evolution does not explain the origin of the universe

[skjpm]

While evolution is a credible scientific theory, it's range is limited, and some of the controversy about evolution is more about extending its range beyond its limits. Evolution does not explain the origin of the universe; evolution does not explain how life comes from non-life; nor does it, title to the contrary, explain the origin of species. All it says is that given an already existing species (that is, a group of animals that can reproduce with each other), some of the offspring will have variations which give them a better chance for survival. These offspring will then produce offspring with similar traits.

And the theory stops there.

There is no evidence that after a certain amount of variations, a new species is born, that is, an offspring which cannot reproduce with relatives of its parents. The theory begins after the species has come into existance.

Therefore, Intelligent Design, as much as it is maligned, seems just as good a hypothesis for those things which evolution does not cover--i.e., the origin of the universe, the origin of life, and, with the addition of the "anthropic principle," a phenomenon widely discussed by such authors as Paul Davies, the apparent calibration of the universe to produce consciousness.

I, a lifelong Democrat, liberal, and Christian, see Intelligent Design, as a basis for my most cherished values--because I believe the universe is created, I believe we are stewards of creation--therefore I oppose such things as drilling in Alaska, and I affirm environmental protection. My basis for these values may be different from my fellow Democrats, but there is no reason to malign me or my position, since I come out on your side.

Where we differ is that I don't mind the discussion of Intelligent Design as part of education--you can talk about Newton, Jefferson, Aristotle, Kant, Einstein, and any number of great thinkers who share this belief. I suspect that the Methodist Hillary Clinton believes in some form of Intelligent Design--so why be afraid of discussing it? It might be a way to talk about Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Native American beliefs, Wicca, as well as Christianity and how there are different approaches to the very philosophical question, "Why not nothing?"

I would prefer no flames. Again, my goal is to open up the Democratic party to a wider diversity of opinions.

[ComerPerro]

1. Intelligent Design doesn't either

I mean, shall we teach our kids that if we don't know something, we should just assume God did it?

[skjpm]

9. Well, why not?

Why can't we admit limits to science? Why can't we discuss the unknowable? How is the language of quantum mechanics any less poetic than the Epic of Gilgamesh? Just because you name something a "quark" doesn't mean you know anything about it. Why not just admit it?

[datasuspect]

15. ummm

in case you missed the memo REAL science is predicated on the understanding that WE don't know what everything means or is.

science seeks to uncover that knowledge.

[Zenlitened]

275. self-delete

Responded the wrong post -- sorry 'bout that! :)

[Walt Starr]

Because ID si not science

teach it as literature or mythology, but science it ain't.

[Stirk]

23. That's why we have literature, philosophy, art, etc.

Science doesn't deal in faith and poetry.

[arcane1]

35. then you'd have to explain the origin of the designer

and detail how his magic wand works

science isn't about knowing everything, it's about finding things out

[blondeatlast]

307. Ideally, so is religion. When one thinks of it this way, they can co-exist

for most people. But too many approach religion from the standpoint of knowing the answer, or it being THE answer.

There's a reason the greatest religious leaders are considered philosphers, but you can't make the ID crowd buy that.

I suspect if I had THE answer to one or both, I wouldn't be as content as I am. The pursuit is what makes me happy.

[trotsky]

41. "God of the gaps"

That's basically what you're relegating your god to.

If science can't fully explain it - yet - then "Goddidit."

Problem is, what if science DOES then explain it. Well, your god shrinks. He's now smaller, because there's one less phenomenon that you need to invoke him to explain.

Just as people used to think that disease was caused by demons, that Zeus threw lightning bolts when he got mad, etc.

[ultraist]

142. LMAO!!! "The devil made me do it"

The tsunami WAS CAUSED BY AN ANGRY GOD! It was another sign of revelations! You blasphemous pagan, you!

[Vladimir]

43. I know a lot about quarks

ask away

[datasuspect]

60. ***crickets***

i like the cut of your jib!

[Blue_In_AK]

103. Vladimir, quark man, did you know my high school friend

Nathan Isgur who did tons of work on quarks?

[Vladimir]

126. Sadly not

Somewhat before my time, and his work was not directly in my area of research (CKM matrix and exotic meson CP violating decays).

[Blue_In_AK]

135. Yes, sadly....

He was a wonderful person, absolutely brilliant. One thing I admire about him most is that he fled to Canada rather than support the Vietnam War. He died just a few years ago and left a hole in my heart, even though I hadn't seen him since 1968.

[skjpm]

Do they exist? Can they be measured? nt

[DrWeird]

118. Yes, to both.

Decades ago.

C'mon people, scientific literacy is a virtue.

It always surprises me how people who know so little about science want to decide what's taught in science class.

[skjpm]

151. No, you're simply wrong, quarks don't exist

They defy our understanding of existance. They have no mass, and they have no location. We have absolutely no idea what the word "quark" refers to, except that it can be described with an equation. There is no laboratory test for a quark, and there never will be. Please look at Feynman and Penrose for further info.

[wug37]

160. Quarks do exist

Read about them here
http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/theory/quarks.html

It explains how they are observed and measured.

[skjpm]

182. They are not observed or measured

There is no direct evidence of quarks. They have not been seen or measured--activity which could possibly be explained by quarks has been seen, but no quarks. Look at your link carefully.

[wug37]

198. From the page you wanted me to 'read carefully'

The accumulation of many such results, where experiments match predictions based on quarks, convinces us that quarks are real.

Perhaps you should read the link carefully.

[skjpm]

244. So, they haven't actually seen a quark, have they? nt

[DrWeird]

247. You mean with their own eyes?

No, but than again, we can't see viruses either, should we question the existence of them too?

[datasuspect]

250. funny, i never saw god with my own eyes

how can i know he exists?

[Kathy in Cambridge]

259. Good job-using the OPs argument

I have a feeling there won't be any response. ;-)

[skjpm]

264. I'm only asking that American students be able to freely discuss possiblit

ies--went on a little long there. Proof is not an issue in this particular discussion.

[AZCat]

269. That isn't the purpose of ID at all

Whatever terms you may try to couch it in, ID's ultimate purpose is to get a particular version of reality shoehorned into the education system.

[datasuspect]

270. they do that in college

much education centers around learning the basics.

we shouldn't use public education as a religion factory.

[wug37]

265. I was going to counter with gravity

But your's does just fine. Thanks for the backup.

[blondeatlast]

316. And no one's seen God, either, but I believe He exists in some form.

Many viruses remain undiscovered, too.

[Zenlitened]

239. They have indeed been "seen" and measured.

The Fermilab website has some good information on how particle accelerators and detectors work:

http://www.fnal.gov/pub/inquiring/physics/collider/more.html

Also has a link to a sort of slide-show, explaining it all in a way that doesn't require an advanced degree. I definitely recommend it to anyone who wishes to learn a little more about how science explores the world of the sub-atomic:

http://www-ed.fnal.gov/projects/exhibits/searching/exhibit_home1.html

[sans qualia]

167. Well if you want to get all quantum about it...

Yes, it's true that you can't easily apply ideas like "location" to objects at the quantum level; but that does not mean that quantum particles do not exist. Existence is not predicated on adherence to the laws of classical physics.

[skjpm]

187. So a dragon can not be anywhere and still exist?

If a quark doesn't have to be anywhere, why does a dragon? My point is, that all language about the unknown is ultimately mythical.

[DrWeird]

202. A quark can have a position, that's fine.

It's just that the more you know of a quark's position, the more uncertain the quark's momentum becomes.

Again, you've got a serious misunderstanding of Heisenburg's Uncertainty Principle.

And to say the HUP or QM is mythical, is to be intellectually dishonest.

[sans qualia]

208. Sure, if a dragon is a quantum particle

Look, I'm not going to be able to give you a satisfactory explanation, because as far as I know, no one's yet managed to reconcile quantum mechanics and general relativity. But I do know that the fact that it hasn't been done does not imply that it can't or won't be, and I believe that it can and will. If you want to call that "faith," then at least it is faith grounded in reason.

[Name removed]

183. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[skjpm]

189. it's fun to call people ignorant, isn't it?

That's so much simpler than listening.

[DrWeird]

195. If you're going to post scientifically false mumbo jumbo...

I'm going to point out that it's wrong.

If you don't want me to do that, make sure you get your information straight before posting.

[ultraist]

205. Democrats support and encourage education

It's the Repukes that are anti-intellectual.

[The Stranger]

214. People have seen evidence that quarks exist -- not the case with dragons.

No one has ever seen dragon scales, felt dragon wing beats, blown fire, or shadows of dragons. It cannot be predicted where dragons will be, or that they have ever been.

[RapidCreek]

201. Gee, let's take your post and change the word Quark to God.

and, of course, remove the portion "except that it can be described with an equation".

RC

[blondeatlast]

319. Precisely. Thank you. nt

[blondeatlast]

313. By your definition, then, let's stop talking about God.

Look, I'm a Christian, but I'll point out logical problems anytime I see them. Of course I have no proof God exists, that's why it's called faith. I have the same faith that quarks exist.

The pursuit of ANY knowledge is a virtue.

[Vladimir]

148. In the sense that anything else exists, then yes of course

They can be measured in much the same way that one might measure the dimensions of a car, although with much more sophisticated technology. The reason for this is simple - to conduct a measurement, one needs an energy which depends inversely on the scale one is trying to probe down to. Loosely speaking, the smaller the thing you want to see, the more energetic the probe must be - this is why when optical instruments fail us we switch to the electron miscroscope, or X-ray crystallography. This process carried onwards gets us to the accelerators of today, where protons are smashed into each other to briefly probe down to the quark scale. As to measured, look at:

pdg.lbl.gov

for a very very comprehensive review...

[skjpm]

159. Umm--no, they can't

You are completely misreading what this experiment shows. I know how these electron microscopes work, and while they can point to phenomena which may be the result of quark activity, they really have no clue. I can point to phenomena which may be the result of dragon activity--can I now say dragons exist?

[trotsky]

164. If it cannot reasonably be explained by any phenomena OTHER than dragons,

then yes.

[Vladimir]

185. If I was trying to measure quarks with an electron microscope, it

would indeed be a vain effort - I was trying to explain how one measures things (not only quarks) which cannot be seen with the naked eye, but there you go. We are, after all, a very crude (and self-conscious) measuring device, us humans. For popular benefit, here is a snippet of what we know about the bottom quark (my thesis topic):

Mass = between 8.3 and 8.9 * 10^-27 kilograms

Electric Charge = -(1/3)e (i.e. one third of the proton charge)

Parity = positive

Spin = 1/2

Now I am afraid I must leave you to ponder on this, as work calls.

on edit: I might add that one very key difference between a quark and a dragon is as follows: there has never been a need to invoke a dragon (as defined in most mythology) to explain anything. Of course, if you wish to call the next particle which physics discovers a dragon, that is your choice...

[blondeatlast]

321. "I can point to phenomena which may be the result of dragon activity"

Do tell.

[ComerPerro]

49. Because, religion cannot stand up to scrutiny

Which is pretty much why it never has to.

There is no merit whatsoever to creationism or intelligent design.

Just because a bunch of people chose to believe something doesn't make it a valid argument.

[TWiley]

223. That is why you must "accept it on faith alone"

That is "scientific" church lingo for "this is pure bullshit, but you must believe it without proof, and in spite of contrary proof, or you will burn in HELL"

[sans qualia]

Um, we can...

Science concerns itself with what can be empirically observed. All other truths are within the realm of philosophy and mathematics. Trying to account for unexplained but observable phenomena (what you disingenuously refer to as "the unknowable") doesn't imply the belief that all truths are subject to scientific inquiry. That's the view of scientism, not of most scientists.

[xpat]

101. Science vs. flummery

The difference between the Epic of Gilgamesh and quantum mechanics is that you can use the latter, poetic as it may be, to make accurate, reproducible predictions about how the material world operates. That distinguishes science from flummery.

[Ediacara]

405. microevolution and macroevolution have been observed in human lifetimes

(I am using the terms as defined by Stanley 1979, where microevolution is genetic drift within a species and macroevolution is speciation and/or stepwise evolution.)

Both have been observed IN HUMAN LIFETIMES and there's literally mountains of information demonstrating that point. And it's not just unicellular organisms or viruses (although that's the bulk of it), nor is it blasting Drosophila with X-rays, but real damned field work in human lifetimes studying the same lineage of multicellular organisms.

And don't get me started on the fossil record....

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Book Lover]

22. Very easy

I have my eyes open.

[ultraist]

25. The wonders of NATURE, that's how

[Griffy]

98. Its in the words.. GOD vs NATURE... or is it GOD=NATURE ? nt

[datasuspect]

30. lack of an explanation

does not mean GOD is the explanation.

sorry.

can i have my language back please?

[9119495]

Did you mean the work of the gods? Is there really just one? What

is she like?

I don't mean to flame. BELIEVE what you like. Allow science to bring us the knowledge, even if it is conditional.

[AZCat]

36. Only one?

Cthulhu is gonna be pissed when Cthulhu wakes up...

[vi5]

32. Very easily......

..there are plenty of things I don't understand. Doesn't mean there's not an explanation for them, just that I don't understand them. If I were to attribute everything I didn't understand to god that would be absurd.

If someone has studied and absorbed every aspect of science and scientific theory and fully understands it and still wants to believe in a god then more power to them. But simply being too lazy to look into things from a factual and scientific standpoint and then expecting everyone else to adopt that stance takes a lot of nerve.

[arcane1]

39. which god would that be?

:shrug:

on edit- evolution has NOTHING to do with cosmology, never has, never will... you're creating a strawman

[Stirk]

56. How can anyone look at the stars and NOT see the

giant, striped chicken that created it all? I mean really!

[Stirk]

64. Oops-

double post

[RetroLounge]

71. Easy, besides having my eyes open, I have a brain too...

RL

[ComerPerro]

73. See, this is the kind of bullshit that makes me sick

Look, you want the truth about the universe?

Here it is, all laid out nice and simple.

The universe was created last weekend in the dormroom of a guy named Steve. Since Steve has infinite power and knowledge, he had no trouble accomplishing this task over the weekend. In fact, he even went to a house party Saturday night.

With the universe, he created the illusion of thousands of years of history. So even though you think that you have been living on this earth for years now, and that there were millions of people before you, the truth is that none of this existed before last weekend before Steve created it.

Trust me, this is all possible through the power and wisdom that is Steve.

And how do I know this? Steve himself told me, and I am here to spread the word to you.


How is that theory any different than intelligent design?


And, by the way, to address your "briliant" question:

Ok, into what is the Universe expanding?

I dunno. