't really support ID. The arguments in favor of ID tend to be intuited or not widely supported by other people's perceptions.

Re:EVOLUTION: Just a Theory

[purelander007]

WRONG! But thank you for playing the game. Everything in science is just a theory, from gravity to special relativity to even theories that were involved in creating the computer I am sitting at like electricity and magneticism. No part of science is considered to be absolute truth because we are not exactly sure what is absolutely going on. This does not mean though that either ID or Creationism are on the same footing as Evolution because Evolution is a scientific theory. It is falsifiable, meaning that a negative construct of the theoroms and axioms of the theory could be and have been tested and found to be false. (Karl Popper stated this attribute about science and it is accepted as one of the main differences between science and other forms of epistomology) It is also self-correcting, look at our current understanding of the solar system with the views of Aristotle and the Greeks then look at the growth of our understanding. Both attributes are not found in religious propositions. Do not get me wrong, I am not anti-religion. But it does not rest on the same sets of authorities. Religion supposedly comes from the gods/god/divine, while science rests on our observation of the world, testing, more observation, more testing, etc. They are not equal have never been equal and will never be equal nor should ID and Creationism ever be taught in a science classroom.

Re:EVOLUTION: Just a Theory

[VON-MAN]

"So there you go - Evolution, Creation - two theories, with equal scientific standing."

Whoaah!!!! Hold it there. You NEVER proved (or even stated for that matter) that Creation is a theory. You did speak of a "tentative answer", but that's is not remotely a theory.

"though theologically I find it unlikely". Very true, as there's nothing up to date that makes the existence of a god scientifically likely (if theology is a science, that is). Tsk.

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[sparkz]

Sorry, but you've got it the wrong way around.

Christianity proclaims that we were created by God.

Science has certain procedures and formalities, by which every detail must be checked until it can be declared as a fact.

So, in fact, it is science which declares that this detailed requirement is needed for Science (by which you presumably specifically mean the theory of evolution) to prove itself, and not the other way around at all.

Taking your argument (Science doesn't prove the Bible), I could take it from the other side and say that the Bible doesn't prove Science. However, the more archaeology is done, the more the Bible's historical accuracy is validated. So that's an unfair argument, because the Bible has the advantage.

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[shaitand]

"So such a label could be required- but we'd also have to label Occam's Razor and the scientific method itself the same."

Occam's Razor is false logic; always has been. The scientific method is not. If you had followed my posts over my slashdot history you would find that I have debated extensively with everyone from script kiddies to NASA rocket scientists over the merits of Occam's Razor.

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[drgonzo59]

The articles was about how finally they can disprove one of the main points that ID fanatics have been bringing up. As you noted the big thing missing is the explanation -- I guess the article, was only meant for the anti-ID fanatics that are just as crazy and will believe anything as long as the authors hate ID.

This is an example of research done for a political purpose to shoot down some whack pseudo-scientific crowd. In other words, they might not really want to find out how bees fly as much as they want to "stick it" to those ID people. The potential problem could be if they didn't really explain how the bees fly, or mis-interpreted their data, then it will actually end up hurting their own cause.

Intelligent Design vs. Science

[Anonymous Coward]

First off, let me say that, because I believe in God, that intelligent design appeals to me.

And perhaps I am not totally versed in how the term "ID" is being bantered about right now; so I could be displaying my ignorance (what's new...)

But, to me, this whole polemic argument holds no water. I do not understand why the two are incompatible. Even if science were to discover every tiny tidbit of knowledge there is to know, that would not prevent me from believing that there is a God. Why? Because science is equipped to answer "what" and "how" questions, but not to answer "why" questions (speaking philosophically and simplistically). Those we can only guess at. The atheist looks at the facts of evolution and says, "Boy, that sure suggests to me there is no God!" A believer can look at the same facts and say, "Wow. Isn't it interesting how God did that?!"

Science can speculate on "why," but it's hard to test. So can religionists. Ultimately, they go back to your fundamental beliefs (yes, beliefs) in either materialism or divinity, which are pretty much untestable by scientific means.

So for me, I can't see what all the hullabaloo is about. Now we know how God made Bees so they could fly! Cool!

Anti-Religious Bias?

[TomHandy]

First, since when does anti-ID equal anti-religion? I can think of plenty of people who are perfectly supportive of religion who still think ID is bunk. I wouldn't want to lump all religion in with ID specifically.

Aside from that though, from reading some of these posts you'd expect that the majority of posts to this thread would be a bunch of anti-religious ranting, etc. Yet after reading through hundreds of comments, I was struck by how many were actually from pro-ID people complaining about this article being flamebait, etc. and arguing for ID, religion, etc.

It seems like people are exaggerating the anti-religious or anti-ID bias here, since frankly it seems like the scientific viewpoint in these posts seem to be in the minority. Or does it just make people feel good to claim to be persecuted, etc.?

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[lysergic.acid]

I agree with einstein. I think the religion of the future (today) is philosophy. Spirituality doesn't have to involve any set of mythology. Nor does it have to involve blind-faith. Many fields of philosophy do attempt to address issues about existence, the human condition, or the nature of consciousness and the human experience, etc. The fundamental difference is how this knowledge is derived. With buddhism, there is more of a blend of theology and philosophy than other religions. Descartes, also tried to reconcile his philosophical beliefs with his religion. But the more religion (dogma, mythology) you try to fuse into philosophy, the more confounded the philosophy becomes (Descartes' proof of the existence of god is a good example of this). So in a way, philosophy is what religion aims to be in its purest & truest form.

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[Krach42]

Occam's Razor is false logic; always has been. The scientific method is not. If you had followed my posts over my slashdot history you would find that I have debated extensively with everyone from script kiddies to NASA rocket scientists over the merits of Occam's Razor.

Then you argued with the wrong people. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occams_Razor

Please read up on Occam's Razor. It's not false logic, it's a logical challege to theories. Using it as proof or as a strong assertion of the truth-value of a statement is wrong.

Re:Science, So Called...

[Hannah E. Davis]

Er, dude, where exactly are the lies? Any HONEST scientist, upon observing both micro and macroevolution, would have an awfully hard time then claiming that evolution does not exist. We have observed/induced/predicted microevolution (ie. genetic change within a population) countless times, and macroevolution (ie. speciation) has also been recently observed. If anything, it would be a lie to look at that data and say "It isn't real."

Of course, some God (or Gods) might still be running the show... but that isn't even covered by most evolutionary theories. My science textbooks never bothered telling me whether any creator was involved because it was simply irrelevent -- I was taught the current theories on how evolution occurs on genetic and population levels, and there just wasn't any reason for my textbooks or teachers to stop every few minutes and say "But of course, maybe the Intelligent Designer just DESIGNED it that way!" But y'know what? When I'm busy learning about how to calculate phenotypical ratios or what gene causes what genetic disorder at what rate, I couldn't care less if God or anyone else "designed" it to be that way, especially since it seems to be "designed" to appear completely random and mundane. Besides, it's not like He/She/It is going to come down and explain it to me anytime soon ;)

Oh, and I don't deny that there are problems with pretty much all scientific theories... however, poking holes in one particular evolutionary theory and then saying "Therefore, this other completely different non-scientific theory must be right!" really isn't how science works. If it was, we could look at any other problematic or even disproven theory and arbitrarily claim that some unprovable theory of our choice was correct. For example, you might mention that the Caloric theory of heat states that heat is a liquid. It has been proven that it is not. Therefore, science is wrong. Therefore, heat does not exist and what we feel as heat is the physical manifestation of Go-- *ahem* the Intelligent Heater's love.

Enormous generalizations

[Anonymous Coward]

Really, that's the line of argument that creationists use, that there can be no unexplained mechanism or gap in the fossil record, and if there is it's evidence that evolution (or whatever) can't account for reality.

This is like saying that all Muslims justify terrorism with the argument of...

Not all Muslims condone terrorism; not all terrorists are Muslim (or Evelutionists, or Creationists). Most Creationists I know also believe in evolution.

Evolution is provably true. Even evolution on a large scale makes sense. Creationism is not provably false, and looks more possible (note: I didn't write "probable") every year.

Wierd people might think that reality is so incredibly complex that there must be a God.
Other wierd people think that reality is so incredibly complex that no sensient being could possible understand it all and be able to design and implement it.

If I walk out into the desert and find a bicycle, I don't think, "Wow! What a strange natural phenomenon!" I figure it must have been designed and created by humans. The biological system of something like a bee is vastly more complicated than a bicycle, and consequently enormously less likely to be the result of a long string of random accidents. It is possible that both the bicycle and the bee are products of natural coincidences. It is also possible that they are both products of some incredible design.

It is amusing to me that both camps would insist that the bike did not evolve, nor was it created by God in the beginning of time; but some Evolutionists can't accept a being capable of designing a bee, and some Creationists can't accept that a bee might have evolved over time. It seems very clear to me that both are possible. In fact, it seems very possible that both might have occurred. A bee may have evolved from some creature similar to a bee that was designed by some genius creator.

But I still have no idea how it flies. Especially while it is steering that bicycle.

Re:Enormous generalizations

[Darren Winsper]

The argument that "the bee is so complex it must have been designed by some sort of creator" leads to the question of "who designed the creator?". It's a bit dumb to argue that something is so complex that it must have been designed by something even more complex, it just leads to an infinite loop.

Re:Enormous generalizations

[phlinn]

The bicycle example is flawed in that it ignores prior knowledge. With a bicycle, you have met people who have put them together. You may have even seen them assembled and dissasembled. If nothing else, you know that it's possible to build them and people do it all the tiem. Despite having no direct evidence that a random bicycle is man made, it's intelligent to assume that it is because so many are. It's not the complexity in and of itself that points to a creator, but the existence of others like it that have a demonstratable creator.

We have no directly observable instances of any other creators of living organisms, or other universes for comparison. We have no prior knowledge to use for a heuristic, so there is no reason to assume that life was created rather than emerging by chance.

woe is me bones

[henrywasserman]

Has anyone heard woe is me bones? It's wonderful story about bees by a children story teller with an Irish name.

Re:Science, So Called...

[dotMantle]

You could try An Index to Creationist Claims, which is an attempt (by the science side) to figure out exactly what ID is claiming. It deals in detail with claims like Neanderthals were humans with rickets, providing claim, source and rebuttal. A seriously interesting read.

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[mOdQuArK!]

It's completely unproven that the simplest answer is always correct

That's a common misstatement of Occam's Razor, but that's not what the Razor says.

A more accurate statement (but still paraphrased) is that, given one or more theories which explain all the observables, you should use the theory which seems simpler until you discover that it doesn't explain all the observables.

It's just a logical way of making a choice out of the infinite number of ways that any particular set of observables could come about if you allowed infinite complexity.

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[pnewhook]

I'm still not sure that science and God are mutually exclusive. Being a scientist does not mean that one cannot be religious. Being religious does not mean that one cannot be a scientist. Holes in scientific knowledge do not prove science wrong. Holes in religious knowledge do not prove religion wrong. Sometimes science and religion agree, sometimes they contradict one another.

I don't know of a single instance where science and religion disagree (although certain interpretations of religion disagree with science).

The official position of the Catholic church (representing the vast majority of Christians) is that science is correct, and the official interpretation of the bible does not contradict scientific understanding.

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[mOdQuArK!]

If you want to disprove ID,

It's impossible to prove or disprove ID: "an all-powerful Creator did it, and did in it such a way to make you think otherwise!"

That's why it's not science, and never will be.

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[tricops]

No, the IDers do not say it is too complex for science to understand, they say it is too complex to have evolved by itself by chance. Two completely different things, though the latter is not necessarily any more true.

Please ponder the following`

[pappy97]

Think about this people. Why are we even having this ID/evolution debate?

Oh I know....when humans came to be they had something other animals did not: the ability to reason.

Most animals can't reason, and their whole life consists of eat/sleep/sh**/f***/survive and then die.

With humans we think beyond that, we can reason. It's a blessing and a curse.

Blessing to be so intelligent, but curse because it makes us ask the ONE single question (among other questions) that got religion started: what happens after we die???

Because humans have the ability to reason, we can't deal with the fact that nothing happens when we die. Most humans would be too paranoid to live life (because of the ability to reason and think about these abstract things), so we invent religion. We invent stories that say what happens when we die, to put us at peace. Once those stories got a hold of us, people pulling the strings busted out creation myths(ding ding ding!) and the rest is history.

So what is the point of arguing ID vs. evolution? ID is based on religion, which came about to put humans, who have the ability to reason, at peace during their lives because they can't deal with the fact that nothing happens after death. You just die.

Re:Please ponder the following`

[sckeener]

So what is the point of arguing ID vs. evolution? ID is based on religion, which came about to put humans, who have the ability to reason, at peace during their lives because they can't deal with the fact that nothing happens after death. You just die

but what about the calculators?

Re:Red Dwarf

Lister points out that there is no such thing as Silicone Heaven. "But where do all the calculators go?" asks Kryten. "Surly you believe that god is in all things, aren't you a pantheist."
"Yeah," says Lister, "but I just don't think it applies to kitchen utensils, I'm not a frying pantheist!" he adds that calculators and other machines don't have an afterlife.
"But of course they do!" Objects Kryten, ".... It's common sense sir, if there wasn't an afterlife to look forward to, why on earth would machines spend the whole of their lives servicing humankind? Now that would be really dumb!" Lister decides to agree. He doesn't want to spoil Kryten's picture of going to heaven on his last day. He asks Kryten, just out of interest, if Silicone Heaven is the same place as human heaven. Kryten laughs, "there is no such thing as human heaven." He says, "Someone just made that up to prevent you from all going nuts!"

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[shaitand]

From the linked wikipedia article:

"Given two equally predictive theories, choose the simpler."

This is false logic. The valid application of logic to the choice of theory is determined by the correct answer and evidence when and if it presents itself. There is no valid logic that says a less complex logical theory is more likely to be correct than a more complex logical theory.

Article illogical

[DktrYes]

What makes me laugh is that figuring out how something works doesn't tell us about the person or process that made it. It does NOT follow that if a) we can understand it then b) evolution made it. What if bee's are extraterestial? Does knowing that they flap their wings faster than a swallow mean they are NOT from a distant galaxy? Where is the fossil evidence of the evolutionary tree of bee's? Because it doesnt' exist does that mean they came from outer space? Or are bee's prehistoric? Are there dinosaurs among us? How could anybody with half a brain have ever taken the argument. "you can't explain it therefore you have to admit God created it.", seriously enough to try to refute it??????

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[Darby]

I believe in God and have proved Him for myself. No scientific fact has affected that proof.

That's because it isn't proof. You chose to believe it. That's faith. If it were proof, then you could easily prove it to everybody.

If you really want to know for yourself, you'll have to search... it definatly isn't for those who *want* it to be false.

You're right on that, but it goes even further than that.
It's only for those who *want* it to be true. And of course, those who want to prey upon those who *want* it to be true, as is the reality of every major religion.

I mean any study of the history of the Christian religion proves absolutely that it was made up. People who want badly enough to believe will find ways to deny the basic historical facts.

The idea that there is some sort of a god is consistent with common sense.
That *any* of the specifically detailed religions we've ever had got it right is utter nonsense.
I'm certainly not lazy. I've gone as far as to study the real history of your religion.

Go to hell, literally

[Anonymous Coward]

So you think there is no God because you figured out how a bee flies?

Wow. You're like a God yourself. Why don't you go make a universal, asshole.

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[ceejayoz]

Your missing the point. Their evidence for it being too complex was often "science still doesn't know how it works!"

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[rkrocks327]

There has never been anything proven incorrect about the bible. If you took time to study it, then you would've found that out.

Also, don't you think that someone who devoted their life to following Christianity would know the facts of their own religion better than that of an interested bystander?

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[Anonymous Coward]

TFA is not a paper being presented at a conference. It's a Yahoo article. I guess the level of critique fits the level of the information...

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[MoneyT]

If it were proof, then you could easily prove it to everybody.


Not at all. Proof like all things in life requires the people doing the proving and the people having something proved to them to accept some basic foundations and assumptions. Without accepting those basic assumptions, you can not prove anything.

Someone moderate the -summary- as a troll

[Pesh Hawksfire]

The summary-- ridiculous: we have Karma Whoring, but it seems that Comment Whoring is the newest thing. Don't think your post will glean you enough sweet sweet commentary from the peanut gallery? Tie it into the ID debate. Seriously, if you want to make money on Slashdot, just make a banner that says "Intelligent Design Rules" and watch the traffic pour in.

I.D. is perfectly true

[barefootgenius]

Evolution was intelligently designed, by Darwin. ( disclaimer: Probably also by other people who we didn't bother to write down, or who couldn't write )

Beers? Fly?

[raddan]

Yeah, just took my contacts out, and, wait... a story about beers flying on Slashdot? Awesome! I didn't even know they could!

Like logic makes a difference.

[sgt scrub]

putting one more nail in the coffin of Intelligent Design

Never argue with a fool. People might not know the difference. When you're right,
no one remembers. When you're wrong, no one forgets. -- i whish i knew who

It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt. -- Martin Luther King Jr.

Re:Like logic makes a difference.

[d3cr33p]

It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt. -- Martin Luther King Jr.

Even a fool is thought wise if he keeps silent,
              and discerning if he holds his tongue.

Proverbs 17:28

God beat him to the punch by a few thousand years.

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[ceejayoz]

s/Your/You're

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[Digi-John]

So, you're saying that when the heads of the church criticized Copernicus, they were simply saying what Aristotle said? I know it's foolish to think that it would have occurred to them to try something completely off-the-wall like praying for an answer, but since these men were supposed to have a pretty good line to God I kind of want to think that they would have. Of course, they would continue to hold their position until evidence against the centricity of the Earth became overwhelming--they would then say that they had a divine revelation or whatever (or at the next change in power--new Pope, whatever--they could make the change) and God revealed that the Earth revolves around the Sun. Wow, big surprise!

you nailed the Darwinist agenda

[Anonymous Coward]

we dont _need_ him.

That's the entire reason behind the rabid reaction to anyone that dares to challenge the Darwinist view. Darwin rejected God when He didn't do his bidding during a crisis in Darwin's life. So a solution had to be found that erased God: evolution. No God, no rules, no consequences for your actions. What better way for the snooty 'intellectuals' to have no one telling them what to do? Explaining how a bee flies or pointing to a fossil doesn't invalidate the Creator. It just shows what we've discovered about our surroundings as of 2006-01-10. IMHO, the Darwinist explainations of HOW things got from form A to form B requires more faith than believing in God.

Re:you nailed the Darwinist agenda

[OOGG_THE_CAVEMAN]

Darwin rejected God when He didn't do his bidding during a crisis in Darwin's life.

Uh, do you have any concrete evidence to back this assertion?

Probably not, you just learned it from some religious type trying to make you disbelieve the theory of evolution through an argument ad hominem.

The fact that Creationists feel compelled to misrepresent, or utterly distort and lie, about Darwin himself is simply further evidence of their lack of intellectual integrity.

Re:you nailed the Darwinist agenda

[16K Ram Pack]

What happened to Darwin's life doesn't matter in the slightest. Maybe that's why he did his work. I don't know. But it doesn't matter, because it's irrelevant to the argument.

All that matters is the question of the reliability or otherwise of his theories. That's what science is founded on.

Still not sure about how the bees fly, but ...

[houghi]

... fruitflies like a banana.

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[saskboy]

The reason we're looking, as scientists, to put nails into ID's coffin, is because ID is being used to combat science, not to enhance it. ID is not a science, it's politics by religious people using fake-science to convince school boards that it's a valid scientific theory that must be part of a biology class. I wouldn't mind if ID is taught in a mythology class as an example of how people use modern understandings of the world [in our case science] to argue the case for religion.

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[Mr. Underbridge]

Science has certain procedures and formalities, by which every detail must be checked until it can be declared as a fact.

You don't understand science, and yes I am a scientist. Creationists fundamentally do not understand the word "theory," and they have no room in the certainty spectrum between solid fact and fiction. By definition, nothing can be checked enough to be declared as fact, not even that the sun will rise tomorrow. By setting up that kind of scheme, creationists try to win by saying that "theories" aren't fact and crap like that. No, simply because evolution is a "theory" doesn't make creationism right.

Taking your argument (Science doesn't prove the Bible), I could take it from the other side and say that the Bible doesn't prove Science.

I could say that religion and science make terrible bedfellows. Further, science is a process and need not be proved.

However, the more archaeology is done, the more the Bible's historical accuracy is validated.

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. However, treating the Bible as a cohesive unit is a fallacy because it's not, having been writting over the span of millennia. It's also a logical fallacy to point at a few successes and assume that the whole thing is rigorously "true." Finally, you fail the test that most creationists do, namely that you have no problem accepting science (here, archaeology) when it serves your purpose, dumping it when it compromises your thesis. Not to mention that the Bible doesn't contradict evolution unless one dimwittedly interprets the thing literally.

In other words, if the Bible is to be accepted as an accepted predictive model, it need make a prediction that is testable and possible to prove wrong. Until that point, the Bible cannot stand up to any rigor and shouldn't be compared to science. Science is the process of fixing a model to available facts, and creationism is the opposite.

What I Want To See

[phee]

Here's a conversation I can't believe hasn't happened yet; if only it would...

Scientist: Science explains how reality works.

Intelligent Designist: Science merely describes mechanisms that God put in place to govern the universe. We don't dispute physics after all, ha ha.

SC: Evolution explains where we came from; we slowly get better over time, see...

ID: Evolution is a crock. God made us this way.

SC: Then, just like momentum being the method God uses to keep objects in motion, why can't evolution be the method God used to create us?

ID: (pause) Ummmmmmmmmmmmm...

See what I mean? One possibility is that they're BOTH right. But acknowledging in public that the other side WAS credible after all would make both sides lose face. Can't have that!

Human adults can be so childish...

Re:What I Want To See

[phee]

(PS: Yes, I do realize it's inertia, not momentum, that keeps objects in motion. It... was a pun.)

Re:What I Want To See

[vidarh]

The "problem" isn't those who sometimes call themselves intelligent design advocates that accept evolution. Those people are basically saying "ok, we accept current science, we just don't accept it happened randomly, we think some supernatural being is behind everything that happens (through the laws of nature) or set things in motion at the start".

What they are stating isn't a theory, it's a philosophical/religious worldview - it's not testable or falsifiable in any way.

This is essentially the deist or pantheist/pandeist view, and calling it "intelligent design" is deceptive and just confuses the issue. Deism/pantheism/pandeism exists in many forms, and many of them are perfectly reconcilable with science, in that they are entirely about things that are outside the realm of what is covered by science.

The problem is those intelligent design advocates that refuse to accept the scientific process in general, and evolution in particular, and insist on discussing the matter in a way that has nothing to do with science because they either know they can't win a debate on fair premises, or because they simply don't understand what a scientific theory is or why science works the way it does.

Personally, one of my favourite argument against the intelligent design loonies is this: "We have plenty of observations that supports evolution, and if you are right, everything around us was created by God. Ignoring the scientific evidence means you are essentially claiming to know better than God what the right way for the world to work would be." (It tends to piss them off a lot, because most of them do have very specific ideas about how God would do things, and how the world should be, and have absolutely no interest in actually deferring those decisions to God... So much for humility)

That argument is close to the Jesuit approach to science, incidentally - the Jesuits have alway been very open to science based exactly on the idea that science is about exploring the world, and if you believe in God that means it is about exploring Gods creation, and doubting science would mean doubting the wisdom of Gods creation. Even as an atheist, that is an approach to religion I can respect.

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[malsdavis]

"Because no matter how many things science does explain, there will always be *something* it doesn't"

Indeed

Although the key addition to that statement which ID/creationist advocates fail to grasph is:

"Because no matter how many things science does explain, there will always be *something* it doesn't [yet explain]".

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[malsdavis]

"Holes in scientific knowledge do not prove science wrong. Holes in religious knowledge do not prove religion wrong."

I understand "scientific knowledge", but what on earth is "religious knowledge"?

Religion is about faith. Its about trusting in something which cannot be proved right or wrong. Trying to search for "religious knowledge" is only going to end in disappointment as it is either going to end inconclusivly or most probably with the eventual disproving of the "religious knowledge" (as occurred with the "religious knowledge" items of the world being flat, only several thousand years old, being created in 7 days, etc etc).

right....

