however I do see that you are hellbent on asserting that anyone who advocates teaching of even the existence of alternate ideas / views / theories (in the colloquial meaning of the word) / whatever is inherently incorrect, and should not be allowed a chance to state their ideas. which I might add appears to be the basic point of the movie according to people in other posts...
No, teaching the existence of crackpot theories is fine, in the appropriate forum. Most people here are arguing that science class is not the appropriate forum. Science class is for science. If there is a valid scientific alternative, it should be discussed in the interest of the students. What we have here are NOT valid scientific alternatives, and as such, have no place whatsoever inside a science classroom.
Ok, sorry for the ad hom. Will keep it less personal now.
There are similarities, but they have never found the "missing link".
This is a problem I typically run into when debating creationists or ID advocates. Before I go any further, are you the kind of person who is willing to look at the evidence, or are you into the "God of the Gaps" argument, where every transitional fossil simply creates two more gaps? If so, then nothing I can do or say will convince you, and I would be wasting both our time. If not, let me know and we can discuss further.
"Old words". Good grief, at least come up with an interesting reason why ID isn't true.
The image is upside-down and backwards because that's the way lenses work. Get a refracting telescope out without a correcting prism and the image is the same way. "I canna change the laws of physics, Captain."
The surface-mounted optic nerve does have a function: light suppression. Deep-sea, low-light creatures have optic nerves behind the retina. Their eyes cannot deal with the flood of light caused by normal sunlight. Optic nerves on the surface of the retina absorb light that would otherwise flood the cones and rods without causing resolution loss or image distortion.
The flaw of most "inelegant design" arguments is that they usually are arguments from incomplete information. The appendix was believed to be proof of both inelegant design and evolution, but it's part of our immune system's defenses against the contents of our colon.
Technically, ID doesn't require a perfect Designer, just a Designer. If we're just the science project of some hung-over Masters student from Beta Centauri 4, that's still ID.
Ok, how about the fact that Homo Sapiens as a specis is prone to lower back problems and sinus infections? This is due to our having evolved from walking on all fours, to walking upright.
You can posit a masters student from Beta Centauri having "designed" us, but at the end of the day, you come back to the question of, "where did that student come from?". Was he "designed" by someone else? Where does this regress of 'design' end? Because most people imply a supernatural 'creator' as the designer, that is what I typically argue against. If you want to argue about an extra-terrestrial designer, then by all means, let's. But unless you have a way to explain where that designer came from, it ends up coming across as either weak, or a desperate attempt to distance oneself from the religious nutcases who make up the ID movement.
In order for theory to be valid, there must be a test that can be applied to it that would disprove it and it must fail that test. Last time I posted about this, I got all sorts of answers like "just the fact that we are here today proves that we evolved". People assume that we all started from some pool of primodial soup and all life came from that, however, scientists cannot recreate the primodial soup. Neither can they create life from nothing. As far as intelligent design being a theory, it is easily observable that there is order in the universe. Everything that happens in the universe is subject to observable laws. To say that these laws came about by random chance is amazingly short sighted.
Well, first off, you have just shifted your argument from evolution to all observable natural laws. You are also mixing up several things that are not necessarily related; the origin of life (e.g., primordial soup) is a different topic than evolution. Let's just concentrate on evolution for now.
Evolution could be falsified by a single fossil turning up in the "wrong place" in the fossil record. With millions and millions of fossils found, not a single one has been found "in the wrong place" for evolution to be true. In addition, the theory of evolution has predicted transitional life forms that have then been found in the correct geological time frame in the fossil record.
Now, to address your primordial soup comment - the fact that there is not a known answer for this does not necessarily imply that "God did it". Your "God of the Gaps" argument is quite traditional, and typically becomes more and more desperate as continuous increases in scientific knowledge make the gaps smaller and smaller. Read some books, take some science classes, and educate yourself on this issue, because you appear to be talking out of your ass at the moment.
Careful. IDiocy meshes just fine with the evidence (granted, mixing Young-Earth-Creationism with ID is done, quite often, and is just stupidity piled on top of retardism). This is because, as you so rightly pointed out, it explains nothing and predicts nothing, and so proponents of it can just keep moving the goalposts. When you can move goals, meshing with evidence is no problem.
