The Scientific Merit(s) of Intelligent Design

[Cromulent]

Nobody here has specifically indicated what of my argument is factually incorrect.

There was basically no fact in your argument at all. It was just opinion.

[RacerX]

Scientists are some of the most prideful people I know, and they are wrong much more often than they will admit.I don't think it was needed for you to actively display this point for us in your later posts. And even with you as an example of this statement, I think we'd have to throw you out as being tainted (because you made the original statement).

Interesting none the less.

[SMM]

A couple nights ago, I was cooking dinner and my wife was watching Nova, or another science program, in the adjacent TV/Reading room. There was a very interesting story about a young lady, who was a bass player-singer in a rock band. She was born in Iran, but moved here with her family when she was a baby. They said she played at night and had a 'day job'. Turns out, she has an engineering degree from MIT and a medical degree from Harvard. She is also one of the top genetic researchers in the world. She was the one who discovered the gene, which triggers mutation and allows evolution to take place. Her expertise is highly sought, and she has collaborated on many important research projects. She authored a universal algorithm for the process, which has become the accepted standard.

She also does he own research projects. She was disturbed by the high mortality rate, in the third-world especially, because of malaria and the parasites carried by the anopheles mosquito. So, she went to work, and found the gene, which allows the mosquito to evolve. She is now working on how to prevent the gene to function.

The point, as it relates to this thread is, evolution is not a theory. Science knows how the changes take place. It is in fact proven. There are still many questions to be answered, but it sure looks like they will over time.

[BigHungry04]

The point, as it relates to this thread is, evolution is not a theory. Science knows how the changes take place. It is in fact proven. There are still many questions to be answered, but it sure looks like they will over time.

Evolution is a theory. Definition of Theory:

In science a theory is a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation. For the scientist, "theory" is not in any way an antonym of "fact". For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behavior are Newton's theory of universal gravitation. Taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

[Cave Man]

Evolution is a theory. Definition of Theory:

Taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

In science, facts are prerequisite to theories. You cannot have a scientific theory without first having facts. In other words, all scientific theories, even evolution, are both fact and theory.

[spamdumpster]

Does anyone know if there a single proponent of intelligent design who is not religious?

[Cave Man]

Anything someone with a non-scientific background voices about a scientific topic is irrelevant. Nobody here has specifically indicated what of my argument is factually incorrect, which leads me to believe that nobody here fully understands what they're talking about. You're just running your mouths with quotes from wikipedia. It's readily apparent that nobody here has ever studied evolution deeply and has never critically thought about it. You are all just vomiting up what you have passively read on wikipedia or saw on discovery channel, all of which are quaternary sources (not citable in professional journals, thus not relevant in scientific debate).

Must...resist...temptation....

Our understanding of the world is still incomplete, and the Theory of Evolution is no exception. It works well within a range, but fails once you extrapolate it. This is my only argument.

Must...resist...temp... OK, I gotta respond. So, according to your rationale, the Atomic Theory is only a theory and we should allow other "theories" in the classroom? Same with gene theory and germ theory and all that other stuff?

I respect people's opinions on this board regarding macs, but listening to people who don't know what they're talking about trash me is unfruitful. I'm done with this thread.

Ok, I'll bite:

This thread is hillarious. I'll bet almost none of you have scientific backgrounds, yet nearly all of you take the side of evolution. Choosing a position without an understanding of that position is the embodiment of a fool. You have never studied biology, chemistry, ecology, physiology, or evolution deeply or maybe even at all.

PhD in cellular and molecular biology. I am the PI on three NIH grants and contracts.

And I knew enough about reproductive physiology and cellular biology and statistics to know that the things proposed in evolution relating to interspecies jumps is a stretch of the theory, and doesn't work, and has never and cannot be observed by any scientific process. Moths changing colors, arms and legs getting longer or shorter, and these types of changes are explained very well by the theory. One species changing to another is not.

I assume by "interspecies" you actually mean "speciation". And yes, it has been observed, both in nature and in the lab.

Scientists are some of the most prideful people I know, and they are wrong much more often than they will admit.

Which is why we have the scientific method; to negate our inherent biases. Too bad "intelligent design" folks don't abide by the same rules. :rolleyes:

Here's what's been scientifically observed: 1) Genetic mutation causes death or retardation of some physiological process, not super human strength or cool new features (Yes, I'm using human beings as an example because they are tangible. I'm aware that there are other organisms on the planet.)

Most mutations are innocuous, some are deleterious. Fewer still are beneficial. The reason for this is because most members of a population are near optimum for their environment - mutations that even fractionally compromise fitness (a quantifiable value) can substantially reduce their ability to reproduce. For all species, there are far more offspring produced than the environment can sustain (superfecundity), thus those which compromised fitness are the least likely to reproduce. However, introduce an environmental change and some of those mutations that were less fit can become more fit. You'd be surprised at how fast an allele can spread through a population in just a few generations, if it is beneficial.

2) New inheritable traits -- which is not an admission of interspecies transitions (think black vs. white skin) -- are not there because they make an organism better to handle a new environment. They are there because they didn't kill it, or prevent it from procreating and producing viable offspring.

This is unclear. Can you elaborate?

Here's what needs to happen in order for a new species to form. Two members of the originating species need to be in the same region in space and time and need to be attracted to each other in order to mate. The mathematics of this are already staggering.

If this is your understanding of the required events, then you have no clue what speciation requires. The founders don't just pop out of thin air.

Next the two need to mate. Using a human female as an example, she only has one egg per month and there is a very narrow window where she can conceive because the egg needs to be fertilized in a narrow region of the fallopian tube if it is to be developed enough to implant on the wall of the uterus by the time it gets there. The egg has only 1-2 days to be fertilized before it is disintegrated. Sperm survive 3 days. So, the window is 4-5 days per month that intercourse can lead to conception. Secondly, there cannot be any reproductive disorders present nor any gametic isolation. Next, we need to consider that there are two types of cells in our body: somatic cells (diploid) and germline cells or gametes (haploid). The mutation must occur in the haploid cell (think sperm or ova) in order for the change to be heritable. Now let's remember that of the 400 million sperm present in an ejaculation, only 100 make it to the fallopian tube and only 1 fertilizes the egg. One in 400 million. Let's not forget that the body has defense mechanisms built-in to recognize differences mutations in DNA and destroy the cell containing it.

All known DNA polymerases have inherent mutation rates. For mammals, this rate is about 10^-9. Since there are 3x10^9 bases in the haploid human genome, you're talking 3 mutations for every gamete produced, on average. But this is really irrelevant, because the principal cause of creating genetic diversity is homologous recombination. The generation of new genetic traits occurs because of gene duplication events (caused by nonhomologous recombination or transposition).

For the sake of argument, let's say that there is enough time in the universe that these events can happen. The conditions mentioned thus far are known as prezygotic barriers. Now on to the post zygotic barriers. Please read up on hybrid inviability, sterility, and breakdown. In short, there are a lot of things that have to happen in order for species formation to occur. It is highly improbable that they in fact do.

