Slashdot Mirror
Louisiana Passes Intelligent Design Law
H0D_G writes "The US state of Louisiana has passed the 'Science Education Act,' a piece of legislation that could allow Intelligent design to be taught in schools. From the article: 'The act is designed to slip ID in "through the back door"'"
...we all know how Christianity feels about slipping things in through the back door.
Makes sense...after you've experienced the great flood (Katrina), why shouldn't you believe everything else in the Bible?
.. as it also opens the door for the teachings of our noodly saviour
Gotta love how LA lawmakers wasted LA taxpayer money creating, discussing, and passing legislation that will be struck down entirely in a matter of months, having had no one actually follow the law during those brief months of effect.
Colin Dean Go a year without DRM
So, when are they going to give equal time to the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Kevin Smith on Prince
As a member of the Church of FSM, I am insulted. If they are allowed to teach ID in the classroom, then the story of the Flying Spaghetti Monster should be allowed as well. Blessed be his noodly greatness!
priests should do it, but not talk about it?
intelligent design (ID) - the proposition that life is too complicated. Go go Ganesh!
Stop believing, start thinking.
"Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
they are almost always at the bottom of the list when it comes education in this country or are the butt of jokes about being backwoods hicks.
If they like being laughingstocks, that's no skin off my nose. They have no one to blame but themselves.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
ID is not science. It's not even rational thinking. If we're going to teach ID, why not Astrology and Palm Reading while we're at it? They're every bit as valid as ID.
If I had a kid in the Louisiana school system, I'd start home-schooling (assuming I hadn't already).
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
All glory to the Hypnotoad!
The Long Now Foundation
Dear Louisiana,
Please do not slip anything through my child's back door. Intelligent design or otherwise.
Yours,
A Parent.
PS: I look forward to a pirate-based global warming curriculum.
Use the Firehose to mod down Second Life stories!
... right where ID belongs.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
There's no need to be a "Bible-belt" politician - a simple politician will do.
It seems that in Louisiana the Bible thumpers have gained some pretty big influence, if the 94-3 and unanimous votes mean anything. A veto would have no chance to stand, so Jindal took the easy way out and signed the law.
However, he might have lost a lot in the process. By not challenging the majority, he just stands in the middle of the mainstream. If he had vetoed the law, he would have stood as a voice for reason. He might have lost the next election, but he's liable to lose it anyhow, since he seems to be indistinguishable from at least 94 other politicians.
are we so afraid that science will lose the fight?
Is it "afraid" to not want my children taught an out-and-out lie, which is precisely what creationism and its bastard offspring, ID, are?
If you haven't been down-modded lately, you aren't trying.
Sacred cows make the best hamburger.
Evolution is both a theory and a fact. (un)Intelligent design is pile of crap sugar coated to look like science. It is not a valid scientific hypothesis because it doesn't have an valid data or methodologies to back it up. I don't know what state or school you were taught in, but in most classes I have attended, the focus isn't on the theory but on how and why the conclusion was reached, it a sad day when politic have driven education to put the focus on the conclusion rather than how the conclusion was reached.
Why is the act called the Science Education act while no science at all is involved?
No, but after fighting the same battles over and over with the same types of losers* for generations, maybe it's time to move on.
* the same "usual suspects" as always - the religious/superstitious who aren't able to convice people using logical arguments ("you gotta have faith" sure isn't a logical argument) want to have unfettered access to promote their agendas in schools. You can have equal access to schools when atheists have equal access to your pulpits and sunday schools.
Fucking losers. Their existence is proof that Intelligent Design doesn't exist.
Kevin Smith on Prince
The problem isn't proving that evolution is true. The problem is that ID can't be proven false. It's like demanding Scientology be taught in schools because it can't be proven false even though most sane people know it's just bad science fiction.
No, because the whole point of science is never knowing for sure. You can never stop investigating and experimenting, because there are always things you don't know that you don't know and you have to question everything.
Yes, you can have a significant body of evidence that supports a theory, which can reliably predict outcomes. Classical Newtonian Physics, for instance, works for most things you encounter in your daily life, but is hardly the last word on Physics. Hell, field theory and quantum mechanics pretty much undo it, at least at the microscopic level.
Similarly, Mendelin heredity more or less works, but is hardly the last word on genetics. Even since the discovery of DNA, we've learned all sorts of new things.
Evolution is an observable natural phenomena. Natural Selection seems to explain it, but there could be other things we don't know and so we have to search them out.
Hell, God *could* exist and *could* have intelligently designed the universe. It's highly unlikely, but not impossible. What *IS* certain however, is that the certainty with which ID/Creationist proponents cling to that crap belies any scientific credit that their approach has.
Certainty is the antithesis of science, at least in my view. I'm sure some PhD will come along and bitch slap me down now.
