Intelligent Design Shot Down

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]JonP wrote:

  1. Whenever creationists bring up the “it’s only a theory” debate is when they lose all credibility. Like theories can become facts or laws. A law is an observation, a theory explains why the observation happens. Gravity is a theory, yet nobody runs around yelling “Gravity is ONLY a theory!” and puts stickers on science books saying it’s not a fact.[/quote]

While I agree with your overall point, your example isnt exactly accurate; there is such a thing as the universal law of gravity and it is quite different from the “theory” of gravity. The theory of gravity trys to explain why the law of universal gravitation is true. While the latter isnt in question, the former is up for debate. There are numerous theories of gravity…not just the one Einstein describes in his theory of general relativity.

82

[quote]DPH wrote:
btm62 wrote:
DPH wrote:
Massif wrote:
I just wanted to clarify that I don’t have any problem with religion being taught in schools as an elective subject. I do have a problem with this subject being taught as a science subject.

I also think that there are far more interesting things that could be taught in a religion class, rather than spending a semester concentrating on a Christian alternative to evolution.

Yes, they could teach from, “The Case for Christ” or the “The Case for Faith”. They could be presented with alternatives in order to make a decision with their own minds.

You know evolution is so riddled with holes even a new and non religious alternative would be great! Maybe one that made sense and was provable using the scientific method. Then it could be science.

I agree…

I think that having a religious studies course as an elective taught in public schools would be cool…

but religion should not be taught as science…

So then all of the sudden BANG, time began? Then one day BANG again it will all end and there will be what? A bunch of nothing? Isn’t nothing something really? Can something come from nothing? Can’t be done in scientific terms. But if we incorporate intelligent design the holes are filled, scientifically of course. Maybe they should both be taught as philosophy. Science, bah. Interesting if true.

I.D. is a religious subject and has nothing to do with science…

Huh? Its just as much of a science as the THEORY of evolution is.

the concept of I.D. taught in a religious studies course wouldn’t bother me a bit.

I’m sure it would presented the in the most factual and enriching manner by the liberal school boards.

Sorry Massif, I don’t meant to use your post to launch a personal attack, which it isn’t and as such I apologize, but these people who are so scared to death of anything with any religious overtones they have to overreact bug the crap outta me. (yes they are on both sides of the issue.) I mean what’s next. Ooh the commandments say Thou Shalt not Kill, that religious, we should be able to kill if we want to! OOOPs doing that already. Abortion. I think the world and people have already done a GREAT job of removing religion from their lives. Look at the world around us. Religions serves as a reminder of responsibility for our actions and rules to live by. Don’t want to be reminded of that whilst we fornicate, steal, and kill. Yikes.

Flame away! (Some will find irony in this statement.)

what are you talking about?

I said I would be fine with ID (religious overtones and all) being taught as an elective in high school.

just not as a science class…

ID is nothing more than the teleological argument (which I studied thoroughly in college)…not science…

I’m a christian by the way.[/quote]

I tried figuring out what he was talking about and came up with a blank. Did he really apologize for not launching a personal attack?

I think someone got into the Christmas Spirit (ie Jack Daniels) a little early this year.

83

[quote] Watch this Lockwood:
Heh, I have an idea, we could have a scientific discussion here. You could read a book, like “Of Pandas and People”, I have, and we could discuss the facts presented.

It looks like this thread has a lot of scientific guys on it. Anyone want to discuss some the scientific arguements presented in the book “Of Pandas and People”. If you don’t, please don’t whine and give excuses, just say you are not up to reading the book. Just admit you don’t actually have the honesty to delve into the subject and learn something about what you criticize.[/quote]

Is this book presenting facts or opinions?

Although it was a long time ago, I read a book once called “The Dancing Wu-Li Masters”. I might have the title wrong, really, but the name doesn’t say much about the contents.

Anyway, you buy the book and send it to me, and if it’s at least in English I’ll see if I can manage to avoid being thrown into a fit of outrageous disbelief by it’s contents.

Oh, there was once a book entitle “The Tao of Pooh”, again, if it wasn’t that it was something similar. I mean, you can’t expect me to remember the names of these things for 20 years or more can you?

What. Huh. Was I snoring? Stop kicking me already.

84

The theory of gravity is obviously flawed, because I don’t know about you, but I am definitely not more attracted to fat chicks, no matter what crushing level of mass they have sucked in past the point of no return.

