'Intelligent Design' Gets Bush's Nod

[IJ Reilly]

Schools should discuss that explanation of the origin of life along with evolution, he says.

WASHINGTON — President Bush said Monday that he believed schools should discuss "intelligent design" alongside evolution when teaching students about the creation of life.

During a round-table interview with reporters from five Texas newspapers, Bush declined to go into detail about his personal views of the origin of life.

But he said students should learn about each explanation, Knight Ridder Newspapers reported.

"I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought," Bush said.

"You're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, the answer is yes," the president said.

Proponents of intelligent design say life on Earth is too complex to have developed through evolution, implying that a higher power must have had a hand in creation.

Christian conservatives — a substantial part of Bush's voting base — have been pushing for the teaching of intelligent design in public schools.

Scientists have rejected the explanation as an attempt to force religion into science education.

...

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-intelligent2aug02,1,371780.story

[mactastic]

But he said students should learn about each explanation, Knight Ridder Newspapers reported.
Does he think there's only the two explanations???

[JesseJames]

Good grief.
Part of the teachings of 'intelligent design' is a saddle on a dinosaur.
I repeat, A SADDLE ON A DINOSAUR.
It's a faux argument. Based neither on scientific fact or method. It takes already accepted scientific arguments and twists them around to fit a religious ideal. That's not science, that's propaganda.
I'm so glad I'm not a Christian anymore.
I'm all for exposing children to different subjects and theories but any person with a rational mind can see what this really is. A covert attempt at getting religious doctrine into public education by either seriously delusional or misguided people.

[zimv20]

i guess it's time to start lobbying for the turtles.

[Ugg]

i guess it's time to start lobbying for the turtles.

I was going to gun for the ostriches, myself.

[skunk]

"Here be Dragons"

[Roger1]

I don't think "intelligent design" should be taught in schools. As a Christian, it's my job to make sure my kids learn about Christianity the way I want them to learn about it. It is also my job to try to convince others to convert to Christianity.
Forcing "intelligent design" may be an attempt to to convert people, but I don't want it done with my tax dollars. It imay also expose children to a religion that their parent don't believe in.

BTW, when I hear "intelligent design", Why do I think of little green men in spaceships, landing on earth and planting DNA??

[zimv20]

i'm wondering if the new WH (read as: rove) strategy is to have bush come out w/ a bunch of controversial positions in order to steal headlines from the plame affair.

in the knight-ridder (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/08/02/bush_endorses_intelligent_design/) edition of the story, bush also talks about not discussing roe v. wade with roberts and how he believes Palmeiro didn't take steroids. he's kinda putting it all out there now.

[anonymous161]

I don't know why school systems didn't latch on to "intelligent design" sooner. It would save them alot of money on teaching materials.
Student: "Why do frogs reproduce in the water?"
Teacher: "Because God said so."

You don't even need a text book for that.

Student: "What were the answers to questions 16-20 on yesterdays test?"
Teacher: "D: Because God said so."

Perhaps this is how "No child left behind" works.

[IJ Reilly]

I get the connection. Rafael Palmeiro is the product of intelligent design. Or maybe Bush is making a play for the Baltimore vote. Or the drug-user vote. Maybe I don't get it after all.

[zimv20]

Maybe I don't get it after all.
i'll explain:
1. reality is perception
2. as president, bush controls perception
3. bush's friends are never wrong
4. palmeiro is a longtime friend of bush
5. therefore, palmeiro didn't take steroids

and of course:
6. the liberal media got it wrong because of its anti-american agenda of hate

[Thanatoast]

Why are we letting them control the debate vocabulary? All of a sudden, this stuff has been named "intelligent design" instead of "creationism". It's not an "alternative scientific theory" it's a "religious creation story". If they want it taught in science class, it should include actual scientific method, not just religious myth.

[Heb1228]

Why are we letting them control the debate vocabulary? All of a sudden, this stuff has been named "intelligent design" instead of "creationism". It's not an "alternative scientific theory" it's a "religious creation story". If they want it taught in science class, it should include actual scientific method, not just religious myth.
You don't know what you're talking about. There are ID guys that are evolutionists. ID doesn't really have anything to do with whether you are a creationist or evolutionist, as attested by the fact that there are people from both camps that advocate ID. It would help if you read some of the literature before you commented on it. That goes for the rest of you in this thread that have never read any of the ID guys.

(Oh, I'm sorry, you already know its wrong before you hear what they have to say...)

[MontyZ]

.

[MontyZ]

.