First of all, this is a dupe.
Secondly, while nervous, the ACLU says this bill is not unconstitutional.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
As soon as the ID crowd can provide proof of any sort to move their take on things from fairy tale category to testable theory, then they can begin teaching it in classrooms.
Wonder if I'll be reading about this in 20 years from the prospective that this is what allowed religious fanatics to create generations of religiously indoctrinated Christianized children that jail and execute intellectuals.
What they really want is creationism. Like in Teh Book. If they can't have that, they settle for the next best retardation, as long as it is not that evil Darwinian heresy. It is not really about them particularly hating evolution, its about them still being pissed off because they were proven wrong. They would do the same with Copernicus, if they could.
It's not like I said anything that wasn't known for centuries, either.
You're missing the point, ID is not science and shouldn't be taught in a science class. It's perfect for a class on religion or christianity, but don't even try to present it as some sort of equally plausible alternative to evolution.
When I was a kid in school I had classes on all the major religions, and their creation myths, including christianity. I've read the old testament in literature classes. I've had physics classes that taught about the Big Bang. And I've had biology classes that taught evolution.
Noone is saying that we shouldn't teach everything, but each thing has a place, and biology classes is not the place for ID.
I hear this excuse for ID all the time. "We need to teach both, for the children to have a well rounded education".
I'll meet them half way. Go ahead teach your ID in schools, For The Children. And because we care so much that the children receive both sides of the story, you start teaching evolution in Sunday School. After all, it's for the sake of the children.
While I agree with you, teaching philosophy in science class is not the way to achieve critical thinking.
ID is a philosophy, and not an alternative scientific theory. As such, I have no problem with it being taught - just with it being taught in science class.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Science education in this country is getting ridiculous. We go and try to teach scientific "facts" to kids before we actually teach critical thinking and scientific method. It's the NATURE of science that there are - or should be - no "sacred cows" - including evolution or ID or whatever. There is NO room for dogma in scientific thought, and we are seeing way too many people discount notions of the supernatural simply because it's supernatural. Science should be open to everything - including the unmeasurable and unexplainable.
The submitter could have at least linked to the text of the bill that was actually passed instead of linking to a piece of alarmist journalism. I really don't think there is anything for us to be worried about here. The act allows teachers to "use supplementary textbooks and other instructional materials to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review scientific theories in an objective manner." Teachers cannot teach ID or creationism. In fact, the law "shall not be construed to promote any religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or nonreligion." Additionally, Joe Cook, director of the ACLU for Louisiana has said that the act is constitutional as written. This bill is probably totally unnecessary, but simply promotes objective thinking about all scientific topics. Now that is scientific right?
No one has ever claimed that Dawkins DOES have all the answers.
Also, it's very common knowledge that Science doesn't currently have all the answers. That's more or less the point.
However, we ARE afraid that Science 'will lose the fight', and with good reason; It's happened before, with all the Islamic countries.
http://www.chowk.com/articles/9555
Basically, they had high points of Science and Technology, but their rabid spiritualists tried to force every little thing to be expressed in terms of religion (Just like this bill is doing) until they became what they are today. They were once top in the world, and now they are firmly at the bottom.
It can happen to us too, and will happen unless we fight back.
Perhaps, they feel with the change in composition in the Supreme Court with Bush's last couple of appointments that this has a better chance of standing up that previous attempts.
Shop smart, Shop S-Mart.
They are allowing it to be taught on equal footing (I think). That would be similar to allowing an alternate teaching of gravity. Nobody has proven the fundamental reason gravity works, though it has been demonstrated that the effect has certain parameters and is highly repeatable. Evolution has similar backing. Other theories, such as the various stories of creation by Christians, Pastafarians, et alias, do not have the base of scientific review. It is not "science." It should be taught in the appropriate class - i.e. Religion.
If some people want to call parts of science class a sham, that's fine. Science has been shown to be wrong in some cases over time, such as the model of the atom, but science is specifically about updating as new discoveries are found. Don't start teaching religion in science class, or literature in mathematics class for that matter.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
That's the real problem. We need to teach critical thinking so that people can recognize the morons when they see them.
No sig today...
I remember when I was in school (non-US), we had an "alternative creationist theories" lessons, but I remember our teacher saying: "The problem is, there is not much to tell about other theories, because they are ... well, not theories in scientific sense of the word." So we had like half of the single lesson (~ 20 min) dedicated to all other theories (I don't even remember them now :) )
May Peace Prevail On Earth
neither is there any concrete scientific evidence of evolution, apart from the strong surviving over the week, which can hardly be used to back up macro-evolution.
Dude, you might want to get your facts right : http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html
Complexity is a measure of our ignorance...