85

Can a science teacher get in on this?

Science and ID are two VERY different things. ID begins with a belief and tries to find evidence to verify same. Science begins with no assumptions, observes, and attempts to come up with a theory that explains the observations. The best theory is the one that is the simplest, yet explains the observations.

Also, science makes no absolute claims. All you have to do to invalidate a theory is to find a verifiable counterexample (this is called falsifiability). ID makes some kind of absolute claims and attempts to verify by way of example (btw: an example is NEVER a proof).

It therefore follows that ID cannot qualify as ‘scientific’ according to the definition of what science is. The judge ruled correctly.

86

[quote]vroom wrote:
The theory of gravity is obviously flawed, because I don’t know about you, but I am definitely not more attracted to fat chicks, no matter what crushing level of mass they have sucked in past the point of no return.[/quote]

I just don’t believe you, Vroom. You’re really TestOnly in disguise, aren’t you?

87

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
Watch this Lockwood:

Vroom,

Science is about observing the observable. In so far as ID does this, it is scientific. If you don’t like the final philosophical conclusion, well you can reject it. Of course the Theory of Evolution has it’s philosophical conclusions as well.

Heh, I have an idea, we could have a scientific discussion here. You could read a book, like “Of Pandas and People”, I have, and we could discuss the facts presented.

It looks like this thread has a lot of scientific guys on it. Anyone want to discuss some the scientific arguements presented in the book “Of Pandas and People”. If you don’t, please don’t whine and give excuses, just say you are not up to reading the book. Just admit you don’t actually have the honesty to delve into the subject and learn something about what you criticize.[/quote]

here’s a guy that you can discuss ‘Of Pandas and People’ with…

Kenneth R. Miller
Professor of Biology
Brown University
Providence, Rhode Island 02912

knock yourself out!

88

[quote]LBRTRN wrote:
While I agree with your overall point, your example isnt exactly accurate; there is such a thing as the universal law of gravity and it is quite different from the “theory” of gravity. The theory of gravity trys to explain why the law of universal gravitation is true. While the latter isnt in question, the former is up for debate. There are numerous theories of gravity…not just the one Einstein describes in his theory of general relativity.
[/quote]

Never heard of any current serious (key word there) claims about gravity other than Einstein’s general relativity. Not saying you’re wrong, but do you have any references?

89

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Can a science teacher get in on this?

Science and ID are two VERY different things. ID begins with a belief and tries to find evidence to verify same. Science begins with no assumptions, observes, and attempts to come up with a theory that explains the observations. The best theory is the one that is the simplest, yet explains the observations.

Also, science makes no absolute claims. All you have to do to invalidate a theory is to find a verifiable counterexample (this is called falsifiability). ID makes some kind of absolute claims and attempts to verify by way of example (btw: an example is NEVER a proof).

It therefore follows that ID cannot qualify as ‘scientific’ according to the definition of what science is. The judge ruled correctly.[/quote]

Let me be the first to inform you that we all SHOULD know that nothing can be proven 100% true. Very few are arguing that this actually belongs in a science classroom.

I just want to know why it can’t be taught somewhere in school.?!

90

[quote]DPH wrote:
Mr. Chen wrote:
Watch this Lockwood:

Vroom,

Science is about observing the observable. In so far as ID does this, it is scientific. If you don’t like the final philosophical conclusion, well you can reject it. Of course the Theory of Evolution has it’s philosophical conclusions as well.

Heh, I have an idea, we could have a scientific discussion here. You could read a book, like “Of Pandas and People”, I have, and we could discuss the facts presented.

It looks like this thread has a lot of scientific guys on it. Anyone want to discuss some the scientific arguements presented in the book “Of Pandas and People”. If you don’t, please don’t whine and give excuses, just say you are not up to reading the book. Just admit you don’t actually have the honesty to delve into the subject and learn something about what you criticize.

here’s a guy that you can discuss ‘Of Pandas and People’ with…

Kenneth R. Miller
Professor of Biology
Brown University
Providence, Rhode Island 02912

knock yourself out![/quote]

Please Mr. Pomposity–knock yourself out. One book does not a proven theory make. I’d be careful who you try to fool on this board.

