(not really) intelligent design
 

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/nation/20051109-0301-evolutionshowdown.html

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1131552513.jpg

The Lord works in mysterious ways.

I loved the comment I heard from a Dover resident: "I feel bad that the rest of the country is pointing at us and laughing."

Now, if only there could be a repeat performance in Kansas...

It astounds me that in this day and age, we actually have people who believe in things like "Intelligent Design". It is very frightening that people want science curriculums to be determined by popular vote.

I'm glad to see that reason prevailed in Dover.

Mike

May His Noodly Appendage smite the non-believers.... I'll see y'all at the beer montain and stripper factory.

Let's just stop teaching anything that isn't proven in schools, that'll fix it. If one theory can be taught but another can't, even though neither can be proven or disproven, throw them both out.

I almost saw God here;

http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/java/scienceopticsu/powersof10/index.html

Moses said evolution is real; he's witnessed it during his research work (have to hunt down the link). That's good enough for me--he's smarter than I am.

I have yet to meet a clergyman or religio-freak who's smarter than I am.

I have bee following the dover trial since the begining. There is a pattern that became evident from the beginning. The ID folks claim that the big science bullies won't let them into the club. So they are forced to appeal to the public at large. The problem is that when you give the ID supporters the opportunity to have a forum and critically examine the arguments they make it seems to always come down to the same thing. They propose a supposed "gap" in the ability of evolutionary theory to explain something (e.g. flegelum). Since there is this "gap" then evolution is wrong and it must be that there is a designer.

Ok, what mechanism is used for design by the creator? we ask. Dr. Behe himself then says with a straight face the ID doesn't describe a mechanism. This is nonsense. They keep using the same tired and refuted examples to try and trash the evolutionary explaination without providing any testable mechanism of their own. The have even less credibility since you can never get the proponents of the movement to give firm description of what ID is. The refuse to be pinned down. They make no attempt to design experiment to prove their assertions, and they redefine the term science to include that para-normal.

A lot of the public falls for this game because all of these arguments are delivered in explanations that use a lot of "science" jargon. The ID proponents have a pretty bad ethical record too. They are quite content to actually lie to promote what has to be a thinly desguised attempt to promote a particular Christian view.

Another thing that drives me crazy about the ID and creationist folks is that they totaly mis-represent what the claims of evolution are. They always talk about the big bang theory and the origin of life. Evolution doesn't go there. The only tenants of religious fath that it contradicts are very literal reading of creation. Of course there are two biblical creation accounts that in many ways contradict each other. The only people insulted by this theory are these biblical literalists. I don't know how they can maintain a literalist view and reconcile two competing stories of creation.

I really wish the followers of these faths would attempt to consider this. Scientists are not out to destroy God.
Dismount soapbox.

Part of the problem; Science types rarely talk about where their knowlege ends. . . .what it doesn't explain. They generally want to tell you how their model does work.

Newtons models work great - undisputable, repeatalble . . .until Einstein came along. :cool:

Unified theory . . . the answer is between zero and one. --easy, right. :cool:

no such thing is a "proven" theory. That's not how science works...

I don't mind if people believe in creationism. I generally assume that these folks are either idiots, or they have very deep religous convictions that override their belief in science.

What I do mind is them trying to pass their religous belief off as science.

I also get very irritated at their DISHONEST attempts to discredit evolutionary theory. They constantly pick away at the use of word 'theory'. Do you know for a FACT how and why gravity works? Well, scientists don't. They have a good THEORY (relativity) that has been advanced and studied, but no one is the physics community is getting ready to create stone tablets that state it as law. And yet we accept this as theory as the best explanation we currently have.

Likewise, no one is stating that evolutionary theory is fact. It is not. But we have a 100 years and millions of manhours of study and research that suggest it is the best explantion we currently have. To suggest the ID, a 'theory' advanced by a few nut jobs is somehow a competing theory to evolutions is utter horse*****.

I find is disturbing to see people of faith taking part in such an obvious fraud in the hopes of foisting their religous beliefs on the rest of the population.