[mactastic]

I have read a number of long, detailed articles about ID, and think it's a load of crap. It's not that hard to figure out. They've taken some science and wrapped it around their religious beliefs, to put it simply. But the whole thing is based on the "believers" having "faith" that ID is real and scientific, and they went to great lengths to make it appear scientific, when it really isn't at all. And when challenged, they claim that scientific facts cannot be proven "definitively" either. ?? I.e., they're just stupid or lying.
Ah but Heb already knows you're wrong before he hears what you have to say!
;)

[Ugg]

You don't know what you're talking about. There are ID guys that are evolutionists. ID doesn't really have anything to do with whether you are a creationist or evolutionist, as attested by the fact that there are people from both camps that advocate ID. It would help if you read some of the literature before you commented on it. That goes for the rest of you in this thread that have never read any of the ID guys.

(Oh, I'm sorry, you already know its wrong before you hear what they have to say...)


Intelligent design is all about faith in something unknowable and unproveable. There's no science involved whatsoever as ID is not replicable, the first step in proving any scientific theory. In other words it will always be science fiction until someone can prove otherwise, which will, of course, be never.

[IJ Reilly]

All I can say is, it's a good thing the Bible didn't include chapters called Gravity and Relativity, or our schools would be forced to teach politically correct alternatives to Newton and Einstein.

[MontyZ]

.

[zimv20]

our schools would be forced to teach politically correct alternatives to Newton and Einstein.
i'm trying to imagine what that would be like. perhaps gravity is god's way of keeping us away from heaven until we're ready? making manned flight and trampolines a sin, i suppose.

[skunk]

making manned flight and trampolines a sin, i suppose.Stick to hovercraft.

[mactastic]

What I don't get is why religious institutuions don't just modify their religious doctrine accordingly. There's lots about the teachings of Jesus that is very real and still relevant. Why does the church have to pull this hocus-pocus and attempt to essentially discredit Logic?

Religion can be used for good, but, it appears that it's only being used for evil lately, and that's not really religion at all, it's just a Cult.
Because if you admit one part of your doctrine needs fixing, then couldn't any part? The whole idea of an infallible god rests on everything put forth being perfect.

[IJ Reilly]

Not so difficult to rationalize. God gave us these big brains just to trick us into believing that we can acquire real knowledge about the universe, but of course only people without real faith accept this as actual knowledge. They don't understand that man's belief over these many millennia that he can actually pursue and acquire wisdom is really just a big cosmic practical joke God is pulling on us -- a perverse test of our faith. You know, He's just that kind of God, and if you don't accept it, God has plans for you -- and you aren't going to like them.

[zimv20]

Stick to hovercraft.
sweet.

[zimv20]

He's just that kind of God, and if you don't accept it, God has plans for you -- and you aren't going to like them.
what a great way to keep a people subjugated: there are fates worse than death. and questioning the authority is one way to bring it on. add a little "impossible to disprove," and you've got a recipe for a belief system that will last, literally, thousands of years.

[Thanatoast]

You don't know what you're talking about. There are ID guys that are evolutionists. ID doesn't really have anything to do with whether you are a creationist or evolutionist, as attested by the fact that there are people from both camps that advocate ID. It would help if you read some of the literature before you commented on it. That goes for the rest of you in this thread that have never read any of the ID guys.

(Oh, I'm sorry, you already know its wrong before you hear what they have to say...)
The problem is, ID is not based on science. ID can hold evolution within itself, but only because the story has been modified to fit modern science. As far as I'm aware, ID says that God created everything, and evolution was just his way of doing it. If I'm wrong, please let me know and give me the thumbnail sketch.

Bottom line is, ID is a story told to explain creation. Whether that creation is literal (the Bible) or textbook (science), it's still just a story. There is no proof, and no way of proving it. Unless Bush plans on having every religious creation story (I use the term because the basis of the whole ID argument is that God's behind it all) taught in school, he should give it up. If he wants me to be open minded about creationism, I think he should be open minded about scientology, or wicca. Or the theory that 98% of the Earth's surface is actually in the 17th dimension and shaped like a giant red twizzler. Go ahead, prove it isn't!

[Thomas Veil]

Stick to hovercraft.My hovercraft is full of eels.

[Heb1228]

The problem is, ID is not based on science. ID can hold evolution within itself, but only because the story has been modified to fit modern science. As far as I'm aware, ID says that God created everything, and evolution was just his way of doing it. If I'm wrong, please let me know and give me the thumbnail sketch.
Basically ID is probablility theory. It's really more math than science. There are certain improbablities that everyone agrees are realistically impossible. This range is debated but its somewhere between 1:10^50 and 1:10^150 that is fairly universally agreed upon. ID argues that we see in nature occurances of things that, because if irreducible complexity, are even more improbable than these statisics.

From this, ID argues that unguided natural processes cannot account for some of the complexities we observe in nature. In may ways, its the intellectual answer for why survey after survey shows that less than 20%-30% of Americans believe in darwinian, unguided evolution. Because common sense tells you that the world you see didn't happen by chance.

But unless you've read at least one of William Dembski's books on the subject, you really don't have much to say about the issue. You're just like those ignorant Windows users who bash Macs even though they don't know anything about them and have never used them.