91

[quote]JonP wrote:
LBRTRN wrote:
While I agree with your overall point, your example isnt exactly accurate; there is such a thing as the universal law of gravity and it is quite different from the “theory” of gravity. The theory of gravity trys to explain why the law of universal gravitation is true. While the latter isnt in question, the former is up for debate. There are numerous theories of gravity…not just the one Einstein describes in his theory of general relativity.

Never heard of any current serious (key word there) claims about gravity other than Einstein’s general relativity. Not saying you’re wrong, but do you have any references?[/quote]

Not off the top of my head. My only point was that the theory of gravity isnt what the general populace places its faith in when deciding whether or not to jump off a cliff (at least I dont think about curved space anyways). Rather, its the law of universal gravitation (the what, not the why) that is unarguably true…all objects do in fact exert a gravitational force. Now just what that force is…thats where the theory part comes in. The fact things fall is a law, not a theory.

92

[quote]vroom wrote:
What. Huh. Was I snoring? Stop kicking me already.[/quote]
With your head slumped on the keyboard at that. And your boss was in the hall too. You owe me one.

The book “Of Pandas and People” is a well presented, critical view of the Theory of Evolution. It deals with scientific facts. It does not discuss theology or the bible. If you have never been exposed to the critical view of evolution, this is the best presentation I’ve read. If you have never looked into whats wrong with the Theory of Evolution , you are seriously uniformed concerning a very important subject.

Well, I won’t buy the book for you old buddy, but if you buy it, read it, and don’t want to keep it, send it to me, and I’ll reimburse you the purchase price plus shipping to me. I wouldn’t mind having an extra copy around.

Go for it. Read a whole book. It will do you good.

93

[quote]sasquatch wrote:
DPH wrote:
Mr. Chen wrote:
Watch this Lockwood:

Vroom,

Science is about observing the observable. In so far as ID does this, it is scientific. If you don’t like the final philosophical conclusion, well you can reject it. Of course the Theory of Evolution has it’s philosophical conclusions as well.

Heh, I have an idea, we could have a scientific discussion here. You could read a book, like “Of Pandas and People”, I have, and we could discuss the facts presented.

It looks like this thread has a lot of scientific guys on it. Anyone want to discuss some the scientific arguements presented in the book “Of Pandas and People”. If you don’t, please don’t whine and give excuses, just say you are not up to reading the book. Just admit you don’t actually have the honesty to delve into the subject and learn something about what you criticize.

here’s a guy that you can discuss ‘Of Pandas and People’ with…

Kenneth R. Miller
Professor of Biology
Brown University
Providence, Rhode Island 02912

knock yourself out!

Please Mr. Pomposity–knock yourself out. One book does not a proven theory make. I’d be careful who you try to fool on this board.[/quote]

I’m confused…

are you addressing me or Mr. Chen?

94

[quote]DPH wrote:
sasquatch wrote:
DPH wrote:
Mr. Chen wrote:
Watch this Lockwood:

Vroom,

Science is about observing the observable. In so far as ID does this, it is scientific. If you don’t like the final philosophical conclusion, well you can reject it. Of course the Theory of Evolution has it’s philosophical conclusions as well.

Heh, I have an idea, we could have a scientific discussion here. You could read a book, like “Of Pandas and People”, I have, and we could discuss the facts presented.

It looks like this thread has a lot of scientific guys on it. Anyone want to discuss some the scientific arguements presented in the book “Of Pandas and People”. If you don’t, please don’t whine and give excuses, just say you are not up to reading the book. Just admit you don’t actually have the honesty to delve into the subject and learn something about what you criticize.

here’s a guy that you can discuss ‘Of Pandas and People’ with…

Kenneth R. Miller
Professor of Biology
Brown University
Providence, Rhode Island 02912

knock yourself out!

Please Mr. Pomposity–knock yourself out. One book does not a proven theory make. I’d be careful who you try to fool on this board.

I’m confused…

are you addressing me or Mr. Chen?[/quote]

Sorry for the confusion.
Addressing chen about his whole hearted belief that one book explains away every thing being discussed here.

95

I think the problem here is that, in a science class, evolution is taught as fact. No opposing viewpoints are presented to the students, when in fact there are some. Thus, the student leaves the class accepting this “fact” without seeing the alternatives or arguments against it. That’s the slippery slope. Nobody is saying that evolution is not science, and few are saying that ID is. However, when the science of evolution is mandatory curriculum and opposing views are electives, that’s indoctrination.
Shouldn’t we be teaching our students to form their own opinions based on available information?