You seem to be of the opinion that speciation occurs in a single generation. While this may be true for some plant species (which are quite receptive to polyploidy), for animals speciation events are over generational time on reproductively isolated populations. Did you ever take an evolution course while studying biology? We teach this to our third year students.

[hulugu]

Must...resist...temptation....



Must...resist...temp... OK, I gotta respond. So, according to your rationale, the Atomic Theory is only a theory and we should allow other "theories" in the classroom? Same with gene theory and germ theory and all that other stuff?



Ok, I'll bite...Did you ever take an evolution course while studying biology? We teach this to our third year students.

Oh. Snap.

[Beric]

First of all, the reason creationists attack evolution, instead of focusing on what they believe, creation, is because evolution is the status quo. You don't go around saying something completely different from the status quo. Instead, you disprove the status quo, and if people listen to you, you THEN show them what you believe to be the alternative to the former status quo.

If people here are willing to take the heat, I've linked to a PDF with a long (8 pages), interesting, well-researched article on many of the coverups of evolution. It's by a scientist with a PHD who wrote my high school science textbooks (I was homeschooled), and, if you're willing to take it, go right in. According to this article, Evolution is the enemy of science, not Creation.

http://www.apologiaonline.com/conf/enemy.pdf

Also, I don't expect to convince anyone, as stunning and revealing as some of the things in that article are. Argumentation doesn't work on the internet. You can't convince anyone. Only argue.

[Iscariot]

First of all, the reason creationists attack evolution, instead of focusing on what they believe, creation, is because evolution is the status quo. You don't go around saying something completely different from the status quo. Instead, you disprove the status quo, and if people listen to you, you THEN show them what you believe to be the alternative to the former status quo.

But we're still not seeing any scientific alternatives, which is the point. We are asking for scientific evidence, and we're not getting any.

If people here are willing to take the heat, I've linked to a PDF with a long (8 pages), interesting, well-researched article on many of the coverups of evolution. It's by a scientist with a PHD who wrote my high school science textbooks (I was homeschooled), and, if you're willing to take it, go right in. According to this article, Evolution is the enemy of science, not Creation.

http://www.apologiaonline.com/conf/enemy.pdf

1. PhD in Nuclear Chemistry (not biology)

2. "The Biogenetic Law still lives today!" is a lie. "Modern biology rejects the literal and universal form of Haeckel's theory" [Wikipedia]. The fact that some textbooks still contain it doesn't mean it hasn't been rejected, nor does it mean that the textbooks don't contain it for teaching purposes.

3. "Piltdown Man: A Fake Fossil" Piltdown Man is a famous hoax. So are lots of fossils. That doesn't prove anything. There are hoaxes about everything from UFOs to bleeding statues of Christ to throwing dynamite in lakes to make waves for surfing.

4. "When the Data Don’t Agree, You Can Also Cover Them Up!" Charles Walcott's finds have been very well documented. Such a find as claimed simply doesn't exist as the PDF would have you believe. There has never been a single shred of evidence nor a peer review paper written on the supposed incident that I've ever seen. For someone who has published 30 peer-reviewed articles, he hasn't provided a link to any peer reviewed literature, but he does plug a book about God. Furthermore, if he was right, he'd publish a peer review paper about his findings, instead of an 8-page PDF full of inconsistencies without any research links. For a scientist, that's pretty poor science.

His only resource for these supposed fossils is Gerald Shroeder, who not unsurprisingly is not a biologist or paleontologist. Who, not suprisingly, has not published any peer reviewed papers on the supposed 60 000 fossils. Seeing as how a complete fossil is worth upwards of $1 000, it seems odd that they'd just sit on and hide away $60 000 worth of fossils.

Unless, of course, we're talking about the real 60 000 fossils Walcott found in the Burgess Shale. Correctly identifying the fossils was something that Walcott was unable to do in 1909, accurately explaining why Walcott incorrectly identified the fossils into living taxa. [Wikipedia link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burgess_shale)] But if Dr. Wile had included the name of the find in his PDF, then we'd all be able to look it up and realize that he's relying on incorrect information gathered a hundred years ago, and more importantly, that he's just lying.

5. "In fact, the chance of this happening is: 1 in 10 to the power of 30" This is junk science. There's no methodology to even determine what the chances of life "randomly" occurring is.

Also, I don't expect to convince anyone, as stunning and revealing as some of the things in that article are. Argumentation doesn't work on the internet. You can't convince anyone. Only argue.

I've changed people's minds on very important issues. If you have the facts, the data and the scientific acumen, things will change. Science is self-correcting and we see the introduction of new theories constantly and consistently.

[leekohler]

First of all, the reason creationists attack evolution, instead of focusing on what they believe, creation, is because evolution is the status quo. You don't go around saying something completely different from the status quo. Instead, you disprove the status quo, and if people listen to you, you THEN show them what you believe to be the alternative to the former status quo.

If people here are willing to take the heat, I've linked to a PDF with a long (8 pages), interesting, well-researched article on many of the coverups of evolution. It's by a scientist with a PHD who wrote my high school science textbooks (I was homeschooled), and, if you're willing to take it, go right in. According to this article, Evolution is the enemy of science, not Creation.

http://www.apologiaonline.com/conf/enemy.pdf

Also, I don't expect to convince anyone, as stunning and revealing as some of the things in that article are. Argumentation doesn't work on the internet. You can't convince anyone. Only argue.

Got about halfway through it, before the exclamation points started making me think I was reading the writings of a loon. For a Ph.D, he sure sounds hysterical. You would think someone with his education would know that this isn't a good way to write for an intelligent audience.

Interesting- I just found these when searching Google for Dr Wile:

http://www.homeschoolvendors.org/speaker_pages/speaker.asp?sid=8
http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/search?author=Dr.%20Jay%20L.%20Wile&detailed_search=1&action=Search

There wouldn't happen to be some agenda he might have, now would there?

[.Andy]

First of all, the reason creationists attack evolution, instead of focusing on what they believe, creation, is because evolution is the status quo. You don't go around saying something completely different from the status quo. Instead, you disprove the status quo, and if people listen to you, you THEN show them what you believe to be the alternative to the former status quo.
You've got my attention now with your thesis on disproving the status quo! Now wow me with the science of intelligent design.

[Cromulent]

First of all, the reason creationists attack evolution, instead of focusing on what they believe, creation, is because evolution is the status quo. You don't go around saying something completely different from the status quo. Instead, you disprove the status quo, and if people listen to you, you THEN show them what you believe to be the alternative to the former status quo.

If people here are willing to take the heat, I've linked to a PDF with a long (8 pages), interesting, well-researched article on many of the coverups of evolution. It's by a scientist with a PHD who wrote my high school science textbooks (I was homeschooled), and, if you're willing to take it, go right in. According to this article, Evolution is the enemy of science, not Creation.

http://www.apologiaonline.com/conf/enemy.pdf

Also, I don't expect to convince anyone, as stunning and revealing as some of the things in that article are. Argumentation doesn't work on the internet. You can't convince anyone. Only argue.

