People may want to look at this. As I said earlier, I don’t think that the complexity of the universe will ever prove an intelligent designer, but there is a diffence between something A) being one of many highly unlikely possibilities-no matter how unlikely ie the complexity of humans and B) unlikelyhoods that resonate with another independent observation. I think we would all agree that there are two categories of unlikelyhood here, but I had no idea how to give an accurate definition that would allow one to identify one versus the other. I think this guy is trying to, but its pretty complicated. See what you think.
OK, so at face value, it looks as if the intelligent design of say a man made object could be a scientific question, and likewise, any intelligently created object. I don’t really doubt this. It does not posit that ANY intelligently designed object must be identifiable as such and I simply do not agree with the usual “improbabilities” used by ID proponents. So what if the universe is fine tuned for carbon based life? They posit that there are trillions of other possible sets of variables for a universe that would exclude carbon based life, but all it means to me is that we don’t yet know why many of them are not allowed by physics.
And as they battled fiercely a war of an intellectual nature sophisticated beyond thier “current” grasp; they conclude and decipher, toil and regret, muse and bewilder, traverse and explain, enlighten and entertain, destroy to reconstruct, construct to understand a universe which plays a game that created a man.
Amir
KANSAS CITY, KS?As the debate over the teaching of evolution in public schools continues, a new controversy over the science curriculum arose Monday in this embattled Midwestern state. Scientists from the Evangelical Center For Faith-Based Reasoning are now asserting that the long-held “theory of gravity” is flawed, and they have responded to it with a new theory of Intelligent Falling.
“Things fall not because they are acted upon by some gravitational force, but because a higher intelligence, ‘God’ if you will, is pushing them down,” said Gabriel Burdett, who holds degrees in education, applied Scripture, and physics from Oral Roberts University.
Burdett added: “Gravity?which is taught to our children as a law?is founded on great gaps in understanding. The laws predict the mutual force between all bodies of mass, but they cannot explain that force. Isaac Newton himself said, ‘I suspect that my theories may all depend upon a force for which philosophers have searched all of nature in vain.’ Of course, he is alluding to a higher power.”
More here… http://www.theonion.com/news/index.php?issue=4133&n=2
Obviously a parody but still hilarious and it does a pretty good job of paralleling the ‘debate’ about ID. ID is an interesting philosophical excercise, nothing else. It has absolutely no foundation in anything resembling real science
Science is defined as: “The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena”
Intelligent Design is based on zero observation, zero identification, and zero experimental investigation. There is nothing scientific about it, so clearly it has no place in a science class. ID IS NOT SCIENCE.
There are several other reasons we shouldn’t be teaching ID, but the one stated above is more than enough.
In my opinion, this type of pseudo-science is pushed for by people who are intimidated by actual science, and want to replace it with something more comforting, but that’s an argument for another thread.
I just wanted to point out a couple of things, that I don’t think were mentioned previosly, although they might have been. I apologize if they were.
First, I am sure that religion is held by everyone. Religion: “A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.” With out going too far into this thought, it is easy to see how someone who answers to the physical law has religion, as well as does the person who answers to the moral law.
Secondly, I am not sure that putting scientific research before a sound moral foundation is not like putting the horse before the carriage. I think one cannot exist without guidance of the other, no matter how hard it tries. I’ve read many essays by profound sociologists and philosophers on this exact concept.
Last of all, it seems very apparent that many today are losing a any sort of “reference point” to make judgements and choices in life. What one’s reference point is, will shape how you decide how life came to be, and what it is that life will or should do afterwards.
In any case, I don’t think it is accurate to keep making the perception, as many have, that all non-secularists are ignorant, and that modern science has a monopoly on knowledge and wisdom.
Sorry for any grammatical errors.
Holy “bump” Batman!
[quote]bleu wrote:
I just wanted to point out a couple of things, that I don’t think were mentioned previosly, although they might have been. I apologize if they were.
First, I am sure that religion is held by everyone. Religion: “A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.” With out going too far into this thought, it is easy to see how someone who answers to the physical law has religion, as well as does the person who answers to the moral law.
Secondly, I am not sure that putting scientific research before a sound moral foundation is not like putting the horse before the carriage. I think one cannot exist without guidance of the other, no matter how hard it tries. I’ve read many essays by profound sociologists and philosophers on this exact concept.