[Ugg]

Basically ID is probablility theory. It's really more math than science. There are certain improbablities that everyone agrees are realistically impossible. This range is debated but its somewhere between 1:10^50 and 1:10^150 that is fairly universally agreed upon. ID argues that we see in nature occurances of things that, because if irreducible complexity, are even more improbable than these statisics.

From this, ID argues that unguided natural processes cannot account for some of the complexities we observe in nature. In may ways, its the intellectual answer for why survey after survey shows that less than 20%-30% of Americans believe in darwinian, unguided evolution. Because common sense tells you that the world you see didn't happen by chance.

But unless you've read at least one of William Dembski's books on the subject, you really don't have much to say about the issue. You're just like those ignorant Windows users who bash Macs even though they don't know anything about them and have never used them.


Your mistake is mistaking one theory for another as well as disregarding the enormous amount of time that it has taken for species to develop.

The reason so few Americans believe in evolution, unlike their counterparts in Europe I might add, is due to their fundamentalist chrisitan attitudes not to their appreciation of probability theory.

In essence you are trying to prove a negative, something that simply can't be done especially when cloaked in pseudo-science. Why should you expect anyone to believe in something that can never be proven?

The Theory of Evolution, like all strong theories is evolving with every fossil discovery and DNA research. What would you have us do? Turn our backs on science for the sake of a few scientists who worry their little heads way too much about whether their scientific efforts will cause them to burn in hades?

To put it slightly more politely than you did, id is totally and utterly preposterous.

[zimv20]

There are certain improbablities that everyone agrees are realistically impossible. [...] between 1:10^50 and 1:10^150 that is fairly universally agreed upon.
links, please. and i've not agreed to any of that.

common sense tells you that the world you see didn't happen by chance.
interesting standard. am i to believe that all laws of nature exist the way they do because that's what makes the most sense to humans?

[solvs]

All I can say is, it's a good thing the Bible didn't include chapters called Gravity and Relativity, or our schools would be forced to teach politically correct alternatives to Newton and Einstein.
I'm guessing that's sarcasm, because we have some laws that are fairly close to the 10 Commandments and not too many people complain about that. ;)

For the record, I believe in a higher power. But since I'm not quite sure I am even capable of understanding what is out there, I try not to force my beliefs on others. Evolution is a theory, and is taught that way. As it should be. It doesn't negate ID either, but some people seem to think that any thing other than the Bible is blasphemy. Which kinda creates a problem for those who believe in a different ID than the King James/Vatican versions. Which is why they shouldn't even bother with the whole creation thing, except to maybe note it as another theory if it comes up and leave the details up to the parents/churches. Who's to say that evolution is 100% correct, but I'd rather they just teach it as a theory (you know, science... with evidence and stuff) than live in a theocracy that teaches religion. Any religion. That's just scary, even if you believe in God.

But I'm sure Heb1228 is probably just going to call me a godless, whiny, liberal, hippy because I believe in a silly theory AND a creator God. :rolleyes:

[Thanatoast]

From this, ID argues that unguided natural processes cannot account for some of the complexities we observe in nature. In may ways, its the intellectual answer for why survey after survey shows that less than 20%-30% of Americans believe in darwinian, unguided evolution. Because common sense tells you that the world you see didn't happen by chance.
But evolution has been happening for billions of years. Imagine a 2-billion year long decision tree, where every decision affects what comes after it. I'd say I could get some pretty impressive results from a 2-billion year process, even a randomized one.

Solvs: Heb1228's been pretty decent about not name calling. Let's please not start.

[broken_keyboard]

BTW, when I hear "intelligent design", Why do I think of little green men in spaceships, landing on earth and planting DNA??

If they say it's not a religious threory because it could be little green men doing the designing, ask them who made the LGMs.

And if they say "more LGMs," ask who created them and so on and so on. You will see that their theory does contain God after all.

[broken_keyboard]

Basically ID is probablility theory.

But probability doesn't apply to nature in the first place. The idea of probability only applies where more than one outcome was possible, and that is only where human free will was involved.

To say there is a 1:10^50 chance that the universe is the way it is and not some other way is just laughable. Except for us it is all billiard ball causation - there was never a possibility of it being anything else.

Don't you see? The reason you conclude 'God' is because you have God in your premises. The concept of "probability" only arises where there is a consciousness who could have chosen otherwise. So by taking as a premise that the universe could have been otherwise, you are implying a master consciousness from the get-go.

[skunk]

But probability doesn't apply to nature in the first place. The idea of probability only applies where more than one outcome was possible, and that is only where human free will was involved.The only reason we need probability theory is because we don't have all the facts. If we did, every outcome would be predictable.

To say there is a 1:10^50 chance that the universe is the way it is and not some other way is just laughable. Except for us it is all billiard ball causation - there was never a possibility of it being anything else.Why not include "us", and what makes "us" different from "them"?