While that article does point out some of the mistakes that have been made along the way (and there are always mistakes and progressions as that is the nature of science, understanding does not come in a day after all). The point is he makes no attempt to put forward another case with evidence backing it up, therefore we must take the only theory with real world evidence as the most likely to be true.

I've said this a hundred times, if creationists can come up with one piece of evidence to support their intelligent design theory then I will look at in a more favourable light until then I will treat it as clap trap.

Other parts the article are damn right misleading. What is his point with the Mt St Helens data? Everyone I assume is aware of volcanic eruptions and the results that they have.

[.Andy]

What is his point with the Mt St Helens data? Everyone I assume is aware of volcanic eruptions and the results that they have.
I've heard the Mt St Helens argument before so perhaps I can shed some light. "Stratified rock" was formed from the eruption ergo fossils aren't as old a scientists think. The canyon part is supposedly evidence that the Grand Canyon formed in a single event (i.e. the great flood) and not over a longer period of time as scientist would have you believe. Therefore the bible remains the true word and creationists are right.

It's a pathetically cynical and intellectually dishonest attempt to reconcile reality with the bible that anyone other than a child can see through. Unfortunately it's home schooled children that Mr Wile peddles his wares to.

[jplan2008]

Other parts the article are damn right misleading. What is his point with the Mt St Helens data? Everyone I assume is aware of volcanic eruptions and the results that they have.

Because a new river and canyon 1/40 the size of the Grand Canyon were supposedly created from the eruption (I have no idea if that's true), they're (creationists) saying that that's somehow evidence of the "great flood," and that the entire world was covered by water however many years ago. The logic escapes me. They also claim that geologists and evolutionists claim that everything geological has moved slowly over billions of years, and Mt. St. Helens proves otherwise. Considering that geologists and evolutionists talk about meteors, super eruptions, etc., again I don't see the logic.

I agree with Lee about the exclamation points. It's true because I and other believers say so!! doesn't sound like science to me!

[hulugu]

You've got my attention now with your thesis on disproving the status quo! Now wow me with the science of intelligent design.

Good luck, even Michael Behe has said (http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1090909,00.html), "You can't prove intelligent design by an experiment."

At it's very best, ID is about plinking away at the Theory of Evolution. At it's very worst, it's about breaking down the structure of science itself, distorting its language and the public's understanding all the while pursuing an obviously religious ideology.

Also, for Beric. Did you notice the quote that followed the Haeckel section? It's by Stephen J. Gould, who said "We do, I think, have the right to be both astonished and ashamed by the century of mindless recycling that has led to the persistence of these drawings in a large number, if not a majority, of modern textbooks."
Isn't it odd that a noted "evolutionist" (note, the use of loaded terminology should always be suspect) is "ashamed" that the Haeckel drawings are still included in modern textbooks? Especially considering this is part of the conspiracy against competing theories?

[Dont Hurt Me]

Every morning when I shave I ask myself who the hell would have designed man with hair all over his face? Intelligent design?

There is no merit at all in the Intelligent design hoax but it does empower the ones who make a living off of others with fairy tales and grand religions with large church buildings and please dont forget your 10 per cent. Religion is a business and anything that promotes it means more $$$ for those selling it.

[leekohler]

Every morning when I shave I ask myself who the hell would have designed man with hair all over his face? Intelligent design?

There is no merit at all in the Intelligent design hoax but it does empower the ones who make a living off of others with fairy tales and grand religions with large church buildings and please dont forget your 10 per cent. Religion is a business and anything that promotes it means more $$$ for those selling it.

Exactly. The physical world is so full of flaws that can't believe anyone would fall for ID or creationism. It makes absolutely no sense at all. Religion is also unbelievably smart- they found a way to make cash without even paying taxes! :eek:

[Cromulent]

I've heard the Mt St Helens argument before so perhaps I can shed some light. "Stratified rock" was formed from the eruption ergo fossils aren't as old a scientists think. The canyon part is supposedly evidence that the Grand Canyon formed in a single event (i.e. the great flood) and not over a longer period of time as scientist would have you believe. Therefore the bible remains the true word and creationists are right.

It's a pathetically cynical and intellectually dishonest attempt to reconcile reality with the bible that anyone other than a child can see through. Unfortunately it's home schooled children that Mr Wile peddles his wares to.

Because a new river and canyon 1/40 the size of the Grand Canyon were supposedly created from the eruption (I have no idea if that's true), they're (creationists) saying that that's somehow evidence of the "great flood," and that the entire world was covered by water however many years ago. The logic escapes me. They also claim that geologists and evolutionists claim that everything geological has moved slowly over billions of years, and Mt. St. Helens proves otherwise. Considering that geologists and evolutionists talk about meteors, super eruptions, etc., again I don't see the logic.

I agree with Lee about the exclamation points. It's true because I and other believers say so!! doesn't sound like science to me!

Thanks for clearing that up.

Where did this guy get his PhD? Because I want to make sure no one I know ever wastes their time going there.

Seriously, I expect a somewhat more intellectual argument from someone of his supposed caliber than that. Geologists regularly talk about cataclysmic events that cause sudden changes to the Earths layout and formation. I suppose the only people who would fall for that are those who are ignorant of the facts in the first place.

[Saladinos]

Science is anything that can be falsified - that is, anything that can be proven wrong by experiment. Einstein said of his own work that "a million experiments can prove me right, one can prove me wrong". This doesn't apply to ideas like intelligent design - we can't take one species (of any kind - plant or animal) and use them as an argument for or against the theory. It is untestable, so it is not science. Anything scientific must be that which you can at least attempt to prove wrong be experiment. That may well mean that no theories of LUE fall under the umbrella of "science".

As for intelligent design itself, I don't like the idea. I don't think that the idea of God becomes any more acceptable when you abstract the deity's name. Although this is not the stated goal of intelligent design, it is what it becomes in practice, as anything that has total governance over the development of planets and organisms can be called a 'God'.

I also reject the idea that anything other than natural selection is at play. The reason life is sustained on Earth is because of the possibly infinite variations in conditions available in the universe, there has to be at least one with the right conditions for life. And the life on this planet perfectly adapts to those conditions. There are quite possibly more planets with life, but the universe is large, so these same conditions could be replicated anywhere. We must also not forget that the universe is not static, and whilst we have the right conditions for life today, in a few hundred million years, we possibly will not. The sun will eventually die, and as it does, will grow massively (it's not organic, it doesn't shrivel up when it dies. It's a chemical reaction that gets larger and hotter). In the space of a few hundred billion years, it's possible that many planets will have the conditions for life after we no longer do. If you throw a ball at a distant target a hundred billion times, you're bound to hit it on at least a few of them.

The idea of intelligent design (and most religion) is born from arrogance. Arrogance is proportional with the level of influence capitalism has on a society's culture. Capitalism is all about the individual - making the most for yourself. Thinking of yourself first. Putting a margin on products meant for many because it benefits the individual. It is hard, when such a mentality is omnipresent in a society, to accept the idea that your existence is a freakish chance happening. They like to think themselves as special, as 'made in God's image'. The idea snowballs, with our social nature making more and more people joining the idea. There is no proof in it; no science.