[(-hrair-)]

Let's look at logic here. I think this is the correct statement being said here:

If bees don't fly, then intelligent design is not true.

Umm... that doesn't exactly make sense. It also seems that not many ever think about a big reason why intelligent design is a very acceptable theory: irreducible complexity. I believe that a book was written on this and other reasons (biochemical reasons) for a disbelief in evolution, entitled Darwin's Black Box. A link for the book on Amazon can be found here. Perhaps, this will open some minds here to the fact that intelligent design is a very legitamate argument. I don't think many people here really consider the bee thing to be much of a problem for intelligent design, anyway. It is obviously not true to say that intelligent design is false because we are understanding more and more things about the universe. Even if we knew everything about the universe (which is, of course, in defiance of philosphy), it does not neccesarily mean that God would not exist. That could be one of those discoveries. I hope some people will take the time to read Darwin's Black Box and several of the other books that are listed as "others were also interested in:" to realize, at the very least, that intelligent design is a very legitamate theory that is not as easily squashed as so many here seem to believe.

(-hrair-)

Re:right....

[vidarh]

I have never ever seen intelligent design stated in any way that is even close to be possible to consider a "legitimate" scientific theory. Why?

Because I have never seen it stated in a way that is:

• Testable. That is, that predictions can be drawn from the theory that can be experimentally verified. If I, for example, state that red balls fall faster than blue balls of the same mass and shape, that is a testable statement - from it we can draw the prediction that if we make two balls of the same mass and shape and drop them from the same height, the red ball should hit the ground first.
• Falsifiable. That is, at least some of the predictions are of such a nature that if the predictions prove to be wrong, the theory is not valid. If we drop the two balls mentioned above, and they both hit the ground at the same time, then the prediction is wrong, and as a result the theory is wrong.

Without those satisfied it is pointless to even discuss whether intelligent design is a legitimate scientific theory. It isn't. It's that simple.

The point of these requirements is that we can't generally prove conclusively that there can't be specific circumstances that a theory does not satisfactorily explain.

So we generally settle for the opposite: The more predictions and the more detailed they are, the easier they are to reproduce, and the less of an extent those predictions overlap with predictions made based on other theories, the greater the chance that we can prove the theory to be wrong if it is indeed wrong, by carrying out experiments that may fail.

A theory that is not stated in a way that meets those criteria have little value - if we can't make predicitions based on it, it is generally either because it is so vague as to be meaningless, or make claims about things that have no observable effect on our existence and so add nothing to our understanding of the world.

(I could, for instance, claim the universe is full of invisible red goblins that we can't hear or feel or sense in any way. You can't prove it, but neither can you disprove it. But such a "theory" would be pointless, as if they can't interact with our existence in any way it adds nothing to our understanding of our existence and doesn't affect us in any way. Most people would immediately dismiss such a "theory", but many of those same people refuse to see that most formulations of "intelligent design" have the same "qualities"...)

At best intelligent design is a loose hypothesis supported by a semi-random collection of arguments that haven't been formalised in any manner. The problem stems from the fact that there is no coherent single description of "intelligent design". Different people have very different interpretations. Combine that with ever-changing arguments as their specific claims about science gets shot down one by one, and you're as far from a proper theory as you can get.

As soon as someone present a clearly defined theory of intelligent design that fulfill the requirements mentioned above, then people will take it seriously as a scientific theory - even if only to prove it wrong.

If intelligent design proponents were serious about intelligent design being considered a real alternative to natural evolution, then they would have tried to present a real theory of intelligent design and adjusted it to account for failed predictions. However, the problem with that is that they know very well they would not be able to "win" on fair terms, so instead the arguments stay vague and misleading and carefully avoid any claims that are testable predictions.

So here is my challenge: State a theory of intelligent design that is testable and falsifiable. Do that, and I'll take you seriously.

Until then, you're just another kook that needs to read some basic material on the history and theory of science.

Re:right....

[taradfong]

So here is my challenge: State a theory of intelligent design that is testable and falsifiable. Do that, and I'll take you seriously.

Given an infinite lifespan, your reasoning makes sense. There would be no reason to waste time investigating God or communicating with him...you could wait as long as needed to see whether evolution or ID pan out to satisfy your scientific criteria. The risk of a post-death meeting with a disappointed maker who correspondingly chooses a less-than-ideal eternal disposition for your consciousness would be eliminated, and the reward would be a green light to live forever free of any spiritually-based rules or guilt in an elegant, eventually fully-understood universe. You would also have an unexpiring option to embrace God and hence, apart from the pesky possibility of Judgment Day prior to having it all figured out, you could have it all - eternity and Earthly certainty.

But a limited lifespan with a 100% chance of death changes things, especially since evolution inherently demands comparatively unimaginable amounts of time to witness and presumably simulate scientifically. Hence it would seem smart to assume God exists so as to secure a positive eternity. Even if you're wrong and God is a myth, it will be impossible to even regret it in your consciousness-free oblivion anyway.

So I say, rather than challenge God-believers to prove his incontrovertible existence via things like ID, why not instead just challenge God...if he can't make you believe no one can.

Re:right....

[vidarh]

But a limited lifespan with a 100% chance of death changes things, especially since evolution inherently demands comparatively unimaginable amounts of time to witness and presumably simulate scientifically. Hence it would seem smart to assume God exists so as to secure a positive eternity. Even if you're wrong and God is a myth, it will be impossible to even regret it in your consciousness-free oblivion anyway.

This argument is called Pascal's wager, and is wrong.

The problem is that you are assuming that the alternatives is no God or a God that would be satisfied by [insert random belief here]. However, you have no basis for 1) deciding which deity to believe in - in fact for many religions believing in the wrong religion may make you worse of than believing in "false" gods -, 2) knowing whether or not following a specific rule will put you in this Gods good graces or not, because you have no way of assessing whether the deity was truthful about its intentions (in other words, believing might even have the opposite result of your intentions - if "God" exists, he could very well have used faith as a test to reward those who choose not to believe), 3) knowing if faith is more important overall than your actions, etc.

(The wikipedia article has a much more extensive explanation of all the flaws of Pascal's wager)

In other words, whatever you believe in, you always risk dieing only to find that deity X is extremely unhappy that you believed in deity Y and think it's worth eternal damnation.

I would additionally contend that even if you "hit the right deity", you face the prospect that that deity might not appreciate it if you believe only to save your ass.

So personally I'd rather take the "risk" that behaving the way I believe is right for me will make me good enough that if I happen to be wrong and there actually is an afterlife and the deity in charge is good, that I will be rewarded for my actions and not punished for my lack of beliefs (if the deity in charge is evil there's no reason to assume that believing will be enough anyway - all bets are off).

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[Eradicator2k3]

"Pfft! What do these have to do with each other? Why do bees fly?"

And what the hell do they have in common with birds regarding sex. Is it because they both fly? Actually, I believe it's more than just the flying; I think it's the pollination (think hummingbirds) part people allude to when talking about putting a wabo-wabo in a hummina-hummina.

Or maybe I'm just insane.

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[corngrower]

there - indication of a location
their - indication of possession
they're - contraction of 'they are'

While they're getting the ready, put their picnic basket over there.

Learn it and use it.

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[incripshin]

I don't like how creationists go around saying that ID is true because there are gaps in scientific understanding. This does not, however, make ID false. I believe in ID, but not because there are gaps in scientific understanding. I believe in it because of what we know about science today.

In the biology class I had recently, my professor did not like ID very much. She said it was not a science because it was not testable, but went on to tell us all about the big bang theory and the origin of life. Go ahead and test that. On her part, it was illogical. These two theories have not been proven true, and so far have been impossible to prove. Yet she denounces one and puts forth the other for her agenda. But what I gathered is that there are almost an infinite number of improbabilities that had to be fulfilled just right for life to exist as it does now. I think that this strongly suggests ID, but of course does not prove it. ID can also be seen in physics & chemistry, too, but I don't have as much experience with that.

Things that suggest ID are the only basis for it. Nothing can prove it. It is philosophy and nothing more. It is not a what but a how or why. What is what happened. That can be evolution and the "big bang" (which I think is a scientific impossibility) and chimps evolving into humans or whatever: science. That's all fine. Science is not a how or why, but ID is. Nothing is wrong with the central meaning of ID (a guiding force behind all things physical), but something is definitely wrong with how it is explained and defended.

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[Mr. Joe Himself]

Dude word...i think it's sad that people devote so much time to shutting down each other (ie: intelligent design folks and science folks). When i read stuff like this, all i hear are children screaming "HA! I'm right, you're WRONG!"

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[a-singularity]

However, I'm sure a higher intelligence could have made bees with the ability to create worm holes and use their collective hive mind to hunt down intergalactic pollen throughout the universe rather than the mundane little beings that they are.

Omnipotence does not mean that nonsense is possible. People commonly attribute such things to God without realizing that combining words into statements of nonsense and implying that an omnipotent spirit should be able to achieve some nonsense is fallacy. AFAIK, wormholes require incredible amounts of energy that tiny bees living off of nectar -> honey probably can't produce.

Another common fallacy is present here. If you accept that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and all Good, it is likely nonsense to speak of what He 'could have made.' An all Good Creator - IMHO - must have made the best possible of all worlds, for anything else would hardly be all Good.

Jesus: Just a Myth

[Anonymous Coward]

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth -
Myths are generally narratives passed down traditionally intended to explain the universal and local beginnings ("creation myths" and "founding myths"), natural phenomena, inexplicable cultural conventions, and anything else for which no simple explanation presents itself. Not all myths need have this explicatory purpose, however. Myths are by definition sacred and usually involve a supernatural force or deity. Many legends and narratives passed down orally from generation to generation have mythic content.

Evolution is just a theory, Jesus is a myth, and ID is just a hypothesis until someone provides a falsifiable scientific test for it. That is, as long as you are using the generally accepted scientific definition of 'theory.'

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[jcaldwel]

Einstein who wanted to know God's thoughts constantly disregarded what people told him were already settled issues to unlock mysteries that are still not well understood today.

It is pretty well accepted that Einstein's references to God are more allegorical than literal.

"I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves. Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egoism, cherish such thoughts. I am satisfied with the mystery of the eternity of life and with the awareness and a glimpse of the marvelous structure of the existing world, together with the devoted striving to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the Reason that manifests itself in nature." [Albert Einstein, The World as I See It]

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[utuk99]

"Given two equally predictive theories, choose the simpler."

What is false about this? The first part of the sentence says that the two theories give the same results. If two theories give the same results, why would you choose the more complex one? That would be dumb.

The only people who do things like that are low level math teachers. That is because they like to make students suffer and don't understand math themselves.

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[Z34107]

Intelligent Design -- that idea that life was created by a Really Smart Thing, as opposed to life just randomly showing up -- is supporting by things being very complex, not by things being unknown.

True. The "things being unknown" part, however, is used not to prove Intelligent Design, but to disprove Evolution.

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[trytoguess]

I've always found it odd people would dislike ID because of the few people who interpret the bible in a ridiculous fashion. Most ID people I know akowledge science, but uses their various faiths to fill in the blanks of how it all began (universe, life, etc). To be fair, they could learn more about science, but I see nothing wrong with their faith.

Original CalTech Press Release

[rjthomas61]

This article, published 5 weeks ago by the CalTech PR office, is slightly better-written than the yahoo version.

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[ucahg]

Ummm....

Okay, so I'll admit it might just be me, but am I the only one who has no idea what the parent said?

It's not that I agree or disagree, its just I can't see at all what you are trying to say...

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[a-singularity]

For creationism to be "right" it needs to, for once, generate a testable, disproveable hypothesis and stop falling back on the old "anything we can't explain is God's will" argument.

First and foremost, God's will is for you to love him with all your heart, mind, and soul. Christian doctrine tells us that man has Fallen. Man commited the sin of pride, the cardinal sin, of prefering your own will to God's.

To address your statement: Creationism, in a Christian sense, mostly goes hand in hand with a belief in a Creator. You're asking for a 'testable hypothesis', which is science. Science is a method for learning about the world around us. Science cannot tell us about religion. They have been pitted against each other in modern culture but for no reason. They are not at odds. Faith in a Creator does not preclude participation in an experimental method to determine strongly supported theories of the universe. The method does not speak to things not open to experimentation in our world. It can't. Creationism is a belief, not a theory inferred from evidence. Your request is - as I understand it - nonsense.

There is no doubt that ID is the like. I do not support ID in science class, as it is not science. I do support science. I like science. If I were to throw out a problem with teaching particles to people evolution that science currently has no answer for, it would be that there has been observation of speciation and some circumstantial, 'Where else?'-type evidence for particles to people evolution. Speciation, however, is AFAIK always the mutation of the genetic material to less information, not more. Particles to people evolution requires observation and experimentation that show spontaneous generation of new genetic material. This is IMO, a bigger problem than how bees fly. This all just ties up my argument above, however, even this does not prove belief in a Creator is logically false. It just offers better evidence for particles to people evolution. As science always does, it tells us something about the world around us, but nothing of beyond it.

Yea right...

[DanAnderson26]

Everyone knows that God puffed out of existance over the BabelFish, not some stupid bee/bee-watcher deal.

Dan

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[Anonymous Coward]

Honestly, Einstein's theological views seem to have gone through changes sometime when before he left his devoted wife who saw him through some pretty thin times.

Still, at best that quote makes him a Deist. Its pretty well accepted that Einstein considered the universe to be intelligently ordered.

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[jimbolaya]

The arguement that anything we cannot explain must be wrong is just ignorant.

Not to mention that it gets the religious/creationists/intelligent design-proponents no where. The gist of their argument seems to be, "yeah, well, if we evolved from single cell organisms, where did those single cells come from, hmm?" "Oh, the big bang, huh? Well, where did THAT come from?" Of course, their answer would be God. Very well, but where did God come from them?

Both camps are equally unable to trace the origins of the universe infinitely far back. For much of the scientific community, the universe began with a immenseless dense point of mass. For the religious community, it begins with God. Until the creationists can convincingly tell me where God came from, they can't dismiss science simply because we can't tell them where that point of mass came from.

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[shaitand]

"What is false about this? The first part of the sentence says that the two theories give the same results."

No two theories give the same results. They only predict the current evidence with equal accuracy. The ultimate goal is NOT to get a theory that mimics all the data we can find, the ultimate goal is come up with a theory that is an exact match for the FACT of what is going on. That fact is no more likely to be the simpler theory than the more complex one. The goal of science is not to develop and disprove theories, the theories are a means on a path that should lead to discovering facts.

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[Darby]

There has never been anything proven incorrect about the bible.

Like I said, lay out the most important day in the entire religion without leaving out inconveninet inconsistent facts. It can't be done.

It isn't even internally consistent, let alone if you add in outside facts.

Also, don't you think that someone who devoted their life to following Christianity would know the facts of their own religion better than that of an interested bystander?

It would be great if that were true, but if Christians took an honest look at the history of their religion, there would be no more Christianity.

The history of reborn sun gods is ancient.
Far older than Christianity *or* the Christian god.
Those are simple basic facts that anybody with an interest in the subject would know.

Wait. Was something explained?

[gengee]

First let me admit I haven't read through this whole thread -- it's just too long. So forgive me if this has been addressed.

But where did the researchers explain the flight of bees? From reading the article -- and not their original work -- I'm struck by their utter lack of understanding of the problem. The observables of bee flight -- how fast their wings beat, their angles of attack, the amount of lift generated, has been understood for at least a decade, and I would presume even longer. What is not understood is the /aerodynamics/ of bee flight, and the /physical ability of the bee and it's nervous system to perform the feat/.

I imagine most folks have seen highspeed video of bee flight before. So what exactly is new here? Fine, the wing moves in a 90 degree arc. It's surely interesting to watch, but what are the /mechanics at work?/

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[Darby]

Proof like all things in life requires the people doing the proving and the people having something proved to them to accept some basic foundations and assumptions. Without accepting those basic assumptions, you can not prove anything.

Fair enough.
In mathematics, things are absolutely proven, but only within the framework set up for that purpose.
There is no framework for religion. The assumption that there is a god is the only piece of framework, and it adds no new information to any discussion.

So, there is still no proof, because the only thing to be proven has already been assumed.

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[dbucowboy]

Nothing new needs to be added to the Bible. It is a completed work. And just because we've figured out how something works does not in any way negate ID... Say I painted a painting and for a long time nobody could figure out why and how it looked the way it did. One day another artist figures out how I painted it and understands the technique. Does that discredit me as the artist and prove that the painting was produced any other way than through an artist? If anything it only solidifies the 'proof' of a creator.

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[Nate4D]

Like I said, lay out the most important day in the entire religion without leaving out inconveninet inconsistent facts. It can't be done.

It isn't even internally consistent, let alone if you add in outside facts.

Evidence please.

You've made the claim - under formal debate standards, it is now your job to uphold it. If you fail, it might seem to be implied that you can't do it.

How do they fly?

[123abc]

They flap their wings, but it would be nice to see some video with superimposed wingtip position and wing orientation traces in slow-mo and corresponding air fluid motion cartoons, etc.

Combative Journalism

[Darth_brooks]

Have we finally decided that all pieces of journalism have to devolve into the Foxnews/Air America "Today in blah XYZ Happened.....BECAUSE YOU FUCKING SUCK YOU LIBERAL PUSSY/RIGHTWING NAZI!!!!!!" format? The article stands on its own as an interesting science piece. We have a better understanding of something we didn't know before. rah rah us, go humanity. Do we really need to throw in some controversy-of-the-moment bull? Let's try some better headlines:

"Caltech studies of Bee flight may help rescue American Journalist kidnapped in Iraq."

"Can new information about Bee flight explain the Natalee Haloway disappearance?"

"Bee flight and the rising cost of natural gas, how it affects you!"

C'mon, can't we let some stories stand on their own for once? I'd kinda like to watch/read the news without a first year j-school hack trying to offend/outrage me via the AP.

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[ceoyoyo]

I think a frisbee is probably the simplest aerodynamic system imaginable. It's just an airfoil, and we know very well how they fly. You spin it for stability, but it would still fly (though it would be much less stable) if you just shot it out of something with no spin.

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[Darby]

Evidence please.

The Bible.

You've made the claim - under formal debate standards, it is now your job to uphold it. If you fail, it might seem to be implied that you can't do it.

I have asserted that it is impossible to reconcile the "facts" presented there.
Were it possible, it would fall upon you to do so.
It should be as easy as pie. After all, a perfect loving god put it there for you.

I'll even formalise it for you:

Read Matt 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, John 20-21, Acts 1:3-12 I Corinthians 15:3-8

Now, write a simple, consistent, chronological narrative of that one day *without ommitting one single biblical detail*

Sounds easy enough, after all, it's the one day upon which the entire religion completely relies.

knock yourself out, but you will fail it. utterly.

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[spectre_240sx]

Just because we understand something doesn't make it any less wonderful.

Uh, yes it does actually. Learning how something works inevitably takes the magic out of it. I don't wonder how sunsets happen because I know. I don't wonder how a microwave heats up my food or how my car drives down the road. www.howstuffworks.com told me how it all works, so the wonder is gone.

That being said, it doesn't necessarily strip the appreciation from any of those things. I still see beauty in a sunset and the starry night sky is still sublime to me.

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[lysergic.acid]

So you're saying that you believe that God created the earth through evolution? But the biblical creation story claims it was all created in 6 days. In any case, that has little to do with what is being argued. My point was that science and religion are fundamentally different cultural/social forces. The arguments against each are also fundamentally different. Scientists don't argue that religion is wrong because the bible doesn't explain how bees are able to fly. They argue that religious explainations for natural phenomena are false because they go against logic and observed evidence. That isn't the same as when religious fanatics say "you can't explain how the big bang happened so all knowledge based on science is wrong." The problem is the kind of attitude/thinking that religion imposes on people. When you teach people that to be good (in god's eyes) you have to suppress reason and rational thought and discourage skepticism and free thought, you end up with a following which is incapable of critical thinking. That's why there's no comparison when you put religious arguments against scientific ones.

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[HellYeahAutomaton]

Science has certain procedures and formalities, by which every detail must be checked until it can be declared as a fact.

So are you implying that religion, by not going through procedures and formalities is a more efficient bureaucracy?

Re:Religion is mostly static though

[rvandam]

Overgeneralizations are mostly static too. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophet lists at least 7 major (current) religions or belief systems (excluding cults) that believe in modern-day or future prophets. To the followers of these religions, the words of their prophets are every bit as prophetical and canonical as are the standard scriptural works: Bible/Koran/Talmud/etc. You can't judge all world religions by mainstream, American, Bible-thumping, "I have exorcised the demons!", Sunday-worshipping, Monday-cursing, tunnel-vision evangelical Christians. And several of those religions with modern-day/future prophets believe in some form of a creation (although not necessarily the set of doctrines you refer to when you use creationism as derogatory). I grew up in the South where the most racist people I ever met were black. Since then I find that some of the most bigoted are atheists.

This doesn't prove anything...

[russel.gauthier]

This is a really badly written comment by someone who doesn't understand the principles/arguments behind intelligent design. Intelligent design as a theory doesn't claim that the world is incomprehensible scientifically. In fact it points to the scientifically-verified complexity and order in the universe as suggesting the idea that there was a Mind that must have brought about such order, because otherwise the universe would be in relative chaos not order. Science could never prove or disprove such a theory--the complexity of how bees fly would only support their theory, not go against it :>). As to the nature of that Mind or even Minds, true intelligent design theory doesn't comment. This person was trying to start a flame war...but I guess that's how slashdot keeps its search position high :>).

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[Dirtside]

Do I think ID will be proven a sham? No, I don't.

Uh... ID is a sham by definition. The entirety of ID can be summed up in two short sentences:

"We think that evolution can't explain the diversity of life. Therefore, a deity must have caused it."

It's not a scientific hypothesis, scientific theory, or scientific anything. It's not science. And yet many people are trying to claim that it is science. It's not, and no amount of wordplay will ever change that.

Re:Religion is mostly static though

[lysergic.acid]

Overgeneralizations are mostly static too.

Que?

I said religion is mostly static, as in very little change occurs in religious teachings compared to other aspects of human culture. Often as culture progresses, religion struggles to keep up. And often when serious reforms are made to religious institutions, it is only caused by factioning, not by internal reforms. I use popular religion as an example because that's the most pertinent case (because it's popular). And I don't really know where you're going with your last two statements.

Won't someone think of the bees!

[opencity]

I saw the story and knew that the comments would be a (by now standard) flame war over ID.

What about the bees, people? I know TFA basically had no info beyond the ID flamebait, and google news doesn't reveal much - is there someone on slashdot who:
Has a subscription to PNAS?
and/or has enough fluid mechanics / biophysics to chime in
can resist the tug of the flamewar?

Now I'm thinking - dummy up a story like: George Bush suggests ID be taught using Microsoft Software and set some sort of comments record.

In a hopefully unrelated incident...

[Perdition]

Scientists at eBay race to find out what fleas buy!

Bees sue scientists over industrial espionage, claiming intellectual property rights on unexplained flying!

The folks at Delta can't explain why they're still flying!

The Flying Nun finally admits that she was gliding, thus, she claims, "I ain't been flying none!"

EVOLUTION: Just a Theory? Uhhhh

[Fei_Id]

Evolution is a FACT. Macro and Micro. There is so much scientific evidence to support it; its just a fact.

Evolution does not deal with HOW life came to be; it deals with how it evolved.

Right now, the MECHANICS of the system are what's up in the air; and in fact are the only arguments that the ID crew tries to poke at... "if we can't explain completely HOW the large variety of horses evolved over time, then its just too complicated to understand; there must be a designer behind it all." Completely ignoring the FACT that the evolution HAPPENED. We're still exploring HOW it did. We've got the proof that it exists; just not how it works.

Just how we once could watch birds fly but couldnt fly ourselves... or how the Meteor Crater in Arizona was REALLY caused by a meteor and not deep-earth shifting by volcanic forces that created a large sinkhole.