[broken_keyboard]

The only reason we need probability theory is because we don't have all the facts. If we did, every outcome would be predictable.

OK, but he is not using it in the epistemological sense whereby we simply don't know. He is saying that there actually really could have been many different presents, and the fact that we have the one we have implies some sort of intelligent intervention.

I am saying there was no intervention needed because it never could have turned out any other way than it did. It is a key unstated premise of his that the universe could have been otherwise and he has offered no proof.

Why not include "us", and what makes "us" different from "them"?

Because we directly observe ourselves choosing when we introspect. Where we are concerned, things could indeed have been different if only we had chosen differently.

[miloblithe]

Don't you see? The reason you conclude 'God' is because you have God in your premises.

Well if God's in my premises he's tresspassing and I'm gonna call the cops.

OK. The fact that we have the current present implies intelligent intervention? But you're saying that there wasn't intervention because there was only one possiblity for the way things could happen. But you believe in free will, which you site as the only source of possibility in the universe. OK.

[anonymous161]

But evolution has been happening for billions of years. Imagine a 2-billion year long decision tree, where every decision affects what comes after it. I'd say I could get some pretty impressive results from a 2-billion year process, even a randomized one.


My guess is that is that ID fans spend so much time reading Dembski that they don't have time to read up on cellular automata.

The problem I have with ID's view on evolution is that it implies that God made mistakes that he had to manually adjust by using "irreducible complexity" (along with what Dembski calls "specified complexity"). A true "intelligent designer" wouldn't have to cheat his system. But maybe that's just me.

[pooky]

Basically ID is probablility theory. It's really more math than science. There are certain improbablities that everyone agrees are realistically impossible. This range is debated but its somewhere between 1:10^50 and 1:10^150 that is fairly universally agreed upon. ID argues that we see in nature occurances of things that, because if irreducible complexity, are even more improbable than these statisics.

Rubbish. There are three MAJOR fallacies with this argument, and creationists seem to think that if they scream them loud and fast enough, people will ignore them.

First, you are misstating probability theory. Highly improbable events occur all the time without an intelligent hand guiding them. If an event occurs, and there are 1:10^50 other possibilities, only one of them, with a probability of 1:10^50, can actually happen. Sure, that event was highly improbable, but once it has happened, it no longer has a probability of 1:10^50, it has a probability of 1. Probabilities only apply to future events, once something happens, it happens, period. Here's a though experiment: shuffle a deck of cards, then lay them out in the order they were shuffled in. The probability that you would get the EXACT order that was observed is 1:10^68, well beyond your threshold. The fact is, though, that the observed order did indeed happen through a stochastic process, and probability theory has no problem with this. Through your misstated logic, probability theorists would be claiming that God, Buddha, Allah, whatever personally oversees every shuffling of the deck and chooses the outcome, because otherwise the outcome is too improbable.

Second, I take issue with your claim that life is of irreducible complexity. This is an old argument that has been demonstrated time and again to be false. Take, for example, the old creationist favorite, the eye. The argument goes that an eye is too complex to have sprung into existence randomly as it is, and you cannot have half an eye and have it function (i.e. irreducible complexity). I agree with the first premise of the argument, eyes must have evolved gradually. The second, however, is patently false, no matter how many times it is repeated. There are hundreds, yes, HUNDREDS of examples of eyes with very reduced complexities. There are organisms with light sensitive cells and a nerve. There are organisms with a cornea but no lens. There is a documented chain showing the evolution of the eye one step at a time with an extant, functional eye at each step. In fact, eyes are so advantageous and so easy to evolve, the evidence suggests they have evolved this way at least four times independently. Now, admittedly, there are other traits for which we are so fortunate as to have such a clear progression. But to claim that our lack of knowledge 'proves' that a structure cannot be reduced is a logical fallacy, particularly when in fact many such structures that were thought to be irreducible are in fact very reducible.

Finally, you are making the assumption that we know the probability of certain events occurring. People, including myself, are rising to the bait on this, putting the argument in your terms, when we should be calling you out on the obvious. True, we can estimate some of the probabilities, such as the chance of having a point mutation, for example, but it is impossible currently to measure others. For example, we don't know how likely it is that a certain location in the genome will mutate, because some regions have faster mutation rates than others. We can't know past conditions on the planet, so we can't estimate probabilities that depend on those conditions. Furthermore, evolution is, in many ways, deterministic. Look up the work of Michael Rose, et al. He showed that evolution often is repeatable - that is, you take ten populations, expose them in isolation to the same conditions, and they all evolve in exactly the same way. You reverse the conditions, then un-evolve back to where they started. You impose them again, and they evolve in exactly the same way again. Essentially, evolution does a certain thing a certain way in many cases because it has to, doing things another way would violate physical or biological laws.