Are there any other theories supporting how humans and all the other species currently on earth got here? ID is not a scientific theory anymore than me stating that the extra terrestrials delivered us all here from some intergalactic ark. The problem here is that people don't realize the difference between cockamamie theory with no evidence to back it up, and a real scientific theory. Teaching intelligent design in school is quite comparable to what happened many years ago when people were taught that the earth was flat, or that earth was the centre of the universe, even though all knowledge from the scientific community points in completely the opposite direction. I'm all for teaching children the alternatives if any real ones exist. But just because a lot of people choose to believe something, doesn't make it fact, and doesn't mean that it should be taught in science class.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
So, should we also protect teachers who simply ACKNOWLEDGE the fact that not everyone believes the Earth is round?
A teacher's job is not to tell the children what some people believe, his job is to teach what is known to be the most accurate theory in existence.
As for teaching alternative views, I have nothing against that, as long as they are presented exactly as that: alternative. If a teacher presents the "ID" theory in class, it should be shown why ID is not a reasonable alternative to evolution. Children should be aware that ID exists, because they will find it mentioned outside of class, but they should be aware that a well-informed and intelligent person would have absolutely no doubt that evolution is the correct alternative.
Evolution is a fact. The theory element is the historical path, which makes sense (we obviously can't test the past 65M years). Ask any biologist, who work with evolutionary principles on a daily basis, whether evolution is a fact or not.
That's the problem. ID has already "lost the fight" but is now being propped up by law.
I know more than you drink.
Here
Best Slashdot Co
How do you propose science does that, exactly? Do you know what science is or how it works? Were you "educated" in Louisiana?
I'd love to hear your ideas on how to scientifically test something you can't measure. Even better, tell me how science should pursue the unexplainable since, by definition, it's unexplainable (according to you).
Once upon a time people couldn't explain why or how illnesses were passed on, but science came up with the germ theory of disease. Would you prefer that we just continued to think of it as unexplainable or attribute it to demons and hating Jesus?
Alas, I am becoming a god.
I find it very, very frustrating when the state legislature decides the particulars of what I should teach in the classroom. This bill does not specifically force me, a LA teacher, to teach ID, or the mythical status of global warming, but it does represent law makers meddling in an area they are not experts.
This would be like the legislature directing doctors on the proper methods of suturing a wound, or instructing how to treat a form of cancer. Doctors wouldn't stand for that for more than a second because they are highly trained professionals that know how to do their job. Teachers are also highly trained professionals that know how to do their job without the state meddling directly in the goings on of the classroom.
The new law does not force teachers to teach ID, only makes it acceptable to teach ID as science. This bothers me. This bothers me almost more than I can stand. ID is NOT science. Science is a process of developing TESTABLE theories that can checked and re-checked for error. Until someone creates a litmus test for God, ID is completely unprovable. One might also argue that there is a giant invisible, undetectable yet all powerful beetle that pushes the earth around the sun. If we can't create a test that supports a theory, it's NOT a theory (nor is it science), it's just a nice story.
As a science teacher, my job is to teach science. I teach how to do science, not just words and definitions. I can't even begin to teach ID as science because it is not testable. I teach science as a method of answering questions through experiment and analysis of result. There is no way to do this reliably or reproducibly with ID because God doesn't settle down into a test tube very well.
Let's keep ID where it belongs, in religion classes, not in the science lab. Science and religion are not mutually exclusive. Science answers questions about the knowable and testable. If it doesn't fit into that category, then it probably fits into religion or philosophy. It is very silly to try and use science to influence religion and even sillier to try and use religion to do science.
This one's tricky. You have to use imaginary numbers, like eleventeen... --Hobbes
Normally, I don't feed trolls, but here goes just once...
Proofs exists only in the abstract world of mathematics and logic. In the real world there is no such thing as a proof... only very, very compelling evidence, and theories that spot-on predict experimental outcomes. And of course, evolution being an intractable algorithmic process, you by definition can not predict the exact outcome of any evolution. But again, if you have ever bothered reading anything on evolution, you would have known that Darwin and evolution is not about the "why" or the "where to" question. Only about the how...
Complexity is a measure of our ignorance...
What I find weird about these first few comments is that Catholics have nothing to do with intelligent design. It's a born-again thing, and they utterly hate Catholics.
In order to be a legitimate scientific theory you have to be able to create tests that prove a theory as false or inaccurate - not tests that establish the theory as fact.
Once you beat the hell out of a theory from many different angles over a period of time, AND you can begin to accurately predict the outcome of your tests before you execute them, you get CREDIBILITY. It still isn't a FACT. In fact, it's still referred to as a theory by scientists.
The only facts are the results of your TEST.
