ID isn't [science]. Why? Because according to ID proponents, life is too complex to have evolved, and therefore there has to be a ID'er. See? Nothing to investigate, they already have the answer.
That isn't true. "Life is too complex to have evolved" is a theory; ID research (primarily using information theory) is to try to show that this is the case. If they succeed in showing that the Darwinian mechanism of variation and selection doesn't have the power to generate the complex information found in living things, then the search will be on for a mechanism that can do this.
ID has no proof to support it, evolution has.
And if ID can show what it is attempting to show, then Darwinian evolution will have to be scrapped in favor of something else.
Even if the theory of evolution isn't perfect (yet), that doesn't prove that ID is correct.
I don't know of anyone who claims that the imperfections in the theory of evolution prove the correctness of ID. The claim is that the problems with evolution should mean that a search for other answers should be allowed to take place. The flaws in evolution should be taught, and it should be legal to mention that there is a branch of science that is attempting to apply information theory to living things.
Who the FUCK said SETI was science, so I can beat their ass?
SETI itself?. A quote from their webpage: "SETI@home is a scientific experiment that uses Internet-connected computers in the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI)." They also provide convenient links under a "SCIENCE" heading.
SETI is not science. SETI is looking for evidence. SETI is the stage you get before you have science.
SETI is looking for evidence to support the theory (based partly on evolution and partly on the size of the universe) that life exists elsewhere.
SETI is using information theory to attempt to detect signs of intelligence in the universe. If such a signal is detected, it still won't mean that we are going to determine if the cause as little green men or big purple amazon women.
ID is using the same principle applied to biological systems. So if SETI is science, so is ID.
More relevantly, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Allah, Jehova, Menbari, Plain Old God, or Steve Gutenberg could do the creating through...evolution!
Well, that's what needs to be shown. On the one hand, you have the "just so" stories of Dawkins in which he attempts to climb Mt. Improbable, vs. the mathematics of Dembski that says "can't be done".
God created everything by snapping his fingers and saying "abracadabra", and you must take that literally.
Please don't tell me what I must do. One of the things that I see in this thread that I find most interesting is that the side supposedly on the side of science is incapable of correctly classifying their opponents. Not everyone who has problems with evolution is a young-earth creationist and ID is not creationism. I also find it interesting that/. ran an article yesterday about faked scientific results at MIT. The fakery was uncovered using information theory -- the same information theory that some people are trying to apply to biology.
Why can't God use effective tools such as evolution?
Because it may be the case that Darwinian evolution isn't as effective as claimed. Random processes have trouble generating complex information,
I find people on both major sides of this argument to have their minds so very closed.
Yes, you've demonstrated that quite well by automatically assuming what I'm like.
However, as far as teaching it in school...it is a religion, just like every other religion, and should be taught in a class where other religions are taught. To teach it elsewhere would be teaching a specific religion as more or less important than others, which is a Very Bad Idea.
What is it that you think that Intelligent Design wants to teach? That the earth is 6,000 years old? That's not the case. It's also interesting that you seem to classify science as "that which is true" and religion as "that which is made up". That's a philosophical position that you shouldn't be allowed to teach, certainly not in a science class; and probably not in a public school since it advances naturalism over other philosophical systems.
Why must religion remain in the same state it was 2000 years ago, and not advance with the rest of society?
There are some truths that are eternal.
And why must people (on both sides) believe that accepting science means rejecting religion?
Depends on how you define science, doesn't it? If by science you mean "the scientific method", then this doesn't mean rejecting religion. If by science you mean "the philosophy of naturalism", then the two will always be mortal enemies.
Intelligent design doesn't make any predictions about the designer. For all we know, if there is an intelligence underlying the universe, that it could the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Or maybe it's the Menbari concept from Babylon 5 that the universe itself is intelligent.
There is a lot of information in this universe; where did it come from? How do we know?
Because I've used Linux, Windows, and OS X (among many, many others). Given the choice, I'll take OS X every time. I value my time -- that leaves Linux out. I value my productivity -- that omits Windows. I value my sanity, that leaves OS X.
Depends on what is wrong. At worst, send it out for a 24-hour turnaround repair. Note that I've had desktop equipment that has taken longer to repair than my laptop.
Sure, there are people with the financial resources and job neccesity to have a back-up laptop.
Who says a backup laptop is needed? I can use a desktop in time of need.
I guess if you have the financial resources to just have numerous back up laptops, and to fix them when they break, you can do that.
I have my one laptop. But my wife has a desktop at home that I can use; and I have two desktops at work that I can use.