ID fans try to use scientific language to advance their mysticism, but they miss a fundamental aspect of science. Disproving (badly, in this case) the other guy's idea doesn't prove your own idea. You have to actually go out and find evidence that demonstrates your model fits the data better than other models. So far, this is where creationism, no matter how you brand it, fails miserably.

[IJ Reilly]

Thank you for this mini-dissertation. Very informative. To put it in layman's terms, the odds of anything occurring are 50-50. Either it happens or it doesn't.

[broken_keyboard]

Well if God's in my premises he's tresspassing and I'm gonna call the cops.

OK. The fact that we have the current present implies intelligent intervention? But you're saying that there wasn't intervention because there was only one possiblity for the way things could happen. But you believe in free will, which you site as the only source of possibility in the universe. OK.

That's right. They assume our evolution could have been otherwise. But the only way that could be is if it was controlled by a consciousness. Without that consciousness it would have to be billiard ball. Their theory doesn't prove God, it presupposes him.

[skunk]

Thank you for this mini-dissertation. Very informative. To put it in layman's terms, the odds of anything occurring are 50-50. Either it happens or it doesn't.Thank you for this micro-dissertation. :)

[IJ Reilly]

And our modern-day Luddites are cheering the remarks of the scientist-in-chief:

Inspiration for Doubters of Darwin

Bush appears to give moral support to the 'intelligent design' camp by again backing public schools' teaching of an alternative to evolution.

WASHINGTON — Advocates of an alternative to the theory of evolution took heart Tuesday from President Bush's remarks that "both sides ought to be properly taught" in public schools.

In an interview with several Texas newspapers Monday, Bush was asked about the growing debate over the idea of "intelligent design," which holds that intelligent causes are responsible for the origin of the universe and of life. "I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought," Bush said. "And I'm not suggesting — you're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, and the answer is yes."

The remarks were in keeping with what Bush has said in the past. During the 2000 presidential campaign, Bush or his aides said several times that local school boards should decide questions about teaching evolution and its alternatives; at times, they said that both evolution and creationism should be taught.

"I think it's an interesting part of knowledge [to have] a theory of evolution and a theory of creationism. People should be exposed to different points of view," Bush said during one 1999 appearance, according to a news account at the time. "I personally believe God created the Earth," he said.

Proponents of teaching evolution — the theory that holds that existing animals and plants developed gradually from previous forms through natural selection — have said that an increasing number of school boards seek to diminish its use in science classes or promote alternatives.

Bush's comments Monday appeared to give moral support to groups that back teaching intelligent design.

"What the president's remarks do is heighten public interest in the issue," said John H. Calvert, managing director of the Intelligent Design Network, a Kansas advocacy organization.

Glenn Branch, deputy director of the National Center for Science Education, an Oakland group, said initiatives to counter the teaching of Charles Darwin's theory had been launched this year in 28 states and communities. On Tuesday, a group of Kansas educators said that proposed science standards written by the State Board of Education promoted intelligent design and had "no scientific credibility." The educators had been appointed by the state board to review the standards.

Branch read little into Bush's Monday remarks. "The question was presented to him as a fairness issue," he said. "For a politician, that's like opposing fairness or apple pie."

Still, Branch said, he was sure the president's comments "would no doubt prove inspirational to creationists."

...

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-creation3aug03,1,1792822.story

[Don't panic]

You don't know what you're talking about. There are ID guys that are evolutionists. ID doesn't really have anything to do with whether you are a creationist or evolutionist, as attested by the fact that there are people from both camps that advocate ID. It would help if you read some of the literature before you commented on it. That goes for the rest of you in this thread that have never read any of the ID guys.

(Oh, I'm sorry, you already know its wrong before you hear what they have to say...)

I have read it. there is no science in "intelligent" design. and I don't mean 'no' as 'not a lot' or 'very little'. it's 'no' as in 'zero'. there is not 1 (one) piece of scientific evidence that supports creationism/ID. it's purely dogmatic.
It's rehashed creationism which go on and on reiterating the SAME arguments that have been PROVEN wrong and debunked a zillion times.

[skunk]

WASHINGTON — Advocates of an alternative to the theory of evolution took heart Tuesday from President Bush's remarks that "both sides ought to be properly taught" in public schools.One might ask how Creationism/ID can be "properly taught". What I want to know is if the Twat-in-Chief believes it all started in 4004 BC, as propounded by Archbishop Ussher. I think we should be told.

[mactastic]

It can be properly taught as literature, not history.

[miloblithe]

That's right. They assume our evolution could have been otherwise. But the only way that could be is if it was controlled by a consciousness. Without that consciousness it would have to be billiard ball. Their theory doesn't prove God, it presupposes him.

Aren't you just arguing that it couldn't have been otherwise because it wasn't otherwise. Like I couldn't have not just taken a sip of water because I did. That's not a very interesting argument.