[skunk]

The idea of intelligent design (and most religion) is born from arrogance. Arrogance is proportional with the level of influence capitalism has on a society's culture. Capitalism is all about the individual - making the most for yourself. Thinking of yourself first. Putting a margin on products meant for many because it benefits the individual. It is hard, when such a mentality is omnipresent in a society, to accept the idea that your existence is a freakish chance happening. They like to think themselves as special, as 'made in God's image'. The idea snowballs, with our social nature making more and more people joining the idea. There is no proof in it; no science.Anthropocentrism predates capitalism by several millennia.

May I refer you to Post #244?

[jplan2008]

The idea of intelligent design (and most religion) is born from arrogance. Arrogance is proportional with the level of influence capitalism has on a society's culture. Capitalism is all about the individual - making the most for yourself. Thinking of yourself first. Putting a margin on products meant for many because it benefits the individual. It is hard, when such a mentality is omnipresent in a society, to accept the idea that your existence is a freakish chance happening. They like to think themselves as special, as 'made in God's image'. The idea snowballs, with our social nature making more and more people joining the idea. There is no proof in it; no science.

I'll have to think about that (or give some examples, please). Intelligent Design was openly started as a "theory" to circumvent our Constitution. Like I said before, I don't know why sincere, religious people aren't outraged by that. People around the globe tend to believe in some definition of God. People in this country and some others are fundamentalists, and don't see religion as giving some sort of moral directive, and the bible or the koran or whatever as teaching moral lessons within the context of the time they were written, but as a literal directive. Or, so they say, to defend their actions in the pursuit of power, not just economic power. It's ironic that not only did Iraq have a secular government before we invaded, but they openly discussed the Koran as a book of fables not to be taken literally. That has changed.

Without a doubt when people are in a worse financial and personal situation they turn to more authoritarian religions. It makes sense. I'm not a religious person, but I know when I see examples of pure "evil," like with holocausts, I want to find something to mitigate the horror I feel.

My problem with the religious right in the U.S, and fundamentalists in general, is their hypocrisy, not their arrogance. For example, one issue that is important to me (and I'll start a separate thread one day maybe) is genetic engineering. You'd think that the religious right would join those on the left who are against giving patents on life. You'd think the religious right would join those on the left that are against genetically engineered foods, cloned cows, etc. You can't say that all life comes from God, and at the same time, say genetically engineered food doesn't need to be labeled because it's "the same" as the wheat that supposedly came from God, and that cloned meat doesn't need to be labeled because it's "the same" as meat from the cow that their precious God created. And if they don't agree it's "the same," then where the hell is the religious right on the issue? Cashing in on their dividends from Monsanto, I guess. These companies are changing the very notion of life -- that is is a COMMODITY, to be bought and sold -- from a sacred tree in India to the entire genetic code of all of Iceland -- and the right is concerned only with abortion? The hypocrisy is so profound that I refuse to adhere to the idea on abortion that truly believe it's a human life, blah blah blah.

[chrmjenkins]

EPIC FAIL. Epic EPIC fail. Just a complete lie.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html

"It's the first time evolution has been caught in the act of making such a rare and complex new trait."

Evolution is real. Get over it.

Beautiful, textbook example of micro-evolution.

Yeah it pretty much failed on the first page. It was obviously just a cynically transparent attempt to illustrate the obvious - that intelligent design has no scientific merit and it's supporters are motivated out of dishonesty and religion.

Why did this point need illustrated? Do you think all of the other detractors of ID didn't realize this? I think even most of the ID supporters on here would acknowledge that ID is not science. As it was succinctly put, it explains the why, not the how. ID was brought up in other threads because they were a mixture of science and philosophy, of which both sides were knowledgeable of. Therefore, if not to display what was already obvious, the point of this thread was to simply boast and poke fun of supporters of ID. All to the raucous approval of the choir, in this case.

ID supporters may do a lot of things, but one thing I do not know them for is belittling people for believing in evolution. It is not fair to mock someone's beliefs. It is however, fair to question them and engage in discussion about them. In this thread, I witness an active voice that people do not want ideologues forcing Christian beliefs on them all the while claiming people are ignorant for holding them, and even using it to explain what science can't is only doomed to prove the believer a fool.

What is so scary, anyway? You don't want them teaching ID along with evolution, and not teaching either? If the correct choice is so blatantly evident, an un-biased 10 year old could reach the right conclusion. If there is a fear, then it's completely analogues to the fear of evolution teaching corrupting a Christian mind. If you've participated in the public school system in the past 20 years, you know the problem is not content, it's what skills we are teaching kids.

Kids are being taught tests because of ridiculous laws in this country, and they aren't acquiring reasoning and critical thinking skills. The only reason I acquired those skills is excellent teachers, math and English specifically.

Moreover, I think the thing we should be worried about preserving in schools is choice, rather than government approved content. Currently, if a child, or its parent (in high school, should be child's choice really) does not want to participate in sex ed, they don't have to. It could easily be the same for any other content they find objectionable to their personal beliefs. Of course, they would do this at their own risk regarding tests and college entrance. For example, say the current administration extended its disapproval of the idea of global warming into the schools. Parents, or children, could elect to opt-out of being taught this rubbish if they so chose.

Obviously not, otherwise you would not post rubbish about "one species changing to another". It doesn't happen like that. It is a gradual, incremental adaptation. You don't go from amphibian one day to mammal the next.

That is not the charge, either. I believe it mostly to be "Why is there so little in between?" Additionally, "How can we be sure a genetic pathway exists, in which all incremental steps, are themselves viable organisms?"

[skunk]

I think even most of the ID supporters on here would acknowledge that ID is not science. As it was succinctly put, it explains the why, not the how.ID explains nothing. ID simply asserts. There is no evidence whatever to support any of ID's assertions. None. There is nothing even to discuss, since there is no evidence to discuss the merits of.What is so scary, anyway? You don't want them teaching ID along with evolution, and not teaching either? If the correct choice is so blatantly evident, an un-biased 10 year old could reach the right conclusion. If there is a fear, then it's completely analogues to the fear of evolution teaching corrupting a Christian mind.The problem is that if what is teachable as science is constrained and defined by what is acceptable to certain religionists, and the curriculum is reinforced by threats of eternal damnation for "wrong belief", the whole of science education becomes a stagnant travesty.

[chrmjenkins]

ID explains nothing. ID simply asserts. There is no evidence whatever to support any of ID's assertions. None. There is nothing even to discuss, since there is no evidence to discuss the merits of.
Always mincing words aren't we? I meant it only offering a story (I think many will like the word choice) for existence.


The problem is that if what is teachable as science is constrained and defined by what is acceptable to certain religionists, and the curriculum is reinforced by threats of eternal damnation for "wrong belief", the whole of science education becomes a stagnant travesty.