Now, develop one falsifiable test on a theory of life that has ALL of its function wrapped up in the abilities of an Omnipotent, Omnicient, Omnipresent entity that does not present itself but only lets itself be known to those who demonstrate "faith"?
Now tell me why an Omniscient, Omnipresent, and Omnipotent entity needs a fucking plan? A plan gets you from state A to state B while minimizing risk and maximizing efficiencies. What part of that is needed by something that can do DO ANYTHING, KNOWS EVERYTHING, AND IS EVERYWHERE AND WHEN?
I am so sick of people spouting off "God's plan" like they have any fucking clue as to the mindset of a being as powerful as a true god. I'm no Atheist, I believe in a god, but not this anthropomorphic piece of social control zealots seem to know so well.
Science and god don't contradict one another, Science and RELIGION do. Its the one thing that religious nuts know and hate. You don't want the truth, you want your story to BE the truth.
ANY argument based on an idea that only becomes credible if you choose to accept DOGMA as truth lacks any understanding of how ANYTHING works. This becomes even more apparent when that DOGMA is focused on humans telling other humans what an OMNIPOTENT, OMNICIENT, and OMNIPRESENT beings's motivations are.
You lack the fundamental ability to even comprehend how such an existence would manifest itself, much less be able to map its quantity and depth of perception to your measly five senses (which happen to be temporally and locally bound).
And before you start ranting on how can I know a god with all this being true, let me say I can't. What I can do is immediately tell anyone who tells me that they know what God wants, or what God was thinking, that they can go fuck themselves.
Interestingly, one of the best known "intelligent design" textbook was created by doing something along these lines:
$ sed 's/creationism/intelligent design/g' creationist_textbook.txt
I am officially gone from
"You might want to check your reading level, even the sub title says "EVIDENCE OF EVOLUTION" not PROOF. From what I read, it sounds like they don't even know how the observed change occurred, it doesn't say that they know for a fact it was evolution."
You don't understand. Where is this "evidence" of ID? I can fill up my house with research papers building on Darwin's theories proving well beyond reasonable doubt that evolution theory is indeed correct to anyone that bothers to do the research themselves. There are certainly questions yet to be answered, but ID is just beyond silly when considering the vast amounts of verifiable, tested, observed evidence for evolution theory. ID is borne of faith based beliefs, and then people went out to try and find reason to take it seriously... which fails miserably with, well, everyone else.
It's all faith-based BS, and should be left in Sunday school where facts are largely unimportant, and critical thought is denounced. Remember, in most successful faith-based religions, questioning your faith is the biggest sin...
"The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance - it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel Boorstin
how do you know it's a lie?
A pink giraffe was living in my back yard last week. Prove me wrong.
have you proven creationism to be a lie and not told anyone?
Creationism can't be proven wrong, which is why it isn't science.
while you're at it you might as well tell everyone how you proved evolution as fact while the rest of the world is still trying...
Ummm, evolution (as a process) is proven. There is no debate about this whatsoever. There is a tiny, vocal crowd disagreeing with that, but you'll find that with anything. Evolution (as the theory explaining the observed facts) can't be proven because nothing in science can be proven - that's not how it works.
By the way, I'm a conservative Christian.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
how do you know it's a lie? have you proven creationism to be a lie and not told anyone? while you're at it you might as well tell everyone how you proved evolution as fact while the rest of the world is still trying...
I don't need to because many people already have. Here's a few to get you started.
Honestly, not wanting your kid's science class to teach intelligent design to your kids is no different (to anyone remotely familiar with scientific evidence, anyway) than not wanting your kid's math class to teach them the "theory" that pi equals 3 (1 Kings 7:23).
Actually, the scientific world doesn't debate whether evolution is a fact or not. They debate the finer points. How fast did these mutations occur? What are the main trigger mechanisms? That sort of thing. But the basic "species change over time giving rise to new species" is as close to scientific fact as you can get. Some creationists get hung up on the word "theory." In science, virtually everything is a theory, not matter how well proven it is. There is a mountain of evidence that evolution happened (and is still happening). Creationism is a nice story, and if you want to believe that God is the one behind the curtains making it all work, go right ahead. But God has no place in a science class, just like science has no place dictating what (if any) prayers you say.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
gays and straights aren't competing for market share.
I'll say. I haven't been asked out by either side in months.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
The Louisiana politicians behind this bill are not idiots. They understand fully that the bill will get struck down without having any effect on education. However, it will polarize their base and allow the politicians to sell the message: Anti-Christian sentiment is strong, and liberal, activist judges are attacking our way of life!
You see, you just have to be cynical enough and then things will all make sense.
A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
I'd just start protesting about how "Gravity is only a theory" and demand that we teach "intelligent falling" until they realize how stupid their argument is, but I'm a cynical asshole.