[IJ Reilly]

I think the single aspect of this debate that I find the most disturbing is what it means for the future of our educational system and our science-based industries to be teaching pseudo-science in the schools. It's not at all like teaching about religion, and religious beliefs -- which I think is fine. Instead it's a full-scale effort to confuse faith-based concepts with knowledge gained by scientific method. I have to wonder what a child is going to take away from such an education. I don't see how it's going to be a career in biology, chemistry or physics -- and even if they do stumble into these professions, they're going to be a huge disadvantage compared to kids who haven't had these concepts deliberately muddled by people who want all of science to be yoked up to their particular religious views. I'm having a hard time distinguishing them from the religious fanatics in the Middle East who are nostalgic for the 14th Century.

[skunk]

I'm having a hard time distinguishing them from the religious fanatics in the Middle East who are nostalgic for the 14th Century.Agreed, but make that the 7th.

[MontyZ]

.

[IJ Reilly]

Agreed, but make that the 7th.

Any century before the Renaissance will do. I can already feel the sun beginning to move into orbit around the Earth.

[zimv20]

Frequently Encountered Criticisms in Evolution vs. Creationism (http://www.holysmoke.org/refute.htm)

[anonymous161]

Frequently Encountered Criticisms in Evolution vs. Creationism (http://www.holysmoke.org/refute.htm)

2.10: Noah's flood was caused by the condensing of a vapor canopy that contained the waters of the flood. Prior to the flood, the vapor canopy also extended people's lifespans to the huge ages listed in Genesis, because it blocked out harmful UV rays.

This is my favorite. Try to read it 5 times without having an aneurism.

Edit: Oh, wait, maybe this one: 3.4: There are n! ways of an enzyme or DNA strand of n parts forming prebiotically. Since the smallest proteins have at least 100 amino acids, the chance of forming a particular enzyme prebiotically is at most 1/100!, which is small enough to be disregarded.

Pardon the mess, my head exploded.

[mactastic]

The probability of an Intelligent Designer is so low as to be safely discarded...

[Don't panic]

Any century before the Renaissance will do. I can already feel the sun beginning to move into orbit around the Earth.

giordano bruno was burned at the stake in 1600, for publicly supporting copernicus's ideas and having the audacity to claim that space was boundless and there could be other 'solar systems' out there, possibly inhabited.

Galileo was extorted his 'renounciation' in 1633.

copernicus's de revolutionibus was removed from the index in 1853.

but, hey!, for 5604 years the common sense of the believers suggested that the earth was at the center of the universe, so i guess bruno deserved his fate :rolleyes:

ah, the good old days

[zimv20]

krugman weighs in (http://nytimes.com/2005/08/05/opinion/05krugman.html)


[...]

Which brings us, finally, to intelligent design. Some of America's most powerful politicians have a deep hatred for Darwinism. Tom DeLay, the House majority leader, blamed the theory of evolution for the Columbine school shootings. But sheer political power hasn't been enough to get creationism into the school curriculum. The theory of evolution has overwhelming scientific support, and the country isn't ready - yet - to teach religious doctrine in public schools.

But what if creationists do to evolutionary theory what corporate interests did to global warming: create a widespread impression that the scientific consensus has shaky foundations?

Creationists failed when they pretended to be engaged in science, not religious indoctrination: "creation science" was too crude to fool anyone. But intelligent design, which spreads doubt about evolution without being too overtly religious, may succeed where creation science failed.

The important thing to remember is that like supply-side economics or global-warming skepticism, intelligent design doesn't have to attract significant support from actual researchers to be effective. All it has to do is create confusion, to make it seem as if there really is a controversy about the validity of evolutionary theory. That, together with the political muscle of the religious right, may be enough to start a process that ends with banishing Darwin from the classroom.

[anonymous161]

The old noise theory. It amazes me how often the "religious right" is willing to engage in devious tactics to achieve their goals.
You know, the Roman Catholic church thought they could control learning to keep the people under their control. Eventually, the people wise up.

[takao]

oh well at the moment the cardinal of vienna christpoh schönborn "is getting FLAK" from the media over as well for an open letter published in an us newspaper where he was critically about teaching evolution without pointing to problems etc.
the commentary wasn't that bad but the media and public jumped over it extremely and even the arch-christian-conservative local newspaper which is dominating the market with 80% here, had _3_ editorials criticizing the cardinal, not only his views but his way as well ...

here in austria they simply fear the lack of money they get through the taxation and thus keep silent about such issues ...

ironically i always experienced him as a moderate but very still open for change in the catholic curch ... guess the possible influence which can be taken in the US at the moment is just too big of a chance for the churches to simply let them pass

[Don't panic]

The old noise theory. It amazes me how often the "religious right" is willing to engage in devious tactics to achieve their goals.
You know, the Roman Catholic church thought they could control learning to keep the people under their control. Eventually, the people wise up.

yeah, but how long did it take? I think it's simply unavoidable that all fairy tales doctrines will go the way of the Olympos with time, but why do my kids have to suffer from unnecessary moronic teachings and their effects on society?