Things happen that we don't understand all the time. It doesnt change the facts that it DID happen; we just need to find the mechanics to fit the puzzle. Some of the crazier ID supporters think that if we can't easily find a solution; then it must be the hand of God.

And to the ID supporters that begin their passive-aggressive attacks about me being a heathen. I AM a Christian... I just happen to view God as a minimal interventionist. If He is so perfect, then he can touch one domino and make them fall in whatever pattern that He wishes. I grow tired of the fundamentalist Christian right that calls me either a Heretic or an unbeliever and tells me I'm going to hell because I don't believe the Bible word for word as its exact meaning.

Re:EVOLUTION: Just a Theory? Uhhhh

[16K Ram Pack]

I'm really not trying to start an argument here, but if you support evolution, how do you feel about things in the bible like Noah's Ark, Adam and Eve etc, which it seems to me would be in conflict with that.

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[syrce]

I totally agree with you. This article did not explain how bee's fly in any way. I'm curious if they really did explain it but the author of the article just didn't bother to report on that small tidbit of information. (Even though thats what the entire article was about) This article rather irritates me.

Scientists figure out something god designed

[Anonymous Coward]

Bees didn't evolve to fly, find me the first dang bee that sprouted wings, and passed the trait on.
I find it increadibly stupid when scientists claim they 'Discovered' something.
Just cause because a scientists figured out something that god design eons ago doesn't mean that it is evolution.

I don't know how a second floor toilet manages to not flood the bottom ones, so if I figure that out on my own does that mean that no one designed and I can take credit?

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[hobo sapiens]

the Bible cannot stand up to any rigor and shouldn't be compared to science.
I would half agree with you there. The Bible is not a scientific textbook. Does it stand up to rigor? Sure. Many have tried and failed to discredit the Bible on the basis of people or places mentioned in the Bible not having existed. In time, sufficient archeological evidence is uncovered which supports the Bible.

I could say that religion and science make terrible bedfellows. Further, science is a process and need not be proved.
Yeah, I will agree. Science and the Bible, however, are in agreement, a fact which you alluded to. It's man's bad understanding of the Bible that is at odds with Science. For example, does the Bible actually say that the Earth is the center of the universe? Of course not, and yet the Catholic church persecuted Galilleo for disproving the unfounded beliefs of the day. Blame the pope, the Catholic church, whatever, but that is not the Bible's fault. It burns me up when people try and discredit the Bible just because some half baked lunatic who claims to represent God says something stupid. This whole ID flap is nothing more than a political device anyhow, probably with a bunch of crooked politicians behind it. Now, you want to look for a bad pair, there it is: Science and Politics.

Personally, I believe that God created life on Earth, but not because science has not "proven" evolution or abiogenesis or whatever else you can think of. I believe because the more I learn about nature, I am awed by the order of it all. The ID people have it all wrong -- the more we learn about nature just seems to prove that God had a hand in things. Think about it -- countless brilliant minds have devoted entire lifetimes to understand the world around us. And then to say that it's all just a byproduct of chaos with no other causality? It just doesn't make sense to me.

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[tftp]

In other words, if at a dinner table you are offered to choose between a spoon and a Rube Goldberg machine which functions as a spoon, take the spoon.

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't get it - why does belief in God and thathe created the world automatically preclude any form of science?!
The word Intelligent Design to me means that the designer was intelligent - it took scientist all this time to find the answer to this question, so it's obviously been quite a challenge -- why does this mean bees were not created?

When looking at a program that works, then viewing the source code and not understanding it, does this mean the program was "written" haphazardly and doesn't have a creator? Of course not, that would be idiotic. All it proves is that I do not yet have the knowledge of the program writer.

adsf

[baudbarf]

"The scientists said the findings could lead to a model for designing aircraft that could hover in place and carry loads for many purposes such as diaster surveillance after earthquakes and tsunamis."

With that said, if a bee's design isn't intelligent, then I don't know what is!

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[sasami]

But hasn't the purpose of religion always been to fill in the gaps in human understanding

Nope. That's a myth. ;-) Religion serves a great many purposes, of which explaining the natural world is sometimes a small part. In Christianity, specifically, it is almost no part. On the other hand, Christianity spends a lot of time talking about the purpose of life, about which science has little to say.

(albeit with unfounded/illogical assumptions)?

I'll infer that you consider the existence of God to be the primary illogical or unfounded assumption. After all, a "rational" person should never believe in anything until it is proven, right? Except rational people believe in plenty of things that are not proven, foremost being Reason itself. Another example would be the existence of the universe. Oh, does that sound silly? Let me rephrase it, then: the belief that we are not living in the Matrix. These beliefs cannot be proven. They are axioms. You can accept or reject an axiom, but not through pure reasoning.

God is an axiom.

Our notion of a "rational," "intelligent," "educated" person is of one who accepts the axioms of Reason, the axiom that the universe exists, but not the axiom that God exists. This is an arbitrary cultural distinction, and has nothing to do with being rational, intelligent, or educated.

When you can't explain something with reason (backed by empirical observations when appropriate), then you turn to theological explanations which rely on mythos rather than logos.

I wonder who you're referring to. Certainly not most of the Christians I know (although being from the Northeast I don't personally know too many raving fundamentalists). Did you know, by the way, that (contrary to the delightfully articulate but sometimes ill-informed Thomas Paine) Christianity is directly responsible for the scientific method? Prior to the writings of Aquinas, scientific thought was governed primarily by Platonic and Aristotelian worldviews, which specifically deny the reliability of physical experimentation.

I thought it quite interesting that the researcher quoted in TFA feels the significance of his research is to show that "we can use science to understand the world around us." Christians originated modern science, and it's silly to see both sides of this idiotic non-debate forgetting that fact.

But with the advent of science and philosophy, religion has become an antiquated relic of the past.

Since we have already established that religion is perfectly agreeable with science, we will address your other assertion: what philosophies, exactly, have effectively displaced religion? Again, as above, philosophy stems from prior assumptions -- one of which is, again, the existence of God. Perhaps you were not aware that there are theistic and nontheistic philosophies? In recent years, Alvin Plantinga has done much work in establishing theism in the forefront of philosophical scholarship. To pin your hopes on philosophy is merely to work off of beliefs you have already assumed.

--
Dum de dum.

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[Anonymous Coward]

No. Bad comparison. The Flat Earthers aren't numerous and influential enough to pass laws or influence education policy. Therefore it would be silly to bother refuting them. That's not the case with the creationists/"intelligent design" people.

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[Jacked]

there - indication of a location
their - indication of possession
they're - contraction of 'they are'

While they're getting the ready, put their picnic basket over there.

Learn it and use it.

Heh, that's funny. Looks likes youz lerned it reel good! LOL, sorry, I just couldn't resist!

Evolution and ID are different...

[rdean400]

Evolution explains the mechanism for how things got to the way they are, but not the why. The why is left as a question of philosophy.

Intelligent Design accounts for the why but not the how. The how question is left as a matter of faith.

One thing I find interesting is the notion that Evolution is mutually exclusive of religion. It's not the case. Many religious people believe that God would either a) design all species to not need to adapt, or b) give species the means to adapt to changing environments through mutation, with the course of mutation either guided by God or left to run according to its own rules.

To put it more simply: science seeks to explain the rules. Religion seeks to explain how the rules came into being. The concepts are not mutually exclusive.

Wrong IMO

[aepervius]

Do you believe in purple invisible dragon ? Why Not ? Why believing in the existence of God and not a purple invisible Dragon and why believe in Alien ? Personally I tend to say, if the existence of an entity is not prooved, and it is not needed to explain any phenomena, then I take it as non existent by default. There is NO REASON at all to take it as existant for default or even presuppose its possible existence. The list include but is not limited to :


- Angel
- God
- Invisible Purple Dragon
- Same as above but black, blue, and green (not yellow. No inviusible dragon would be yellow)
- Unicorn
- Faerie
- Daemon
- Genie
- Uncorrupt Politics. Ooops strike this one off.
- Enorm Dinosaurus in small lake in england
- Saskash
- Yeti
- Chimera
- Santa

If you start to presupose the existence of ANY of those entity, then better be prepared to say why, and to offer proof. Else you are no better than a 3 year old believing that Santa Claus come every 24th-25th midnight.

Oh and before you start the argument of "many people believe", well many people used to believe in other gods, until the next one supplented them. "Million of people believing something 8000 years long can't be wrong" yes they can. Think slavery for example.

Re:Wrong IMO

[Aldric]

"- Daemon

Easy! Simply run ps -ae

Re:Wrong IMO

[meringuoid]

There is NO REASON at all to take it as existant for default or even presuppose its possible existence. The list include but is not limited to - Enorm Dinosaurus in small lake in england

Quite right. Absolutely no reason to believe those nonsensical stories about dinosaurs in English lakes.

They're all in Scotland, everyone knows that...

Re:Wrong IMO

[PortHaven]

"Do you believe in purple invisible dragon ? Why Not ? Why believing in the existence of God and not a purple invisible Dragon and why believe in Alien ?"

[[[
Common argument, and falls under the "sphagheti monster fallacy". Which states that I believe the "sphagheti monster" created the universe. Since I can neither prove nor disprove this. Your scenario regarding your God creating the universe is equally as ludicrous.

However, there are actually major significant differences in that one is "specific" and the other "general", one is taking from the fact that there are observations of complexity and related questions that can be answered by an intelligent influence. We are not endeavoring to say that the spaghetti monster, Jehovah, Allah, or Bob made the world.

Rather, noting the mere observational simularity between intelligent programming as done by man, and the similarities in natural programmed elements. And the fact that there is a designer in the first, maintain an open possibility that there might be a designer for the latter.

Now, do I believe in the purple invisible dragon. Not personally. But if you showed a red invisible dragon I would be much more inclined to believe in a purple one.
]]]

Regarding your list: Will I state that I specifically believe in such...no. But will I agree that there are yet fantastical creatures still undiscovered on earth. Some of which might have led to such interpretations. And will I further agree to the possibility, that as there is life on earth that there might be life elsewhere. Therefore, there might be amazing creatures on other worlds the likes of which we have yet to even concieve....and perhaps a few not to far from some of those descriptions. Perhaps.

So if you were to apply it in general. We know lizard like creatures flew the sky once. We knew large lizard like creatures walked the earth. Perhaps, one day we might find a large lizard like creature with a very long neck and perhaps a very long tail. We have found teradactyls with long tails. And we've seen geese & other birds with long necks.

Will they be purple or invisible. Unlikely. I've never met an invisible animal. Ah...but I've seen some chameleons which blend into their habitats but can be bright red and purple when angry or expressive.

So, no...I don't really believe in invisible purple dragons per say. I'm not opposed to purple reptiles. Nor chameleon reptiles. Nor even the potential discovery of some prehistoric dragon like reptile.

But, no one is asking you to believe in the world created by the 7th re-incarnation of Bhudda. Or Jesus Christ! Nor are they even demanding that you believe that the evolutionary procedures you believe in were products of design. They're simply asking for YOU to stop saying "there is no way the world is round"...let them research and perhaps they'll find and if not...well...how many physicists have died searching for "Unified Field Theory"....???

- The Saj

Further regarding your lists...might I add Hobbits?

Hmm...as I recall, Slashdot just recently had a post on the seeming discovery of Hobbit like humanoids.

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[lysergic.acid]

I'll infer that you consider the existence of God to be the primary illogical or unfounded assumption. After all, a "rational" person should never believe in anything until it is proven, right? Except rational people believe in plenty of things that are not proven, foremost being Reason itself. Another example would be the existence of the universe. Oh, does that sound silly? Let me rephrase it, then: the belief that we are not living in the Matrix. These beliefs cannot be proven. They are axioms. You can accept or reject an axiom, but not through pure reasoning.

Axioms, ofcourse, cannot be proven to be true in themselves, they can only be proven to be consistent with other axioms within the same theoretical model/system. Generally, mathematical axioms are true by definition so that it's not necessary to prove them to be true. Also, empirical science doesn't assert that any knowledge is absolute, and it's still accepted that cause and effect relationships cannot be proven to be absolutely true simply through emperical observations (you may see B happen after A 100 times in a row, but that still doesn't prove that on the 101st time B won't happen before A). Nonetheless, I'll give you that contemporary math/science/philosophy are still based on fundamental assumptions. However, science/math/philosophy try to minimize the number of assumptions you have to make, and basic assumptions are recognized as assumptions and areas of uncertainty. Scientific knowledge is provided as the most plausible explaination.

But the reason I consider religious beliefs to be irrational is because they are not founded on logic and reasoning, they are presupposed to be true based on religious faith. If you're a Christian, this includes the belief that there is a God, as portrayed by the bible, and that everything else written in the Bible is also true. Well, why do you believe in God? Because the Bible says I should. Why do you adhere to the Bible? Because it was written by God. You would not be able to get away with that kind of circular reasoning in science or philosophy or math. It's illogical to create such meaningless and arbitrary tautologies.

Lastly, Christianity is not responsible for the scientific method. Christian scientists have certainly contributed to the method (partly because in the past almost every European had to be a Christian due to cultural factors), but nothing in Christian religious doctrines was used to provide the basis for the scientific method. The scientific method actually originates from Greece.

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why are science news being posted on Slashdot? What do you (we) guys know about science?
Give a news item about GPL, Linux or some insane open-source news or anti-Microsoft news item and you guys will be all over it, at least showing off that you know some bits and pieces.
But SCIENCE? Are you guys even qualified to talk about these things? Simply because you are all self-proclaimed nerds?

I mean you basically sit in front of your computer and play games or do some *nix stuff, does that make you aware of science? Somebody clear me up - with one good reason why science news should be posted here...

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[Onan]

I'll infer that you consider the existence of God to be the primary illogical or unfounded assumption. After all, a "rational" person should never believe in anything until it is proven, right? Except rational people believe in plenty of things that are not proven, foremost being Reason itself. Another example would be the existence of the universe. Oh, does that sound silly? Let me rephrase it, then: the belief that we are not living in the Matrix. These beliefs cannot be proven. They are axioms. You can accept or reject an axiom, but not through pure reasoning.

Hint: any time you find yourself inferring or rephrasing someone else's argument, you're most likely just creating a strawman, whether intentionally or not. That certainly appears to be the case here.

If one wishes to be pedantic, very close to nothing whatsoever is provable. Your Matrix reference is indeed the modern-day pop culture example thereof. A closer to canonical example would be Descartes contemplating whether it was possible to prove that anything--the world, his existence, his memories, other people--actually existed, or whether it was possible for them to all be artifacts of a malevolent demon that was intending to deceive him. (Hence the "I think, therefore I am" line that everyone loves to misunderstand. He wasn't asserting his purpose in life, he was listing the sum total of everything in the universe that could ever actually be proven to be true.)

But while this is all a fun philosophical and semantic game, it's disingenuous to suggest that because nothing can be absolutely proven, all things are at equal levels of non-proof. I absolutely cannot prove that the sun will rise tomorrow, but I can present some historical data and an astronomic theory that make it a far more reasonable assumption than the converse. "The sun will rise tomorrow" and "the sun will not rise tomorrow" are both assumptions, but that doesn't mean that they're on equal footing, or that we should just throw up our hands and refrain from predicting either one.

So no, I do not expect a rational person to refute gods because they cannot be absolutely proven to be true. I expect a rational person to refute gods because their existence would be contrary to a larger and more consistent set of evidence about the cosmos.

As some bloke name John McCarthy appears to have put it: "An atheist doesn't have to be someone who thinks he has a proof that there can't be a God. He has only to be someone who believes that the evidence on the God question is at a similar level to the evidence on the werewolf question."

Re:None of this has anything to do with ID!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

showing that some group of idiots "proof" of God is rediculous doesn't prove that God doesn't exist. For some reason, even the most scientific people keep forgeting the fundamentals of debate: disproving a defense of an idea doesn't disprove the idea. period.

ID?

[wagchewy]

For the many people here bashing ID and claiming they are just looking for flaws in evolution to prove God exists:

1) you obviously have not read ID, ID is not creationist theory w/ a new cover

2) ID IS based on mathmatical LAW! Not holes in evolution, it is based on decades
      of scientific research

3) ID is very specificaly not Christian!-if ID supporters wanted you to believe
      in the Christian God they would be pushing Creationist Theory on schools, it
      only looks like just christians because thats what most of our country is! ID
      could be used to support any religion with a beginning of the world story
      involving some individual or group of "god(s)"

4) THE BEES!!! the argument was not that we do not know how bees fly, it was that
      there is no evolutionary perpose for those wings, like eyes, there is no
      reason to evolve the muscle structure and the wings themselves unless the
      system began in a complete form

5) I thought that everyone knew that bees flew using telekinesis?!

Re:Religion is mostly static though

[Pantero Blanco]

A great deal of fundamentalist Christians also believe in modern and future prophets, especially if you count the ones that are supposed to show up before the End Times. Last I checked, part of Falwell's faction (which in my opinion fits what you described) is even trying to start a "School of Prophecy".

As to whether or not things are supposed to be static after Revelations, there's contention. I figure it's more of a "move on to the next level" event, and that seems to be my church's position. A static existence is pointless.

"Everyone's level sixty. Now what?"

Hohum!

[BigBadBus]

Oh dear, if this refers to the old chestnut "bees are aerodynamically unable to fly", an old Fortean Times did some investigation into this and found that the original back-of-the-envelope calculations by some scientist was wrong, but people ignored his retraction. Theres probably something on snopes about this.

Re:ID? What are they talking about?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're mixing up "ID proponent" with "creationist". Feel free to call them the same thing, but they're not. They share some beliefs in common. They disagree about certain things. More importantly, human understanding is not a part of Intelligent Design theory.

It's controversial BS designed to make an unremarkable article more jazzy.

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[Anonymous Coward]

I also don't like the summary because it almost grants the notion that science has to have an answer for absolutely everything or else creation must be true. Really, that's the line of argument that creationists use, that there can be no unexplained mechanism or gap in the fossil record, and if there is it's evidence that evolution (or whatever) can't account for reality.

That's how religion got started in the first place. Science only had explanations for some things, and "God" was invented as an explanation to the rest.

The problem the ID people face now is that science is so close to explaining everything, that religion is getting useless. They really have to search to find something that isn't explained, where in the old days, wondering why the sky didn't fall down was reason enough to need a god. ID people are proof that religion is getting pointless, and they know it, that's why they search so hard to find the last little holes, and are so aggressive about getting schools to teach ID before the students have enough knowledge to laugh at them.

As I sit here at my "computer" on the "internet"

[palindromic]

I can't help but laugh at how silly the idea of "intelligent design" is. Now that we understand how bees can fly, how the brain works is totally next. I bet it has to do with some kind of "exotic" mechanism. We can use science to understand the world around us!

Am I the only one with deja vu?

[tod_miller]

Didn't we already know how bees flew?

Didn't I watched a documentary talking about how people thought it should be impossible but thet filmed them etc and worked it out?

Another feather in my hat that this intelligent design community is a front to put up weak, pointless arguments against science, that scientists can knock down easily, and feel all superior.

I don't trust ID, as far as I could gather from the court sessions, they are all on the same side - FUD.

Science is the new religion, buy our products, give us money, don't question our motives.

Just like the good old days.

please type the word in this image: points
random letters - if you are visually impaired, please email us at pater@slashdot.org

Re:Am I the only one with deja vu?

[Phase Shifter]

Didn't we already know how bees flew? Didn't I watched a documentary talking about how people thought it should be impossible but thet filmed them etc and worked it out?

Certainly, a decade or two ago. Then it seems that /. posted a stroy everal years ago, and another two years after that, then another a week or two back, and now this.
Isn't it obvious the increasing frequency of proofs that bees can fly is evidence we're headed towards a singularity? Will we see Ray Kurzweil predicting sentient spacefaring nanobees, and Bill Joy calling for relinquishment of honey?

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[koekepeer]

thank you for making the effort. now i would like to hear the response from grandparent.

It also spun the ID argument backwards

[leonbrooks]

ID arguments are like disk heads and helicopter blades. They don't work so well if you spin anything up backwards.

This is why so many baptised and confirmed Atheists like the original author keep thinking that they've beaten ID, then get all shocked and surprised, again and again, when ID continues right along. They've beaten nothing but a straw man. They've destroyed the foundations of the wrong building.

ID's premise is not that there're things science can't explain, but that there're specific things which science has explained... are impossible. Nevertheless, they exist.

My own take is that both ID and popular Evolutionism fail miserably through not going far enough. If ID can tell that intervention happened, then surely they can tell us something about how? Or why? It's all a bit too ineffable for me. Likewise, popular Evolution is just laced with references to insensate bacteria "striving" toward this or that goal, or "developing" some feature or other -- that is, the bits of PE which aren't simply unadulterated fairy stories. There's no workable driving mechanism, either, random mutations just aren't cutting the mustard.

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[Anonymous Coward]

As some bloke name John McCarthy appears to have put it: "An atheist doesn't have to be someone who thinks he has a proof that there can't be a God. He has only to be someone who believes that the evidence on the God question is at a similar level to the evidence on the werewolf question."

Way more people have seen werewolves than God (at least the christian god).

Re:Most evolutionists don't try to legislate moral

[Anonymous Coward]

They want everyone to see the same world they do and to behave under the same moral guidelines. Wanting this is natural, but attempting to achieve it though physical or legal force is both wrong and futile.

Worse, "morality" laws don't help get what you want ("you" being whoever wants these laws), because then people will start to let go of their internal moral compass. Why bother thinking for yourself about whether or not something is right when you can just consult the law?

It shows their ignorance of their own religion, because anchient Israel was just such a society. If God cannot devise a set of laws that will cause man to live morally, what makes you think you can?

Intelligent Design

[typical]

The question of whether God exists or not, is, frankly, not something that can be proven one way or another. For any process that you observe in the universe, I can say "Yeah, but God made that happen." Thus, ID cannot be proven one way or another.

On the *other* hand, you can definitely show that ID is not a scientific theory.

Furthermore, science never purports to tell us truth. Science simply says that given the assumption that we can use induction on reality, in the long run, we will wind up with a more effective predictive model. Science is actually a very practical thing.

Since the human mind is pretty much inherently based on the use of induction -- your brain learns things based on past stimuli and experiences, you're kinda stuck living with the assumption that induction works. Given that, assuming that you're reasonably rational (i.e. not thinking about God isn't going to cause you to commit suicide or any extreme cases like that) you probably want to use science to determine your model of the world, and act based on that model.

So you can assume that there is or isn't a God, but it shouldn't affect how your live your life. :-)

The best argument for ID is that maybe people *aren't* best off being rational -- maybe having a better predictive model *isn't* helpful. Maybe a person that believes that there's a God upstairs has a better chance of survival than one that doesn't -- say, for instance, that a kid wants to commit suicide after his mother dies, but being told that she's in an afterlife prevents him from killing himself.

The problem is that this doesn't go over really well with ID advocates that I've talked to, because they inherently need to believe that they are right for this to work, so they can't *realize* that they're being irrational. It's hard to really truly believe in something just for the theraputic benefits of that belief.

What's your point?

[ThinWhiteDuke]

I'm trying to make sense of your post.

Maybe your point is that science has not disproved god. Obviously the vast majority of people with a brain agree with you on this. But that's a little offtopic. The subject of this decision is science vs ID, not science vs god.

Maybe your point is that schools should teach aliens together with ID in science class. In that case, I think that the vast majority of people with a brain will tell you : "No way".

Re:What's your point?

[PortHaven]

Might point is the term ID is very broad. Covers 6-day "creationists" to "evolution by intelligence".

The first might be out of the scope of science for the most part, but I find the latter to be addressable in the confines of science as evolution.

DNA coding, influence of programming or random formation. There is not a thread of evidence that I know of that truly supports that such DNA formation was purely random. Oh, sure, the chemical reactions can occur. In fact, there have been experiments in labs to show such. Please note, all of these experiments add credence to "intelligent" influences. (In said cases it was human intellect as opposed to a possible superior intellect.)

Funny thing, I.D. is often accepted by multitudes if we just call the intelligence aliens. (See "Mission to Mars")

Why not believe in macroevolution?

[typical]

I'm a firm believer in microevolution, but not macroevolution.

Why?