We can't define anything precisely. If we attempt to, we get into that paralysis of thought that comes to philosophers⦠one saying to the other: "you don't know what you are talking about!". The second one says: "what do you mean by talking? What do you mean by you? What do you mean by know?"
So you'll never PROVE evolution is true, just as you will never PROVE ID to be true or for that matter ANYTHING to be true! All you can every do is look at the world around you (evidence) and try and make a good guess as to what is going on.
The difference between the evolution and ID camps is the honest observation of the physical world. Scientists are always searching for new evidence to explain the world and their observations. The ID crowd is always searching for ways to prove their faith, it's that simple.
The ID crowd is as dangerous as any fascist movement, they will ignore all evidence that does not support their belief system.
Don't get me wrong, there are also scientist who are fascists. they truely belive their version of reality is the "correct" one. They are also as dangerous as the ID crowd. but they are usually not organized and they are few. The ID crowd is organized and there are a lot of them. It's truely a situation of mass delusion and it will quickly turn to fascism if they were to ever get in a position of power. Just look at the Islamic countries for example.
Why don't the IDers slip in a different spin:
./big-bang ...
~/god# make
~/god#
** universe created
** planet Earth instantiated
** animal life evolving
** humans emerging
-- In the beginning was the WORD, and the WORD was UNSIGNED, and the main(){} was without form and void...
"My aversion to homosexuality has nothing to do with Christianity. My aversion is rooted in evolution; the "yuck" factor maintains reproduction. Evolution depends entirely on reproduction!"
alright, your stance and all that...
But how do you reconcile that with:
"A lot of Christians make too much noise about a minor sin [...] while ignoring major sins like [...] adultery"
Surely the adultering person would be much more adapt at furthering evolution? Whether it be the a guy impregnating multiple womens or a woman getting pregnant from different men (and thus a larger gene pool).
Something tells me the foundation for your aversion is on.. well not shaky ground, perhaps, but have you heard of the tower of Pisa?
Let's keep ID where it belongs, in religion classes, not in the science lab. Science and religion are not mutually exclusive. Science answers questions about the knowable and testable. If it doesn't fit into that category, then it probably fits into religion or philosophy. It is very silly to try and use science to influence religion and even sillier to try and use religion to do science.
Ugh - the NOMA argument. Listen: there are no questions "off limits" to science. Could love be chemicals? Could souls exist as energy clouds? If god exists what is he thinking? All of these fall in the realm of science if they can be observed. If they can't be observed now, that doesn't mean they automagically become the domain of religion - they just can't be tested by science yet. Even ethics can be broken down in a more scientific way (anthropologically and evolutionarily, it is statistically in our nature not to kill people who don't pose a threat... knowing that, what ethics can we build from it? How can we reliably assess and define threats to expand our consciousness to the possibility that it's never right to kill? etc.)
Point being - religion only matters if you want to believe in it. Beyond that, it's science all the way down.
http://www.coderoshi.com/
If we would start passing legislation randomly to teach unproven theories that "can be a very powerful idea when taught..." there would soon be no time left to teach stuff that actually matters like reading and math.
Considering when my friend's son was in 8th grade the ciriculum called for the class to spend two-weeks learning about Welfare (being on it, specifically) I have little doubt they learn anything than what would be on standardized tests, anyway.
Those who believe the Internet is private,
find their privates are on the Internet.
Watch this be shot down in court like the last one in....
ID is such a piece of bullshit.
Actually, this law is more about academic freedom than ID. The ACLU has even said that the law is not unconstitutional. However, if it is USED for something that it deems to be unconstitutional, then expect lawsuits.
From TFA:
Ultimately, if a number of suits are successfully tried, a group like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) could take the law itself to court, citing various cases in which it was used to bring religious material into the classroom. Representatives from the ACLU and from Americans United for Separation of Church and State have already told Louisiana state officials that lawsuits will follow if the law is used for religious ends.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
The common argument is that it may fit into a philosophy class - as you've mentioned - but there's little reason to even do that since it doesn't appear to be a well-defined argument of any import
I don't know, I think it could fit in well with the other religious creation stories. Raelism, Xenu, or any of the various myths in this wikipedia article could be bunched together with it. Think of it as an education in different cultural beliefs.
There must be something in there about a lot of people being assholes or something.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
First, I highly recommend you read "Finding Darwin's God" by Dr. Ken Miller for an interesting treatise on the interplay between the realms of science and faith.
But more than that I recommend that rather than shoehorning the idea of spiritual faith into an idea of science you accept that for most people faith has little to do with making a metaphorical reference to natural phenomenon. It may turn out that you're precisely correct - that the idea of 'God' is best equated to the idea of the 'Universe as a whole'.