96

[quote]LBRTRN wrote:
Not off the top of my head. My only point was that the theory of gravity isnt what the general populace places its faith in when deciding whether or not to jump off a cliff (at least I dont think about curved space anyways). Rather, its the law of universal gravitation (the what, not the why) that is unarguably true…all objects do in fact exert a gravitational force. Now just what that force is…thats where the theory part comes in. The fact things fall is a law, not a theory.
[/quote]

I think you’re just reading into what I said too much… I used gravity as an example because it’s something everyone’s heard of and nobody spends any time arguing about because it’s labeled a “theory”. I of course know the fact that when you jump off a cliff, you fall. Is the law and the curvature of spacetime is the theory behind it. But gravity has a lot more impact on people’s day to day lives than evolution or creation.

People will readily accept anything told to them by science as long as it’s not something they don’t want to hear. Evolution is understand far more well than gravity yet evolution is the one always under attack.

And to whoever made the point that nothing can ever be proven 100% true. While yes you have a point, if everyone lived with that mindset and believed in nothing then our scientific advancement would go nowhere. There’s more prudent things to occupy your time than worrying if we’re all brains in a jar hooked up to electrical wires.

97

Who does this guy think he is? The only guy who knows how to turn a page?

–

AZ,

I think the thing you miss is that there isn’t much by way of SCIENTIFIC disagreement with evolution. I’m pretty sure that if there were a lot of serious competing SCIENTIFIC theories they would get presented.

As much as some folks would try to convince you, it isn’t about personal beliefs… or faith… that is the realm of something other than science. This isn’t a judgement in any way, but science is almost by definition that which does not rely on such faith. This is NOT the same as saying everything has to be known for science to have a leading theory.

If you want to be taught a particular religion then you should attend a private school that caters to that. The public school system, apparently, is not supposed to teach any particular religion though it may certainly educate people about religion in general. I suppose even this could be argued by some.

98

[quote]JonP wrote:

  1. Sorry you’re wrong about this. The second law of thermodynamics definitely does NOT contradict evolution. The Second Law of Thermodynamics, Evolution, and Probability go there for more info as I don’t feel like writing it all out.

  2. First, It’s called punctuated equilibrium. Second, not everything that that lives leaves a fossil. It is instead a VERY small percentage. and Finally, new fossils are being found all the time. Just because they haven’t all been found (yet) does not mean they aren’t there.

  3. Whenever creationists bring up the “it’s only a theory” debate is when they lose all credibility. Like theories can become facts or laws. A law is an observation, a theory explains why the observation happens. Gravity is a theory, yet nobody runs around yelling “Gravity is ONLY a theory!” and puts stickers on science books saying it’s not a fact.[/quote]

First thank you for the website. Aside from his insulting statements and dismissive attitude the author feigns the inability to conceive of God. Disturbing behavior for the intellectually superior. Two quotes:

?The creationist position would necessarily discard the entire mathematical framework of thermodynamics and would provide no basis for the engineering design of turbines, refrigeration units, industrial pumps, etc. It would do away with the well-developed mathematical relationships of physical chemistry, including the effect of temperature and pressure on equilibrium constants and phase changes.? (SIC)

?A favorite argument of creationists is that the probability of evolution occurring is about the same as the probability that a tornado blowing through a junkyard could form an airplane. They base this argument on their belief that changes in living things have a very low probability and could not occur without “intelligent design” which overcomes the laws of thermodynamics. This represents a fundamental contradiction in which (they say) evolution is inconsistent with thermodynamics because thermodynamics doesn’t permit order to spontaneously arise from disorder, but creationism (in the guise of intelligent design) doesn’t have to be consistent with the laws of thermodynamics.?

Would that be due to the fact the very definition of a god would place it outside the natural world? You know, as in supernatural?

If you really are reading drivel like this it is no wonder you cannot look outside of the evolutionist box. They have created for you (actually it was created by them for themselves but they will tolerate newcomers as long as you dont rock the boat or ask difficult questions) a world view that says you are smarter than those other people, and you are a better person too because everyone knows what hypocrites religious people are. A comfortable crutch this worldview, I am sure.