I would argue that ID does not match the evidence, given the number of less-than-ideal biological systems that exist. Evolution through natural selection may give an appearance of "design", but only a fool would look at it and call it "intelligently" designed. I agree with you, though; arguing this with an ID proponent is like repeatedly banging your head into a brick wall. They constantly change their definitions in order to facilitate their arguments.
I think it's a pretty poor parody, since it really misses the point. The PI=3 thing is much like the earth being flat... something that no one ever seriously advocated, yet is often brought up as "proof" of the Bible being useful for proving the absurd.
In the second place, the Biblical case against homosexuality is a lot more than "out-of-context Leviticus quotes." The Bible consistently rejects homosexuality, in both the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament.
So given your previous comment of "I don't believe in the {God,Bible} in which critics don't believe", here's a question for you... if the Bible is consistent in its case against homosexuality, do you believe that homosexuals are going to Hell if they are not repentant of their lifestyle? If so, I think we've learned all we need to know about you (i.e., your views are dictated to you by a millenia-old tome of myths). If not, I am interested in how you reconcile a modern day progressive viewpoint (homosexuality is OK) with a consistent message passed to you through the Bible.
I submit to you that if intellegent design did happen, then that is what we should study if we are to fully understand all the scientific secrets of the universe. Keep in mind that the theory of evolution is not even a valid theory by standard scientific principles. Scientists today approached science by "ruling out" intellegent design. This is a quite closed minded approach to studying anything. In true science, all possibilities are left open unless something can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.
I hope you're being facetious, but I get this horrible feeling that you aren't. Could you please explain to me how the theory of evolution is not a valid theory as measured by standard scientific principles? It is as much a theory as the theory of gravitation, the theory of relativity, or the germ theory of disease. In order for something t be judged a scientific theory, it must do two things - mesh with a preponderance of observed evidence, and be able to reliably make predictions. The theory of evolution meets both of these criteria, while the hypothesis of Intelligent Design does neither. It explains nothing, it predicts nothing, and it matches no known evidence.
I'm not sure your definition of free will is exact enough. Will implies intent or desire. Weather may be non-deterministic but that's a far car from concluding it has free will. Plus it seems that assessing if something is deterministic requires one knowing all the "initial conditions and laws" that govern. Knowing a few historical conditions and assuming a few rudimentary laws, could make any deterministic system seem chaotic.
Yes, but you realize human beings may be the same, right? There have been studies showing that our conscious mind only rationalizes our actions after-the-fact. This implies that while we have far less "free will" than we might at first believe. Something to think about, anyway... I am not certain that I agree (who wants to believe that? Does't make it less true, though), but I thought I'd throw it out there anyway.
unless of course the designer was operating under a set of physical constraints such as those present in the real world.../ok I admit this time I was trolling... I apologize
It's OK, I'll bite anyway. I could say that the income I make is actually supplied by pink fairies, but because they are working through the constraints of the physical world, they are supplying it to me through my place of employment. As Pierre-Simon Laplace said to Napoleon, "Je n'avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse". The pink fairy hypothesis is unnecessary, and indistinguishable from the reality that we observe and measure ourselves. So, I would argue, is the Intelligent Design hypothesis.
The point is intelligent design basically agrees with evolution but suggests that someone kick started it. There is no science which disagrees with this, I see no reason why this couldn't be taught (for what it is) as a theory in a classroom. Your thoughts?
Intelligent Design theory typically implies that not only did "someone" kick-start the process, but that it was a guided process. There is plenty of scientific evidence to show that natural selection, and not some kind of "designed guidance" was the driving force in evolutionary changes. Just as a very quick example, look at the design of the human eye... upside down, backwards, and with a huge blind spot caused by a cable of optic nerves. If it came about through incremental changes driven by selection, this is easy to understand. If it was created by a designer who guided the process, then the designer was an incompetent.
My View: by hiding the fact that other theories exist you only harm the credibility of the leading theory once the individual finds out about the other views. (as a general rule, not just to be applied to evolutionary biology / intelligent design)/damnit I fed the troll.
Your use of the term "theory" in this context shows that you have no idea what it means for something to be a scientific Theory. People who call intelligent design a "theory" are simply trying to convince your average Joe Sixpack that it is equally as plausible and on the some footing as the scientific Theory of Evolution. It is not. As far as I know, no other Theories currently exist to explain the diversity of life. No one is hiding other theories, because there aren't any. There are some fairy tales that were meant to try and explain it several thousand years ago, which in no way resemble a theory of any sort.