But then, aren't you too busy relaxing in the hottub in the back of your limo, anyway?
On the other hand, once you have those things security can become more important than freedom. Freedom is messy, fraught with uncertainty, and demands great personal responsibility (irresponsible people require more government, thereby restricting freedom). Those qualities don't come from business, although they can be found in many people who start businesses.
I don't think so. There is greater opportunity under capitalism than there is under socialism. I prefer the American system because I don't want to rely on government to be responsible for me.
A system that has 5% unemployment vs. 10% or higher is more compassionate, is it not? How can you be compassionate if you can't compete? You end up with less ability to help the poor.
Ah, but the difference is that in science, observations can compel us to change our world views.
That isn't any different than those people who have examined the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus and become Christians as a result. So the difference lies elsewhere.
Think how different our conception of the world is now, as compared to the day Einstein's famous paper on SR came out 100 years ago.
There is more to our conception of the world that just what we can see. Just ask Horatio.
When is the last time a religious discovery had such an impact on our worldview?
Just all of Western civilization for the last 2000 years.
Biologists already knew that chance alone doesn't explain the complexity of things. You're right, I should have said chance plus selection. However, selection cannot work until reproduction can occur, so what was the source of the first reproducing organism? So far, chance is the only explanation that I'm aware of.
If we thought biology was the result of pure chance, there wouldn't be much reason to look for explanations, would there?
I'm often puzzled why naturalists look for explanations. Ultimately they have no reason to, as the nihlist philosophers so ably demonstrated.
I was looking at the big picture - science is observable facts, religion is faith-base beliefs
For the religions that I'm familiar with, they claim that they, too, are based upon observed facts. Jews with the giving of the Ten Commandments on Sinai (among many other things); Christians with the resurrection of Jesus. Other religions make other claims and some are based solely on (non-observable) revelation. That they are historical observations, and therefore not necessarily repeatable, does not change the nature that these claim to be observation-based religions. YMMV.
Religion is based on faith, science on observation. They are, to some degree, mutually excusive.
Actually, the opposite is true -- they are intertwined. Observations must be interpreted and interpretation cannot escape one's underlying worldview. And every worldview is built on premises that must be taken on faith (just as the axioms in geometry are taken on faith).
Until we start seeing God in our telescopes chiseling away at some great nebula, then he does not belong in a science classroom.
To show how observation and interpretation are clashing today, the atheist says that biological complexity must have arisen through "natural" processes; since there is no god, what is "natural" must be randomness guided by natural selection. On the other hand, the "intelligent design" crowd will say that chance cannot explain the complexity of living things, and some are trying to bolster this argument via mathematical arguments (e.g. Dembski).
IMO, the problem will never be resolved since chance and design have equal explanatory power (although different likelihoods of outcome). Those favoring intelligent design will say (if their math is correct) that life could not have arisen by chance. Those favoring non-intelligent explanations will say that the incredibly unlikely happened (just ask the Great Green Arkleseizure). It will be interesting to see how evidence for or against the "many-worlds" theory will affect the probabilities.
As much as we all love the Constitution, it's still a document that is enforced by the same government that grants the rights. The U. S. government does not grant rights to its citizens. It enforces rights granted to them by their Creator.
And therein lies the tale of moral relativism. Freedom isn't better than tyranny; life isn't better than death; bravery isn't better than cowardice; and truth isn't better than lies. So let's stand for nothing, since we have nothing on which to stand.
I put it to you that manipulation is inherently selfless Manipulation of another person is for personal gain. That's selfish. If you don't believe me, ask yourself this: do you like being manipulated?
So, a domesticated dog can be immoral? They can be disobedient; I don't know if they have knowledge of right and wrong (as opposed to a pain/pleasure response).
What about non-domesticated children? That's not an experiment I'm willing to run. Perhaps there's some literature on it (besides Lord of the Flies).
Slashdot Mirror
ID isn't [science]. Why? Because according to ID proponents, life is too complex to have evolved, and therefore there has to be a ID'er. See? Nothing to investigate, they already have the answer.
That isn't true. "Life is too complex to have evolved" is a theory; ID research (primarily using information theory) is to try to show that this is the case. If they succeed in showing that the Darwinian mechanism of variation and selection doesn't have the power to generate the complex information found in living things, then the search will be on for a mechanism that can do this.
ID has no proof to support it, evolution has.
And if ID can show what it is attempting to show, then Darwinian evolution will have to be scrapped in favor of something else.