Last of all, it seems very apparent that many today are losing a any sort of “reference point” to make judgements and choices in life. What one’s reference point is, will shape how you decide how life came to be, and what it is that life will or should do afterwards.
In any case, I don’t think it is accurate to keep making the perception, as many have, that all non-secularists are ignorant, and that modern science has a monopoly on knowledge and wisdom.
Sorry for any grammatical errors.
[/quote]
Science has a monopoly on scientific wisdom. Science doesn’t meddle with religious wisdom. So why does this concept of an intelligent designer suddenly need to pushed in with science? It has no bearing on how science is actually conducted and stifles creative, critical scientific thought by deferring possible explanation/exploration to a trump card that can always be played, whenever it’s convenient.
Science does not make faith-based statements.
Also, if it is so similar to religious thought in regards to the zealousness of its supporters, can I get conscientious objector status for ascribing to the apparent “religion” of Evolution because I believe the use of weapons of mass destruction is something that human beings will never be able to “adapt” to on an evolutionary scale?
[quote]Jimmy Tango wrote:
bleu wrote:
I just wanted to point out a couple of things, that I don’t think were mentioned previosly, although they might have been. I apologize if they were.
First, I am sure that religion is held by everyone. Religion: “A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.” With out going too far into this thought, it is easy to see how someone who answers to the physical law has religion, as well as does the person who answers to the moral law.
Secondly, I am not sure that putting scientific research before a sound moral foundation is not like putting the horse before the carriage. I think one cannot exist without guidance of the other, no matter how hard it tries. I’ve read many essays by profound sociologists and philosophers on this exact concept.
Last of all, it seems very apparent that many today are losing a any sort of “reference point” to make judgements and choices in life. What one’s reference point is, will shape how you decide how life came to be, and what it is that life will or should do afterwards.
In any case, I don’t think it is accurate to keep making the perception, as many have, that all non-secularists are ignorant, and that modern science has a monopoly on knowledge and wisdom.
Sorry for any grammatical errors.
Science has a monopoly on scientific wisdom. Science doesn’t meddle with religious wisdom. So why does this concept of an intelligent designer suddenly need to pushed in with science? It has no bearing on how science is actually conducted and stifles creative, critical scientific thought by deferring possible explanation/exploration to a trump card that can always be played, whenever it’s convenient.
[/quote]
I apologize if I conveyed that I had the opinion of wanting ID taught in public science curriculum. Whether I do or not was not at stake in my previous post.
I just was trying to point out that the discussion began as a thread devoted to whether or not ID ?ought (a moral concept)? to be taught in science class, and ended up discussing the integrity of various groups of peoples and not the issue at hand. I also wanted to point out logical fallacies into which I saw some fall.
Hope the thread continues on a logical path. Take care everyone
A bit of little known irony: Charles Darwin is buried in Westminster Abbey along with Herschel and Newton.
[quote]
The Dean of Westminster, George Granville Bradley, was away in France when he received a telegram forwarded from the President of the Royal Society in London saying “…it would be acceptable to a very large number of our fellow-countrymen of all classes and opinions that our illustrious countryman, Mr Darwin, should be buried in Westminster Abbey”. The Dean recalled “I did not hesitate as to my answer and telegraphed direct… that my assent would be cheerfully given”. The body lay overnight in the Abbey, in the small chapel of St Faith, and on the morning of 26 April the coffin was escorted by the family and eminent mourners into the Abbey. The pall-bearers included Sir Joseph Hooker, Alfred Russel Wallace, James Russell Lowell (U.S. Ambassador), and William Spottiswoode (President of the Royal Society). The burial service was held in the Lantern, conducted by Canon Prothero, with anthems sung by the choir. The chief mourners then followed the coffin into the north aisle of the Nave where Darwin was buried next to the eminent scientist Sir John Herschel, and a few feet away from Sir Isaac Newton.[/quote]
…also Dover, PA is essentially my hometown - how embarrassing.
[quote]bleu wrote:
I apologize if I conveyed that I had the opinion of wanting ID taught in public science curriculum. Whether I do or not was not at stake in my previous post.
I just was trying to point out that the discussion began as a thread devoted to whether or not ID ?ought (a moral concept)? to be taught in science class, and ended up discussing the integrity of various groups of peoples and not the issue at hand. I also wanted to point out logical fallacies into which I saw some fall.
Hope the thread continues on a logical path. Take care everyone
[/quote]
Yes, I mistook your post as being an argument for inclusion into school curriculum.
I also don’t understand why think this issue is anything more than just a clarification of what is acceptable when presenting scientific thought in as unbiased a manner as possible (or, in other words, as biased towards pure science as possible), especially when we’re trying to give children a chance to look at and understand our world in a scientific manner. The scientific method will never change because of religion.
In fact, I would suggest that the better people understand where science really ends and begins, the more certain they’ll be of their religious convictions. It makes no sense to deny what the Creator’s (if there is one) very own creation continues to tell us time and time again. Science is not a threat to anyone with true Faith–so why do they act like it is?
[quote]Jimmy Tango wrote:
bleu wrote:
I apologize if I conveyed that I had the opinion of wanting ID taught in public science curriculum. Whether I do or not was not at stake in my previous post.
I just was trying to point out that the discussion began as a thread devoted to whether or not ID ?ought (a moral concept)? to be taught in science class, and ended up discussing the integrity of various groups of peoples and not the issue at hand. I also wanted to point out logical fallacies into which I saw some fall.
Hope the thread continues on a logical path. Take care everyone
Yes, I mistook your post as being an argument for inclusion into school curriculum.
I also don’t understand why think this issue is anything more than just a clarification of what is acceptable when presenting scientific thought in as unbiased a manner as possible (or, in other words, as biased towards pure science as possible), especially when we’re trying to give children a chance to look at and understand our world in a scientific manner. The scientific method will never change because of religion.
In fact, I would suggest that the better people understand where science really ends and begins, the more certain they’ll be of their religious convictions. It makes no sense to deny what the Creator’s (if there is one) very own creation continues to tell us time and time again. Science is not a threat to anyone with true Faith–so why do they act like it is?[/quote]
Short answer
Let me try to summerize what this debate is really over.
ID: Feels that atheistic dogma as trickled into the school systems through evolution in the science class. ID makes no stance on Evo, but believes there is a driving force behind what ever method the world was brought about. The problem ID has is not with the science, but instead with the possible philosphy that comes with the science teacher of the class.
People against ID: Feel that it has no scientific bearing (which they are correct), and that it is a ploy by biblical literalist to preach Dogma in the schools. Some of them are just pure atheist, and the others truly care about the science aspect of it.
The flat out truth is that those against it are correct, but they should also make a note that we have no clue why these things came about, we only know how they came about. Those who are for it would do themselves a favor by seperating themselves from those with an agenda.
Personally I don’t care since most of the population still thinks God did it in one way or another.
If we are using the criteria as what is fact and what is theory as the criteria for what should be taught, then neither should be taught as neither have been proven and are NOT fact.
However, if theory can be taught, that doesn’t have to be fact, then both should be taught.
There is nothing wrong with teaching both theories. Neither can be proven currently and neither have any facts about the origins of the universe. By facts I mean proof, not just more theories based on previous theories.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
If we are using the criteria as what is fact and what is theory as the criteria for what should be taught, then neither should be taught as neither have been proven and are NOT fact.
However, if theory can be taught, that doesn’t have to be fact, then both should be taught.
There is nothing wrong with teaching both theories. Neither can be proven currently and neither have any facts about the origins of the universe. By facts I mean proof, not just more theories based on previous theories.
[/quote]
Evolution has been proven.
Actually, you do care–at least enough to post your opinion. The fact that someone is an atheist bears no significance on the validity of their protest against ID when talking in purely scientific terms. The ethical debate about atheists rights to freedom from religious coersion shouldn’t even start in the case of ID versus Evolution. Once again, all opponents to ID agree on one thing: ID is not science. The issue does not need to be confounded with these stupid notions of ploys and agendas–if there are people who feel that their teacher is purportedly advancing non-scientific doctrines under the guise of scientifically-supported facts, then they have as much right to attack those teachers for preaching non-science as opponents to ID have in challenging the idea that ID should be presented as a fair critique of Evolution from a scientific standpoint.
The idea of introducing non-science into a science class to curb any possible teacher-bias is a blatantly hypocritical practice. Two wrongs do not make a right.
It’s also interesting to note that there is equal religious representation in the scientific community already–Science is not by any means dominated by atheists, nor do I expect to find religious people suddenly “converting” to atheism upon reaching their PhD due to this subversive “trickle” of atheistic dogma.
As the ID people are so proud to point out, many doctors have become increasingly convinced (as they work into the ever-more complex nuances of their fields) that there can be no other explanation than that of an Intelligent Designer–yet I’m supposed to now believe that the same body of knowledge that these doctors have been drawing the basis of their professional and personal opinions from is having a subversive affect in pushing children towards atheism? I’m sorry, but when was ID ever taught alongside Evolution before? Surely, something must have counteracted all of the insidious atheistic influence that evolution has been inflicting on impressionable young minds for all of these years?
I’m sorry, but this supposedly “possible teacher bias” stance is utter bull shit. The bias, if there is any, goes either way, and in both cases is simply not scientific.
There is no real debate. Just fanciful thinking. The judge who threw out the ID side’s case agrees.
If ID gets let in on biology curriculums, who’s to say that the field of Mathematics doesn’t deserve some kind of critique as well?
“2 + 2 = 4, unless an omnipotent power decides otherwise.” It’s a valid critique in light of the fallibility of human intelligence, which suggests the possibility that there still may be other solutions available. I mean, it’s not fair to keep possible omnipotent entities out of any equation, right? The very equation itself (2 + 2 = 4) presents atheistic doctrine in an insidious manner, by implying that Math needs nothing accept itself in order for it to be true. Math must be atheism at it’s very best! So, where’s the campaign against the trickle of atheism in math? Where’s the push to have every single statement qualified with the suffix “…until omnipotent entities which may or may not exist decide otherwise”? It’s so completely open and unbiased that it must be scientific!
By the way, 2 + 2 = 5, idiots.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
If we are using the criteria as what is fact and what is theory as the criteria for what should be taught, then neither should be taught as neither have been proven and are NOT fact.
However, if theory can be taught, that doesn’t have to be fact, then both should be taught.
There is nothing wrong with teaching both theories. Neither can be proven currently and neither have any facts about the origins of the universe. By facts I mean proof, not just more theories based on previous theories.
[/quote]
Nothing is wrong with teaching both theories–that’s true. The problem arises is when and where you teach both theories. ID is not a scientific theory–that much is definitely true–and so it should not be taught in a science class.
If you teach it alongside Evolution, you are befuddling the whole notion of what science really is… which is kind of the point when teaching what Evolution is all about–Evolutionary theory is one of the best scientific theories around, especially from an instructive standpoint. The advances it has helped to make possible in other sciences and fields of study are incalculable. I dare say you can understand any “high” science these days, whether it’s from biology, computers, chemistry, or math, without some understanding of Evolutionary processes and concepts.
What impact would ID have on Science? ZERO. BECAUSE IT IS INHERENTLY NON-SCIENTIFIC. IT IS UNVERIFIABLE IN THAT IT CAN’T BE DISPROVEN. As such, it can’t be offered as a scientific critique on the theory of Evolution. Evolution already gets a healthy dose of critique from real scientific sources already. So why should a known pseudo-science be included in a scientific debate?
[quote]Jimmy Tango wrote:
Actually, you do care–at least enough to post your opinion. The fact that someone is an atheist bears no significance on the validity of their protest against ID when talking in purely scientific terms. The ethical debate about atheists rights to freedom from religious coersion shouldn’t even start in the case of ID versus Evolution. Once again, all opponents to ID agree on one thing: ID is not science. The issue does not need to be confounded with these stupid notions of ploys and agendas–if there are people who feel that their teacher is purportedly advancing non-scientific doctrines under the guise of scientifically-supported facts, then they have as much right to attack those teachers for preaching non-science as opponents to ID have in challenging the idea that ID should be presented as a fair critique of Evolution from a scientific standpoint.
[/quote]
I looked over my post, and no where did I say that what ID’s believe about the influence of teachers is true.
So what is your point?
Did I say it should be taugh in class?
funny sound like most post when I said the majority believe God did it.
It hasn’t because it is not allowed in the class room at this time.
To answer your question though ID is proported by YEC, OEC and TE believers of God. TE would be evolution being taught, but someone say God is the driving force behind evolution. So if the science is all that matters to you then 99.999% of TE would work for you.
You didn’t read my post very well did you?
I think you are paraphrasing me. Since I said “The flat out truth is that those against it are correct, but they should also make a note that we have no clue why these things came about, we only know how they came about. Those who are for it would do themselves a favor by seperating themselves from those with an agenda.”
Maybe I should have wrote those against teaching ID are correct, but I figured that was a given since we are talking about those for and against ID being taught.
so if my post agrees that it is not science does that mean you will continue to make agressive posts acting like I disagree?
[quote]
If ID gets let in on biology curriculums, who’s to say that the field of Mathematics doesn’t deserve some kind of critique as well?
“2 + 2 = 4, unless an omnipotent power decides otherwise.” It’s a valid critique in light of the fallibility of human intelligence, which suggests the possibility that there still may be other solutions available. I mean, it’s not fair to keep possible omnipotent entities out of any equation, right? The very equation itself (2 + 2 = 4) presents atheistic doctrine in an insidious manner, by implying that Math needs nothing accept itself in order for it to be true. Math must be atheism at it’s very best! So, where’s the campaign against the trickle of atheism in math? Where’s the push to have every single statement qualified with the suffix “…until omnipotent entities which may or may not exist decide otherwise”? It’s so completely open and unbiased that it must be scientific!
By the way, 2 + 2 = 5, idiots.[/quote]
sigh
I responded to this part with my previous post "I also don’t understand why think this issue is anything more than just a clarification of what is acceptable when presenting scientific thought in as unbiased a manner as possible (or, in other words, as biased towards pure science as possible), especially when we’re trying to give children a chance to look at and understand our world in a scientific manner. The scientific method will never change because of religion. "
To which I merely gave a background of what I interpret both sides seem to be saying.
You apparently sympathize with the bias part that I was stressing, yet for some reason you seem to attribute that belief to me. Interesting considering I said that ID had no place in the science class room.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
If we are using the criteria as what is fact and what is theory as the criteria for what should be taught, then neither should be taught as neither have been proven and are NOT fact.
However, if theory can be taught, that doesn’t have to be fact, then both should be taught.
There is nothing wrong with teaching both theories. Neither can be proven currently and neither have any facts about the origins of the universe. By facts I mean proof, not just more theories based on previous theories.
[/quote]
OK I am going to try to explain this to everyone ID is not a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-2.
ID is nothing more than saying whatever ever method is used it was so complex that a creator had to create it. All it does is take away random chance being possible.
So ID can support Evolution, or any other type of theory the mind can come up with. Since all it is saying is "whatever method was used to form life and the universe must have had a designer/God like person to do it because there is too much intelegence for it to be on its own.
I think it’s interesting how emotional people on both sides take this debate. For one, it means little to whether or not there is a god, a Christian god, or a flying spaghetti monster. It makes more sense for those of faith to get emotionally involved in the argument, as they are in a sense defending what they see as a buddy. It makes less sense to me for those not of faith to get so emotionally worked up over it, even as some kind of defense mechanism. Seems to make you think that some worship the modern use of science as a religion.
This discussion is also moot because they don’t go into these topics in schools enough to nearly “prove” one side or another. The standard fare provided by science curriculums is pretty weak in supporting the theories presented. At the collegiate level, things are a bit different, but by then we assume people can think for themselves.
I think teaching kids the role of science and how to think critically is MUCH more important. In the past, the best scientific minds thought the earth was flat because they were off by a very small measurement (the curvature of the earth). I think our children need to learn that science is an ever-evolving (ahhhh! evolution!!! haha) process, and that we should always push for more truth, and not sit on our laurels thinking that the best minds of today have everything figured out. Evolution is a theory and will most likely be modified in the future. In what direction, we don’t know yet.
A problem I have with ID is that it’s essentially a black box kind of answer (sort of like “dark matter” accounting for 90% of the universe’s mass. haha). Let’s say they can point to mathematical evidence that the likelihood of life evolving the way it did is just retarded. What does that really mean? We could just happen to be the luckiest bastards because we happened to evolve. Or a god could have done it. Or space aliens could be guiding our evolution (Tom Cruise might go with this one). ID SEEMS to purport that there is some kind of force outside of the natural observable forces…and science just can’t deal with the supernatural by its very nature.