I would posit that Philosophy would be another class that it would be appropriate in (beyond the narrow religious studies classes). However I also don't see the harm in pointing out in the science class that "while evolution is the current leading scientific theory by a landslide, there are other non-scientific theories out there. If you want to learn about them take class X in the philosophy / theology course line."
I posit that we should teach the theological alternative to the theory of gravity: "God's hand holds us down to the earth." Or an alternative to the Germ Theory of disease - Satan makes people sick who don't pray hard enough. Quantum Theory? Naw, those are just "god bits". We can have science teachers tell kids that they can explore these "alternative", "non-scientific" theories in philosophy class. That will ensure a wonderful education for them.
Speak for yourself. While I find myself receiving quite a bit of email, I would say that 85%+ of my communications at work are via my company's secure internal chat system.
You are kidding, right? That is one of the most ignorant statements I have ever seen. Nothing would ever be "worth it" if it had to show an immediate profit.
Usually the biggest problem is fundamentalists not being able to understand anything more then a literal interpretation of "scripture", and being completely oblivious to the fact that all of the You-niverse is scripture.
I don't usually make posts like this, but the term "You-niverse" made me throw up in my mouth a little bit.
Most states make acceptance of BAC tests part of the agreement you sign when you get your driver's license. I don't think you should be able to sign away your 5th amendment rights, but the courts seem to disagree.
But simply have a corporate-issued laptop with VPN power to connect remotely has been both a blessing and a curse. A blessing, because I can work from home frequently. A curse, because I find myself still doing work-related activities at 9:00 PM without even thinking about it. I'd be lying if I said this hadn't led to some marriage-related stress; it is tough to make and stick to work/life boundaries when work is constantly available.
I've found that you can iterate on a design document all you want, and create nothing but churn. I have found that it's far better to iterate with an actual prototype or mock-ups, because users don't think the same way looking at a sheet of paper as they do looking at an application. I've started using Ruby on Rails or PHP to do quick and dirty prototypes for our users (most of our internal intranet sites are Servlet/JSP based, but it's so painful we only want to do that piece once). Lately, my management sees the functioning prototype and says "hey, we're done" and has me polish it up and then move on to another project. The prototypes end up becoming the final app. I'm not sure how I feel about this; the "final" product (in my mind) never gets done, butthe users are happy... which I guess at the end of the day is the most important thing.
What I found is that when they are in front of the app, after a bit of usage they think "could you add feature X?" "how can I do Y?" and so on. I implement X and Y, and only then they ask "oh, you did Y? So why not Z?" etc. So the spec becomes dynamic, in the sense that only when they see a milestone accomplished new possibilities come to their (and my) mind. It's a climbing process. I don't know if it's the same also for pro developers.
If you are lucky enough to live and work in an environment that allows this, then it is, IMHO, the absolute best method for developing software. Now unfortunately, in much of the world, and especially at larger companies, very rigid software development practices are followed that make this sort of agile, iterative development difficult or impossible. I am lucky; I work at such a company,and work directly with a group of developers who use a very rigid, unflexible system; we don't see the product until it's been completed based on the spec - any iterative feedback I or my colleagues has is worthless, and would have to be done to fit into the next quarterly release cycle. Luckily, I also do my own development for some internal departments, and am given the freedom to work in a more agile manner.
Your emotional attachment to this subject has understandably clouded your judgment and caused you to harshly overreact to my comments. This is exactly the reason that decisions on this topic should be made by level heads for the benefit of society as a whole.
Please keep in mind that I do not have a problem with providing extra support to children, like yours, who have autism or some other type of special need; I just have a problem when the money spent to support those children outweighs or overshadows the money being spent on programs that could benefit a greater number of students - I have the same problem with high school sports programs. I suppose you could say that I am an equal opportunity "insensitive clod".
In an ideal world, every child would have every opportunity available to them. In the real world, that's not possible; deciding how limited school funds can best help the most students seems insensitive, but it's the world we live in. I wish it could be different, and some day maybe it will be.
As a quick follow-up, I did not say that children with special needs are burdens - I said that providing specialized care for them places a burden on public school systems. Those are two very different things.
Slashdot Mirror
No, teaching the existence of crackpot theories is fine, in the appropriate forum. Most people here are arguing that science class is not the appropriate forum. Science class is for science. If there is a valid scientific alternative, it should be discussed in the interest of the students. What we have here are NOT valid scientific alternatives, and as such, have no place whatsoever inside a science classroom.