Even if the theory of evolution isn't perfect (yet), that doesn't prove that ID is correct.
I don't know of anyone who claims that the imperfections in the theory of evolution prove the correctness of ID. The claim is that the problems with evolution should mean that a search for other answers should be allowed to take place. The flaws in evolution should be taught, and it should be legal to mention that there is a branch of science that is attempting to apply information theory to living things.
Who the FUCK said SETI was science, so I can beat their ass?
SETI itself?. A quote from their webpage: "SETI@home is a scientific experiment that uses Internet-connected computers in the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI)." They also provide convenient links under a "SCIENCE" heading.
SETI is not science. SETI is looking for evidence. SETI is the stage you get before you have science.
SETI is looking for evidence to support the theory (based partly on evolution and partly on the size of the universe) that life exists elsewhere.
SETI is using information theory to attempt to detect signs of intelligence in the universe. If such a signal is detected, it still won't mean that we are going to determine if the cause as little green men or big purple amazon women.
ID is using the same principle applied to biological systems. So if SETI is science, so is ID.
The only reason they don't predict on the designer is so that they can claim it's science.
So SETI isn't science?
More relevantly, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Allah, Jehova, Menbari, Plain Old God, or Steve Gutenberg could do the creating through...evolution!
/. ran an article yesterday about faked scientific results at MIT. The fakery was uncovered using information theory -- the same information theory that some people are trying to apply to biology.
Well, that's what needs to be shown. On the one hand, you have the "just so" stories of Dawkins in which he attempts to climb Mt. Improbable, vs. the mathematics of Dembski that says "can't be done".
God created everything by snapping his fingers and saying "abracadabra", and you must take that literally.
Please don't tell me what I must do. One of the things that I see in this thread that I find most interesting is that the side supposedly on the side of science is incapable of correctly classifying their opponents. Not everyone who has problems with evolution is a young-earth creationist and ID is not creationism. I also find it interesting that
Why can't God use effective tools such as evolution?
Because it may be the case that Darwinian evolution isn't as effective as claimed. Random processes have trouble generating complex information,
I find people on both major sides of this argument to have their minds so very closed.
Yes, you've demonstrated that quite well by automatically assuming what I'm like.
However, as far as teaching it in school...it is a religion, just like every other religion, and should be taught in a class where other religions are taught. To teach it elsewhere would be teaching a specific religion as more or less important than others, which is a Very Bad Idea.
What is it that you think that Intelligent Design wants to teach? That the earth is 6,000 years old? That's not the case. It's also interesting that you seem to classify science as "that which is true" and religion as "that which is made up". That's a philosophical position that you shouldn't be allowed to teach, certainly not in a science class; and probably not in a public school since it advances naturalism over other philosophical systems.
Why must religion remain in the same state it was 2000 years ago, and not advance with the rest of society?
There are some truths that are eternal.
And why must people (on both sides) believe that accepting science means rejecting religion?
Depends on how you define science, doesn't it? If by science you mean "the scientific method", then this doesn't mean rejecting religion. If by science you mean "the philosophy of naturalism", then the two will always be mortal enemies.
Intelligent design doesn't make any predictions about the designer. For all we know, if there is an intelligence underlying the universe, that it could the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Or maybe it's the Menbari concept from Babylon 5 that the universe itself is intelligent.
There is a lot of information in this universe; where did it come from? How do we know?
Because I've used Linux, Windows, and OS X (among many, many others). Given the choice, I'll take OS X every time. I value my time -- that leaves Linux out. I value my productivity -- that omits Windows. I value my sanity, that leaves OS X.
How are you going to fix it?
Depends on what is wrong. At worst, send it out for a 24-hour turnaround repair. Note that I've had desktop equipment that has taken longer to repair than my laptop.
Sure, there are people with the financial resources and job neccesity to have a back-up laptop.
Who says a backup laptop is needed? I can use a desktop in time of need.
I guess if you have the financial resources to just have numerous back up laptops, and to fix them when they break, you can do that.
I have my one laptop. But my wife has a desktop at home that I can use; and I have two desktops at work that I can use.
But then, aren't you too busy relaxing in the hottub in the back of your limo, anyway?
Not with two children in college.
"So, if you have a laptop, and its powersupply, battery, screen (or other such part) breaks, what are you going to do?"
The same thing I'm going to do when my desktop has a problem: switch to a backup computer until it gets fixed.
On the other hand, once you have those things security can become more important than freedom. Freedom is messy, fraught with uncertainty, and demands great personal responsibility (irresponsible people require more government, thereby restricting freedom). Those qualities don't come from business, although they can be found in many people who start businesses.