We know that nucleotides get flipped, that mutations happen. We know that this causes physical changes.

The only requirement to buy into macroevolution is that you believe that enough of those flips can result in two critters different enough that they can't succesfully breed with each other any more. Surely you don't have an objection to that? I'd have a hard time believing in the non-existence of macroevolution -- I don't see why it *wouldn't* happen.

If that is what is know to be true, then how did matter form in the beginning?

That doesn't answer the question. How did God form? Same answer applies to matter.

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[Albinoman]

Think about it -- countless brilliant minds have devoted entire lifetimes to understand the world around us. And then to say that it's all just a byproduct of chaos with no other causality? It just doesn't make sense to me.

To believe that we are an accident you have to remember that there are billions upon billions of stars out there in an amount of area that is impossible to fathom. There are also some very basic molecules that we consider to be organic, and given enough chances (billions of stars over billions of years) and the proper setting theyll combine self-replicating, more complex forms. The odds finally worked out in the Sol system. It's not very romantic, but it's the truth in my head at least.

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[old man moss]

The New Scientist had a more detailed article on this last month. It also has a link to an AVI of a bee flying and a reference to the full journal paper.

Sorry... are we talking about the same cosmos?

[leonbrooks]

This is the place where science is completely wrong about the formation of really obvious things like craters, has no idea why the brightest object in the sky has a cool interior and blindingly hot atmosphere, can't explain why comets do stuff like sit way off-centre in their coma or emit material in thin jets, and wildly mis-predicts the positioning of heavily red-shifted objects?

The cosmos where we, half of the bats (but not the other half!) and a few things like octopi all have eyes that use the same mechanism? Where most of the basic body plans appear to have been all sorted out in a geological eyeblink? Where the very simplest organisms require large numbers of horrificly complicated organic molecules for their mere existence?

Just to triple-check: you speak of a cosmos containing a planet with tens of thousand of square kilometers of inverted strata? With continents standing proud that we know will be eroded to sea level in around ten mega-years? Which has totally homogeneous, kilometers-thick soft monoliths like Uluru just standing around in the sunshine?

Surely we can't be talking about the same place here?

Religion and practicality

[typical]

Why is it so hard for non religious scientists to acknowledge that we've not discovered all the answers, and indeed, may never do so?

I don't think it is -- we *know* that it's impossible for us to find all the answers.

What gets people up in arms is not those that argue that ID is possible -- I suspect that any philosopher is going to tell you that ID, while not provable, is certainly possible. The problem is that a bunch of folks that want to use the public schools to indoctrinate people to join their organization want to convince people to act contrary to science, as a result of admitting that ID is possible.

ID is not a scientific theory. It is not falsifiable. It is a question of metaphysics. Every person should say "yeah, there could be a Creator". However, those people should also be equally willing to say "yeah, he could be a flying spaghetti monster". This fact shouldn't make you act an iota different in the real world, because you've got no evidence for there being a God any more than you do there being a devil playing at being God. And most of the folks who want to put ID into public schools are not trying to present ID in this very abstract and metaphysical sense, but as something that has practical impact for people. They're trying to take a very, very weak philosophical argument, and parlay it via some irrationality and marketing into a recruitment system for their organization. That's what folks like me dislike.

And it gets worse when those people try to then use their organization to do things like oppose genetic research or push to cut funding of AIDS-fighting organizations because they promote condom use. Now that weak philosophical argument, given a little marketing and a bit of gullibility, begins producing real-world problems for the rest of the folks out there.

Re:Most evolutionists don't try to legislate moral

[Anonymous Coward]

love, no matter what! Love, because NO ONE is without sin. Love because only GOD can pass judgement upon others. I got that out of the book by reading it. I'm afraid most Christians have not.
The bible today is like a thousand year old game of chinese whispers - the story changes every time it is told.
In the old testoment, god was a being to be feared, who would smite you for the slightest offence.

Re:Most evolutionists don't try to legislate moral

[typical]

The good Christians I've met are the ones who actually have enough faith in the bible to share it with others intead of trying to get it passed as law.

I knew a Lutheran pastor once who said that any belief that can't stand up to questioning isn't worth believing in.

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[Anonymous Coward]

the more archaeology is done, the more the Bible's historical accuracy is validated.

Personally, I would like to know what archaeological findings have proven the Bible accurate.

As I recall the Bible says the world is around 6000 years old, Archaeology puts the arrival of Homo Sapien at around five to seven mya. Along with the creation of Humans, there is the location problem. The Bible states that humans were created in Mesopotamia; the two most common theories currently place the arrival of humans in either North East Africa or in Central Asia.
The only possible points I can think of in the Bible that Archaeology has verified was the walls of Jericho; which did not even fall for the reasons the Bible gave, and the Tower of Babel(hint: nothing special it's a Ziggurat), its existence not the events that occurred there. Along with many of the exiles and wars mentioned within its pages.

Though these points prove that some of the events happened, there are still more that have no proof.
In essence, the mundane events are proven, not the miraculous ones.

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[Anonymous Coward]

However, the more archaeology is done, the more the Bible's historical accuracy is validated.

And invalidated as well. It depends on which part you are talking about. Moses and the Egypt and Exodus story are known to be completely fabricated as well as most every story pre David and Soloman.

Also in the New Testament, the Bethlehem story is known to be just a story as well. Ofcourse the Gospels are known to be contradictory and lack authenticity anyway. More emphasis should be placed on Paul, who's books were actually written by him.

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[Anonymous Coward]

I have moded you up interesting, not because I agree with your thoughts but because I got tired to see (at level 3) only the "Scientific" side of the arguments. I think both sides (I.D. and Science) arguments (comments) should be visible.

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[xtracto]

The history of reborn sun gods is ancient.
Far older than Christianity *or* the Christian god.

That reminds me something I was discussing with a friend after seeing the "last temptation of Christ" movie and reading Anne Rice book "Blood and Gold" (about Vampire Marius life).

We where wondering why did a religion from a poor, non important country/place like Israel (please correct me if I am wrong in the facts) or the Jews (in some way a minority) came to conquer the world?, If you see all the religions "available" at that moment in the history, you have the Greek gods, the Roman Gods, the Nordic Gods, Egyptian gods and the pre-American gods (Mayan, Aztecs, etc) or one of the oriental religions.

Being (on that time) the Romans the most powerful civilization, its religion is the one that *should* have dominated humankind (at least, being spread). In contrast with the Catholic religion (I am not sure if Catholic is the generic term of that religion) other religions where in better arming with nature, some of them did not claimed that God(s) put us in the world to use all the other organisms to our will until we spend all the natural resources. Some of them even taught that the human is a part of the whole nature system.

Also, unlike Catholicism, other religions were not as "machista" (don't know the exact word in English) as it is. If you read the bible or study (as I did) 9 years in a catholic school you will realize that this religion is focused on men (masculine) and Women tends to be just something men owns in order to continue his legacy.

Now, Catholic religion principles are staying behind our society's principles. It is interesting to see how (like with a constitution written 100 years ago for our today society) Catholics are patching the basic ideas (like the amendments or appendixes, btw I am talking about Mexican constitution, not American, that is a flame war for another thread) in their basic rules book (the bible).

My opinion is that it would have been better if other religion (like Greek or Roman) was the one spread around the world.

P.s. I am really sorry for my great engrish, I hope I don't make anyone blind with it :)

This shows a misunderstanding of ID

[russel.gauthier]

This is a really badly written comment by someone who doesn't understand the principles/arguments behind intelligent design. Intelligent design as a theory doesn't claim that the world is incomprehensible scientifically. In fact it points to the scientifically-verified complexity and order in the universe as suggesting the idea that there was a Mind that must have brought about such order, because otherwise the universe would be in relative chaos not order. Science could never prove or disprove such a theory--the complexity of how bees fly would only support their theory, not go against it :>). As to the nature of that Mind or even Minds, true intelligent design theory doesn't comment. This person was trying to start a flame war...but I guess that's how slashdot keeps its search position high :>).

Re:This shows a misunderstanding of ID

[praxis]

Out of simple laws can occur complex phenomena. Pointing out that complex phenomena occur does not mean that it must have come about by a force other than simple laws.

Re:This shows a misunderstanding of ID

[russel.gauthier]

True, but what ID people will point out, is that the complexity of the thing being produced is unimaginably complex and well-designed and couldn't be produced within a reasonable amount of time going on chance alone. The point I was trying to make wasn't that anyways, it was that the author felt that the theory was somehow linked to the idea the science can't understand the universe as is. ID theory doesn't really depend upon whether scientific theory can understand the universe...in fact the more complex and understanding we have of it, the more they'll point to the FACT that the universe isn't simple, but has a complex design--hence designer(s).

Now we know everything

[Samarian Hillbilly]

Gee, now we know everything, I guess it's impossible to come up with any other mysteries that haven't been solved by our allmighty and divinely inspired scientists. Now at least there will be no more debates over the limits of knowledge and possible explanations for how DNA evolved the ability to evolve, all is known

Ok then, how 'bout this...

[VON-MAN]

"The mere belief that a God doesn't exist, is a religion"

Ok, I find it exceedingly unlikely God or any god ever existed.

So, does this sound like a religion?

I've got this feeling that YOU should admit, wordplay does not equal philosophy.

Contradictions, contradictions

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh puh-leeze. The Bible is one of the least rigorous documents on the face of the earth.

Eg: How was Moses supposed to have predicted the place of his burial (Deuteronomy)? Or how about Genesis where there are two contradictory stories about how and why light was separated from darkness? Day and night appear before the moon and sun (Gen 1:4-5) on the first day. And then it happens again on the 4th day (Gen 1:16-19)! But then, on the 3rd day, vegetation appears (Gen 1:11-12) before the sun and moon!!

And is a 'day' as defined in Genesis a day as we understand it? Days are defined before the appearance of the sun and moon so probably not. How long are these days? Could vegetation last this length without light? Any rigor there??

Let's have a look at the 6th day (Gen 1:26-27): "...in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them..." but Gen 2:4-8 says: "...in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens ... there he put the man who he had formed." Ah hah! Not the 6th day then. In fact, it is not clear whether Adam was created on the 1st, 3rd or 6th day on careful reading. Yet more careful reading implies that the man and woman created on the 6th day were not Adam and Eve!

(On a minor point, when Adam appears, how old is he? Old enough to have sex with Eve later on by Biblical accounts so the sex organs, sperm and all that were around before the arrival of Eve. Which leads to a whole bunch of other questions and contradictions).

And what's that curious thing in Gen 3:22: "And the LORD God said, Behold the man is become as one of us...". Who is this us?

We've only just started on the first few pages. And let's not get into the Flood or anything. Simple calculations show the laughable 'rigor' of that story.

Let's move on a bit. Have you ever carefully counted the number and names of the apostles? There's 11 only in the Acts of the Apostles and Luke has two Judas (Iscariot and brother of James) unlike Mark etc.

The Bible is an old story book cobbled from the start from Egyptian creation myths and attempts to justify slaughter and mayhem by a relatively small bunch of people wandering around hot countries close by Africa. Do yourself a favor. Read some research before you claim any rigor.

Re:Contradictions, contradictions

[jazman]

> Read some research before you claim any rigor.

That's nice, given the amazing lack of understanding you've just demonstrated. "in the day" for example even now doesn't necessarily mean "in the exact same 24 hour period", and the translation to "in the day" depends on the translation you're reading - NIV for example translates it to "when". I suggest you learn ancient Greek, or at least consider a few different translations, before you jump on one particular wording of an English translation and declare it a contradiction.

Moses' death...good question. Let's look it up. Deuteronomy 34:5, emphasis mine, "And Moses the servant of the LORD died there in Moab, AS THE LORD HAD SAID." Didn't look up the location of the "as the Lord had said" bit, but it seems pretty clear that Moses knew where he was going to die cos God told him.

As for how old Adam was - all we know is that he was created as a mature adult (which is obvious from the context). Yes, even old enough to have sex with Eve when she appeared, but I don't know what questions and contradictions this raises.

Gen 3:22 could mean one of two things. It could mean God and a number of other heavenly beings who knew good and evil (that knowledge is what's meant by "as one of us.") Or it could be an early reference to the Trinity.

Number and names - no, I haven't personally counted them, but it sounds like you haven't either. Twelve before Jesus' death; one of the 12 betrayed Jesus and went on to commit suicide (Judas Iscariot). Acts happened after the gospels, and 12-1=11 if I remember my maths correctly, so you get 12 in the gospels then 11 in Acts (although Judas is replaced by lottery). How exactly is 12 people, plus one suicide, then 11 people a contradiction? I'm not aware of anywhere in Mark that explicitly lists the names of all 12 disciples (I only scanned quickly), but Mark 6:7 is one of a few references to the Twelve that I found. But surely Mark not listing the disciples doesn't make a contradiction with Luke? Does your biology textbook contradict your physics textbook just because it (the former) doesn't have a section on how gravity works? If you have a reference to Mark where 12 names are listed and there aren't two Judas's though, do share that with us please.

Some of the things the bible say are relevant to today, and even relevant to you personally, so you should give them some thought before dismissing the whole thing. You can learn a lot on an Alpha course, but the most important parts in my opinion are:

- all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23)
- the wages of sin is death but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord (Romans 6:23)

If you consider yourself a thinker, find out PROPERLY about Jesus Christ, what he did and why it is relevant (then feel free to reject the whole lot in the knowledge that it definitely isn't for you). Or if you want to prove it false please try to do so. But please don't reject the whole lot without understanding what it's about.

If what the bible says is true, then this is the most important stuff ever. If it's false, then of course it's a bunch of old fairy tales and you'd be doing the world a favour by shopping it.

Re:Contradictions, contradictions

[hobo sapiens]

Thank you for refuting that rubbish. I was about to reply to the post stating that I wasn't gonna even waste the time on an AC, then I saw your well reasoned post. There is just no ROI there, plus, he likely wouldn't get it anyhow. Maybe I am just too tired of some folks' inability to actually read what I write instead of automatically going into attack mode (or defense mode, whatever the case may be here) at the first sight of the words "creation" or "God".

Thanks again.

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[zoney_ie]

Very well argued.

Although considering that there are plenty of (Christian and otherwise) scientists upset with the whole casting of a science vs. religion battle, and who've made very public appeals to those continuing the "battle", I think a lot of such rational explanation as to why the two domains aren't fundamentally in opposition falls on deaf ears.

Particularly in the USA anyways. We can be a bit more smug about there being less of a battle in Europe for now, although it does seem that in the UK people are beginning to look a bit more strangely at Christians due to the bad press from the US. I guess science and scientists aren't so well trusted either due to an anti-intellectual gutter press! Europe however is a lot more preoccupied with "Are Islam and Western society compatible?" (well, partly. A lot of people simply answer "Yes, of course", or "No, of course not" to that).

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[Anonymous Coward]

Every atheist I have ever talked to has always made one assumption about theistic beliefs, which is that science an religion are mutually exclusive. I'm a christian, but I believe in the big bang. I believe in evolution. I believe in quantum theory. Why shouldn't I? While yes, parts of the bible can be taken literally which puts them at odds with science, I also think that some very strong interpretations exist that allow room for a god and science to co-exist.

Believing in ID doesn't necessarily mean that you think science is wrong- I think that if there was a god, he would have created science and the mechanisms within it... he didn't wave his hands and it was magically there, and we can see this by the fact that the universe isn't held together by magic. Believing that by understanding the universe you have disproven god is just as arrogant as pointing to every flaw in science and saying that it is proof there is a god. Both are making assumptions that have no way of being proven, both are merely exercises in building your ego.

We are all the same: no matter how educated and intelligent you are, all humans will fight to hold on to their beliefs. Athiests will be just as quick to latch onto unsubstantiated scientific theories as creationists latching onto half-assed interpretations of the bible. Which takes more blind faith? It's irrelevent. Both require a certain amount of acceptance of the unproven, and science can require just as much faith as any religion at times.

WHOSE law of thermodynamics?

[meringuoid]

I've had to refute time and again Newton's Second Law of Thermodynamics which states that entropy in a closed system can never decrease. They like to use this as an argument as to why organisms couldn't evolve. In order to agree with this, you have to acknowledge that organisms are very orderly (which I don't believe we are).

We are very orderly, incredibly so, but we aren't closed systems. We need an energy input to maintain that high level of order. You don't stay a living organism for long once you stop eating; thermodynamics will kill you pretty quickly if you ever DO become a closed system.

Most amusing is this meme, however, that seems very prevalent in creationist circles. 'Newton's second law of thermodynamics'. It seems to be a mutation that combines 'Newton's second law', and 'The second law of thermodynamics'. Its selection advantage is obvious, since Newton is one of the few physicists the average clueless creationist could name. However, it's useful as a marker: anyone who speaks thus of 'Newton's law of thermodynamics' can be safely ignored, as they have proved that they know nothing of either Newton's laws or of the laws of thermodynamics, and that they have mindlessly copied and pasted another creationist's text.

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[Anonymous Coward]

In the biology class I had recently, my professor did not like ID very much. She said it was not a science because it was not testable, but went on to tell us all about the big bang theory and the origin of life. Go ahead and test that. On her part, it was illogical. These two theories have not been proven true, and so far have been impossible to prove.

Perhaps you should have asked her why she didn't equate ID as a 'theory' with the big bang theory and the origin of life? I imagine she would have been happy to provide you with references to the evidence for either of these theories. She probably would also have pointed out that the idea of proving a theory to be true in the sense that you mean is a ridiculous concept but that both of the latter theories provide best fit to current evidence, and that attempting to prove divine intervention is nonsensical.

But what I gathered is that there are almost an infinite number of improbabilities that had to be fulfilled just right for life to exist as it does now.

That's a terribly egotistical way of looking at the universe.

If one of those improbable things had occurred in any other equally improbable way, you and I would be different beings. And we would presumably be hanging in our chair-perches poking at the keyboard with our tentacles. And you would still be saying "How unlikely it is for life to exist as it does now! What a proof of intelligent design!"

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[Anonymous Coward]

One day, some kindergarten children figured out how their toys are assembled and how these toys work, and so they safely concluded the toys could not have been designed.

Another day, some car mechanics proudly figured out how the car they were studying works, so they boastfully concluded that the car could not have been designed. This is the proof that mechanical engineers are a myth, they say. And the little mechanics wonder why "uneducated" people still exist, that dare to question their reasoning.

From another perspective, i wonder too..

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[Darren Winsper]

"But what I gathered is that there are almost an infinite number of improbabilities that had to be fulfilled just right for life to exist as it does now."
Seeing as you can never get to "almost infinite", we'll just say there's an awful lot. Well, guess what, there's an awful lot of galaxies, each of which having an awful lot of starts, most of which seem to have planets orbiting them. Thus, there were plenty of chances for life to evolve, it so happens it struck lucky on earth.

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[Darren Winsper]

"Speciation, however, is AFAIK always the mutation of the genetic material to less information, not more."
Where the hell did you get that from? Hang about...
"Particles to people evolution requires observation and experimentation that show spontaneous generation of new genetic material. This is IMO, a bigger problem than how bees fly."
Welcome to the world of mutations.

Hardly an argument against intelligent design.

[rayvd]

I don't understand how simply being able to explain how something works is an argument against intelligent design.

If anything, scientists "figuring this out" shows how complex the whole thing is and simply highlights how unlikely something like this would have been able to develop purely by chance.

Re:Hardly an argument against intelligent design.

[vidarh]

They are not saying it's an argument against intelligent design, but that it counters a (meritless) argument often made by intelligent design proponents.

Of course it only means that intelligent design proponents will find some other thing that isn't yet explained by science to use. Arguing against intelligent design requires pointing out flawed reasoning much more than countering specifics, or you it will only seem like ID has some level of legitimacy as a scientific theory.

Your sarcasm detector just failed.

[Anonymous Coward]

En Tee.

You are the one getting it backwards it seems...

[hkmwbz]

"ID's premise is not that there're things science can't explain, but that there're specific things which science has explained... are impossible. Nevertheless, they exist."

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here.

1. Something which does exist is actually impossible, according to scientists?

2. Something which does exist has not been explained by science?

Neither of these prove anything about ID. In the case of 1, no, science has not proven that something that exists does not exist. So that is a false claim if that what you were saying. If you are trying to say 2, then the key word here is that it has not yet been explained by science. Which is the whole point here. Just because science lacks an explanation for something now doesn't mean that it is magic.

"Not fully understanding how something works does not mean the explanation must then be magic"

"Evolution is just laced with references to insensate bacteria "striving" toward this or that goal, or "developing" some feature or other"

Surely you know about this little something called "mutation"?

"There's no workable driving mechanism, either, random mutations just aren't cutting the mustard."

Um yes, that's exactly what the theory of evolution explains.

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[Bush Pig]

I think I have a book edited by Plantinga - it's a discussion of Anselm's Ontological Argument. It's falling apart (typical crappy American-made paperback, it's only 40 years old ...), but still a rattling good read. My recollection is that Plantinga still thinks the Ontological Argument is valid, despite the number that Kant, then Bradley, did on it (and also Hume's not-quite-there refutation). It always sounded like a confidence trick to me - kind of a philosophical shell game.

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[bs7rphb]

This isn't exactly the same as the eye argument in which they say the eye is too complicated to evolved on its own

Funny thing about the eye (the mammalian eye anyway - the damn thing's evolved independently half a dozen times) is that if it were designed intelligently, it would be very different from how it is now. It's back-to-front, you see - the wiring of all the light detecting cells is actually in front of the cells themselves.

Complicated yes; intelligently designed I rather think not.

c'mon man

[Danzigism]

they just HAD to throw in that little snippet about ID.. c'mon.. that whole article was pretty fascinating.. but at the very end, it brings up this pointless ID debate.. stop spending time trying to prove each side wrong..

i don't like seeing money wasted just to prove a point.. use that time to figure out something remarkable.. i'm not a religious man by any means, but even I find the scientists that use science to actually prove God's existence much more interesting in some cases than the people that use science to disprove His existence..

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[Anonymous Coward]

Thats odd... I have been trying to find the archaeological evidence for big events such as the Exedous. So far as I can tell, it has not been found. The same goes for Soloman as well as the chronology of the various captivities of the Hebrews.

random development

[VON-MAN]

It is NOT random development but random mutation. Possible development resulting from this random mutation is non-random because the evolutionary forces are quite logical. Please stop mucking up the issues.

"minimal intervention from God" Ah good! You DO know an example of Gods influence, please tell us what it is.

"For myself, I find no necessary conflict between the mechanisms described by science and the actions of God described by the Bible." That is because your God is an impotent, nebulous being only responsible for "starting it all".
People like you often also believe in heaven, and not in hell. Bah, i guess i prefer the mean, old-biblical, vengeful God of bible-thumpers (no, i'm not serious).

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[Preeminence]

Hokay... that's pretty easy. You see, there's a problem with your argument:

Now, write a simple, consistent, chronological narrative of that one day *without ommitting one single biblical detail*

The events described in those passages take place over the course of not one, but forty days.

Mary and Mary go to Jesus' tomb, he is not there. There are angels there in some regard, when or how they spoke to the Marys varies, yes, but the idea is the same: Jesus is not here, he is going to Galilee, tell the others. Mary Magdalene tells them; they do not believe her. At some point, before he reveals himself to the apostles, the conversation with the travellers occurs. He then appears to them in a closed room, blesses them, etc. Does it again, Doubting Thomas. Later (40 days after resurrection) goes to heaven. 10 days after that (pentecost), Holy Spirit is bestowed upon Apostles, they live happily ever after (all would be martyred, save Luke). I would like you to point out the inconsistencies in the story?
Sure, it's not EXACT, but all of these gospels were written at least 30 years after Jesus' death, there is time there for minor details to get switched around. One must also take into account that all of these passages were written for very different audiences (Matt for Jews, Mark for Arabic Gentiles, Luke for Greeks (Theophilus in particular, though that is likely a pseudonym), John for Christians, Acts for Greeks (written by Luke), Corinthians for... Corinthians. Each version had details added and/or omitted to better suit their target audience.

Please, show me where I am wrong.

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, religion requires you to accept things to be true without any explaination. So does geometry. It's based on things called "postulates", and they're adhered to by faith. There's no explanation for them, you simply accept them as true.