Ok, sorry for the ad hom. Will keep it less personal now.
This is a problem I typically run into when debating creationists or ID advocates. Before I go any further, are you the kind of person who is willing to look at the evidence, or are you into the "God of the Gaps" argument, where every transitional fossil simply creates two more gaps? If so, then nothing I can do or say will convince you, and I would be wasting both our time. If not, let me know and we can discuss further.
Ok, how about the fact that Homo Sapiens as a specis is prone to lower back problems and sinus infections? This is due to our having evolved from walking on all fours, to walking upright.
You can posit a masters student from Beta Centauri having "designed" us, but at the end of the day, you come back to the question of, "where did that student come from?". Was he "designed" by someone else? Where does this regress of 'design' end? Because most people imply a supernatural 'creator' as the designer, that is what I typically argue against. If you want to argue about an extra-terrestrial designer, then by all means, let's. But unless you have a way to explain where that designer came from, it ends up coming across as either weak, or a desperate attempt to distance oneself from the religious nutcases who make up the ID movement.
Well, first off, you have just shifted your argument from evolution to all observable natural laws. You are also mixing up several things that are not necessarily related; the origin of life (e.g., primordial soup) is a different topic than evolution. Let's just concentrate on evolution for now.
Evolution could be falsified by a single fossil turning up in the "wrong place" in the fossil record. With millions and millions of fossils found, not a single one has been found "in the wrong place" for evolution to be true. In addition, the theory of evolution has predicted transitional life forms that have then been found in the correct geological time frame in the fossil record.
Now, to address your primordial soup comment - the fact that there is not a known answer for this does not necessarily imply that "God did it". Your "God of the Gaps" argument is quite traditional, and typically becomes more and more desperate as continuous increases in scientific knowledge make the gaps smaller and smaller. Read some books, take some science classes, and educate yourself on this issue, because you appear to be talking out of your ass at the moment.
I would argue that ID does not match the evidence, given the number of less-than-ideal biological systems that exist. Evolution through natural selection may give an appearance of "design", but only a fool would look at it and call it "intelligently" designed. I agree with you, though; arguing this with an ID proponent is like repeatedly banging your head into a brick wall. They constantly change their definitions in order to facilitate their arguments.
So given your previous comment of "I don't believe in the {God,Bible} in which critics don't believe", here's a question for you... if the Bible is consistent in its case against homosexuality, do you believe that homosexuals are going to Hell if they are not repentant of their lifestyle? If so, I think we've learned all we need to know about you (i.e., your views are dictated to you by a millenia-old tome of myths). If not, I am interested in how you reconcile a modern day progressive viewpoint (homosexuality is OK) with a consistent message passed to you through the Bible.
I hope you're being facetious, but I get this horrible feeling that you aren't. Could you please explain to me how the theory of evolution is not a valid theory as measured by standard scientific principles? It is as much a theory as the theory of gravitation, the theory of relativity, or the germ theory of disease. In order for something t be judged a scientific theory, it must do two things - mesh with a preponderance of observed evidence, and be able to reliably make predictions. The theory of evolution meets both of these criteria, while the hypothesis of Intelligent Design does neither. It explains nothing, it predicts nothing, and it matches no known evidence.
Yes, but you realize human beings may be the same, right? There have been studies showing that our conscious mind only rationalizes our actions after-the-fact. This implies that while we have far less "free will" than we might at first believe. Something to think about, anyway... I am not certain that I agree (who wants to believe that? Does't make it less true, though), but I thought I'd throw it out there anyway.
I actually give thanks daily for His Noodly Appendage, which binds me to the earth and prevents me from floating away into the endless void.
It's OK, I'll bite anyway. I could say that the income I make is actually supplied by pink fairies, but because they are working through the constraints of the physical world, they are supplying it to me through my place of employment. As Pierre-Simon Laplace said to Napoleon, "Je n'avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse". The pink fairy hypothesis is unnecessary, and indistinguishable from the reality that we observe and measure ourselves. So, I would argue, is the Intelligent Design hypothesis.