I don't think so. There is greater opportunity under capitalism than there is under socialism. I prefer the American system because I don't want to rely on government to be responsible for me.
The 5% of unemployed Americans.
A system that has 5% unemployment vs. 10% or higher is more compassionate, is it not? How can you be compassionate if you can't compete? You end up with less ability to help the poor.
Ah, but the difference is that in science, observations can compel us to change our world views.
That isn't any different than those people who have examined the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus and become Christians as a result. So the difference lies elsewhere.
Think how different our conception of the world is now, as compared to the day Einstein's famous paper on SR came out 100 years ago.
There is more to our conception of the world that just what we can see. Just ask Horatio.
When is the last time a religious discovery had such an impact on our worldview?
Just all of Western civilization for the last 2000 years.
Biologists already knew that chance alone doesn't explain the complexity of things.
You're right, I should have said chance plus selection. However, selection cannot work until reproduction can occur, so what was the source of the first reproducing organism? So far, chance is the only explanation that I'm aware of.
If we thought biology was the result of pure chance, there wouldn't be much reason to look for explanations, would there?
I'm often puzzled why naturalists look for explanations. Ultimately they have no reason to, as the nihlist philosophers so ably demonstrated.
I was looking at the big picture - science is observable facts, religion is faith-base beliefs
For the religions that I'm familiar with, they claim that they, too, are based upon observed facts. Jews with the giving of the Ten Commandments on Sinai (among many other things); Christians with the resurrection of Jesus. Other religions make other claims and some are based solely on (non-observable) revelation. That they are historical observations, and therefore not necessarily repeatable, does not change the nature that these claim to be observation-based religions. YMMV.
The axioms of geometry aren't taken on faith.
Sure they are, since they are assumed to be true without proof.
They fix a geometry. If you change one of the axioms, you end up with a different geometry.
The same is true for a worldview; change any axiom and the worldview changes.
Religion is based on faith, science on observation. They are, to some degree, mutually excusive.
Actually, the opposite is true -- they are intertwined. Observations must be interpreted and interpretation cannot escape one's underlying worldview. And every worldview is built on premises that must be taken on faith (just as the axioms in geometry are taken on faith).
Until we start seeing God in our telescopes chiseling away at some great nebula, then he does not belong in a science classroom.
To show how observation and interpretation are clashing today, the atheist says that biological complexity must have arisen through "natural" processes; since there is no god, what is "natural" must be randomness guided by natural selection. On the other hand, the "intelligent design" crowd will say that chance cannot explain the complexity of living things, and some are trying to bolster this argument via mathematical arguments (e.g. Dembski).
IMO, the problem will never be resolved since chance and design have equal explanatory power (although different likelihoods of outcome). Those favoring intelligent design will say (if their math is correct) that life could not have arisen by chance. Those favoring non-intelligent explanations will say that the incredibly unlikely happened (just ask the Great Green Arkleseizure). It will be interesting to see how evidence for or against the "many-worlds" theory will affect the probabilities.
That's why we homeschool. Both of my older children are now in college (one is at Ga Tech) where the some learning actually still takes place.
Can i go to the bathroom now?
No. All your base are belong to us.
You'll just have to hold it.
As much as we all love the Constitution, it's still a document that is enforced by the same government that grants the rights.
The U. S. government does not grant rights to its citizens. It enforces rights granted to them by their Creator.
Nobody gives you rights. You have rights.
What are they? Where are they enumerated? Why do some not recognize those rights?
There are only people trying to take them away.
So what about those who cannot defend themselves? Under your system, are rights only for the strong?
You missed the point. The parent asked the question, "What gives you or I the right...".
And therein lies the tale of moral relativism. Freedom isn't better than tyranny; life isn't better than death; bravery isn't better than cowardice; and truth isn't better than lies. So let's stand for nothing, since we have nothing on which to stand.
Is there any situation at all in which hating is right?
Sure. It's ok to hate injustice and evil (although it can be argued that the two are related).
I put it to you that manipulation is inherently selfless
Manipulation of another person is for personal gain. That's selfish. If you don't believe me, ask yourself this: do you like being manipulated?
So, a domesticated dog can be immoral?
They can be disobedient; I don't know if they have knowledge of right and wrong (as opposed to a pain/pleasure response).
What about non-domesticated children?
That's not an experiment I'm willing to run. Perhaps there's some literature on it (besides Lord of the Flies).