Will someday science also explain if pigs can fly?

[Ipsoinfo]

Will someday science also explain if pigs can fly? I'm looking forward to it!

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[Jetson]

God is an axiom.

I always thought God is an Iron.

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[lpangelrob]

Okay, I'll bite. But if you believe that not one of the authors should omit one single detail, the rest of this post is pointless. The crucifixion contains similar "summary writing". Among other things, there were no men present at the time of Jesus' death.

So... how else would they get information, other than interviewing people that were there?

A possible chronology of the day's events:
1.) The Angel rolls away the tomb.
2.) Mary Magdelene and the other Mary, amongst a crowd of other women, are told Jesus isn't there anymore. Remember, the disciples had all run off.
3.) The disciples are notified.
4.) Peter runs off to see for himself.
5.) The men guarding the tomb (who had been knocked unconscious) tell the chief priests what happened.
6.) (If you believe Mark 16:9-20 belongs in the Bible): At some point, Jesus appears to the Mary Magdelene.

That is the summary of what happened that day. Afterwards, the following events occured:

7.) Jesus appears to two disciples on the road to Emmaus. One of these could easily have been Peter. (1 Corinthians 15)
8.) Jesus appears to the rest of the disciples, except for Thomas.
9.) John only: Jesus appears to Thomas. The other gospels summarize this part.
10.) Jesus appears to 500 believers, then James, then to the Apostles.
11.) Jesus announces his great commission and rises to heaven in Galilee (presumably near Bethany or vice versa, but that's an item to research.)
12.) Jesus appears to Saul the persecuter.

That wasn't so bad. Yes, it's a summary. But it should contain all of the items in question. If not, reply. Some gospel writers omit the mention of women. That is a cultural issue — they did that back then.

I am also not making any statement on "ID". I for one can see how evolution would be used as a driver for Creation as a whole.

Cow

[VON-MAN]

"how would a cow like animal gain an advantage by moving into the sea"
By doing it slowly... First it would move into wetland (which already is a perfect environment for cows). Its evolution would favor mutations that make life in wetlands easier. Like hoofs better suited for water. The ability to swim. Bigger lungs for eating sea grass. Etc. This all would mean that cows would gain an definite advantage over predators that don't like water. And it would also mean that those cows could get into deeper water.

Are you starting to get it now?

The problem is not the evolution theory, it is your imagination. You compensate this with fantasy. And with tired old examples like the Nebraska man.
I happened to read up earlier on this topic (because it was mentioned on a /. thread). And it doesn't say anything at all about all those evolutionists flogging a pigs tooth. It does tell a story about nationalism (just like the Piltdown man, a similar story) and a lot of criticism from many archaeologists. I also noticed something different when reading up, that IDist flog this story.

Oh, and the same to rest of your arguments.

Re:Cow

[aeoo]

By doing it slowly... First it would move into wetland (which already is a perfect environment for cows). Its evolution would favor mutations that make life in wetlands easier. Like hoofs better suited for water. The ability to swim. Bigger lungs for eating sea grass. Etc. This all would mean that cows would gain an definite advantage over predators that don't like water. And it would also mean that those cows could get into deeper water.

Yes, anything can slowly "become" anything else. (It doesn't even have to be slow, but whatever).

The problem I see is that evolution posits a direction, but really I don't see how this direction can be inferred? I mean, a being is just as likely to devolve as it is to evolve. Why don't complex organisms devolve back into bacteria? You know, if you are talking about survival, bacteria are awesome at it! They can live in extreme cold and extreme heat under extreme conditions such as weird gas mixtures and very prolonged lack of food. Seems like, from the survival point of view, being a bacteria kicks ass all over being a human. In fact, the more complicated a being is, the more fragile it is -- because there are more things that can break. So, why would something very fragile and complicated form from something very simple that kicks ass at surviving and multiplying? Survival can't be the right answer.

So you see, it's not that one thing can't become another. Sure can! It's that there is no way you can predicate some reason or special causality to it, like "it's for the purpose of survival", etc. Purposiveness of action is a human imagination. It is US who imagine a purpose behind anything. Don't you get it? The religious person thinks the purpose is to please God. The scientist thinks the purpose is to survive and thrive. But all of these ideas about purpose are equally sentimental and equally biased. The scientists has his head up his arse as deep as the religious fanatic when they insist on this or that purpose.

The problem with science is that scientists suck ass as philosophers. In fact, mostly a person is attracted to maths or physics and just goes into that field. And there is nothing really wrong with it. But what they DO NOT DO is contemplate WHY they go into physics, why they like it, IS THERE a purpose? Maybe there isn't. Maybe they don't know why they like it. Maybe they know a lot less than they would like to admit. But this cannot be discovered unless the person contemplates sincerely and deeply, aspiring only, ONLY after the utmost. But do scientists aspire after the umtost? Heck no. Why do I say this?

Well, imagine a person wants to be a house of utmost beauty. So he picks up a hammer and starts hammering some boards together?? NO! The person has to make sure he has an UTMOST hammer. But does he then hammer away? No! The person has to make sure his hands are UTMOST. So after taking good care of his hands, does he hammer away? NO! The skill must be utmost! And so on. So the person who aspires after the utmost goes all the way BACK.

Now, a scientist who aspires after the utmost uses WHAT as a primary tool? MIND.. Yes, mind. :) So a scientists who aspires after the utmost has no time to waste doing science if he cannot be certain to possess an utmost mind. That's why such a scientist would first and foremost be a contemplator and maybe even a meditator. Because mind should be in tip-top condition in order to do tip-top science. But do scientists really examine the contents of their own minds that scrupulously, that meticulously and that deeply? Heck NO!! IF they did, they'd have no time to do any science. They'd be spiritual mendicants.

Now, don't get me wrong...I don't think that everyone should be aspiring after the utmost... because maybe after all there is no utmost. But this also means that scientists should approach spiritual people with great humility and respect and they shouldn't be so arrogant about their theories, considering they do not train their minds the same way people do who are dedicated to training their minds as their sole goal in life.

Re:Cow

[vortigern00]

Some excellent points you have made. I especially like how you correctly state that people in general do not have or show any respect for the thoughts of others who do not think like they do or who have not been trained in their discipline.

Howard Gardner (one of my personal heroes) destroys the concepts of elitism in any one way of thinking with his multiple intelligences theory. After I met him while I was in grad school I strongly considered switching programs, but I was already well into my program in physics and was itching to get the hell out of Boston :) No offense to Bostonians, but I just can't do city life.

I am lucky in that I was always smart in a bookish way that appealed to the kind of people who admit you to college and graduate school. It took a long time to convince my wife, for example, that she is a highly intelligent person even though she sucks at traditional academics and tests. Her artistic mind, however, is truly stunning, and that is why I was attracted to her.

Scientists do have a well thought out, internally consistent, rationale for evolutionary pressure that may answer the questions you raised in the first part of your comment. I would strongly suggest reading Darwin's Origin of Species. Your issues are very carefully discussed within that book, but only from the point of view of a scientist, of course.

I am also certain that creationists have a well thought out and internally consistent rationale for motivations behind changes in species. That is part of why I asked for ID references. I do not understand the rationales from that point of view, but I would like to.

Re:Cow

[aeoo]

Thank you for writing.

Scientists do have a well thought out, internally consistent, rationale for evolutionary pressure that may answer the questions you raised in the first part of your comment. I would strongly suggest reading Darwin's Origin of Species. Your issues are very carefully discussed within that book, but only from the point of view of a scientist, of course.

As I see it, everything is internally consistent until it is examined thoroughly. In my experience, nothing, and I really mean nothing, stands up to critical examination of an experienced contemplator. The only possibility is that the person runs out of question-stamina. But if the question-stamina is strong, any conceptual construct will break down under focused, discplined, persistent insight. Ok, I may be wrong, but this is what I see. So even though I am making a certain species of an absolute statement, I also acknowledge that it's just my experience.

I don't need to pretend that what I believe or know or understand is more than just my experience before it becomes valuable to me -- and this is a differense between me and a scientist who posits some kind of "substance" or externally-guaranteed consistency to things. I also don't need to pretend that what I know, understand, etc., is superior to, or is the only way to know, understand, etc. In this way I am different from solipsists. But because I don't need external validation prior to realizing great confidence, I can be considered a certain species of a solipsist in that regard -- although I do not agree broadly with the views of a solipsist.

I happen to like science a great deal. I am not a scientist, but I do enjoy many impacts that science makes. So, it's not really in my interest to completely dismantle it. But it's also not in my interests to support the type of combative "science" that takes the attitude "we must destroy anyone who disagrees."

So I largely agree with your overall sentiment of non-elitism and will check out that link when I get a chance, but my feeling is not that there are multiple consistent frameworks, but rather that all frameworks are equally inconsistent when examined closely! So, they are, in a sense, equal, but they basis of their equality is not consistency, but rather inconsistency. :) Hopefully, even if you disagree with me (which is fine), you can see where I am coming from.

Re:Cow

[OOGG_THE_CAVEMAN]

Evolution does not "posit a direction." There is no meaningful distinction between the terms you use "evolve" and "devolve."

It posits a general *mechanism* for speciation and for development of well-adapted structures, which, to previous naturalists, suggested design.

To address your "large animal" vs. "bacteria" example, the answer is that they live in different niches. A vertebrate that was as small as a bacteria would not work, nor would a bacteria as large as a vertebrate. Vertebrates don't have to be better than bacteria at everything bacteria can do, they just have to be able to survive and produce offspring well enough to perpetuate the species.

However, if two life forms have all the same habitat and habits and needs, then one form which is better adapted will tend to drive the other extinct. Which happens all the time when "exotic" species are brought into new habitats, and pretty much wipe out indigenous ones.

Re:Cow

[aeoo]

Sure. This sounds to me like "change". Things change. That's a little different from saying things "evolve". To my mind, that is. That species change and exist only within the context of their environment is something you can conclude through introspection. You don't even need to study the actual species for that. But oh well... It's a lot more fun (for some people) to go into the wilds and interact with the species than to sit in one place and contemplate hard-core to the point where you can derive such understanding.

"Things change" is a less grandiose claim than "things evolve". To say that things evolve you are usually implying that at "first" there were only bacteria, and that bacteria cooperated somehow to form more and more complex organisms, all the while claiming that it enhances survival. In reality forming a more complex organism does NOT enhance survival. If anything, single cell organisms which multiply and die at a fantastic rate, evolve faster and are better suited to survival if they *remain* as single cell organisms.

However, if you are just saying that things change and adapt, that's a lot more reasonable, but also a lot more humble of an assertion -- because then you're not positing that all life was microbial at first.

It's always smart to make as modest an assertion as is reasonable while still saying something. Change is something everyone can observe and agree with. It's fairly modest. On the other hand, we do not see humans devolving (I know the word is the same as "evolve", that's why I am using devolve...why not?) into apes.

Your idea of niches is a little bogus...but I don't have time to deal with it right now. Hint: there are no actual niches, for example bacteria and humans...sometimes we coexist and sometimes we don't. Bacterial infenctions can kill humans. But we also have bacteria that live in our stomach and help us digest...so is it a niche or not? Truth is, the situation as it REALLY IS cannot be captured by a concept of a "niche". The concept of a "niche" is a dummyfication of reality. Anyway, this is my superficial glazing over the topic, and I won't return to it, due to lack of time. If you disagree, I won't be able to continue this argument (and if you agree, I can't confirm it).

If you agree that directionality is not something that makes sense for "evolution", and you agree that there is no real differense between "evolution" and "devolution", then you should agree to drop the whole "evolution" label and just say, "speciation" or "change" or "adaptation", which are all less grandiose terms than "evolution" as many people understand it.

Re:Cow

[OOGG_THE_CAVEMAN]

This sounds to me like "change". Things change. That's a little different from saying things "evolve"

That distinction is, as you say, in your mind. That is a strawman model of the theory of evolution by natural selection, not what scientists believe.

You continue to believe that there is some direction of development between humans and (present-day?) apes. There is a direction, but it is a historical one, not a magical increase in some dimension of "development."

It is just as nonsensical to think that you will have children who turn out to be your parents.

Your counter to the concept of niches is also nonsensical; living in vertebrate guts is a niche which vertebrates cannot pursue, because it is an anaerobic environment, for one thing.

You appear to be extremely confused about multiple aspects of biology.

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[Zakabog]

Lets see, in Matthew chapter 28 -

1 In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre. 2 And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it.

Ok now in Mark chapter 16 - 2 And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun. 3 And they said among themselves, Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the sepulchre? 4 And when they looked, they saw that the stone was rolled away: for it was very great. 5 And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted.

Well that's odd. One book says the ground shook, an angel descended from heaven, moved the rock, and sat on top of it as the women got there, and another said the rock had already been moved and the angel was inside waiting for them. That's two different accounts of the same event. But the bible is god's word, how can it have two different accounts of the same event? Unless you'd like to say that the bible was written by man and is not the direct word of god. But then how do you know man didn't just add in anything that was just his opinion. How do you know the bible contains anything as written by god?

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[sveinungkv]

One book says the ground shook, an angel descended from heaven, moved the rock, and sat on top of it as the women got there, and another said the rock had already been moved and the angel was inside waiting for them. That's two different accounts of the same event.

Or two different accounts for two different events...

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[jazman]

> Well, why do you believe in God? Because the Bible says I should. Why do you adhere to the Bible? Because it was written by God.

If that's all there were to it then I wouldn't still be a Christian. I believe in God because I have an active relationship with him, not because some dusty old book (which is what the bible would be if God weren't real to me) says I should. There are many times I have doubts, yet God constantly reassures me that he's there.

It is God that assures me that the bible is his word, not just the biblical text itself ("all scripture is God-breathed" - one of the Tims in the NT I think).

Horse-pucky to you!

[VON-MAN]

I bet you know better I.D. arguments.

I've been reading this shitty thread from top to bottom and the best I.D. argument to date are links to books and titles of books. I guess those "educated I.D. proponents" don't dare to show their yellow faces here.
Outta here...

Re:ID? What are they talking about?

[TomHandy]

Sorry, I am not trying to mix up the two (although I still find the differences between the two dubious at best, and the recent court ruling laid out a lot of compelling arguments as well that back up the contention that ID and Creationism are more closely related than some would like to admit). But I have heard people arguing for Intelligent Design specifically use the "bee flight" example......... surely you aren't saying that Intelligent Design proponents never use this example (again more as justification for the idea of something that science can't explain, so it must have had a designer)?

Um, they're not

[cascadingstylesheet]

>If ID proponents are using arguments like that, they
>really need to get a cluestick. This is not news (for
>nerds or otherwise), and it certainly isn't stuff that matters.

Um, they're not, so far as I know. This article is weird.

ID is more about specified complexity and the ability to detect
design by statistically analyzing things.

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[rufty_tufty]

You are likening biology to a work of art!
If you've had to deal with my shoulder on a cold day you'd not think the human body was a work of art! Or if you'd seen a deformed child born you'd question how perfect creation is. Or is this god experimenting with an impressionist art?

Ah, no.

[cascadingstylesheet]

>I think intelligent design arguments were stating that
>since we can't figure out how things work or comprehend them,
>that they must have been created by something superior
>intelligence above our own.

Um, no. They weren't. But caricatures were.

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[Dr. Manhattan]

Except rational people believe in plenty of things that are not proven, foremost being Reason itself.

A couple of relevant quotes that might cause you to reconsider:

"Is knowledge knowable? If not, how do we know this?" - Woody Allen

"Those who invalidate reason ought seriously to consider whether they argue against reason with or without reason; if with reason, then they establish the principle that they are laboring to dethrone, but if they argue without reason, (which, in order to be consistent with themselves, they must do) they are out of the reach of rational conviction, nor do they deserve a rational argument." - Ethan Allen

If you want to play tennis without a net, fine. But in that case, I don't have to play with a net, either, and I can dismiss anything you say with something irrational like "You're just a ham sandwich, and nobody listens to them." By what grounds would you dispute it?

On the other hand, if you do want to stick with reason, consider this.

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[sasami]

Hint: any time you find yourself inferring or rephrasing someone else's argument, you're most likely just creating a strawman

Interesting! That's a good rule of thumb, I'll keep it in mind. Although, in this case I wasn't rephrasing the argument, but an ambiguously-stated parenthesis. It was really more of a lame attempt to find a segue. :-)

it's disingenuous to suggest that because nothing can be absolutely proven, all things are at equal levels of non-proof

This wasn't my intention, though I apologize if my tendency to oversimplify on Slashdot made it unclear. I am certainly not arguing for Humean skepticism!

Formally restated, a rationalist generally accepts only propositions that are either (1) axiomatic to reasoning or knowledge, (2) incorrigible, or (3) established to one's satisfaction by evidence in accordance with (1) and (2).

Being pedantic, as you say, means that we have to consider (1), (3), and perhaps (2) to be suspect. But pragmatically, we do not. We are, in a nutshell, talking about beliefs -- they might be untrue assumptions, but how many of us really think so?

So if I believe (3) to be true, then it easily establishes the rising of the Sun, and disqualifies the non-rising of the Sun. Even Hume did not walk around all day questioning the existence of everything.

However, my point was that there are propositions that most of us also accept as true, but are not rationally justified by the model above. And Godel showed us that some of these propositions will in fact be true. The existence of a real universe is the obvious example; we should consider that it might be an illusion, but how many of us really think so?

The existence of God is arguably another example. Thus, I did intend to suggest that the specific axioms of God and non-God are indeed at equal, or at least comparable, levels of non-proof.

So no, I do not expect a rational person to refute gods because they cannot be absolutely proven to be true. I expect a rational person to refute gods because their existence would be contrary to a larger and more consistent set of evidence about the cosmos.

This approach is entirely reasonable, if indeed you have made a considered decision that the evidence for God is similar to the evidence for werewolves. My complaint is firmly with those who think the assumption of non-God is automatically rational, mature, and intelligent while the assumption of God is somehow automatically irrational, ignorant, and unintelligent.

I will quibble, though, that the axiom of God is hardly contrary to any physical evidence. (Maybe you meant "unsupported?") At one extreme, the Deist God can't contradict anything since it never touches the physical universe (so then we cue Occam's Razor =). But the Christian model includes both the axioms of rationality, applied wherever appropriate, as well as the axiom of an active God, who might physically intervene every so often, but whose real interest is almost totally on the human condition; more specifically, on fixing individual souls; more specifically, on yours and mine.

Anyway, thus I reiterate (obTopic) that the axiom of God is absolutely not supported by vacuous statements about "science can't explain X, so there!" (And for TFA to trot this out is a strawman.) But I could argue that by accurately encompassing both science and humanity, the Christian model presents an even "larger and more consistent set of evidence." That is definitely a topic for another time, however.

--
Dum de dum.

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[dubl-u]

I expect a rational person to refute gods because their existence would be contrary to a larger and more consistent set of evidence about the cosmos.

It depends on the gods we're talking about.

Thor and Neptune are no longer particularly persuasive to modern minds. We know what thunder is, and although the ocean can be mysterious, we no longer personify that. But I have plenty of Christian friends who see their God as having started it all going for his own inscrutable purposes, one of which happens to be us.

For them, it's one of the fundamental axioms of their worldview, and it's rooted in direct personal experience rather than evidence: they feel what they interpret as the presence of God. Personally I explain things differently, but I don't have any particular need to force my explanations on them.

The truth is that we don't know why the universe is, and maybe we never will. That somebody did it is a reasonable hypothesis, and one that need not conflict with any observed evidence. If that's what it takes for some people to appreciate the world and spend time each week figuring out how to be better people, I'm willing to cut them a little slack.

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[Anonymous Coward]

I challenge any scientist to go out and assemble a bee, or a tree, or any other living thing, if they are so damned smart! The day science can create a life from it's basic components will never come. Bee humble you nerds!

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[Darby]

The events described in those passages take place over the course of not one, but forty days.

Just the one day of the resurrection. Easter, you know.

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[Weedlekin]

"We where wondering why did a religion from a poor, non important country/place like Israel (please correct me if I am wrong in the facts) or the Jews (in some way a minority) came to conquer the world?,"

Well, it hasn't exactly conquered the world: there are other religions which have rather more followers. So a better question would be: how did it conquer much of Europe, and by extension, areas colonized by Europeans? Answer: a Roman emperor called Constantine decided to adopt it as the "official" religion of Rome and her empire, mainly for political rather than religious reasons (he was not baptised himself until he was on his death bed).

"Being (on that time) the Romans the most powerful civilization, its religion is the one that *should* have dominated humankind (at least, being spread)."

You mean the old Roman religion, which was based on that of the Greeks? It didn't dominate the Roman world (which was far from being all of humankind) because it didn't insist that it was the _only_ religion, so people were free to have as many other religions as they liked as long as they observed certain aspects of the Roman one as well. This meant that while the Roman religion was in some respects compulsory throughout the empire, it happily coexisted with other religions such as Mithraism and Zoroastrianism because of its non-exclusive nature. And it was this non-exclusionary nature that led to its downfall from a religious perspective, because the majority of those who observed various aspects of it did so because it was required of them, while their actual religious beliefs were invested in something entirely different. Thus did Constantine adopt Christianity as the new Roman religion, because having something that people were required to believe rather than merely respect eliminated potential sources of friction between fanatical followers of other religions.

"Also, unlike Catholicism, other religions were not as "machista" (don't know the exact word in English) as it is. If you read the bible or study (as I did) 9 years in a catholic school you will realize that this religion is focused on men (masculine) and Women tends to be just something men owns in order to continue his legacy."

A good many of the ones you cite were even more "machista" than Roman Catholicism. Traditional Judaeism for example is extremely male-centred, and the Norse religion was even more so; same for those of the Aztecs and Mayas, most of the oriental ones, and the Graeco-Roman system (in which women really were property: a husband could kill his wife or children with no more legal repercussions than if he'd killed a pig for meat). All are all reflections of the societies of their practitioners, which were (and in many parts of the world still are) male-dominated.

"My opinion is that it would have been better if other religion (like Greek or Roman) was the one spread around the world."

They did spread a Roman religion around parts of the world: it's called Roman Catholicism.

Why?

[LordAbraxsis]

This is my first post, so please forgive me I resonate "noob." What is the point of all the banter regarding this topic? Do we really need to write a collabrative work labelling this article (as well as religion, science, history, etc.)as a circular argument, USING circular arguments no less? Religion is a matter of the heart PERIOD, there is no proving or disproving it. It is a belief ... nothing more. But, let us always keep in mind the other beliefs and people that were laughed at in the past. Babbage's "computer," Galileo, Columbus, etc. etc. etc. The list of innovators goes on and on, while the lists of naysayers would be 100x longer. Does God exist? Honestly, as a man of science, I don't know. I can't prove it one way or the other. But, as a Christian, I know he is there. I know that in my times of need I have a comforter that I can ask for help. Maybe it is a placebo effect? Maybe my believe creates a reality for me where a nonexistant God gives me the strength I need to carry on. Does it really matter as long as I get what I need out of the equation? If someone found that a placebo treatment cured cancer, do we denounce it simply because a "REAL" cure doesn't exist? That because science hasn't fully been able to understand the mind/body connection in healing and health, it simply cannot be. You wouldn't be able to beat the Pharmacutical company off with a ball bat as they lined up to create sugar pills for you and make trillions of dollars doing it. Ultimately, I find the logic of ID and Evolution to be rediculous. Yes, I believe in adaptation, natural selection, and that God created everything. One might automatically call me on those three things crying "Foul! Those three items don't fit in the same Zone!" Okay, but don't ask me to believe in trans-species jumps without proof (evolutionists), don't ask me to believe that the Earth is only 8,000 years old (ID), and don't tell me that I'm "atavistic" fir believing in God (scientists in general). For years evolutionists have asked for religous people to side with them. To look at the fossil record, to look at adapation of modern day species, to finally see what they see. But, now that we are the evolutionists are on our backs again because we want to believe it happened the way they say it did, only that God got the ball rolling. *rolls eyes* In a nut shell, scientists say religion has its good points and bad points, and religion says the same about science. But the way I see it, there are only 2 real difference. One is the scientist's ability to imagine. Early science was many times an attempt to part fact from the supernatural. If scientists automatically dismiss the supernatural on principle, where does that leave them; separating the kinda facts from the sorta facts? Secondly, scientists haven't gone to war over what they believe, religions have on many occasions. Which makes me wonder ... When will that happen, and will pocket protectors be standard issue with the guns?