You, being in the UK, have obviously not experienced our education system. It's already bad, and getting worse. However, I don't even see how your comment about threats is relevant. The only aim, to my knowledge, is to insert ID as a complement to evolutionary teaching. Even if they did insert it, insinuation of the type you are talking about wouldn't be tolerated. To think that it could have that much power is just silly. Even then, no one is going to force that kid to believe the same thing when he goes home. If you're looking for the precursor to 1984, this ain't it. As I said, the unbiased 10 year old would be fine.

[leekohler]

Always mincing words aren't we? I meant it only offering a story (I think many will like the word choice) for existence.



You, being in the UK, have obviously not experienced our education system. It's already bad, and getting worse. However, I don't even see how your comment about threats is relevant. The only aim, to my knowledge, is to insert ID as a complement to evolutionary teaching. Even if they did insert it, insinuation of the type you are talking about wouldn't be tolerated. To think that it could have that much power is just silly. Even then, no one is going to force that kid to believe the same thing when he goes home. If you're looking for the precursor to 1984, this ain't it. As I said, the unbiased 10 year old would be fine.

Read and repeat:

ID is NOT science. That's why it shouldn't be taught in science class. How much more clear can we be?

[chrmjenkins]

Read and repeat:

ID is NOT science. That's why it shouldn't be taught in science class. How much more clear can we be?

Read and understand:

I never argued ID is science. In fact, I all but admitted it isn't science, well, because it isn't. I don't advocate it being taught, either. How much more clear can I be?

[leekohler]

Read and understand:

I never argued ID is science. In fact, I all but admitted it isn't science, well, because it isn't. I don't advocate it being taught, either. How much more clear can I be?

You were asking what everyone was so afraid of. I just told you. And I never said that you advocated it.

[skunk]

Always mincing words aren't we? I meant it only offering a story (I think many will like the word choice) for existence.It is not just a "story" though, is it? It is a baseless assertion of the superiority of one particular religion, which by implication tells us that all other religions are false, as is the only thoroughly rational explanation of how things came to be as they are. To offer it as a "choice" implies a parity which it simply does not and cannot have.

You, being in the UK, have obviously not experienced our education system. It's already bad, and getting worse. However, I don't even see how your comment about threats is relevant.ID is simply a crude disguise for a Judaeo-Christian creation myth, predicated on the assumed literal truth of the Bible as God's word. As with any monotheistic religion, there are by definition no alternatives on offer. If you do not believe the word of God, are you not damned?

[chrmjenkins]

You were asking what everyone was so afraid of. I just told you. And I never said that you advocated it.

Ok, you quoted all of my post and referred to only part of it, so I'm sorry I didn't know what you were referring to. My point still stands, it's not really anything to be scared of. Any amount of logic could see through it, right? One more waste of time in our school system. That's why overall reform should be a larger concern than this. It won't make it through a majority of state legislatures anyway.

It is not just a "story" though, is it? It is a baseless assertion of the superiority of one particular religion, which by implication tells us that all other religions are false, as is the only thoroughly rational explanation of how things came to be as they are. To offer it as a "choice" implies a parity which it simply does not and cannot have.

ID is simply a crude disguise for a Judaeo-Christian creation myth, predicated on the assumed literal truth of the Bible as God's word. As with any monotheistic religion, there are by definition no alternatives on offer. If you do not believe the word of God, are you not damned?

Right, but its my understanding a specific deity has been specifically removed to make it seem more viable as a scientific alternative, has it not? To be confronted with the threat of damnation would to be to read more than what is given. Additionally, I don't know of any insertion of purpose in ID as it stands.

Therefore, the choice would be simply:

Something intelligent created everything and that's all we know

or

we evolved from single-celled organisms.

[leekohler]

Ok, you quoted all of my post and referred to only part of it, so I'm sorry I didn't know what you were referring to. My point still stands, it's not really anything to be scared of. Any amount of logic could see through it, right? One more waste of time in our school system. That's why overall reform should be a larger concern than this. It won't make it through a majority of state legislatures anyway.

Let's hope it doesn't. Somehow, I think places like Kansas will start teaching it.

[skunk]

Additionally, I don't know of any insertion of purpose in ID as it stands.

Therefore, the choice would be simply:

Something intelligent created everything and that's all we know

or

we evolved from single-celled organisms.But that is not a simple choice, is it? The former is an unsupported and empty mantra which asserts that we "know" something which we do not, and the latter is a falsifiable, testable, evidence-based hypothesis which has no need of the former to reinforce its validity. To equate the two is dishonest.

[chrmjenkins]

But that is not a simple choice, is it? The former is an unsupported and empty mantra which asserts that we "know" something which we do not, and the latter is a falsifiable, testable, evidence-based hypothesis which has no need of the former to reinforce its validity. To equate the two is dishonest.

Correct, so students would easily be able to tell which is correct, and eventually, the other would likely be scrapped because of lack of reception, I imagine. Just like we should scrap abstinence-only education because of poor response.

[skunk]

Correct, so students would easily be able to tell which is correct, and eventually, the other would likely be scrapped because of lack of reception, I imagine. Just like we should scrap abstinence-only education because of poor response.You say that you do not advocate ID being taught. What do you advocate being taught in the space which evolutionary theory presently inhabits in the curriculum?

[Iscariot]

Ok, you quoted all of my post and referred to only part of it, so I'm sorry I didn't know what you were referring to. My point still stands, it's not really anything to be scared of. Any amount of logic could see through it, right? One more waste of time in our school system. That's why overall reform should be a larger concern than this. It won't make it through a majority of state legislatures anyway.

The fear is that there will be a repeat of what happened in Dover.

But yes, there is something to be feared, something to be scared of. Fundamentalism of any stripe is dangerous, and any attempts to institutionalize or legitimize it treads some very risky waters. I understand what you are saying about respecting an individuals beliefs, but it's very clear that ID proponents do not. Evangelizing their beliefs as they do, and more importantly attempting to gain any sort of legal or institutional ground, is certainly not respecting the beliefs of others, and I do not see why I should act in a respectful manner towards a series of beliefs that continues to wage a frontal assault on my own, on those of others, on science, and on the constitution.

Correct, so students would easily be able to tell which is correct, and eventually, the other would likely be scrapped because of lack of reception, I imagine. Just like we should scrap abstinence-only education because of poor response.

That of course depends on whether the material is taught accurately, how it's slanted, and the level of previous education of the students. More importantly, the grade school theatre is not an appropriate academic setting to attempt to flesh out the veracity of scientific theories. Even more importantly, public schools are secular, and even more importantly, students should be educated on actual topics. We shouldn't be devoting classroom time to courses in alchemy, witchcraft, feng-shui, mysticism, divining, or any other merit-less pursuits. That is not why the school system exists.

[chrmjenkins]

You say that you do not advocate ID being taught. What do you advocate being taught in the space which evolutionary theory presently inhabits in the curriculum?

Evolution is currently the best science-based argument. Teach that, or just skip the subject (my school did the latter mostly). However, I elected not to take the second biology in favor of chemistry and physics, so I can't say if it was included there or not.

