Slashdot Mirror
Intelligent Design Ruled "Not Science"
blane.bramble writes "The Register is reporting that the UK government has stated there is no place in the science curriculum for Intelligent Design and that it can not be taught as science. 'The Government is aware that a number of concerns have been raised in the media and elsewhere as to whether creationism and intelligent design have a place in science lessons. The Government is clear that creationism and intelligent design are not part of the science National Curriculum programs of study and should not be taught as science.'"
Paraphrasing another article.... its amazing how people that want to take everything on faith become experts on the scientific method when they want you to prove evolution
God demands faith. God does not provide proof, because proof kills faith. If you see something that you think is proof of God's existence, you're wrong. He's ineffable. That means you can't effing figure him out.
That postulate leaves the existence of God vulnerable to a Babel Fish Argument -- i.e. were someone to experience a true miracle, it would disprove the existance of such a God.
What ID really was was an attempt to slip creation in under the door. This is because Creationists can't stand the following phrase. "I don't know."
Here are some things that do need to be understood.
1. Evolution does not disprove the existence of "God" but it may undermine the myth of Jehovah. That is to say, the creationists are afraid that if we get so much evidence to show that the religions of Abraham are false, or the world doesn't work the way they say it does, that God becomes impersonal and Alien to us. Which is a sane argument really. The creator of the Universe caring about what happens to us is like us caring about what happens to some Ant hill somewhere.
If that happens, then all our wars, and churches, and institutions we built up to serve religion will be for a "God" who is disconnected and we will have built these social institutions for the sake of ourselves. Alot of powerful people don't want that.
2. Our understanding of Evolution is incomplete. That is to say, we can see the trees, but not the entire forest. We aren't that far ahead. There are going to be errors we make in our determination in how evolution works. The creationists are going to come back and say "see! see! you screwed up! but God makes everything perfect!"
3. If you want to know the truth of whats out there, I'd imagine religious forces in this world would seek to prevent it, or cover it up. A lot of these religions created by Abraham revolve around the idea that Man is at the center of everything. If we discovered Alien life elsewhere in the Universe, at first everyone religious would panic. Gradually, Religion would change to accommodate the Aliens. But you damn well bet there would be people saying "Jebus died on the Cross for Humans/Terrans/Earthlings" whatever.
So, as an Agnostic, who isn't sure whats out there, I'd like to know, but I can't be sure until the technology exists for me to explore this universe in much greater depth. I'm very curious. But I feel comfortable saying "I don't know right now." The hard core religious people can't afford to be wrong. If their $Holy_Text is wrong, then they are going to realize the magnitude of some of the inexcusable things done in History.
I think some day it will happen. We will come out with concrete evidence that exposes the whole mythology, something so observable that religion can't adjust to it. Who knows if we will accept it and become better people, or deny it and kill each other. Again, I just don't know.
God demands faith. God does not provide proof, because proof kills faith. If you see something that you think is proof of God's existence, you're wrong. He's ineffable. That means you can't effing figure him out. There are some religions that don't have a big faith component. A lot of types of Hindudism and Buddhism, for examples. They claim that their traditions are 'sciences' ( and they made this claim well before modern western science came on the scene ), meaning serious, systematic studies. In this case they are studying the experience of consciousness, from the subjective point of view of the practitioner.
In other words, you don't need faith, they claim -- or rather, they don't even mention it at all. Just sit and meditate seriously for long enough, and you will have a direct experience of the divine. There's a famous maxim from one of the Zen masters, "If you see a Buddha on your path to enlightenment, kill it!"
While it's true that they would say you can't figure God out, either, they might claim that you can 'experience' 'Him'.
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
To quote wikipedia on the matter:
Signatory Dr. Steve Brill of Rutgers University has stated, "To be called a scientific theory, Intelligent Design must be at the very least, disprovable. Since there is no way for Intelligent Design to be disproved, it fails the simplest test of scientific theory."
Now, ID can still be a theory, it just can't be a scientific one.
sigs are hazardous to your health
I offer criticism to many experiments, but I don't discount the existence of evolution. I believe the Bible to be wholly true, but that belief has come through useful skepticism. Tell me, after being skeptic of an experiment, then trying it time and time again, coming up with the same results...doesn't that eliminate the skepticism? Surely you're not skeptic of the existence of gravity because you've had a lifetime around it to know it's there...why is it any different for a Christian believing the Bible? Time and time again, I've found what it says to be true, so I believe it is.
Attacking 'creationists' by name here doesn't really jive with me, because I believe evolution to be a completely probable, possible theory. It's been shown in many experiments to be the best model for development of living organisms that we know of, by the scientific method. I also believe that God created it. Believing that God created the universe and believing that a species changes from one eon to the next as an adaptation to its environment are not mutually exclusive. I, in fact, think it's pretty dadgum cool.
Quiz: True or False -- On a scale of 1 to 10, what is your middle name?
Ha! Yes, you're quite right. The "Literal Read" as it's called is actually a quite liberal read...They make some pretty broad leaps away from what I would consider mainstream Christianity.
Frankly I think it has a lot to do with the educational requirements of the priesthood in the modern evangelical churches...It was quite a shock to me, raised Catholic as I was, to find that most southern baptist preachers didn't have any formal religious instruction at all, and were perfectly free to preach their own version of the baptist faith within an extremely broad set of guidelines.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
My bird wants to be a dog. He's jealous of our dog because the dog interacts with us more. So he makes dog sounds, tries to play with the dog, etc, as if the dog had some "in" with us, the bearers of food and treats.
Meanwhile the dog thinks its a person. This is partly pack behavior but it's pretty clear that the dog doesn't really distinguish us on a social level, even if it does at a physical one.
This is most telling when the dog attempts to enter into group conversations. She tries to talk. It's not growling or attention-grabbing barking... just moan-inflection-babble she interjects. If we're all around a table or counter, she'll paw up onto it and engage us... not because she wants something in particular, but because she feels that she be involved in the social interaction.
Weird, huh?
Animals can want to be other things too given the right stimuli. By examining the majority of society I say that what most people want is actually pretty base and it is not normal to want to be something more, other than well off.
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
Mongrel News all the news that fits and froths