[blackfox]

You know, I quite like Intelligent Design.

My coffee-maker, stereo, car, desk and computer are all examples of this. I also appreciate it in buildings, urban planning and cupholders.

ohh...wrong thread...

to point, this theory obviously isn't. Is my growing appeciation for irony a product of a supreme intelligence or merely an evolution based on the changing environment in which I am forced to adapt?

Relatedly, I find it amusing that the "religious" have no problem co-opting secular,scientific, or post-modern flotsam/theory/fact when it suits their interests or advances their agenda, but scream bloody murder when the secular/scientific community attempts any intrusion/mention of their province.

[skunk]

You know, I quite like Intelligent Design.

My coffee-maker, stereo, car, desk and computer are all examples of this. I also appreciate it in buildings, urban planning and cupholders.

ohh...wrong thread...Welcome back, BF. We've been missing your brand of dadaist philosophy.
:D

[OryHara]

if you want to learn how god crated everything then go to goddamn church!

[skunk]

if you want to learn how god crated everything then go to goddamn church!Try Packing School. :D

[Royal Pineapple]

Frequently Encountered Criticisms in Evolution vs. Creationism (http://www.holysmoke.org/refute.htm)
thanks for that link, some of these claims are outright funny

4.12: Sexual reproduction could not have come about through evolution.
i dont get this at all
2.6: There are places where "older" rock strata lie above "younger" rock strata.
ever heard of earthquakes and tectonic movement? or are these part of the "evolution theory" too?
5.6: Fossils are the remains of the living organisms that perished in Noah's Flood.
this must explain the dinosaurs wearing saddles that was mentioned earlyer
6.2: Evolution teaches that there are no such things as souls, that the Bible is fraudulent, and that God does not exist.
yea, so?
6.3: Great scientists such as Newton and Kepler believed in a literal Genesis.
this would explain why they didn't figure it out and we had to wait until darwin came 'round

and finally (at least for now)
6.7: Evolution is unfalsifiable, and thus unscientific.
HA! and what is creationism exactly? scientific?

[leekohler]

The whole thing is nothing more than Bush trying to push Christianity in schools. Anyone who can't see that is a fool. Yes- no matter how you dress it up, that's what it is.

[Royal Pineapple]

http://www.forwardbiased.com/photos/uncategorized/teach20both20theories3.gif

[solvs]

6.2: Evolution teaches that there are no such things as souls, that the Bible is fraudulent, and that God does not exist.
Yeah, except... no, it doesn't.

FUD is all that is. Einstein believed in God, didn't stop him from being a brilliant scientist and physicist. Hawking as well. Probably a mojority of the scientific community. I've seen a lot of this first hand. If you don't believe in everything they believe in without question, even if you believe in the core system (and probably understand it better than they do even) you aren't just an atheist or heretic, you're somehow a Satanist or supporter of evil. Kinda like that with us or against us thing where they try to say that if you don't support the Iraq war, you're no better than a terrorist. :rolleyes:

Funny, those terrorist fundamentalists do pretty much the same thing.

[anonymous161]

Yeah, except... no, it doesn't.

FUD is all that is. Einstein believed in God, didn't stop him from being a brilliant scientist and physicist. Hawking as well. Probably a mojority of the scientific community. I've seen a lot of this first hand. If you don't believe in everything they believe in without question, even if you believe in the core system (and probably understand it better than they do even) you aren't just an atheist or heretic, you're somehow a Satanist or supporter of evil. Kinda like that with us or against us thing where they try to say that if you don't support the Iraq war, you're no better than a terrorist. :rolleyes:

Funny, those terrorist fundamentalists do pretty much the same thing.

From what I have gathered, physicists seem to believe in God more often than members of other disciplines. Biologists, on the other hand, almost always seem to be pissed-off atheists, like two of my high school biology teachers. Of course, they could have been pissed-off atheists because they were high school teachers, but who knows.

"With us or against us" seem to be the words that many live by these days.

[skunk]

http://www.forwardbiased.com/photos/uncategorized/teach20both20theories3.gifThat's a horribly good cartoon.

[Don't panic]

Yeah, except... no, it doesn't.

FUD is all that is. Einstein believed in God, didn't stop him from being a brilliant scientist and physicist. Hawking as well. Probably a mojority of the scientific community. I've seen a lot of this first hand. If you don't believe in everything they believe in without question, even if you believe in the core system (and probably understand it better than they do even) you aren't just an atheist or heretic, you're somehow a Satanist or supporter of evil. Kinda like that with us or against us thing where they try to say that if you don't support the Iraq war, you're no better than a terrorist. :rolleyes:

Funny, those terrorist fundamentalists do pretty much the same thing.

to be honest, I do believe that a coherent interpretation of science as we know it today does, indeed, pretty much exclude the existence of a biblical, all-powerful all-knowing god.