The fear is that there will be a repeat of what happened in Dover.

But yes, there is something to be feared, something to be scared of. Fundamentalism of any stripe is dangerous, and any attempts to institutionalize or legitimize it treads some very risky waters. I understand what you are saying about respecting an individuals beliefs, but it's very clear that ID proponents do not. Evangelizing their beliefs as they do, and more importantly attempting to gain any sort of legal or institutional ground, is certainly not respecting the beliefs of others, and I do not see why I should act in a respectful manner towards a series of beliefs that continues to wage a frontal assault on my own, on those of others, on science, and on the constitution.

Ok, but by the separation of Church and State, no explicit religious references would be tolerated. Basically, you'd have a gutted theory. Students would reasonably lean away from it (given they are un-biased to begin with).

There's a difference between pursuing an agenda to get something taught in parallel and downright insulting the intelligence of people. That's what I've said is going on in this thread.

[.Andy]

There's a difference between pursuing an agenda to get something taught in parallel and downright insulting the intelligence of people. That's what I've said is going on in this thread.
Insulting people's intelligence is exactly what Intelligent design is. It's complete and utter garbage propagated by the religious as a backdoor to indoctrinate children. The wedge document has been exposed years ago for all to see how shallow and ridiculous intelligent design is. There is nothing to it - the only reason it has garnered any supported is that it falls under the banner of christianity, something that it is supposed does not evoke.

Respect is something you earn. Intelligent design proponents have a right to believe what they do. However they have no right to be protected from scrutiny or lampooning for the flagrant dishonesty, intellectual bankruptcy, or dishonesty of their motivations.

[chrmjenkins]

Insulting people's intelligence is exactly what Intelligent design is. It's complete and utter garbage propagated by the religious as a backdoor to indoctrinate children. The wedge document has been exposed years ago for all to see how shallow and ridiculous intelligent design is. There is nothing to it - the only reason it has garnered any supported is that it falls under the banner of christianity, something that it is supposed does not evoke. Even if it's true, there's a marked difference of intent to insult one's intelligence. Do you really think teaching ID alongside evolution is going to indoctrinate anyone? Everyone seems to be so confident the truth is clear yet afraid of indoctrination to the opposite. Also, it not only falls under the banner of Christianity, it would be inclusive of all three monotheistic arms. Sure, it's easy to see it fails scientifically and shouldn't be taught, but to also say it's completely crap as a concept is to insinuate there's no philosophical argument either.

Tyranny of the majority is a risk we take in the will of the people.

Respect is something you earn. Intelligent design proponents have a right to believe what they do. However they have no right to be protected from scrutiny or lampooning for the flagrant dishonesty, intellectual bankruptcy, or dishonesty of their motivations.

Luckily, the judicial system should judge the argument based on its own merits, and ignore all the pandering, correct?

[.Andy]

Sure, it's easy to see it fails scientifically and shouldn't be taught, but to also say it's completely crap as a concept is to insinuate there's no philosophical argument either.
What understanding/insight does intelligent design provide even philosophically?

Luckily, the judicial system should judge the argument based on its own merits, and ignore all the pandering, correct?
I'm not sure what this has to do with anything. If we're still on the topic of intelligent design it's been smacked down every single time as rubbish under the judiciary system as it has no merit at all.

[chrmjenkins]

What understanding/insight does intelligent design provide even philosophically?

That's when you start to inject the accompanying theology and get your spirited debates.


I'm not sure what this has to do with anything. If we're still on the topic of intelligent design it's been smacked down every single time as rubbish under the judiciary system as it has no merit at all.

Which has been exactly my point. If it is that crap of an idea, you've got nothing to worry about. It's like a call to arms over a group of five people that want to rename green to blue.

[.Andy]

That's when you start to inject the accompanying theology and get your spirited debates.
But intelligent design doesn't evoke a god. Only a creator. There is no "accompanying theology". It's supposedly another entity all together. To recap then so everyone understands your thesis:
(1) intelligent design has no merit scientifically.
(2) intelligent design has no merit philosophically (unless you arbitrarily add on the other bits like a god ).

Not surprisingly as a young earth creationist (who literally believes in the ark story) you seem that you're having a lot of trouble distinguishing intelligent design from creationism. Not surprisingly given that they are exactly the same thing.

Which has been exactly my point. If it is that crap of an idea, you've got nothing to worry about. It's like a call to arms over a group of five people that want to rename green to blue.
Unfortunately there is plenty of scope to worry. Take Turkey for instance. Perhaps a few shades from the US but there is a push to ban books and websites (Dawkin's site is banned already) dealing with evolution that are opposed to religion.

Lets stop beating around the bush. Your motivation in defending intelligent design/creationism is the hope that it brings more people to christianity and the literal reading of the bible. Nothing more, nothing less. The ends justify the means - as long as people are exposed to your religion directly/indirectly, it doesn't matter how dishonestly it is achieved.

[iJohnHenry]

The problem seems to boil down to teaching one or the other is in conflict with the family's belief. So, they should both be dropped, and home schooling in the appropriate subject implemented.

Or, if deemed correct, send them to a Parochial school.

[CalBoy]

Do you really think teaching ID alongside evolution is going to indoctrinate anyone?

It doesn't matter if it does indoctrinate anyone because by its nature, it is intended to indoctrinate, which makes it a violation of the First Amendment, not to mention a basic violation of the purposes of education.


Everyone seems to be so confident the truth is clear yet afraid of indoctrination to the opposite.

What would the opposing indoctrination be exactly?

Science has repeatedly corrected itself when necessary, and more importantly, science doesn't seek to provide a manner of living one's life, but merely to provide explanations that can be used to further explore our universe.

This supposed indoctrination has produced revolutionary drugs that save lives, bacteria that can do anything from generating insulin to cleaning up oil spills, and a whole host of other feats that would have been impossible without an understanding of the "opposite indoctrination."

Tyranny of the majority is a risk we take in the will of the people.

Actually, we don't. That's why we have clearly enumerated rights. Not to mention the fact that science is not a matter of majorities, minorities, pluralities, etc, but rather a matter of facts and tangible evidence. That's what we should teach our posterity, and that's why ID doesn't belong in schools. Period. End of discussion.

Luckily, the judicial system should judge the argument based on its own merits, and ignore all the pandering, correct?

And thankfully it already has, but for some reason, the Religious Right can't seem to stop. :rolleyes:

Edwards v Aguillard (1987) (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=482&page=578)

[Kashchei]

Lets stop beating around the bush. Your motivation in defending intelligent design/creationism is the hope that it brings more people to christianity and the literal reading of the bible. Nothing more, nothing less. The ends justify the means - as long as people are exposed to your religion directly/indirectly, it doesn't matter how dishonestly it is achieved.
Brilliantly put. Kudos to you, sir.