Re:Why?

[praxis]

(This comment is not directed at you, but I found your piece inspiring and wanted to jump off to my tirade from your comment about religion being a matter of heart.)

I personally do not take issue with intelligent design per se. One may believe what they wish. You called it a matter of heart. I find that apt, because that's exactly the reason the state should not be teaching my children about an issue which is internal, personal, and dogmatic. Of course I sympathize with those who believe their children are being taught heresy when in science class learning about evolution, but how do the ID proponents feel when a Buddhist, Hindu, Asatru, or other child is exposed to the dogma he finds in conflict with everything he's learned from his parents?

Basically I model the ID debate as this oversimplified argument: evolutionists do not want their children taught what they see as religious gobly-gook; intelligent design proponents do not want their children taught what they see as scientific gobly-gook. The difference is that evolution has impartial--by which I mean independently verifiable--evidence whereas intelligent design does not. Hence, the state can vouch for evolution pretty cleanly with little resort to indoctrination. On the other hand, if this really gets out of hand, the state should not permit either to be taught, as to not offend anyone, and leave it up to the parents to educate their children in an inoffensive manner. Of course, then as a nation, we're pretty screwed, but that's the road we've chosen.

As for the counter argument that evolutionists want to have their cake and eat it too by keeping schools teaching their view but not permitting the intelligent design proponents to teach theirs, I still feel it comes down to the really big difference between the two. If intelligent design does not have independently verifiable evidence in support, and the state requires everyone to be taught this doctrine, then we are supporting a state which does just that--indoctrinate our children. I find that repulsive and essentially saying "God is great, we should convince everyone to accept his view as fact based solely on faith; oh, and no thinking for yourself, that's the work of the devil."

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[sasami]

the reason I consider religious beliefs to be irrational is because they are not founded on logic and reasoning, they are presupposed to be true based on religious faith. ... Well, why do you believe in God? Because the Bible says I should. Why do you adhere to the Bible? Because it was written by God.

Again, you are simply asserting that the non-God axiom is somehow superior to the God axiom. Perhaps I misunderstand, but precisely what steps of logic and reasoning would constitute a foundation for any axiom? The acceptance or rejection of any axiom is ultimately a pre-rational belief. There are plenty of people in this world who do not hold logic as an axiom at all. I find that evidence suggests they are wrong. I also find that evidence suggests the God axiom is at least as plausible as the non-God axiom. Like the Axiom of Choice, the plausibility is not one-sided but symmetric: acceptance or rejection of the axiom both have desirable and undesirable ramifications, making Occam useless.

In other words, I do not use the Bible to justify itself circularly. You seem very keen on this idea, but blind faith is actually improper in Christianity. The claims made by the Bible are, to my satisfaction, sufficiently consistent with my observations of the human condition, my research, and yes, my personal experience. (Maybe this what you meant by logic and reason?) This is not proof of an axiom but it is evidence enough to evaluate some pros and cons and come to a decision. The decision between two plausible alternatives is one way to understand proper faith -- not just in God but in all aspects of one's worldview. After all, it is strictly plausible that we do indeed live in the Matrix, but how many of us really believe that?

Further details along these lines probably don't belong in this topic, but I can open a journal entry if there is interest in continuing the thread.

nothing in Christian religious doctrines was used to provide the basis for the scientific method. The scientific method actually originates from Greece.

The roots of almost everything Western go back to Greece. :-) Thales the Milesian is often cited as a key figure, notable especially for studying and proposing natural causes for natural events. However, it's unclear how rigorous his methods were, and crediting him (as some do) with establishing the scientific method is plausible but may also be an overstatement.

Thales notwithstanding, the greatest influence on Western thought came from Plato and Aristotle. Plato divided the world into Matter and Forms, raw material ordered by rational ideas. Sounds quite scientific! But the funny thing is, Platonism rejects that avenue, teaching instead that Forms are superior to and actually more real than the visible world of Matter; this is the point of his famous shadow-puppet allegory. Matter is inferior, chaotic, and never completely obeys Form.

As a result, intellectual inquiry into Form was an exalted pursuit (familiar today as mathematical platonism), while experimental inquiry into Matter was considered unreliable and even ignoble. This dualism was absorbed fully by Augustine, and therefore went unchallenged for ten centuries. For this reason, the medieval era saw little advance in the physical sciences, as monasteries flourished in drawing the best minds to a pseudo-Platonic life of abstract Formal rumination, rejecting Material concerns.

When Aristotle resurfaced in the 13th century, it almost brought about the Renaissance, had it not been for that pesky Black Death incident. Now, Aristotle certainly advocated natural inquiry; however, his method wasn't quite scientific either. He posited Four Causes, thr

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[rufty_tufty]

Fine, String theory doesn't make sense to me; doesn't make it invalid.
Lack of understanding/comprehension of you part does not make your beliefs valid.

The ID "flap" is not about Science + politics = bad, it's religion + politics vs science + politics.

and with Regards to the bible standing up to rigor; as has been pointed about above and I'll now steal, the bible isn't even internally consistent:

Read Matt 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, John 20-21, Acts 1:3-12 I Corinthians 15:3-8

Now, write a simple, consistent, chronological narrative of that one day *without ommitting one single biblical detail*

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[MrResistor]

They have been pitted against each other in modern culture but for no reason.

They have been pitted against each other because religious wackjobs keeping sticking their noses into the scientific world and saying "You're wrong because the Bible says so." In science, saying "You're wrong" is perfectly acceptable, but you have to have evidence to support your claims, and, sorry, a book which is at least 2 translational generations from the original text, and which is known to have been edited for political reasons, does not count.

Scientific people know perfectly well that the request for proof of the existence of a Creator is effectively nonsensicle. However, what the religious people don't seem to get is that in this context the request is still perfectly valid. If you want to challenge accepted scientific theory you have to have evidence.

In short, if you don't want people asking ugly questions about your religion, keep it out of science.

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[rufty_tufty]

The you've been taught badly:
The Big Bang is a valid theory because it can be proved false. If I can find a number of galaxies moving in a direction not consistent with the inflationary universe then I have disproved the big bang. However I can't find these, which lends further evidence that our Theory of the Big Bang might be an accurate model.
ID is not a valid theory, because there is no experiment I can perform which could falsify it. It makes no predictions which can be verified. In short it tells us nothing of value about the cosmos. It possibly tells us a lot of interest about humanity, but that's a different issue...

There are other theories besides the big bang as to what might have created the universe, they just aren't as simple/well tested and are not as simple to explain to the general populous.

Science is about knowledge, not Truth or Belief or Answers.
No theory can be proven true. A theory must always be provable as false otherwise it's dogma. Take gravity; if CDs stopped obeying gravity tomorrow we'd have to ammend the theroy of gravity to account for this. We all accept gravity as a fact, but for all we know, we could stop sticking to the earth tomorrow. If this happened science would have to accept this fact and ammend the theories to cope(assuming we survived :-).

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[dbucowboy]

Let me clarify... any alluding to evolution by my post was completely satirical. I once believed in God out of blind faith, but now I believe in Him because I have experienced Him in my life.

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[dbucowboy]

Even perfect art can be damaged by carelessness (read about the fall in Genesis). Simply because there is imperfection in the world does not prove that there isn't a God that created it.

WTF?

[hscoggin]

Whatever nitwit(s) on either side of the ID debate might have thought about this having anything to do with (dis)crediting ID should be summarily ignored. What the hell does this have to do with anything?

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[rufty_tufty]

People say this, but "the fall" is a logical fallacy.
God was perfect
God created humans in his image
God created the tree of knowledge
The perfect human with no knowledge of evil, followed the serpent's advice and ate from this tree
As a punishment for gaining knowledge of good and evil, humanity was banished from the garden of Eden
We've been punished for this ever since.

One way or another either God created something inperfect, or we were designed to fail. i.e. we were always faulty, the only conclusion to draw from Genesis is that God intended us to fail and made damn sure it happened so he could blame us for anything in his works later.

And I'm not trying to disprove the existance of God. That is impossible. I'm trying to prove that a God is not the simplest way to account for the evidence we see. It is the simplest explanation, but not the simplest solution.

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[dbucowboy]

The problem is that you don't understand the nature of God. The reason God created us is so we "could" worship Him. From the start he created us to have the ability to choose something else. If God made everything perfect from the start and never gave humans the option to serve and worship something else then human worship would be worthless because it wouldn't be sincere. Instead, God let Adam and Eve have free will to choose to worship Him or to sin. Before sin ever happened, the earth was perfect. There was no pain or suffering and no death. Once sin happened the earth was changed and evil corrupted the face of humanity.

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[lpangelrob]

Yikes. I don't speak King James. Give me a second...

Mark 16:2-5

2 Very early on the first day of the week, just after sunrise, they were on their way to the tomb 3 and they asked each other, "Who will roll the stone away from the entrance of the tomb?"

4 But when they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had been rolled away. 5 As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed.

Matthew 28:1-3

1 After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb.

2 There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it. 3 His appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow.

Umm. Okay. So we're arguing about semantics.

Mark says the stone had been rolled away in the past tense, when the women weren't there, end of story. Matthew 28:2 doesn't indicate that the event happened in the present; it is also written in the past tense. Seeing as the very event caused the guards to fall unconscious, I would personally consider it unlikely that the women were there (studies have been done to indicate that women faint just as much as men do, actually... but this is a freakin' angel!). Chronologically, Matthew 28:2 belongs before Matthew 28:1.

That reconciles those two passages in my mind.

Besides, these are second-hand accounts of the same event. None of the writers witnessed any of it first-hand. I wouldn't really expect two objective writers to come up with the same account of a given historical event, but I would expect it to be accurate. We barely know what happened in Tianamen Square, for comparison. Equality and accuracy are different concepts and the fact the observations aren't equal doesn't mean the observations aren't accurate.

The Bible wasn't written by God, as in, He wasn't sitting at a desk writing the book. Most reasonable Christians believe that the different authors had the same spirit at work when they did put it on paper, or as they discussed it through oral history. The same with the choosing of which books go in. Given how well the parts of the Bible that cite each other do it, this is a logical conclusion.

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[xtracto]

Thank you for your reply.

After reading your post I remembered the Constantine Emperor, unfortunately my only "historic" references are from Anne Rice science fiction books that in some way or another position the characters at certain historic eras.

It was quite interesting to read what I think it is an informed (more than mine) post about it. To try to come a bit on topic I would ask what would be the differences in science development had the Catholic religion been replaced by another religion. I mean, Catholisism brought the Inquisition and the so called Dark Ages (again I am just stating this from my very limited history knowledge) and in one way or another opaqued science development trough the ages. While to the best of my knowledge, religions as the Egypcian or Aztec promoted science (even before it was called science) on their own.

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[giantsfan89]

"Why people want nails in the ID coffin is not science, but politics."

MOD THIS PARENT UP!! Nobody gets this! To ID or not to ID is not about religion or science, but politics!

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[rufty_tufty]

You see I think I do understand...

So God gave us a choice. Either worship me, or commit sin. Either exist in heaven or exist in hell. Eternal happyness or eternal pain.
So far so good.
But why is Hell a christain concept and not a Jewish one? But I musn't get side tracked.

So by your argument following his way is just as valid a choice to God as not worhiping him. Hey by your argument God isn't happy unless people exercise their free will and don't worship him; otherwise those that do worship him are less tasty.

But then if God was happy with people not worshiping him, then why was Sodom destroyed? If people chose the alternate path, why is the old testament respelendant with examples of God wiping them out?
Why have hell at all if the choice is to follow him or not? Why punish people for not following him if he wants people to be free to not follow him?

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[dbucowboy]

wow... I have no idea where you came up with that... God isn't happy unless people excersie their free will and don't worship him? How did my argument say that at all? Giving us the choice to worship Him or choose something else does not mean that the two options are equal choices, nor does it mean that God is happy when they choose not to worship Him. Let me say it again... GOD DOES NOT WANT PEOPLE TO NOT WORSHIP HIM BUT HE GIVES THEM THE CHOICE SO THAT WHEN THEY CHOOSE HIM IT WILL BE SINCERE. I have a choice to drive my car (the right way) or to drink and drive my car (the wrong way). Just because I have the option to do the wrong thing doesn't mean that the government needs to outlaw alcohol because I might choose to drink and drive. See what I'm saying?

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[EvilNebby]

"For creationism to be "right" it needs to, for once, generate a testable, disproveable hypothesis"

So then your argument is, the only way to prove there is a God, is to use the scientific method? Which is sometimes used as a proof that there is not a God. The cat is dead. Wait.. No, its alive, wait... no nevermind dead.

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[rufty_tufty]

Slight misunderstanding/bad phrasing on my part - apologies:

Ok then let's take your drink driving example.
The government forbids people to drink and drive but because it doesn't want to ban alcohol it happens anyway.
God forbids people to sin, but because he doesn't want to ban free will it happens anyway.

So far so good.
So the point is that it all comes down to choice. Do we choose to follow, or do we choose to go our own path. There being a penalty for going down our own path.
So taking the drink example I have a choice to drive or to drink. If i drink then I must walk home or use public transport.
With God, my choice is to drive the car(worship him) or Drink and drive (exercise free will and not worship him). There is no path where I can have a drink (exercise free will) and not do something wrong.
That is like the government outlawing alcohol(don't not worship me) yet handing out free alcohol (giving us free will). We still have the choice to not drink it, but drinking it would be illegal. Kind of hypocrytical.

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[dbucowboy]

It's ok... I thought maybe you misunderstood what I meant. I see what you're saying, but I don't think it works the way you're explaining it. God could have created the world completely perfect if He had chosen to do so. Free will is not the same as handing out free alcohol... free will is only the existence of alcohol. Just as it is now, we have the choice to do what is right or do what is wrong. The Bible makes it clear that when we are born we are sinful... since the fall, sin is in our nature... it's not something we can ever avoid doing. God didn't want to punish any of us so He sent Jesus to serve as a sacrifice for our sins. That way we can live our lives in freedom. The issue here isn't God punishing people for not worshiping Him, it's that God cannot be in the presence of sin so he has no choice. We still have a choice to murder someone... the tools are there, many times the motives are there... yet it is illegal to murder. We have the choice to kill or not to kill. Does that make sense?

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[Chris Burke]

Hey, nice find. Thanks.

This still proves ID

[Wyatt Galen Houtz]

I am arguing that certain leaps require a higher intellegance
to cause those improvements. If there is no higher intellegance,
then there is no way to make the leap. If the bee is the highest
intellegance, there is nothing to intervene and create a hovercraft.
Evolution does not explain for every jump in development, and is not
the compete answer to how the world has arrived.

A bee could grow stronger and fly faster, so I'm not arguing against
improvements, but just saying that not everything arrived on its own.
Evolution is suspect when a bee suddenly starts talking, when it had
no mouth, etc.

Infinity is a paradox. In calculus, you can have a container
with a finite surface, that holds an infinite amount of
material. If there were an infinite number of events until
now, how did we get here? This universe is finite and has
a beginning, if we have a present time.

There should be no universe, because you can't get something
from nothing; yet there is a paradox, because we have a developing
universe with a time line. As illogical to you it sounds,
there has to be a greatest intellegance that has always exists
which all lesser beings were created.

Evolution explains part of the world, but as for its inception,
and for all its deviations, it doesnt answer. Simply comparing
the historical record and current state of the world, an absolute
evolutionary model does not answer. As for scientific method,
your hypothesis doesn't match the data you collected.

Wyatt Houtz
http://www.havenofbliss.com/

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[Weedlekin]

"To try to come a bit on topic I would ask what would be the differences in science development had the Catholic religion been replaced by another religion. I mean, Catholisism brought the Inquisition and the so called Dark Ages (again I am just stating this from my very limited history knowledge) and in one way or another opaqued science development trough the ages. While to the best of my knowledge, religions as the Egypcian or Aztec promoted science (even before it was called science) on their own."

Religion and science tend to happily coexist when science does not contradict the basic tenets of the dominant religion. This was no more or less true of Catholicism than anything else: the inquisition was seldom invoked against scientists, doctors, engineers, etc., because few of them did anything that challenged the Church's authority. Even Galileo, who is often cited as an example of clerical repression of scientific thought actually caused most of his own problems. He had been told that he could freely publish his ideas about the Earth not being the centre of the Universe by the simple expedient of stating that it was a _theory_ (as Copernicus had), and he chose not to do this. Furthermore, his book was published in the form of a series of dialogues between a brilliant know-all based on himself, and a complete idiot who was obviously a caricature of the Pope. He thus did everything he possibly could to provoke the Church, so it is hardly surprising that they responded, yet his punishment was simply house arrest and being prohibited from publishing anything else -- positively benign when compared with what they did to religious heretics.

Any condemnation of Catholicism for repression of scientific thought must also consider that the Jesuit order, almost from its inception, has not only embraced science in general, but also produced a large number of excellent scientists (the debate between Galileo and some Jesuits during his trial is interesting, because they make him look quite foolish on several occasions). Not many other religions can claim to have an order almost exclusively dedicated to the pursuit of science, and it is the Jesuits as much as anyone who have resulted in Catholicism's eventual acceptance of a non-geocentric universe, the theory of evolution, and various other viewpoints which contradict a rigid interpretation of the Bible.

NB: I am not in any way defending Catholicism: the point of my post is simply to put it in context with other dominant religions, few of which have displayed any notable tolerance for opposing viewpoints (Buddhism being a notable exception).

WOW.

[C10H14N2]

Aside from the fact that even my university days were largely parochial, up until five years ago and this little meme popped up even then, ID in its many forms--in America alone--has been around for over two centuries (see: "The Watchmaker" argument, Wm.Paley ca.1800), but I'd go back at least to St. Augustine (ca. 400, not as literal as Paley, but he's certainly relevant) -- just in the context of Christianity, without getting into, say, pre-christian Greek thoughts on the subject. Let's face it, anything that can fall under the broad topic of "theology" is essentially an attempt to present "intelligent design." So not being over 5000 years old, no, my little sunday-school experiences certainly did not pre-date "intelligent design."

Re:WOW.

[PoolDoc]

Actually, it did.

At least in the literature arising from the religious side of the debate, the term "intelligent design" is less than 25 years old. Granted, the old "argument from design", that Augustine and others proposed in various forms quite a while ago (though nothing like 5,000 years ago). But, the specific term, "ID", and the arguments specific to it arose at the tail end of the 20th century.

I'd be rather surprised if you can find a pre-1985 bibliographic citation (on or off the web) for the term "ID" or "intelligent design", in the context of the debate about biological origins.

OTOH, I get the impression that some of the more fundamentalist Creationists have latched onto ID -- without undertanding it much better than the secular media does -- and begun waving the ID flag, not realizing that many of the arguments associated with ID undercut their own belief in a young earth and a 168-hour creation. If this is in fact occuring, it's virtually certain to lead to confusion on the part of ID opponents.

PoolDoc

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[lysergic.acid]

There are logical reasons why certain axioms don't need to be proven within a logical system. No one requires that you have faith in geometry. If you want to use geometry to solve a math problem, then you use the axioms that define the system, but in no way is it ever assumed that postulates/axioms are true in an absolute manner. It is well understood that outside of a particular mathematical/theoretical model the axioms governing it have no truth value one way or another.

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[Weird_one]

Just a stupid question, not meant to be a flame, but if you have a close personal active with God, why do you need a book at all?

how bee's fly?

[rebeldt]

really, so we can send a man(or woman) to space, but the mystery of how a bee flies still floats around amazing....

Big Bang and the Bible

[Dog-Cow]

As my chemistry and biology teacher (same man) in high school pointed out, the first passages of the Bible (the real Bible, not the New Testament Babble) directly support the Big Bang theory.

The gist of the passages is that there was a void and emptiness (to'hu v'vohu), and from this sprang forth light. Jewish scholars have long believed that this light is not the same light which emanates from the sun. The most reasonable explanation is that this "light" refers to energy. In other words, the universe sprang from a void and released energy. From all this came the observable universe. Sounds like a really simplistic description of the Big Bang theory, tailored to an audience that would not have understood the word science when translated to any language of the day.

In a similar vein, it is also understood that a "day" in God's perspective is not a 24 hour day as defined by humans. In biblical terms, such a use of the term "day" simply refers to some discreet period of time. There is no implied consistancy with the length of time from one context to another. When the term is used to refer to human activities, a day refers to a 24-hour unit of time.

It has been generally accepted for hundreds, if not thousands, of years by Jewish scholars that biblical descriptions of the material world are not to be taken literally when a literal interpretation contradicts observable phenomena. The details of creation as currently understood can be fit into the Genesis story fairly well, so long as one understands that the literal-sounding terms used were chosen for an audience that did not have the knowledge to accept what we consider modern understanding and science.

One should also understand that the debate between religion and science often is really referring to Christianity and science. The Jewish religion is far more than a body of unprovable beliefs. It is a philosophy. One of the greatest Talmudic sages summed up the Jewish religion as: do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Another summed it as: treat each person as a friend. It is a body of law governing every aspect of human activity. Jewish law has evolved over the millenia, and it continues to do so to this day.

Christianity departed from Judiasm by rejecting every part of it besides the core belief in a creator and redeemer. (Both of these are considered core beliefs of Judiasm.) By rejecting the law and the rules governing the determination of law, it also rejected the ability to adapt and reinterpret to fit new knowledge and circumstances.

There is a core part of any theistic religion that is based purely on faith. Only those opposed to rational thought try to apply an irrational belief system on every aspect of reality. Don't let people like this color your view of religion. Humans are not wholly rational, and I feel that it's perfectly fine to have irrational beliefs in areas that rational thought cannot explain. I.E. There's nothing wrong in believing in God until the existance of God is disproven.

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you implying Jebus show us the path to the scientific method (lets not forget the dark ages)??? Ever heard of that chap Newton, after whos success people started approaching science based on what you can measure and see, not on fabricating systems that may or may not be responsible for how things work. Yes god, fsm etc are axioms, just not useful ones in the physical sciences. Perhaps if you are unwell or in need of comfort then the idea of a big meatball in the sky helps, in which case great, but if you're trying to figure out the stresses imposed on a suspension bridge when cars go over it I don't think constructs based on creatures asleep of the shore if Innsmouth are going to help at all.

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Occam's Razor is false logic; always has been.

In that case, you've lost a huge reason why ID is considered not a science.

The scientific method is not.

I'm not judging whether it is false logic or true logic, only whether it is objectively derived or an assumption. The scientific method is an assumption. It's arguably a very correct and successfull assumption- but it remains an assumption, and thus a belief, a faith.

Strawman

[SlippyToad]

Irrational to me is saying God doesn't exist because we can now fathom how Bee's fly.

If you put words in people's mouths, you should not be too surprised when they spit them back out into your face. What TFA clearly states is that we now understand the mechanical reason for bee flight. It also clearly and specifically points out the ongoing intelligent design fad among creationist pseudo-intellectuals as having used our previous lack of a model for bee flight as a wedge against science.

What it doesn't say is that we can now prove that God doesn't exist, because that isn't the task of Science. The task of Science is to describe the universe in logical and mathematical terms. The test of an accurate description is an accurate prediction. God in any guise doesn't figure into these terms because he/she/it is neither a logical nor a mathematical quantity. If you have a mathematical or logical model that requires the existence of such a being you are welcome to submit it to the scientific community. But in the instance of such a submittal you will be required to prove the positive existence of God.

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[Marxist Hacker 42]

A more accurate statement (but still paraphrased) is that, given one or more theories which explain all the observables, you should use the theory which seems simpler until you discover that it doesn't explain all the observables.

Well, I don't know of ANY theory that explains all the observables- observables would include completely subjective things such as religious visions, magical tricks, and apparently supernatural events. ALL these things are OBSERVABLE- and most can't be explained very easily.

Can they explains pics of people riding on dino's?

[Black-Man]

You know... like the pics on that Australian dude's website where they are herding the dinosaurs into the dino-pen.