It may be - and probably is - that spiritual faith has little to do with 'using scientific tools' at all. It doesn't have to do with equations or with rigorous processes. Indeed, if you compare the modern conception of science to Buddhism's Noble Eight-fold Path, it fits pretty well into step five; begging the question of what the others are, or are for?
Traditionally the answer to that has been a very personal one. But I encourage you to recognize that while you can say that science is a way of examining God, this is not true for all people - that spirituality has little to do with the explanation of the material experience. Until there is that general acceptance there will be a great deal to fight about.
[Ego]out
One argument against supposing an intelligent desinger is that the desing is not all that intelligent
For eksample the human eye has the optic nerves on the inside of the eye redusing space for light sensitive cells and making a blind spot where the nerves come togheter and leaves the eye. Some species of octopus has this the right way, but as humans according to the bible are created after the sea-creatures it is strange the designer did not keep this better solution.
The human spine seems like it has been designed for moving on four limbs and given some minor tweaks to fit bipedal movement. Maybe the designer was too short on time to redesign this properly?
We have multiple nerves that are wired in a way that allow a strike to the wrong (or right dependig if you are the striker or the strikee) place to disable a person completly. Maybe fighting was not in the original design goals.
These weaknesses must mean the desinger was not omniscient, or maybe lazy. Or maybe there was some other reason, makin life more challening? I dont know.
These weaknesses can be explained by evolution.
Because any change to happen in evolution there must be a path in "gene-space" from one form to the new where every step in the way is a improvement on the previus step. Creationists tries to use this property of evolution teory to disprove it by trying to find exsamples of features where there can be no such path.
So a specie can be "trapped" in an local optimum in the "gene-space" until a change inn its enviorment causes it to no longer be an local optimum, a big (beneficial) mutation causes it to make a big leap in "gene-space" out of the local optimum or it goes extinct.
The big mutation event is the least likley one, but considerig the timerframe and the number of species and individuals it probably has happened may times.
For something to be science, it must be testable. You have to be able to experiment with it to either prove or disprove it. You cannot do this with intelligent design, therefore it has no place in school classrooms. Anyone who calls this science is daft and needs to have his/her head examined. I a not saying that science and religion should be mutually exclusive, because this is not true. If there is indeed a God, what better way is there to show our appreciation than to strive to understand the universe around us that he created?
ID challenges evolution as much as astrology challenges astrophysics. Just because thinking of something in a very shallow way ("Hey, the Flood must of produced a lot of moving water, so that's how the Grand Canyon was made.") doesn't mean there is any validity to it. I've read every document I could get my hands on to see what ID can bring to the table but I see absolutely no verified predictions made by it, nor do I see explanation for the facts that are discovered about the world with microscopes, telescopes and the power of modern day science. People who believe in ID are just lazy thinkers. There I said it. Sorry for being such a dick about it. Spend 15 minutes looking at the evidence for things like the Big Bang and evolution and it's conclusive. Are there better theories out there? Sure. But ID isn't one of them. Also, expecting a class room of students to be able to debate such things shows how ridiculous the ID crowd is. I can't think of one Nobel prize winner who had to force his theory to be taught in schools so it could be excepted. They *ALL* had to go through the process of convincing the (very skeptical) scientists that the evidence proved them right.
These people vote for such a law, yet they don't think it is possible that they are related to monkeys?
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Absolutely correct, in some respects. Misleading in the case of this article.
What you are missing is that (if, as has been done before and incorrectly) the creationists wish to teach their religion, there is a time and a place. Creationists have so far, undeniably, chosen to teach religion in Science lessons. In my country, you can't even teach religion in Religious Education lessons - you have to teach what the curriculum tells you to teach even if you're a satanist and satanism isn't on the curriculum. If you disagree, get the curriculum changed - but the curriculum SHOULD always be set by experts in the SUBJECT CONCERNED. Hence, religious experts should get as much say in a Science lesson as Scientists do in a Religious Education lesson. NONE.
Teaching creationism (as it currently stands using their previously-displayed tactics) in a Science lesson is the equivalent of me coming into your church/mosque/other place of worship, forcing science textbooks into your congregation's hands, demanding that Bibles all carry warning stickers about how unverified their sources are, lecturing to them about how wrong they all are, and FORCING THEM TO LISTEN.
In fact, it's worse than that... it's the equivalent of me doing this to YOUR CHILD'S SUNDAY SCHOOL, with nobody but a scientist "at the front of the classroom" and you not being present, for MANY HOURS a week. That's what creationists are asking, trying and in fact to some extent have achieved in certain states for a limited time (until uproar ensued and EVERY governor was thrown off the board and replaced with someone who DIDN'T believe this was a good idea).