[chrmjenkins]

But intelligent design doesn't evoke a god. Only a creator. There is no "accompanying theology". It's supposedly another entity all together. To recap then so everyone understands your thesis:
(1) intelligent design has no merit scientifically.
(2) intelligent design has no merit philosophically (unless you arbitrarily add on the other bits like a god ).

Not surprisingly as a young earth creationist (who literally believes in the ark story) you seem that you're having a lot of trouble distinguishing intelligent design from creationism. Not surprisingly given that they are exactly the same thing.

You couuld have asked, I would have told you so. ID is creationism stripped of the specifically religious parts. Also, how would it be an arbitrary addition when ID itself is creationism minus the theological additions???


Unfortunately there is plenty of scope to worry. Take Turkey for instance. Perhaps a few shades from the US but there is a push to ban books and websites (Dawkin's site is banned already) dealing with evolution that are opposed to religion.

Ok, so the US should be worried because Turkey is pushing to ban books? I can't remember the last time the US looked to follow a precedent set it that part of the world.


Lets stop beating around the bush. Your motivation in defending intelligent design/creationism is the hope that it brings more people to christianity and the literal reading of the bible. Nothing more, nothing less. The ends justify the means - as long as people are exposed to your religion directly/indirectly, it doesn't matter how dishonestly it is achieved.
Not even close. I don't advocate ID or creationism being taught in school. The only thing I would advocate is the whole story of the gospel to a person that is 1) receptive to at least listening and 2) not in a school/state etc. setting. Besides, my belief is that God reveals Himself to everyone, so there's no need to "dishonestly" push it in disguised form into the school system.

Let me be perfectly clear, I DO NOT advocate teaching ID in schools. Period, the end. So your Machiavellian argument is out the window.


It doesn't matter if it does indoctrinate anyone because by its nature, it is intended to indoctrinate, which makes it a violation of the First Amendment, not to mention a basic violation of the purposes of education.

Actually, I wouldn't say it is intended to indoctrinate because it can't. ID without the story of the Gospel is an empty box. In any event, it does not belong in the school in any capacity either because of 1) it is not science or 2) separation of Church & State.




This supposed indoctrination has produced revolutionary drugs that save lives, bacteria that can do anything from generating insulin to cleaning up oil spills, and a whole host of other feats that would have been impossible without an understanding of the "opposite indoctrination."


Yup, that's why no serious person disputes micro-evolution.

[jplan2008]

The problem seems to boil down to teaching one or the other is in conflict with the family's belief. So, they should both be dropped, and home schooling in the appropriate subject implemented.

Or, if deemed correct, send them to a Parochial school.

Stop teaching science in school? Stop teaching anything that might be at conflict with parents' religious beliefs? What would that achieve? We're talking about a lot of biology that is either related to evolution or in conflict with creationism. And most of geology. And social sciences. Etc. If schools want to discuss this "theory" in the context of social sciences, like the constitution, or current events, or religions, that's fine with me. But it's not science. And whatever that guy with the pdf says, no, most parents are not equipped to teach their children high school biology. And what about public universities? UCLA can't have a biology program? Geology? Etc? And this guy may have a PhD in chemistry with these beliefs, but what, we're going to say no one in public school can think about being a biologist? How is someone going to do anything in biology, geology, or other fields without learning the actual science?

[Iscariot]

Ok, so the US should be worried because Turkey is pushing to ban books? I can't remember the last time the US looked to follow a precedent set it that part of the world.

Sarah Palin.

Let me be perfectly clear, I DO NOT advocate teaching ID in schools. Period, the end. So your Machiavellian argument is out the window.

So then what are you arguing? Because this thread is about the Scientific Merit(s) of Intelligent Design, and thus it's inclusion in science classrooms. The only other argument I've heard is that we are not "respecting" other peoples beliefs, and I've already countered that rather handily. We have no reason to respect a belief whose core tenet is the complete usurpation of secularism within schools, a thinly disguised attempt at legitimizing fundamentalism.

[chrmjenkins]

Sarah Palin.

Things are a little different when you have to answer to more than 7k people. However, this is why we need to vote Obama ;)



So then what are you arguing? Because this thread is about the Scientific Merit(s) of Intelligent Design, and thus it's inclusion in science classrooms. The only other argument I've heard is that we are not "respecting" other peoples beliefs, and I've already countered that rather handily. We have no reason to respect a belief whose core tenet is the complete usurpation of secularism within schools, a thinly disguised attempt at legitimizing fundamentalism.

Well, if you properly read my initial post, you would know. I said people were not respecting others in the sense that they were calling them idiots, not that they weren't respecting their beliefs by letting them put them in schools. This is backed up by the fact I've repeatedly said I don't advocate ID in schools. So, unless you would like to dispute the intent of the creation of this thread or that some within questioned the intelligence of people that believe in creationism, then you have no dispute with what I've said.

[.Andy]

You couuld have asked, I would have told you so. ID is creationism stripped of the specifically religious parts
This might be your definition, but it certainly is not the mainstream that is trying to push it into schools as a viable scientific alternative to evolutionary theory which this thread is addressing.

It seems that you only really have a problem with this thread as it challenges your belief in creationism, sparked from the Mt St Helens comments. The absurdity of people that believe in the literal interpretation of the Noahs Ark is for another thread. Start one defending your flavour of creationism if you wish.

[Iscariot]

Well, if you properly read my initial post, you would know. I said people were not respecting others in the sense that they were calling them idiots, not that they weren't respecting their beliefs by letting them put them in schools. This is backed up by the fact I've repeatedly said I don't advocate ID in schools. So, unless you would like to dispute the intent of the creation of this thread or that some within questioned the intelligence of people that believe in creationism, then you have no dispute with what I've said.

I've covered that point twice now, so clearly I did indeed "properly" read your initial post. There is no reason to respect Intelligent Design, or it's proponents (and yes, an ID proponent is indeed an idiot, but I believe "liar" a more fitting charge). If you have an example of someone clearly not respecting a belief worthy of respect in this thread, then share it. Until then you're making allusions to something that is not at all clear, hence my use of a question.

[freeny]

All ID is, is a tactic to create a loophole through the law of separation of church and state, and bring the teaching of religion to public schools.

ID is not a science by definition and should not be taught in science class.
I see nothing wrong with offering Intelligent design/creationism or whatever you want to call it as an elective. Why this is not being pursued and the seriously flawed "ID is a science" IS, makes no sense to me... :confused:

[chrmjenkins]

This might be your definition, but it certainly is not the mainstream that is trying to push it into schools as a viable scientific alternative to evolutionary theory which this thread is addressing.

It seems that you only really have a problem with this thread as it challenges your belief in creationism, sparked from the Mt St Helens comments. The absurdity of people that believe in the literal interpretation of the Noahs Ark is for another thread. Start one defending your flavour of creationism if you wish.

Not even that, I just had a problem with the fact everyone seemed to think it was so cool to start a thread that was bashing people. That, and the liberal use of people calling others idiots what they choose to believe (and this is not even with respect as to whether or not they are trying to push something on someone). That's low and needs to be called out.