And that's a great argument against ID, science by its very nature postulates, proves, learns, disproves, repostulates, etc. It's a constant learning process.

it's no secret that there is also a disparity between quantum mechanics and astrophysics, but that's no reason to think God is the answer.

I think ID people are just lazy. Why experience life as a continual learning process when you can just pick up The Bible and have all the answers neatly described. 'Course you'll have to choose which version of Creationism is the right one, but that's what coins are for.

I disagree with this completely. While scientists don't speak in the mainstream about where their theories stop working, a good scientists will intentionally try to find where his theory breaks. Only by looking for more and more plausible ways to make your theory fail can you show to colleagues that your idea is a good one.

Newton's models do work great. We know that they don't explain everything. We found out where they break, but it doesn't make them irrelevant.

In fact, the most exciting field in physics right now loves to talk about the failure of the two most succesful theories in history - quantum theory and the general theory of relativity.

Bryan - the goal of science isn't to prove things. That's why modern ideas with lots of evidence to back them up aren't called 'laws' anymore. The goal of science to find explanations and mechanisms for the processes of nature. The ID discussion is frankly a fascinating one - in philosophy, metaphysics and theology. But it doesn't belong in a science classroom. Until the ID proponents can show a verifiable mechanism it's all just conjecture.

Well said. ID is not science, and has no place in a science classroom.

On the other hand, I would be perfectly comfortable with it being studied in a religion class, as long as other faiths are explored as well.

Exactly right. Island_dude mentioned that evolution shouldn't be confused with big bang and origin of life matters. Similarly, it shouldn't be confused with natural selection. NS is a mechanism that undisputably occurs in nature. That's not the same thing as saying that humans evolved from apes who evolved from slimy worms. Frankly, both evolution and creationism proponents go out-of-bounds regularly in these discussion. Neither is conclusive. I am holding my conclusion, for now. There will be surprizes, and I have a hunch that the evolutionists may not have the last laugh.

exactly! It's always changing, yadda yadda yadda, so is tradition alone the only reason they keep clinging to evolution alone instead of adding ID? I thought tradition wasn't a good enough reason for anything, to lefties.

Tradition is the Right's emotional response to an ever-changing world. Status quo is all you need to know.

Challenging, learning, creating, adapting is the Left's response.

Given a stock market view of the world, I'd buy Left.

But NOTHING can be unequivocably proven. To have proven something implies that the theory holds true in all cases and all situations. This in itself implies a "continuity" of reality that something that is real to you is real to all. But reality is not hard and fast as it is affected tremendously by the social construct of the observing person. Social constructs are affected by not only by curriculum but by upbringing and spiritual beliefs.

The opportunity here is that intelligent design proponents are not offering a theory, they are offering a belief. There is no testing or experimentation of it. One must simply trust and accept the idea. All answers to questions posed are "The designer meant that to happen" or " That is the way it was designed.".

Bryan - I challenge you to one day of OT responses where you argue points based purely on merit and not once using the words "leftist", "liberal", or "democrat".

Promised link:

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=192963&perpage=20&highl ight=evolution&pagenumber=2

(not that this will change the minds of our resident fundamentalists)

No its about fear. Fear that their "faith" is misplaced. If they can get their "faith" codified by the schools and courts, they'll feel better about themselves.

I was being charitable. Who'd have thought? :)

Evolutionary theory...seems like it changes and evolves every time a hole is punched in it...yet still gets used as a steamroller that paves over the obvious. Chaos does not breed order.

No missing link answers the debate.

If you want to teach creationism, you have all day Sunday in church to teach it.

Theories have a funny way of doing that, don't they?

It wasn't until the 1960's or so that you christians finally gave up and admitted that the earth does indeed revolve around the sun. That damn scientific steamroller!

This reminds me of that Star Trek episode where the meaning of various words got all *****'d up on a particular planet e.g. sun worship vs. son worship and where they read the preamble as if it were Latin.

Creationism is the birth of conscience and soul in man not the beginning of the biological man.