It doesn not, however, exclude the existence of one (or more) 'superior being' with 'powers' that to our current state of knowledge appear to be supernatural.

A scientific possible 'god' would be an alien civilization with advanced remote imaging and intervention (i.e. wheather control) technology, so that they could literally strike you down with a bolt from the sky if you mispronounce their name :)

much like if we could travel to a planet with a stone-age-like civilization, we could easily (by means of our 'superior' knowledge and technology) pass as 'gods' and perform 'miracles'.

given the average human in charge, I doubt we would be worth worshipping...


p.s. the cartoon is awesome!

[solvs]

to be honest, I do believe that a coherent interpretation of science as we know it today does, indeed, pretty much exclude the existence of a biblical, all-powerful all-knowing god.
Not really. If you think of God the way it's intended, as a metaphysical force of nature (or nature itself), it actually does the opposite. God is consciousness, and gravity, and the wind. Science can actually be quite poetic if you think about it. And It can prove the how, but not always the why. Rarely, if ever, does it prove the what. After all, if you think about it, science is the question... not the answer.

Ponder that one for awhile. ;)

[skunk]

After all, if you think about it, science is the question... not the answer.

Ponder that one for awhile. ;)Well, we all know what the answer is, don't we? :cool:

[Don't panic]

Well, we all know what the answer is, don't we? :cool: :D

[Don't panic]

Not really. If you think of God the way it's intended, as a metaphysical force of nature (or nature itself), it actually does the opposite. God is consciousness, and gravity, and the wind. Science can actually be quite poetic if you think about it. And It can prove the how, but not always the why. Rarely, if ever, does it prove the what. After all, if you think about it, science is the question... not the answer.

Ponder that one for awhile. ;)

well, if you think of god of an 'essence' that permeates the universe and acts through the laws of physics, than I agree that it can co-exist with science, as it is unprovable and undisprovable and cannot be separated from nature.

but that is not the traditional view of god in the christian or other monotheistic faiths. that god is a much physical being (and a pretty mean one at that) that can decide to intervene against the laws of nature whenever and who can damn you for eternity (!!!) if you do things which, to other cultures, are perfectly fine.

and, in science, there is no 'why'. there is only 'what' and 'how'.

[broken_keyboard]

and, in science, there is no 'why'. there is only 'what' and 'how'.

Yes, but not only in science, in reality there is no why.

Also the universe as a whole was never created - how could it be? Non-existence is not another type of existence from which existence can spring. Non-existence is nothing. So the fact that the universe exists today means it always has, eternally.

You don't even need a telescope to know that.

[Dont Hurt Me]

That's a horribly good cartoon.
Very Nice Skunk. LOL. :D edit Im sorry I mean RoyalPineapple.

[solvs]

but that is not the traditional view of god in the christian or other monotheistic faiths.
Well they're just wrong then. :p

[atszyman]

Just read this article (http://slate.msn.com/id/2124297/nav/tap1/).

The unbelievable part to me was

According to the most recent Gallup poll on the subject (2004), 45 percent of Americans believe God created human beings in their present form 10,000 years ago, while another 38 percent believe that God directed the process of evolution. Only 13 percent accept the prevailing scientific view of evolution as an unguided, random process.

I can believe the 38% and 13% numbers but 45% of Americans believing in Adam and Eve and taking the Old Testament literally to come up with a 10,000 year old earth is just mind numbing. Although it does explain a lot.


What I really don't understand is why no one seems to come up with the easiest way to reconcile the discrepancy. Nowhere in the Bible does it ever talk of the length of a day being 24 hours (as far as I can recall). What if you consider one of God's days to be 1/2 billion years? That would give 3.5 billion years for creation of the Earth and all of a sudden timelines start to match up a little more. Evolution can then be taught in Science class as the prevailing theory and left up to the student/religion classes to influence whether evolution is guided or random, rather than trying to shoehorn religion into classes where it does not belong.

[Don't panic]

I can believe the 38% and 13% numbers but 45% of Americans believing in Adam and Eve and taking the Old Testament literally to come up with a 10,000 year old earth is just mind numbing. Although it does explain a lot.


Initially I also thought this is was too ridiculous to be real, and that people in 2005 cannot be really this gullible/ignorant, but than you look at other polls and the numbers pretty much match...

hopefully, one day we'll grow out of this insanity (after all, not too many people still believes in the greek-roman pantheon, which was all the rage only two thousands years ago).

as far as your explanation, that is included in the 38%. the amazing part is that if you were to run the same poll in the rest of the world (even limiting to the mainly christian part) you would be something like:

literal creationism 0-0.1 %
permissive creationism 20-30%
evolution 70-80%