I've covered that point twice now, so clearly I did indeed "properly" read your initial post. There is no reason to respect Intelligent Design, or it's proponents (and yes, an ID proponent is indeed an idiot, but I believe "liar" a more fitting charge). If you have an example of someone clearly not respecting a belief worthy of respect in this thread, then share it. Until then you're making allusions to something that is not at all clear, hence my use of a question.

Ok, so you mean to be that blatantly offensive? Sorry for giving you the benefit of the doubt.

[zap2]

That, and the liberal use of people calling others idiots what they choose to believe (and this is not even with respect as to whether or not they are trying to push something on someone)


8% of the US population chooses to believe that Jesus's love is holding them to the earth, not gravity......guess what, I'm gonna mock that, its crazy talk!

Not all ideas are equal.....some back with fact, are worth talking about. Others based on religion have no place in a science class room.


I'm not telling you how to teach sunday school, etc...but in public schools or any other government support stuff keep that crazy talk out of science class rooms.

[.Andy]

Not even that, I just had a problem with the fact everyone seemed to think it was so cool to start a thread that was bashing people. That, and the liberal use of people calling others idiots what they choose to believe (and this is not even with respect as to whether or not they are trying to push something on someone). That's low and needs to be called out.
This is the culmination of the evolution of your argument? Playing the victim? That people don't treat your (or the intelligent design proponent's) non-scientific, non-logical, arbitrarily-chosen, literal bible-reading of the world with enough respect?

Again beliefs are worth nothing. And no matter how much you were taught at church beliefs most certainly don't automatically deserve respect (this is a common meme expediently pushed by most religions to escape scrutiny). Respect is something that is earned. I don't respect the beliefs of people that believe that AIDS is cured by sleeping with virgins, and I don't respect the belief of people that think the grand canyon was made over a few weeks by the great biblical flood. They are assertions without any evidence to back them up.

If you (or any creationist) wants to be taken seriously and be treated with respect then articulate your position. Back up your assertions with evidence and logic. You don't get a free kick due to the religious affiliation of your position. Challenging dogma and beliefs is essential part of a free society. Attempting to shut down scrutiny is as low as one gets.


edit: and a reminder that you're the only one that has used the word idiot (repeatedly) in this thread.

[Iscariot]

Ok, so you mean to be that blatantly offensive? Sorry for giving you the benefit of the doubt.

No, I meant it to be an honest question, which you returned with a snide remark.

Blatantly offensive is the denigration science in the name of God. Blatantly offensive is trying to usurp education for the purposes of religion. Blatantly offensive is the round condemnation of atheists, evolution and scientists. Blatantly offensive is the willingness to lie unabashedly to children all across the country. I see no reason to arbitrarily "respect" beliefs that exude nothing but contempt for the beliefs of others. Why should we "respect" something that is absolutely unwilling to extend this respect back to us? Your particular brand of religion may not include evangelizing to others and disrespecting every single other faith, but Intelligent Design, the topic of this thread and the recipient of our scorn absolutely does.

So I will ask you again. Where in this thread has someone shown disrespect for anything other than ID, it's proponents, and this particular brand of evangelical activity?

[SMM]

First of all, the reason creationists attack evolution, instead of focusing on what they believe, creation, is because evolution is the status quo. You don't go around saying something completely different from the status quo. Instead, you disprove the status quo, and if people listen to you, you THEN show them what you believe to be the alternative to the former status quo.



Beric - that is incredibly weak. If ID had merit, then it would be accepted and endorsed by those you call the 'status quo'. It is no more than the dogma of the judo-christian-islamic religions. Other world religions have a wide range of creation beliefs, some similar, many quite different. In fact, some are quite similar to the scientific views. So, even the religious do not necessarily believe in ID.

You act like there is a global scientific conspiracy to push 'evolution', even if knowing it is wrong. That is utter poppycock. Evolution is the result of observation, experiment, and relentless field work. When Darwin published his monumental work, it was immediately rejected by most of science, and emphatically by the Church(s). As it gained accepted by science, the traditional churches came to terms with it, realizing their beliefs and evolution could coexist. It is mainly just fundamentalists who continue to live in denial.

And, that is what you are doing. However, that is your right and I wish you the best. Now, you can talk until you are blue in the face, attempting to sell your fringe views. However, you cannot offer a better alternative, because you do not have one. You cannot simply attack evolution and think that scores a point for ID. It does not work that way. And, I repeat, if the supporters of ID cannot offer little more than the book of genesis, that is where the debate ends - "I believe".

[hulugu]

Correct, so students would easily be able to tell which is correct, and eventually, the other would likely be scrapped because of lack of reception, I imagine. Just like we should scrap abstinence-only education because of poor response.

Evolution is currently the best science-based argument. Teach that, or just skip the subject (my school did the latter mostly). However, I elected not to take the second biology in favor of chemistry and physics, so I can't say if it was included there or not.



Ok, but by the separation of Church and State, no explicit religious references would be tolerated. Basically, you'd have a gutted theory. ...

That's when you start to inject the accompanying theology and get your spirited debates.




Which has been exactly my point. If it is that crap of an idea, you've got nothing to worry about. It's like a call to arms over a group of five people that want to rename green to blue.

You couuld have asked, I would have told you so. ID is creationism stripped of the specifically religious parts. ...

Yup, that's why no serious person disputes micro-evolution.

Why bother then? Why spend valuable time in a science classroom talking about a theory that is "gutted" without its religious references, that disputes an idea that no serious person should, and that is going to be scrapped the minute it gets started?

What value does ID have? At the same time, what are we risking? Well, we're risking confusing students on the meaning of theory and "wild-assed guess."



All ID is, is a tactic to create a loophole through the law of separation of church and state, and bring the teaching of religion to public schools....

Not only that, I think it's about breaking down science. The ID proponents don't seem to understand that popular myths, that cannot be disproven, are not scientific theories.

[Kashchei]

Ok, so the US should be worried because Turkey is pushing to ban books? I can't remember the last time the US looked to follow a precedent set it that part of the world

This is the sort of retort that the GOP usually comes up with. It is honed to appeal to their own kind (pithy, in this case xenophobic, seemingly well-versed in history while actually being quite closed-minded to it), which is a miscalculation here since this is an open debate. Every time you write down a number or drink coffee, you have "that part of the world" to thank. The only way to ignore these facts is to either pretend they don't exist or to be ignorant of them. Which are you, chrmjenkins?

[BigHungry04]

8% of the US population chooses to believe that Jesus's love is holding them to the earth, not gravity......guess what, I'm gonna mock that, its crazy talk!

So that's how gravity works! :)

I can't believe that 8% of my fellow countrymen are that stupid. Maybe it only includes the state of Kentucky and that idiot on The View who believes that the Earth is flat.

[Kashchei]

A propos of absolutely nothing, there is an interesting article (http://www.salon.com/env/mind_reader/2008/09/22/voter_choice/) in Salon.com dealing with the futility of trying to convince stupid people with facts that contradict their deeply-held position.

Here's a picture, again a propos of absolutely nothing (certainly not American politics!)