Nobody cares about what anybody "believes in", what most people are concerned about are the methods, the venue and, to a much greater extent, the back-handed forced-ignorance of established curricula. Creationism in Science is the equivalent of being forced to learn that Pi is four in Maths, that full stops and commas don't exist in English, that sitting around makes you fit in PE or, indeed, that electricity runs through cables not by the transference of electrons but by the "magic angel dust" that a God put there in Science. They aren't relevant or correct within the scope of the subject being taught.
This is a SECOND underhanded attempt to change the law in a state in order to teach religion in something not a religious lesson (which is illegal in my country, by the way, even in a school with a stated religious bent). They call it a "Science Education Act" when it has NOTHING to do with Science. They slip it in after previously-dirty tactics failed. That's the problem, not what they actually WANT to teach (even if they were fighting for the teaching of the existence of the spaghetti monster, they are DOING IT WRONG, and the same people would STILL be up in arms).
That said, I'm a scientist. I think creationism is a load of pretentious, fabricated, illogical bunkum, more so than most religions that I hold to be merely completely untrue. But I don't go into RE lessons in the schools I work in and tell them that, or force them to recite it. If I did, I would be sacked. If any teacher in the schools in my country did, they would be sacked and quite possibly sued (and if the school allowed it, the school would be sued, etc.).
Alright, let's engage in the discussion scientifically. What is the scientific evidence for ID?
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
Just because you cannot prove something does not mean it didn't happen. It's just that the idea is not scientific, because science is about testing hypotheses. Evolution is highly tested. ID is not tested, as it makes very few specific predictions, none of which are confirmed. Evolution cannot be proven; it can only be disproven. Do you have any evidence that evolution did not happen or is not happening?
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
Well then let's not let it in the backdoor. The first thing we can do is stop calling it 'Intelligent Design' which is a pr-term to disguise what it really is: Creationism (or in my mind: A step 1000 years back in time for real science.)
And if you are a grown, college educated person, who believe that the Grand Canyon was formed by a three day flood, you are not a believer. You are a fool.
I can't think of a time when a narrative dream in the Bible was ever literal. Think about Joseph's dream, the dreams of the cupbearer and baker, Pharaoh's dream, and Nebuchadnezzar's dream. This too is an ALLEGORY. Peter, the one who experienced the dream, clearly explains that the message God sent to him was to be understood allegorically.
Please notice that the sheet with unclean animals was let down THREE times (10:16). Then...
19 While Peter was still thinking about the vision, the Spirit said to him, "Simon, THREE MEN are looking for you. 20 So get up and go downstairs. Do not hesitate to go with them, for I have sent them."
The Spirit sent three men just as He had sent the sheet down three times. The focus is on people -- three Gentiles -- not food.
I think this is the New Covenant doctrine that is being illustrated:
Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith is one. - Romans 3:29-30
Remember what God said: Do not think that the Son came to abolish the Law. (Mat. 5:17) Not one jot (iota) or tittle has passed away.
History is in a large part science. The rest are stories, that - though important for us humans to holistically understand the context of historical events - should never supersede scientific discoveries that conflict with those stories. To use your Caesar example, there is quite a lot we know about him because of the evidence surrounding him. Gathering and analyzing evidence is exactly the domain of science - no other domain of inquiry does a better job. This isn't to say that they have no use, but they are merely placeholders until science can catch up. I'll give an illustration:
Cave dwellers knew nothing about the natural world. They revered it as a mystery and told stories that agreed with what they saw. Those stories though explanatory, were largely incorrect. Religious dogma stepped in and stopped the questioning of the correctness of their own theories about the world. Later, religious theories gave way to more naturalistic ones - though I'd not consider that science either, since people like Aristotle hardly tested their ideas... simply observed and thought - a primitive form of science. Nothing that is science today was originally a science, but started out with some other explanatory method. Even physics was originally known as natural philosophy.
But science is more than physics and chemistry and test-tubes... it is the be-all, end-all to epistemology precisely because it has powers that other realms of thought and inquiry don't have, viz., it must be internally AND externally consistent. Philosophy has to be internally consistent but not externally (it doesn't necessarily have to match what people see every day), and religion doesn't have to be consistent at all (sure, it must match what people see and feel - or at least make them see and feel things in a different way so as not to notice the external/internal consistency problems). Religious scholars are often "apologists" - explaining why external criticisms of consistency are incorrect. Science needs no such role (though for some reason, people appoint themselves into such positions from time to time).
Science is a mode of thought... not a thing, or a conspiracy, or a club. It's like the "war on terror". Terror is a tactic - how do you wage war against a tactic? Science is way of thinking - how can a way of thinking be restricted to a small domain? To claim it belongs there is simply arrogance on the part of those that believe their own mode of thought is the sole arbiter of a domain - like, for example, "how the world ought to be".