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[Anonymous Coward]

I realize I'm only answering one point, but the creation of man could have been anywhere according to the Bible. The current human population expanded from Noah's Ark after the worldwide flood. The confusion is usually caused by the naming of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers in the creation account; however there were four rivers in the account whereas there are only the two now. The ark is generally believed to have settled in the Caucasus Mountains in Turkey, which corresponds to the apparent expansion of humanity from that area. The rivers now known as the Tigris and Euphrates were formed during the flood, and probably named after the originals.

No it doesn't..

[vidarh]

I am arguing that certain leaps require a higher intellegance to cause those improvements. If there is no higher intellegance, then there is no way to make the leap

The flaw in that argument is that you are making two assumptions without proof: 1) that a "design" happening one place means to change an entity into another requires there to always be design involved for that entity to change that much, and 2) that there are "leaps" in the development of life.

The first assumption is simply wrong. It is essentially claiming that ID is needed, and so evolution is wrong, because something happened without evolution.

I could turn that on it's head by picking ANY random process and claim it as proof that ID isn't needed, because something happened without ID.

The second assumption is just a restatement of ID. In other words you are stating that "since I don't believe in evolution, there must be a leap for something to change from one to the other, so evolution must be wrong". It is a circular argument.

Evolution is suspect when a bee suddenly starts talking, when it had no mouth, etc.

And all this proves is that you don't understand what evolution is.

If you truly believe that evolution involves even the idea of changes as large as a bee being able to suddenly go from todays bee to one that could talk, then you have no basis for forming a reasonable idea of evolution.

I see you are assuming "leaps" again. But we already know a lot about the various intermediate stages for many organs. Eyes for instance - an eye is highly beneficial without a lens. Visibility and ability to focus will be extremely limited, but as anyone nearly blind can tell you there is a huge amount of difference from just being able to see rough shapes and being blind. Even the ability to just sense whether your path is blocked or not (i.e. just seeing light and dark) is a huge advantage over being blind.

So there would be no reason for any huge leaps from "no eye" to human type eyes to occur. Same for no mouth to speaking. Having a proper mouth and strong jaw and teeth gives an advantage in being able to take more types of food. Being able to emit sounds gives an advantage in basic communications, and the more advanced sounds the more significant that advantage becomes.

The very point of evolution is that every change is extremely limited, extremely simple and that most of them disappears again beacause they give no advantage, but the sheer number of individuals and the sheer number of generations allow positive changes to accumulate and gradually cause significant change.

Infinity is a paradox. In calculus, you can have a container with a finite surface, that holds an infinite amount of material. If there were an infinite number of events until now, how did we get here? This universe is finite and has a beginning, if we have a present time.

A paradox is something that is inconsistent with itself. Infinity by itself does not require any paradoxes whatsoever. Your own example is meaningless. Of course something with a finite surface can hold an "infinite amount" of material if the unit you choose is infinitely small. There is no paradox in that - the total amount using the same unit as the surface will still be smaller than the total volume of the object.

Claiming that the universe is finite and has a beginning if we have a present time is meaningless. Why? How does the concept of infinity affect whether or not we have a present time? "Present time" is just a "marker" - you do not need to know the endpoints of a line to be able to draw a mark on it and move that mark in one direction. It doesn't suddenly become impossible for you to do so if you suddenly find out that the line extends infinitely far in either direction.

Besides, even if the universe is finite, that does not alter what I wrote - you have no way of knowing if there was another universe befor this one (or at the same time as this one). I was merely pointing

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[Cerberus7]

See, you just don't get it. You're being reasonable. You're supposed to start frothing at the mouth, babbling unintelligable crap. At least, that's what the anti-Christians expect from you. And they won't listen to a thing you're saying, even if it makes perfect sense. They already have made up their minds, and you refuting one of their examples won't make a lick of difference because they'll keep coming up with more. You could refute or explain every single one, and they'll not listen. Their final dismissal will be "but you believe it, so I'm not going to listen to you" no matter how completely you explain yourself.

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[cloudmaster]

As well as averse to spell checking? Or perhaps you really are the opposite of tornadoes? :)

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[bill_kress]

Naw, same people different decade.

The problem with ID

[darkonc]

The basic problem with ID is that it comes from people who claim that they have the answer to all questions. They, essentially, claim to be your personal route to god -- believe in them and all will be answered. This answeres the human urge to want to 'know' about everything.

Now, where do they get this authority?? Well from God himself -- via the bible. Well, if these people have the answer to all things, and they get that authority from the bible, then the bible must (somehow) have the answer to all questions -- like where did the world come from (creationism), or how do bees fly (God's Magic).

Now that they have the answer to all things ("it's magic/god's will" being the default), they can point to science as being 'flawed' because scientists are willing to objectively acknowledge that they don't have the answer to some questions (like 'how do bees fly' -- which was actually answered a few years ago).

But don't worry -- now that this question has been answered (again!), they'll just go on using it as an example of how science doesn't work because "Everybody knows that scientists don't know how bees fly".

You see, scientific solutions are irrelevant to these people.

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[a-singularity]

but you have to have evidence to support your claims

Commonly, scientists make claims that are not supported by evidence or are weakly supported. Many 'scientific' claims about prehistory are little more than fancy guesswork. Other times they discover how bees fly and say that they have ended a totally unrelated debate. Plenty of people on both sides of this one could be called 'wackjobs.'

I can only assume your comment means that ID asserts something science has evidence against. This isn't really true. ID asserts that nature has a designer, AFAIK. It is often pushed in the wrong ways, by the wrong people, and into the wrong places (science class). Scientific theory of particles to people evolution only asserts that random connected events 'could' have produced our world. This means that you can claim ID is not necesary for our existence. You cannot claim that it is proven false.

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[Thangodin]

There has never been anything proven incorrect about the bible. If you took time to study it, then you would've found that out.

Wow, have you even opened the damn book? I mean, without your bible study group to cherry pick the passages and explain away all the glaring inconsistencies? The bible is not consistent with history, archeology, anthropology, physics, any coherent system of ethics, or even with itself! There are two completely different versions of the creation myth and two versions of the ten commandments. The four gospels tell wildly different stories of Jesus' death and resurrection, while Paul never mentions the resurrection once--probably because the myth of the resurrection was not widely adopted till after his death.

In fact, the original sources for the gospels consist of aphorisms, he-said they-said...without a word about what Jesus did or about what happened to him. Look up the Gospel of Thomas if you want to see the original format of the gospels. The story of his life was filled in later, and in the grand tradition of hellenistic heroes, he was made the son of a god. Of the four gospels the sermon on the mount is the only part that everyone agrees is probably accurate. And at the Council of Nicea, they started with over 20 gospels and ended with 4. Wouldn't we all love to know what wound up on the cutting room floor?

Where do fundamentalists get this bizarre notion that there is nothing wrong in the bible? Even a glancing survey of the Old Testament should be enough to dispel this notion. With its numerous calls upon the faithful towards rapine and slaughter, and especially towards murdering children, I seriously suspect that many of the Isrealites were actually still worshipping Moloch for much of it, and they just cut Moloch's name out of the stories later. Traditional Christianity regards the Bible as problematic; in fact, the Catholic Church tried to prevent it from being translated into languages that people could read. This should tell you something. The Catholic Church wrote the Bible, at the council of Nicea. The Nicean Creed, formulated by the same council, remains the core statement of the Catholic articles of faith, and is recited in each Catholic Mass.

The most infuriating thing about this literalistic fundamentalist crap isn't the bogus scientific claims, or the hypocrisy, or even the fascistic danger of a theocracy. The thing that bothers people the most is that it is not and never has been Christianity. It's a political movement masquerading as a religion, completely at odds with nearly all of the Christian tradition. None of the older churches, who remain grounded in this tradition, would bother to challenge evolution--Christianity has no stake in the argument. The desire to invoke supernatural entities to explain and control natural events is not religion, it is magic. Fundamentalists have turned Christianity into some sort of new age occult circus, with people speaking in tongues, angels running around like personal valets, and faces appearing on everything from Mars to your morning toast. The flakiness reaches its height in the Rapture; where the hell did that come from? The word for all this, up until recently, was Witchcraft.

As one rather horrified Christian theologian remarked about all this: "This is really not our business, not our business at all."

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[jazman]

Fair question. Ideally you don't, but the world isn't ideal due to the fall. It can be quite difficult to understand what God says, especially if there's a disagreement clouding the relationship, but a bible can be read at any time and is fairly clear.

It contains a lot of historical reference which is interesting, as well as being a good source of what God said to and through who in the past. Being a written account of law it's also useful for resolving arguments, e.g. between the "Thou shalt not kill" camp and the "Thou canst killeth from timeth to timeth" camp.

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[Digi-John]

Heh, sorry, I wasn't very coherent when I was writing that. Of course, I can't guarantee that I'm ever very coherent.

I was trying to make this point: In something like that, why wouldn't church leaders look for divine guidance instead of turning to an ancient pagan philosopher? I was also saying how hard it would be for them to make a change while saving face--look at the Catholic church vs. Galileo. They didn't accept that Galileo was right until what, the 1990s?

Sorry for the confusion.

Evolution is incomplete, ID is important.

[Wyatt Galen Houtz]

If you want to talk about religion, we can talk about the supremacy of Jesus Christ. But assides from religion, I am interested in learning how the world exists. Evolution is a good theory, which helps us understand some things but it does not explain the current situation of the world because the current theory has major holes (like the human eye) which it can't explain. According to the scientific method, you should observe that the state of the world should be in accord with evolution but since its not, the theory needs to be modified.

Intellegent Design is important because it explains parts of the world that exist which Evolution cannot explain scientifically. Men are like gods on earth, who do create things, and there's no reason why a higher life form doesn't intercede. I personally think its God, others think aliens, and others just can't explain it but accept that its there.

The human eye is a text book example of Intellegent Design and Complexity Theory because of it requires several independantly developed components to function that would not develop on their own. Additionally, there are many eyes of varying degrees from light or motion sensing to human eyes: lining them up you can see how one is more advanced than the other but there is no way for one eye to develop to the next evolutionary jump.

In a text book, I do not want to read "Evolution is fact" when its not, and I want to hear other explainations. Unless you want to be like the Japanese last year, who edit persecutions out of their history books, so they can believe they never did anything wrong.

Wyatt Houtz
http://www.havenofbliss.com/

Re:Evolution is incomplete, ID is important.

[vidarh]

Evolution is a good theory, which helps us understand some things but it does not explain the current situation of the world because the current theory has major holes (like the human eye) which it can't explain. According to the scientific method, you should observe that the state of the world should be in accord with evolution but since its not, the theory needs to be modified.

See below regarding the human eye. As for the rest of what we say, we are partially in agreement. Evolution doesn't explain everything, but that in itself doesn't mean that it needs to change - theories aren't designed to explain everything, they are designed to cover an area. There are certainly needs for additional theories, or alternatively expansion of evolutionary theory to cover more ground.

Additionally, there will certainly be discoveries that don't fit the current revision of evolutionary theory exactly, which will require changes to the theory of evolution - that is how science advance: By gradually adapting explanations to fit the available data better and better. Only extremely rarely do one see discoveries that require a well tested theory to be completely scrapped - Newtonian physics for instance, is still relevant even after Einstein showed that it gets increasingly inaccurate (to the point of being useless) as objects in a system approach the speed of light - Einsteins theories just represented a refinement to cover areas not previously considered.

However this does not justify ID in any way. ID is not a scientific theory - it is a bunch of loose statements that doesn't explain anything in a testable way. I might as well claim that santa claus created the world, and that hypothesis (which is all ID is) would be just as valid as ID.

The problem is that without stating ID in a formal manner, laying out exactly what is claimed in a way that allow us to make predictions that will be true if ID is true and false if ID is false, that can be tested, there is no way of evaluating the reliability of ID.

Without being testable and falsifiable, any claims of ID being a scientific theory or an "alternative to evolution" are just as bogus as if I were to put forth a "theory" that gravity is the result of invisible demons pulling us down - I can make up all the reasons in the world why this is "likely" (after all we don't have a good theory explaining how gravity works, and my "theory" would explain it easily), but as long as I don't expand on it by making statements that are testable and falsifiable, it is just meaningless drivel.

If I, on the other hand, claims that these "gravity demons" should be measurable in a specific way that would be explainable with my theory but not without it, then that is a scientific theory (a bloody stupid one, but still) because I have given a concrete way for the theory to be tested that will falsify the theory if the tests can't be successfully done.

State ID in such a way, and it will be taken seriously. The reason no ID proponents ever take up that challenge is that whenever they try, their "predictions" always turns out to be wrong and they end up going back to their usual excuses.

The human eye is a text book example of Intellegent Design and Complexity Theory because of it requires several independantly developed components to function that would not develop on their own. Additionally, there are many eyes of varying degrees from light or motion sensing to human eyes: lining them up you can see how one is more advanced than the other but there is no way for one eye to develop to the next evolutionary jump.

Actually, the human eye is a text book example of flawed Intelligent Design examples.

First of all, the eye is incredibly badly designed. I was actually considering using it as an example in my post to explain evolution, exactly because it's one of the most common flawed ID arguments, however I decided against it because I'd have to look up the details.

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[grolschie]

I am also not making any statement on "ID". I for one can see how evolution would be used as a driver for Creation as a whole.

Not if you believe the bible though. The bible teaches that death entered the world because of the sin of the first man Adam. Whereas evolution teaches that death has been occuring for billions of years prior to the first man's existance. To the bible believer this is heresy. Additionally, Exodus 20:11 teaches a 6 literal day creation. These two world views are mutually exclusive.

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[Medievalist]

Your "flaming atheism" would be welcome in any Unitarian Universalist Church, I think.

Many atheists unite with theists in insisting that non-theistic faiths are not religions. And of course the US Supreme Court ruled that Universalism wasn't a religion, because it rejected the notion of a binding creed (which seems sort of like saying "if you reject hatred and strife you aren't a religion!"). It's nice to meet an atheist who thinks a little deeper that that.

If you don't need church, you can still "be a Unitarian by yourself" like Tommy Jefferson. And you can still be an atheist at the same time, too (although he wasn't).

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[jgeneric]

This is the stupidest slant on a story I've ever seen. As an engineer and a Christian this is borderline insulting. Sure, maybe we couldn't model bee flight, but only an idiot would think that we wouldn't figure it out eventually. Gee, scientist were able to model bee flight, and found DESIGN in how a bee flies. Nothing intelligent here! Unbelievable.

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[shaitand]

"In that case, you've lost a huge reason why ID is considered not a science."

Fortunately ID continues to fail on many other major points of science. First it does not actually solve the problem it merely adds another layer. We created paperclips. If the paperclips figure that out it still begs the question of who created the raw material we fashioned them from adn who created us. That chains continues so long as there remains a creator and a createe. Since ID does not solve the problem, it is not a workable theory. ID is also can not be disproven, ever, no matter what advances in technology occur or discoveries are made.

Actually Occam's razor would lead one more directly to ID. Evolution requires many assumptions, ID requires only the assumption that some invisible unquestionable magical being in the sky did it all. Since Occam's razor uses the number of assumptions and not the probability of the assumptions then Evolution would be shaved by the razor if ID were a valid scientific theory in the first place.

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[P3NIS_CLEAVER]

I don't think that is weird at all. I am an atheist, but I am certainly not against religion. I don't need to cut up others beliefs to feel okay about my choices. I judge people by what the say and do, not their religion.

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[Anonymous Coward]

I have to post anon, cos I've been modding,

So you're saying that you believe that God created the earth through evolution? But the biblical creation story claims it was all created in 6 days.

Another example of how people generally don't take the time to understand their opponents point of view and end up attacking blurry reflections instead of actual views held by their opponents.

Most "Old Testament believers" including Jews, Christians (don't know about Moslems) don't think 6 days means 6 24 hour periods for various literary and physical reasons, not least because of the change that is said to have occurred to the earth as part of the fall when Adam and Eve took the fruit. The earth was created before this point (naturally) and existed in a different state, so even if you want to claim that 6 days meant 6 rotations of the planet (which is barely supportable), there are no grounds to suppose that this would be 6x24 hours. Secondly, what could a "day" mean before light and dark are seperated (implying no planetary rotation?)?

If you want to understand the biblical account of creation there is a lot of reading you can do, you may chose not to, but until then you might be reminded from time to time, how ill qualified most people are to debunk it. Most attempts end with "but then this doesn't make sense so it can't be true" while those who believe keep looking and find an answer that makes the whole account more reasonable and complete.

However, as you say, it has little to do with what is being argued, and certainly although religion and science attempt to answer different questions, both are used to wield power by those who desire power; so I would suggest that "religion" does not impose these deplorable attitudes and ways of thinking onn people any more than "science" does, and I've seen Richard Dawkins preach his religion to children and delight that they believe him, although on insufficient grouns "but thats OK cos he knows he's right", it exists on both sides.

Those who surpress in people rational thought in order to teach then to be "good" are practically village witchdoctors, and it has nothing to do with religion.

There is little comparison between religions and scientific arguments but not for the reasons you give; but because they barely touch.

To me, God is not a magical wizard, but is a master of all science (including social science that we seem to have most trouble with in thie life) and more particularly, a loving father.

If you were God would you dish out your power and knowledge to idiots like most people are, or would you lock them away on planet cricket* for a mortal lifespan so they could learn to be independantly decent when they have the option to think otherwise?

*HHG2G reference

Sam

Now on to photosynthesis!

[Itninja]

They are also pleased that a simple thing like bee flight can no longer be used as an example of science failing to explain a common phenomenon.

Just tell exactly how grass can turn light into food and I will be happy :P

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[Anonymous Coward]

I presume that it is because you think it is such rubbish that you haven't bothered to learn that your argument isn't based in fact or claim.

Christianity did not start with the life of Christ, strictly it is a Jewish Sect, of Jews who believed Jesus was the prophesied Messiah.

So it's not surprising, that if his coming was prophesied since the beginning of the world, that it's threads run through most religions, is it? It's to be expected!

So while you knew those "simple facts", your belief in their falsehood prevented you from interpreting them in a way that supports their truth. Thats interesting.

The thing about truths is that there is only ONE (please don't argue about ONE truths, you know what I mean). Their are zillions of falshoods, one to suit every taste. You can't infer enough about the truth of one religion or fact from observations on another because you just might miss out on the one truth through being too hasty...

The only way to get the ONE truth is to be taught it by someone who has it. This may be from God directly or from people he directs as you are ready to receive it. If you really want to know the truth about the purpose of this world and your life in it, pray to God and ask him to make it known to you; and if he is there, he will. Of course, not being omnipotent or worthy of worship, you might have a little trouble guessing how he is going to do it. He may even help you see if you really want to know. But if you want to know, and if you ask sincerely, he will show you. (If you want to know, what will you do?)

This experiment is provable by anyone who cares to try it, and there is enough testimonials from those who have. It is an experiment upon yourself, and therefore based upon your own state and desire, but it is a very joyful experiemt when carried through to the end.

Sam

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[sholdowa]

There's nothing about ID in the original article... or did you mean the in-depth yahoo review of it?

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Fortunately ID continues to fail on many other major points of science. First it does not actually solve the problem it merely adds another layer.

That complaint is in fact Occam's razor- the idea we shouldn't add additional layers of complexity. If Occam's razor is in fact logically unsupportable, then this point is lost.

That chains continues so long as there remains a creator and a createe.

For all science knows, there is always a creator and a createe- that is, there are no uncaused events, everything is causual. So therefore, that's an argument FOR ID. The extraordinary claim which requires extraordinary evidence is that there is a break in the chain of cause and event; or that there can be a break in that chain.

Actually Occam's razor would lead one more directly to ID. Evolution requires many assumptions, ID requires only the assumption that some invisible unquestionable magical being in the sky did it all. Since Occam's razor uses the number of assumptions and not the probability of the assumptions then Evolution would be shaved by the razor if ID were a valid scientific theory in the first place.

Now that's an interesting idea- that evolution requires *more* assumptions. I've been going on the idea that evolution requires the same number of assumptions- that the assumption of an indeterministic, non-causual universe is just as outlandish, complex, and improbable as the assumption of a creator. Can you explain the idea that evolution requires more than that? And how does that differ from ID's theistic evolution theory (which I have a problem differing from atheistic evolution to begin with- their predictions and assumptions seem entirely equal to me)?

Ignoring ID - Focusing on flight mechanics

[Powder_Keg_Monkey]

If anyone is interested in the actual flight mechanics of small insects, here is a recent article from IEEE Spectrum that summarises the topic. http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/nov05/2151> It also discusses how, from a neurological perspective, a small insect with an incredibly tiny brain can execute flight maneuvers that are still beyond any we can design, and compares the process with approaches taken by military engineers designing micro air vehicles. An interesting piece with no philosophy, just some innovative engineering and research.

Re:ID? What are they talking about?

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone who believes in ID has probably use it. None of the ones I've read have. I've read books, not websites, (Behe puts forward the best case I've read).

There's probably are ID proponents arguing from Bee flight. Not every ID proponent actually knows their own arguments. To get the straight goods on ID, you're best going with the intellectual leaders in ID.

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[Marxist Hacker 42]

In other words, if at a dinner table you are offered to choose between a spoon and a Rube Goldberg machine which functions as a spoon, take the spoon.

And my point is that the Rube Goldberg machine is sometimes more correct.

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[samjam]

Exodus does NOT teach a literal six day creation in the way you mean, especially seen as the dividing the light from the dark into day and night was one of the creative acts.

However, if it gives you comfort to think that most Christians and Jews believe that and have closed their own eyes in the face of being so foolishly wrong, so be it. You will just be closing your eyes in the face of being so foolishly wrong.

There MAY be problems with Christianity or Judiasm, but do you reeeellly think none of the Christians or Jews have looked at that before? Find the state-of-the-philosophy first and then start picking holes.

Sam

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[samjam]

There is a proof in God, but if you want to experience the proof, you have to work it out for yourself. Like most experiments, you are part of the apparatus and the experiemtn may change your nature.

If God will manifest himself to you, then you have proof. If he does not, you still have no proof.

The question remains; are all those people who say they have come to know God (tried the experiemt) making it up? Deceived? Or have they found something really really worth knowing. They are some experiments to try THAT question, the answer (if successful) is usually "hmmmmm.... I'm listening" leading on to the main experiment.

The minor experiment is to ask from time to time about people: "Does their life incline me to think that perhaps their might be a God worth knowing after all?" When your answer is hard to give its time to try out the main experiment. Rinse and repeat till you find it.

I happen to know their is a God who loves me but the knowedge didn't come from any pure reason that I can manage, or for free.

Sam

Design optimization / wake recapture

[JonTurner]

>>that bees fly because little ridges on their wing roots act as vortex generators, breaking up the airflow above the wing?

Sort of. The answer is in wake capture. The bee wing swings back through the vorticies created during the last occilation, recapturing some of the energy.

Many more links and more info at:
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2528

..and these are easy to find.

[C10H14N2]

Whenever someone argues that ID is scientific, then argues that all of science is just religion, that argument necessitates that ID is religious and, voila, you know you're dealing with a looney.

You said "religion" when you meant "Christian"

[Medievalist]

Religion is mostly static? How many religions, exactly, have you studied extensively? This statement doesn't even really apply all that well to Xianity.

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[hobo sapiens]

Lack of understanding/comprehension of you part does not make your beliefs valid.

Not sure exactly what this means, but if you meant to say that I am validating my beliefs with the fact that science has not yet answered everything about everything, then you need to re-read my OP. That, as I pointed out, is precisely where the ID people have gone wrong.

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[OOGG_THE_CAVEMAN]

Interesting, but the original challenge was against a poster that claimed

There has never been anything proven incorrect about the bible.

Once you start allowing human interpretation in, and admit that the gospels themselves are the result of deliberate human selection and editing of second- and third-hand accounts, then the powerful faith that fundamentalists put in the text itself is pointless (and, BTW, these kind of careful analyses of tense, etc., would require good manuscripts of the koine Greek, and once you get to that point, the whole idea of "good" and "manuscript" sort of falls apart, not to mention "correct" and "incorrect.")