I dont blame you for not wanting to explain its argument. The author was very long winded and tried to be technical enough to baffle the reader. This tactic enables him to disguise the fact that he plays a little bait and switch game with the subject. What it all boils down to is that the energy required to increase complexity in a closed system must come from somewhere. As one entity gains energy(complexity), another must lose it. What he doesnt say is that it takes more than energy to create true complexity. It takes information plus energy. Subtracting heat from water will produce ice, but it will never produce an ice sculpture. Most scientists will agree that everything in the natural world is winding down, losing complexity, degrading. At least until you bring up evolution.

For the big bang, what caused the bang? Where did the something that ended up as our universe come from? It came from nothing. How many scientific laws does that break?

When the question is applied to evolution, that energy must come from the sun or lightning or some such according to the theory. The problem is that it is not repeatable even when using very sophisticated lab equipment which provide extremely well controlled and contrived conditions and pharmaceutical grade chemicals. Somehow the sun accomplished what the careful application of limitless energy (both heat and electricity) in a carefully contrived and totally artificial condition complete with exotic gases and hyperbarometric pressures have been unable to do. It is true that some forms of simple amino acids have been created using all the careful instrumentation cited. But not one molecule. Indeed not all amino acids, only a very few. And certainly not the enigmatic essence that crosses over from inanimate object to life. I say the emperor has no clothes. It demands too much faith.

I am surprised you brought up punctuated equilibria. Most biologists are too embarrassed to refer to it. Lets see. Evolution scientists cant describe the biochemical details that explain how gradual changes over great lengths of time resulted in a bacterium (let alone a bird or you), but to fit the demands of the fossil record they will simply declare that it all happened very suddenly and then, just as suddenly, stopped again. That is mysticism.

I could go on with information theory and cosmology and biochemistry and physics and? well? enough. My original point was that the scientific, secular, atheists have made up their mind. They declare that they have all the evidence and that all else is outside the realm of science so it MUST not be considered. Who says? They says! And since they are the scientists no one can countermand their decree. The high priests have spoken and that is the end of the discussion. They refuse to acknowledge and address the failings of their position. They simply declare victory. In truth they put their faith in mystical processes they cannot describe and do not understand. They close their minds to all other possibilities dogmatically reciting the magical incantation ?thats not science? and making bigoted statements about those who dare to challenge or disagree with them.

I say the subject of origins is not cut and dried. Evolutionists have a lot of ‘splainin’ to do. To claim otherwise is dishonest and to fail to think or alow others to think about other possible explanations isnt a defense of science, but rather a circling of wagons around mystical dogma by the priests of science and tantamount to declaring new ideas or knowledge to be dangerous.

99

This is perhaps the only material of value in your post.

Science has never pretended to have all the answers to the universe. It does however have a way to work towards filling in the gaps slowly over time.

In the past science was wrong when it declared the world was round. And it was wrong when it said the earth circles the sun. Well, it was according to religious belief at that time.

Religion has a very poor track record, over time, when it tries to declare science incorrect.

I’m not suggesting I know the answers to unanswered issues… but claiming science cannot ever determine the answer is very risky business.

If the current theory is wrong, then eventually it should be proven so, via scientific means. No amount of religious indignation will ever influence the beliefs of science… and it shouldn’t.

Faith is your own personal domain, and no amount of science needs to influence that, either.

100

[quote]vroom wrote:
Go for it. Read a whole book. It will do you good.

Who does this guy think he is? The only guy who knows how to turn a page?

–

AZ,

I think the thing you miss is that there isn’t much by way of SCIENTIFIC disagreement with evolution. I’m pretty sure that if there were a lot of serious competing SCIENTIFIC theories they would get presented.

As much as some folks would try to convince you, it isn’t about personal beliefs… or faith… that is the realm of something other than science. This isn’t a judgement in any way, but science is almost by definition that which does not rely on such faith. This is NOT the same as saying everything has to be known for science to have a leading theory.

If you want to be taught a particular religion then you should attend a private school that caters to that. The public school system, apparently, is not supposed to teach any particular religion though it may certainly educate people about religion in general. I suppose even this could be argued by some.[/quote]

No, I realize there is little scientific disagreement. However, this is a subject that crosses the science/philosophy boundry(at least as far as the really big questions go). It isn’t pure science, not yet. Too much is left to be answered. If it can be answered by science, great. If not, then incorporate different leading philosophies. Although, I guess if it were presented as a leading theory, but not a fact, that would be fair.

While I agree that public schools shouldn’t teach religion as a rule, they also shouldn’t teach that what you learn at home is wrong, unless there’s proof that it is.