Suppose that, due to some hitherto unknown form of history-gazing mirror, we were to prove that Jesus never existed. History would claim "well, but the stories are still important", and many Christians would vehemently reject the facts. I hold science as the ideal - the arbiter of the best truth we have. I couldn't see the point in proselytizing the word of Jesus, knowing he never even existed, any more than I could see worshiping the works of Tolkien. This (admittedly imaginary and manufactured) scenario has now slightly shrunk the magesteria of a religion (and history), and grown the magesteria of science. Knowing that Jesus didn't exist means that claims of his divinity are necessarily false. If they are false, then what is to be gained by believing the words of the writers divine? Precisely because their words and ideas cannot be tested holds them highly suspect - no matter how good they may feel.
This isn't to say that all mode of human inquiry should stop until science can take over. I look at philosophies (and historical study) important precisely because it allows us to consider problems in different ways. But once something becomes testable, once the theory, technology, or thought process is in place to do so - the philosophy must give way. If a theory is internally consistent, AND matches all observations, what more could you want from an idea? You have your best guess at this point - the only way (that we know of) to improve it is more stu
http://www.coderoshi.com/
Let states pass legislation like this, on the grounds that they rename their science curriculum and classes to reflect what they're teaching: pseudo-science. That way, it's clear to everyone (especially universities) which students (potential employees) have had a proper science curriculum, and which have taken pseudo-science classes that teach them that non-scientific concepts need to be considered as legitimate alternatives to scientific ones. I could care less if a state wants to fuck up all of its children, and raise a generation that can't properly apply the scientific method, just as I could care less that there are millions of parents that do exactly the same thing to their kids with or without good schools today. But at least make it clear to everyone else what's going on and call it what it is.
So if you can prove something wrong then that IS science? That makes no sense
You misunderstand. Science is about trying to disprove ideas and seeing which ones hold up to scrutiny. If there is no way possible to prove an idea incorrect, then that idea is not science.
For example, I hypothesize that the Earth is round. A consequence of that idea is that if I travel around it long enough, I'll come back to where I started. If I tried that experiment and it failed, then the Earth could not be round.
Now, take the idea that the Earth was formed last Tuesday by a smartass god who likes to screw with our heads, and he made the world look exactly as though it were 5 billion years old and created all of us with memories extending back before last Tuesday. Maybe it's an interesting thought experiment, but it is not science because there wouldn't be any test you could run that could disprove the idea.
There's more to science than disprovability, but it's a key component and one whose absence is enough to relegate an idea to philosophy instead of genuine scientific inquiry.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
In my local Christian school (Lutheran) they do this. Never really see secular schools do it, too 'controversial'. But the school I am talking about is big on making christian faith your own rather than just the one you have by default.
CS: It is all sink or swim...oh and did I mention there are sharks in that water?
ID is not a theory. Please stop perverting that word. A "theory" is a scientific term for a model that is backed by evidence, has not been rejected by evidence, and is falsifiable.
ID is NOT backed by evidence and is NOT falsifiable, thus it is NOT a theory. It is a belief. Evolution can be proved wrong. ID cannot be.
While I think ID is total crap, it is potentially a valid theory. The premise of evolution is that speciation is caused by small, random genetic mutations that occasionally increase survivability. In order to "disprove" evolution, one would have to find evidence of instantaneous, large genetic mutations that are statistically improbable. This is exactly what the ID people argue. The problem with ID is that the evidence is really weak.
What do you think is more likely, A meteor that strikes the earth carrying the first bacteria, or heritability arising from natural chemical reactions? Is the meteor theory valid as a theory?
Bit of a correction first - what you stated is not the premise of evolution, it's merely one theory of how evolution could work. There are others, not all incompatible with each other.
Here's the thing which gets me about this whole thing - and I often find it hard to express this complaint clearly...
Science starts from the idea or observation that something did happen, must have happened, and attempts to find a solution that will fit the available evidence. There is life on Earth and we know it must have started somehow, and we assume there is a reasonable explanation for that.
Intelligent Design basically circumvents this. Rather than starting with "this must have happened, so there must be an explanation" it instead starts with its own premise and tries to substantiate it, mostly by tearing down competing theories. "Science can't sufficiently explain how this biological process could have come to be (never mind the fact that the previous statement may be false) therefore the development of life must have been guided by an intelligence."
I find this apparent negation of the basic model of the world's events disturbing - if things happen not because of an unknown cause-effect relationship but rather, because of an unknown intent of an unknown designer - if we make no assumptions that we can connect pieces of evidence and try to come up with a mechanical explanation that fits the facts, then what can we rely upon in this world?
I hope I've expressed my idea clearly. I have a lot of trouble trying to get this particular point across.
Bow-ties are cool.