Intelligent Design theory typically implies that not only did "someone" kick-start the process, but that it was a guided process. There is plenty of scientific evidence to show that natural selection, and not some kind of "designed guidance" was the driving force in evolutionary changes. Just as a very quick example, look at the design of the human eye... upside down, backwards, and with a huge blind spot caused by a cable of optic nerves. If it came about through incremental changes driven by selection, this is easy to understand. If it was created by a designer who guided the process, then the designer was an incompetent.
Your use of the term "theory" in this context shows that you have no idea what it means for something to be a scientific Theory. People who call intelligent design a "theory" are simply trying to convince your average Joe Sixpack that it is equally as plausible and on the some footing as the scientific Theory of Evolution. It is not. As far as I know, no other Theories currently exist to explain the diversity of life. No one is hiding other theories, because there aren't any. There are some fairy tales that were meant to try and explain it several thousand years ago, which in no way resemble a theory of any sort.
I posit that we should teach the theological alternative to the theory of gravity: "God's hand holds us down to the earth." Or an alternative to the Germ Theory of disease - Satan makes people sick who don't pray hard enough. Quantum Theory? Naw, those are just "god bits". We can have science teachers tell kids that they can explore these "alternative", "non-scientific" theories in philosophy class. That will ensure a wonderful education for them.
No no, I believe the proper phrase is 'but I digest'.
Speak for yourself. While I find myself receiving quite a bit of email, I would say that 85%+ of my communications at work are via my company's secure internal chat system.
You are kidding, right? That is one of the most ignorant statements I have ever seen. Nothing would ever be "worth it" if it had to show an immediate profit.
I don't usually make posts like this, but the term "You-niverse" made me throw up in my mouth a little bit.
Most states make acceptance of BAC tests part of the agreement you sign when you get your driver's license. I don't think you should be able to sign away your 5th amendment rights, but the courts seem to disagree.
These people are idiots. However, it seems like it would be very difficult to prove intent during prosecution.
But simply have a corporate-issued laptop with VPN power to connect remotely has been both a blessing and a curse. A blessing, because I can work from home frequently. A curse, because I find myself still doing work-related activities at 9:00 PM without even thinking about it. I'd be lying if I said this hadn't led to some marriage-related stress; it is tough to make and stick to work/life boundaries when work is constantly available.
No no no. My guess is that this was a set-up for next year's antagonist, who was "worse than the boogeyman (Sylar)".
I've found that you can iterate on a design document all you want, and create nothing but churn. I have found that it's far better to iterate with an actual prototype or mock-ups, because users don't think the same way looking at a sheet of paper as they do looking at an application. I've started using Ruby on Rails or PHP to do quick and dirty prototypes for our users (most of our internal intranet sites are Servlet/JSP based, but it's so painful we only want to do that piece once). Lately, my management sees the functioning prototype and says "hey, we're done" and has me polish it up and then move on to another project. The prototypes end up becoming the final app. I'm not sure how I feel about this; the "final" product (in my mind) never gets done, butthe users are happy... which I guess at the end of the day is the most important thing.
If you are lucky enough to live and work in an environment that allows this, then it is, IMHO, the absolute best method for developing software. Now unfortunately, in much of the world, and especially at larger companies, very rigid software development practices are followed that make this sort of agile, iterative development difficult or impossible. I am lucky; I work at such a company,and work directly with a group of developers who use a very rigid, unflexible system; we don't see the product until it's been completed based on the spec - any iterative feedback I or my colleagues has is worthless, and would have to be done to fit into the next quarterly release cycle. Luckily, I also do my own development for some internal departments, and am given the freedom to work in a more agile manner.
One step closer to getting a Fuligin cloak for that Severian costume I've always wanted to wear to Halloween parties.
Your emotional attachment to this subject has understandably clouded your judgment and caused you to harshly overreact to my comments. This is exactly the reason that decisions on this topic should be made by level heads for the benefit of society as a whole.
Please keep in mind that I do not have a problem with providing extra support to children, like yours, who have autism or some other type of special need; I just have a problem when the money spent to support those children outweighs or overshadows the money being spent on programs that could benefit a greater number of students - I have the same problem with high school sports programs. I suppose you could say that I am an equal opportunity "insensitive clod".
In an ideal world, every child would have every opportunity available to them. In the real world, that's not possible; deciding how limited school funds can best help the most students seems insensitive, but it's the world we live in. I wish it could be different, and some day maybe it will be.
As a quick follow-up, I did not say that children with special needs are burdens - I said that providing specialized care for them places a burden on public school systems. Those are two very different things.