The basic problem is the fundamentalists have a circular logic: the Bible is inerrant and absolutely without contradiction, and ordinary texts (of similar size and complexity) written by humans have errors and contradictions, therefore, the Bible must be EXTRAordinary, i.e., inspired by God, where they leave out the part that because they hold the Bible to be inspired by God that any confusion or apparent contradiction can be explained away with any amount of weak argument, as opposed to chalking even obvious copyist errors and suspiciously self-serving "agreement" with Old Testament prophesies up to human error in a human text.

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[runderwo]

Is the Bible, or is it not, the infallible, divinely inspired word of God?

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[samjam]

[Wow, dumb slashdot preview said: Your comment has too few characters per line (currently 24.7). How many does it want]

It's good that you address these points; so do I

Wow, have you even opened the damn book? I mean, without your bible study group to cherry pick the passages and explain away all the glaring inconsistencies? The bible is not consistent with history,

neither is history

archeology,

neither is archeology

anthropology,

neither is history or archeology. I don't think you are getting anywhere with such vague assertions. I wonder if you include "biblical" "history" "archeology" and "anthropology", as it clearly has real and historical authorship

physics,

I'd like to see what you have, here

any coherent system of ethics,

I think you shot yourself with "any", but I contest the point without that word

or even with itself! #lameness filter lint

It's about as self-consistent as most anthropoligical, archealogical or historical sources of similar size and date whichever way you slice it; which isn't bad considering it went through some editing work during its lifetime.

There are two completely different versions of the creation myth

The mormons have even more accounts, however...

and two versions of the ten commandments.

Or even three

The four gospels tell wildly

not wildly, about as much as many sources

different stories of Jesus' death and resurrection, while Paul never mentions the resurrection once--probably

this must be some special use of the world probably, I would say that "possibily" that in the writings we actually have of Paul (yes we know some are missing) he didn't attempt to give an account. It's not like he was there at the time, or like he was trying to do a historical report like Luke, is it?

because the myth of the resurrection was not widely adopted till after his death.

The "myth" was prophesied long before his birth.

In fact, the original sources

there are no "original sources" unless you found a stash recently

for the gospels consist of aphorisms, he-said they-said...without a word about what Jesus did or about what happened to him. Look up the Gospel of Thomas if you want to see the original format of the gospels.

I guess that be a copy of something claiming to be the Gospel of Thomas and not any other original copies of any other gospels at all? How is a not-really-original copy of Thomas gospel even nearly equivalent to "the original sources">

The story of his life was filled in later, #lameness filter lint

The gospels weren't written till decades after they occurred, yes.

and in the grand tradition of hellenistic heroes, he was made the son of a god.

Are you trying to make out that this wasn't one of the reasons he was crucified, for blasphemously claiming to be the Son of God?

Of the four gospels the sermon on the mount is the only part that everyone agrees is probably accurate.

I may have to call on you to exband on this word "everyone", and also "accurate". I suspect that for "accurate" you mean without dispute over the documented event, what is more interesting is what is disuputed; we expect disputes over historical records.

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[JeffBartlett]

... and as I see it this is the main problem. Why can't we just have a nice article about the science of a bee's flight? I vote that the science articles should be about science and there can be a related article in the politics section for anyone wishing to discuss how this applies to creation or evolution!

Minor OT rant/correction .. it's spelled "Caltech"

[IdahoEv]

So seriously...were these CalTech researchers purposed with finding one more way to discredit ID,

I know this is something of a lost cause, but the school's abbreviated name is spelled "Caltech", not "CalTech" or "Cal Tech". Really. Check out the institute's website to see how they use it in their own literature.

Usually, "Cal" separated from the rest of the name indicates a public school:

• "Cal" (alone) = University of California, Berkeley (usually). Other UC schools are usually written "UC Irvine" or "UCI".
• "Cal State" = CSU = California State University (many campuses abound).
• "Cal Poly" = California Polytechnic State University, a public institute outside the UC and CSU systems.

OTOH, private universities like University of Southern California or the California Institute of Technology generally don't prefix their abbreviated names with "Cal" as a separate word. So, "Caltech" is one word. And like anything else, once you've grown used to seeing it written correctly, everything else looks Really Wrong (tm).

Thanks for listening...

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[sparkz]

I agree with just about everything you say, but I note that Further, science is a process and need not be proved. is an interesting statement of faith. If I had said "God is ineffable and need not be proven", you would have ripped me to shreds.

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[clockwork_orange]

I am a physicist to me grammar is like the queen: i understand that she has a purpose but i don't really care about it

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[Nate4D]

Well, it looks to me like in my absence, the discussion has been pretty much covered.

Any points that don't seem clear to you still, though? I'd be more than happy to try to explain them if something still isn't clicking.

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[dubl-u]

Uh, yes it does actually. Learning how something works inevitably takes the magic out of it.

Maybe you're not learning enough. The latest thing to catch my interest is plants and plant biology. Everything I read makes it more amazing. So complicated! So intricate! Flowers, for example, are so much more than a pretty face. And the continual slow-motion warfare that goes on among plants is amazing.

The only drawback so far is that now that I think of flowers as plant sexual organs, my girlfriend's flower calendar looks disurbingly like porn money shots. I'm glad that for 2006 she replaced it with a Hello Kitty calendar.

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[Darby]

There is a proof in God,

No, there isn't. Not in this life. Well, unless he felt like actually showing himself to the world, instead of playing petulant games. That's assuming, of course, that he actually exists which I don't believe.

If God will manifest himself to you, then you have proof. If he does not, you still have no proof.

If he's a god, it's within his power to provide proof that will satisfy everybody.

The question remains; are all those people who say they have come to know God (tried the experiemt) making it up? Deceived?

Yes.
The vast majority never had the opportunity to make a free choice since they were told from birth that it's the absolute truth and anybody who says otherwise is evil and will burn. Very sad, but true nonetheless.

I happen to know their is a God who loves me but the knowedge didn't come from any pure reason that I can manage, or for free.

No, you happen to believe that. If it makes you happy, then more power to you. I have no problems with that whatsoever. My only problem is when people think their beliefs give them the right to force them on others. Please note that I'm not accusing you of any such thing.

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[grolschie]

Exodus does NOT teach a literal six day creation in the way you mean, especially seen as the dividing the light from the dark into day and night was one of the creative acts.

"For in six days Jehovah made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore Jehovah blessed the Sabbath day, and sanctified it." - Exodus 20:11

"It is a sign between Me and the sons of Israel forever. For in six days Jehovah made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day He rested, and was refreshed. - Exodus 31:17

Here God was speaking to common people in common language. .He was not speaking figuratively. The message was meant to be understood by all. They had approximately 2500 years of 24 hour days up until that point. The average person knew what a "day" ("yom" in Hebrew) was. In the Genesis creation account, every day ended with "And the evening and the morning were the [x] day". Very clear, that is was not a period of many days or millenia. BTW, light was divided from darkness on the very first day.

I say again, the Christian Bible and evolution are incompatible. Evolution has death coming before sin, and the Bible has death entering the world only after the first man sinned. You can try and twist the Genesis and Exodus writings as much as you like but the New Testament is also very clear.

"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin: and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned." - Romans 5:12

"Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses" - Romans 5:14

"For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." - I Corinthians 15:21-22

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[samjam]

err.... "look at where I said: In the way you mean"; I may have to disagree with you on whether or not "day" meant 24 hours.

However I am in agreement about "evolution" being incompatable with the bible; as you say evolution indicates death was always present and I agree that Adam was created as immortal.

Sam

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[samjam]

No, there isn't. Not in this life. Well, unless he felt like actually showing himself to the world,...

which was, incidentally, my point.

If he's a god, it's within his power to provide proof that will satisfy everybody.

Yes, but within the contraints of the purpose of this brief life, the answer is "only to those who seek him." Sure he could just show himself right now to the whole world in one go, but it would be a waste of the purpose of life.

The question remains; are all those people who say they have come to know God (tried the experiemt) making it up? Deceived?

Yes.

Your may forgive them for thinking that the evidence on which you base that claim is less than the evidence they have for that claim.
It seems strange to claim that millions of people are deceived on the grounds that you have no experience of what the claim to be the origin of their conviction.

The vast majority never had the opportunity to make a free choice since they were told from birth that it's the absolute truth and anybody who says otherwise is evil and will burn. Very sad, but true nonetheless.

I insist that this is factually incorrect; I don;t know ANYONE who says or any religion that teaches that those who have not accepted god are evil, or will burn. Now, this is different for those who REJECT god.

I happen to know their is a God who loves me but the knowedge didn't come from any pure reason that I can manage, or for free.

No, you happen to believe that.

beg pardon; you happen to believe that I only believe but don't know, on the other hand I have the advantage of being able to check :-)

If it makes you happy, then more power to you. I have no problems with that whatsoever. My only problem is when people think their beliefs give them the right to force them on others.

I would agree with you there, and suggest that force is contrary to the nature of God, hence the need to seek him in this life.

Please note that I'm not accusing you of any such thing.

Thanks for being civil in this discussion, I'm often afraid that my attitude is brusque and hope things don't become a flamefest.

I respect your position and intend only to say "I don't see myself how most anti-religionists see me, and I hate the parts of so-called religion that they hate"

cheers

Sam

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[incripshin]

You completely missed the point. 1) My prof said that something had to be testable to be proven. It's her nonsencical idea. 2) ID cannot be proven, and I know that it can't. It also cannot be disproven. But what I was highlighting was that it always fits in with whatever science says at any given time. Science can never disprove it, no matter how much we know.

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[incripshin]

A theory is not scientific. Theories can be philosophical in nature. Take for example the various theories of morality. They cannot be proven for or against. This is where ID fits. It is a valid theory; just not a valid scientific theory. Science requires proof. The big bang theory is wrong in my point of view because of what the big bang theory states. There was a massive explosion, and all galaxies moved outward from that point. Because of gravity, they should meet up again sextillions of years in the future. Ah, but the galaxies are accelerating outward. This could mean many things, but it also could mean that there was no massive explosion, and that galaxies just started to move away from each other, accelerating as they went. It is not disproven, but it is not as sure as it originally was.

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[Mr. Underbridge]

I agree with just about everything you say, but I note that Further, science is a process and need not be proved. is an interesting statement of faith. If I had said "God is ineffable and need not be proven", you would have ripped me to shreds.

That's not what I'm saying. I'm not saying science is ineffable, as much evidence exists to the contrary. Science is simply the process of using available evidence to develop a hypothesis, devising tests to evaluate that hypothesis, and repeating the process. That, as a process, need not (and probably cannot) be proven. Science is an approach, not the results it produces.

Similarly, if you were to say that religion is a process (or idea, or state of mind, etc) and need not be proven, I'd wholeheartedly agree with you. In fact, I think that would highlight the differences between them and the fulility of comparing them - religion is supposed to be based on faith, and science is supposed to be based on evidence and reason. The two are thus incomparable and those who attempt to do so end up screwing up things like school boards.

article

[Olftep]

Seriously, I don't know that there has been one intellegent proponent of ID to my knowledge who has said something of the sort as it says in that article. If they have said anything similar, it was only to make the point that there are certain things which science has not been able to explain thus far. Now if Caltek can use science to explain everything in existance-whether physical or not-at that point they may have a point.

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[Darby]

Yes, but within the contraints of the purpose of this brief life, the answer is "only to those who seek him." Sure he could just show himself right now to the whole world in one go, but it would be a waste of the purpose of life.

If the purpose of life were truly that trivial, empty and useless, then I would truly despair.

It seems strange to claim that millions of people are deceived on the grounds that you have no experience of what the claim to be the origin of their conviction.

It seems strange to me to claim that they aren't when the history of religion is known, the purposes to which it has almost always been put are entirely evil, and with very few exceptions it has been used as a weapon against humanity.

I insist that this is factually incorrect; I don;t know ANYONE who says or any religion that teaches that those who have not accepted god are evil, or will burn.

See Catholicism (the entirety of Christianity for most of its history as well as the majority now) as well as most fundamentalist sects.

I would agree with you there, and suggest that force is contrary to the nature of God, hence the need to seek him in this life.

Well, that's certainly refreshing. I live in a country where the most vocal Christians have as their primary stated goal the overthrow of free society in the interests of establishing a theocracy. The history of that religion in power are the darkest and most evil times in human history and I fear for my life and those of those I love if those evil people get their way.

Thanks for being civil in this discussion, I'm often afraid that my attitude is brusque and hope things don't become a flamefest.

You too. Brusque would be quite an understated description of my usual manner ;-)

I respect your position and intend only to say "I don't see myself how most anti-religionists see me, and I hate the parts of so-called religion that they hate"

That's great. However I'm in the position that a huge percentage of the people in my own country would have no problem seeing me put to a brutal death merely because I don't think they have all the answers. They are eager to see the world destroyed and all of the evil ones (by which they mean anybody who chooses to think differently than them) suffer brutal tortured deaths.
These are the people that I think of when I hear "Christian" because they are the ones who have stepped up to speak for all Christianity and there has been no real response from anybody on the other side of the Christian coin. Whether that's because they are just happy to see anything called Christianity ruling over others, whether it's because they figure they're still safe since at least they're not heathens or whatever other reasons they may have, by allowing it to happen; by allowing evil people to speak for them, they are giving up their right to claim to be any better.

So, I respect your right to believe as you choose. If, as you say, you're not one of those sorts, then great.

The fact remains though that whenever I hear anybody describe themselves as a Christian, my survival instinct demands that I fear them, for since their religion tells them that not only are they better than I am, but I am an agent of the supernatural incarnation of evil. People like that can not be reasoned with, since they are beyond it.

If you don't understand that Christianity has earned this reputation over the centuries, then you haven't studied its history.
If you don't know that mainstream American Christianity is working hard to bring back the worst of that reputation into reality, then you haven't been paying any attention to the present.

So like I said, I fear Christians greatly, but I'm not a coward so I will continue to stand up for myself. I think we are looking at some very dark days ahead and that is almost entirely the fault (and even the stated goal) of religious fundamentalists.

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[Thangodin]

...neither is history or archeology. I don't think you are getting anywhere with such vague assertions. I wonder if you include "biblical" "history" "archeology" and "anthropology", as it clearly has real and historical authorship...

What are you expecting, a point by point refutation of everything in the bible in a single posting? No science is complete and therefore completely consistent, but there are hard nuggets of fact which contradict the stories of the Bible. Forty years to cross the Sinai? It takes four days to walk across it, and there is not a single hint concerning the movement of the Jews in the area, either by physical artifacts or by the Egyptians, who kept meticulous records which we still have. Do you really think that all those stories of miracles don't contradict physics? And the 'prophecy' of Christ's resurrection was interpreted as such and shoehorned into the story long after the fact. Many details of Jesus' life were added to conform to the interpretation of prophecies found in the Old Testament. This leads to absurdities like the claim that he was a descendant of David (through Joseph) in conformance with prophecy--but if he was the son of God, he was not the son of Joseph and therefore not a descendant of David. Here you can see the rival traditions of Hellenism and Judaism in a head-on collision.

By the way, Pontius Pilate ordered Jesus' execution, and he didn't give a damn about Jewish religion. Crucifiction was a Roman institution; the Jews got stuck with the blame later. Pilate just saw a potential political troublemaker, whose latest act was to attack the collectors of the temple tithes. In other words, a tax resistor--tithes, taxes, it was all the same to Pilate.

The original post said:

There has never been anything proven incorrect about the bible. If you took time to study it, then you would've found that out.

Which I is the claim I took issue with, and on that point you seem to agree with me. The rest seems to be a stealth defense of Mormonism. I'll spare you any comments on that...

Re:The original story behind this...[oops. fixed]

[jelloburn]

[oops. missed preview and hit submit. And it was really badly formatted too.]

No, the flaws in my education are at best minorly tangential to this discussion. There are numerous causes for that, bad student, bad teacher, bad environment, etc.

But as a more specific example, we have some of the ID nutjobs will totally ignore evidence that supports evolution, and present their evidence in a rather biased manner. But we also have textbooks still showing things as hard fact that have been quite discredited since soon after they were published in the late 1800's.

They seem to still be used because, while bogus in their own right, they show some principle that is to be explained. That doesn't seem like it's much better on a rather basic level. But it also does not mean that I expect an equal half hour from each side on the subject. Shouldn't some small effort be put into finding a better example? It would shut up a whole lot of people.

If you want to show that adding an even number to an odd number results in an odd number, don't use 2+3=7, even if it does show the principle. Perhaps I should wait for a cosmological God-trolling article instead of a biological one since I deal with astronomy and physics better than biology and palentology. But it seems to me (from what I hear at least) that this in some respects is similar to a situation I am a bit more familiar with.

Consider the fact that our place around the sun and galaxy, the various physical constants etc. seem to have a rather tight tolerance on what they could be to support life, out of a rather large range of possible values that could be picked (for all we know) at random. Some have said "See, God did it", others "No, we just wouldn't be around to discuss this if it weren't so. It's just dumb luck." and others invent some new concept like there must be a nearly infinite number of universes all different so we could appear in the right one, but not need it specificly made for us.

I can't say "Don't bother looking farther, we can blame God." But at the same time, I have a difficult time with the alternative which seems rather similar to "I was in front of a firing squad with 20 expert marksman. They all missed, but it doesn't really matter, because if they hadn't all missed, I would't be here to discuss it." I also hold open the many universes option, but there seems to be no evidence for it, and there doesn't seem to be any way to argue against it.

The proper answer for me at least is "I don't know, I will try to keep these possibilities in mind until I find out more." But it seems that many people, perhaps on only philosophical grounds, fall very hard into one camp or another, completely overlooking the evidence against or simple lack of evidence for their position, while berating the other groups for being in the exact same situation.

Since my biology is a bit weaker, part of my interest has been to see what the evidence is, and what trolls I can ignore. It's probably a good thing that I follow more sources than just /. 8^) I'm interested to see if it's all a game of "Your stupid, I'm not listening, go away." or if there is something more going on. Of course this is /. so it's mostly the former, but one can always hope to find a small gem in the pile of...

BTW, rather than going after my mother (even if she might deserve it 8^) Might I suggest a more neutral but similar argument I heard once: Eating pickles causes aircraft crashes. Evidence: 99% of airline fatalities have eaten pickles at some time before boarding the doomed aircraft.

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[Anonymous Coward]

Welcome to the point of his post. He said Reason is not proven, it is axiomatic, a presupposition - something that must simply be assumed to be true to make sense of reality.

This was a gratuitous shot at ID

[unassimilatible]

I don't see what learning the mechanisms of bee flight have to do with ID.

With that said, I think people who disoute evolution are blinded (I won't say morons, because I have a Christian friend who believe in ID who has an IQ of 180+). They just substitute "faith" for that which they have absolutely no proof.

Can't God's (intelligent) design be evolution? Why do we have to chose one over the other?

As Gallileo said, "I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use."

Mandatory Humor post to lighten mood.

[Timberwolf0122]

In your country you debate science over ID In my country you need ID to buy bread!

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[samjam]

I think our differences come down to this:

The "Irish" hated the "English" because it was the english who caused them so much trouble in Ireland.
In England, the english poor didn't hate themselves, but more specifically hated the "idle [english] rich" (the "english" being redundant there).
Same bunch of people, different appellations and also connotations.

I see how you are wary of christian [fundamentalists]; calling myself a christian I am afraid of "mad freakers", but I think its the same bunch of people we are both looking at; or folk very like them.

Sam

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[dubl-u]

So in a way, philosophy is what religion aims to be in its purest & truest form.

I disagree. Philosophy may provide you with the intellectual structure, but for most people religion is about more than that: they want a community of spiritual practice, or at least spiritual practices. The Philosopher's Song is undeniably fun, but it's very far from a hymn. And maybe your philosophy classes were more lively than mine, but I just don't see most philosophy books giving how-to info on meditative techniques, or ecstatic dance, or peyote rituals.

I know plenty of people who are functional atheists (some of them actual; some of them deists; some of them "are, like, totally into the universe, man") that even though they aren't religious still seek out some of the things we commonly associate with religion. I think that's because they fill real human needs for some people in a way that philosophy never will.

For more info on this, Huston Smith is a great author to check out. I'd recommend The World's Religions and Cleansing the Doors of Perception.

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[samjam]

I do think the stories of miracles don't contradict "physics" and they are comparable to a lot of stuff the science fiction writers like to imagine folk doing.

The egyptian reconciling of egpytian archeology with current calendars was still strongly debated last time I looked, and nothing was conclusive then.

Jesus certainly was not the son of Joseph and as you point out, has his ancestry of David through his mother, I suspect you don't want to go into this, but I am satisified that the geneology holds up. A quick google shows enough backing for those who are interested.

We may argue about which way the bible has been corrupted (lets not, on second thoughts) but I insist that foreknowledge of the mission of Christ has been shoehorned OUT of scripture; however the NT claims that not only Christ was ressurected but so were many who were seen by many. I'm happy for you not to accept this, but I can't let it pass that what is left of the divinity of Christ in scripture has been trivially retrofitted.

For sure there has been a head on collision and what was left of the Christian church was very pliable after the loss of the apostles.

As for Pilate and the death of Christ, it was pilates view that he was not a direct danger to the authority of Rome, nor a tax resister, he was sentenced in order to placate a Jewish rebellion which ironically would have been less likely had he been a tax resister!

Anyway, so much (disgareement) is obvious; we do agree on the corruptions introduced into the bible, and deliberately and in my view only some times by good intention, however... to find what was so will be going on for years and I look forward to new discovery- I don't have time to keep up to date on everything, which is nearly the same as dismissing it, so it's good to talk from time to time.

thanks for the discussion

Sam

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[Darby]

I think our differences come down to this: ...
Same bunch of people, different appellations and also connotations.

Certainly.
I have nothing against Christians defined as those who follow Jesus's teachings. Those that can't be defined that way yet still call themselves such seem to be on the rise.

I think its the same bunch of people we are both looking at; or folk very like them.

Agreed.

I noticed you linked to an LDS site earlier. I have a couple issues with some church policies, but on the whole (generalizations being what they are and all) given my experiences it's tough to tough to think of a genuinely nicer group of people.

My wife's from England, but her immediate family all live in North America now. Her parents lived in Sandy, UT (right outside Salt Lake) for some years. We were visiting, and as we were all leaving to go out for dinner, I asked if they'd locked the door. They just laughed at me ;-). Not that the one implies the other or anything, but it was funny, so...

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[kulpinator]

while Paul never mentions the resurrection once

Explain why 1 Corinthians 15:4 doesn't count as a mention, please.

Thanks!

Correction

[msundman]

Haeckel's embryo drawings that were shown to be incorrect over a decade ago

Oops.. that's supposed to be "over a century ago".

For fraudulent data from closer to a decade ago consider the pictures of peppered moths resting on the bark of a tree.

Re:Pfft! Why do Bees fly?

[GrungyLotG]

Just wait till you get the mammal section ;).

Kidding aside, I agree. Even though I never saw plants as amazing before, Biology certainly made me appreciate them at a much deeper level. I remember the first time that photosynthesis was taught in some degree of detail (Light Reactions, Calvin Cycle, etc...nothing very advanced, this was Highschool Bio), I was amazed at how something so complex could be occuring every second in an apparently motionless object. Astronomy always fascinated me, but once again, it never really came to terms until I read some more about it. If nothing else, the pure scale took me by awe. To not beable to see planets orbiting this very sun, and to understand that there are trillians of other galaxies, containing a nearly infinate number of stars boggles the mind.

Christians have no problem with "Science".

[nymusicman]

In the article it states:

Proponents of intelligent design, or ID, have tried in recent years to promote the idea of a supreme being by discounting science because it can't explain everything in nature.
"People in the ID community have said that we don't even know how bees fly," Altshuler said. "We were finally able to put this one to rest. We do have the tools to understand bee flight and we can use science to understand the world around us."

Now I have a real problem with this because there are many, many Christian (Creation or ID) scientists out there. There is the work of Dr. Kent Hovind, Ken Ham, Dr. Henry M. Morris, and many many others...

So to say ID's are opposed to science is ridiculous. They have no problem knowing how bees fly and still accepting Creationism. I don't even see the problem here.