(not really) intelligent design

[creaturecat]

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

[RallyJon]

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."

[MichiganMat]

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

[IROC]

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

[id10t]

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

[bryanthompson]

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.

[kach22i]

I almost saw God here;

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

[BlueSkyJaunte]

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.

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.

[island_dude]

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.

[island911]

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.

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

[nostatic]

Originally posted by bryanthompson
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.

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

[HardDrive]

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.

[Shaun @ Tru6]

Originally posted by island911
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.

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

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.

[wludavid]

Originally posted by island911
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.

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

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.

Originally posted by bryanthompson
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.

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.

[notfarnow]

Originally posted by HardDrive


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.

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.

[Superman]

Originally posted by island911
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.

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

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.

[bryanthompson]

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

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.

[Shaun @ Tru6]

Originally posted by bryanthompson
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.

[arcsine]

Originally posted by bryanthompson
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.

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.".

[wludavid]

Originally posted by bryanthompson
to lefties.

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".