Ok, might as well jump into this cosmic pool of goo...

I am a conservative Christian who (surprise surprise) believes in creationism. That said, a few years ago, I really struggled with my beliefs - questioned everything, right down to the foundations of why I believe in God. No, this wasn't a one-afternoon "I think I'll deny God exsists..." thing - I really struggled with a lot of the issues like creationism vs. evolution, Christianity vs. humanism, why we are here, how could all this happen, and where in the world are my car keys?

In the end, I concluded the following things:
1. God does exsist.
2. He did not smite me down for doubting and questioning my faith.
3. God created the universe - ie there is intelligent design behind all this.
4. Science cannot prove or disprove the exsistence of God, nor can it prove or disprove the non-exsistence of God.
5. It is impossible to scientifically explain the origins of this universe 100% beyond a shadow of a doubt - no one who was there in the beginning is still around, and they forgot to charge the battery of their cam-corder as well!
6. Because of #5, 'the beginning' of science is based on faith, not fact. Faith defined: believing in something that you cannot see, or in something that you cannot prove beyond a shadow of a doubt.
7. Just because science is based on 'faith,' that doesn't mean it has to be discounted completely. Similarly, just because God and belief in God is based on 'faith,' that doesn't mean that God and His teachings should be discounted completely.
8. My car keys are always the last place I look, which is the place I put them before I lost them.

Again, these were my personal conclusions after countless hours of soul searching, reading, pondering...etc. Like I said, the very foundations of my faith were shaken - and my conclusions actually brought me closer to my God than ever before. But my journey didn't end - I still ponder, wonder, question my faith - so far, it has not changed my world view...

I think too many people on both sides of the argument are hung up on the starting point of creation and evolution. Looking beyond the starting point can often yield deeper discussion and understanding of both sides, IMHO.

I'll get off my soapbox now...
-Z-man.

Now that's a new one! There are alot of rabid fundamentalists out there that would beg to differ with you.

Mike

But what about football!? :eek: Can't we take a couple hours some other day as well, so we can watch our football on Sunday afternoons?!? :eek:

There are scientists who believe in a higher power(s). I don't think any of them advocate teaching ID in school.

Science and religion are not necessarily at odds. But ID is just insecure people trying to ram their beliefs down the throats of others so they can sleep better at night. imho of course.

If you dig Jesus, you might really like Buddha. One thing that is nice about Buddhism is that it is less about faith and more about experience.

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

So why should they teach your belief in science and not someone's else belief in ID?

Faith is a belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

Because you shouldn't be teaching "beliefs" in science class. Simple as that. The theory of evolution is not a "belief". It's a scientific theory. Big difference. ID and creationism are not scientific theories and as such have no business even being discussed in a science class.

Mike

because "science" has broad acceptance across religions, cultures, and countries. It is a common ground that sparks debate and inquiry, but the process is governed by theory, data, and analysis.

Perhaps you should stop running your mouth and listen to what other are saying rather than embarassing yourself.

I just can't stand it anymore!! Must......type.....reply.....

Ok, I am a scientist by trade and I do believe in God. I also think God created our world and everything in it. I think he did those things through processes which we now are just beginning to understand and try to explain. I do not believe the Genesis story in the Bible is literal. I think that God has to "dumb down" things so we puny humans can try and understand. I personally think one of God's "days" is probably 50 million of our years.

Bottom line, I am continually amazed at the complexity of the human body and the world around us. It would take a whole lot more faith on my part to believe that everything just sorta happened, like a big cosmic lottery, rather than think there is a higher power that directed things.

Plus, think about it this way: If you believe in God, and are wrong...then you just cease to exist like everyone else. If you don't believe in God and are wrong, then you spend eternity in damnation...I'll err on the side of God.

IMHO, of course.

Or perhaps that shoe is on your foot.

Evolution theory has been slaughtered by ID, that is why they near black-out any dissenting presentations.

Why do you Darwinian evangelist make ID a religious issue anyway, are there not scientists spending millions of dollars searching for intelligent life somewhere out in the universe?

Do share...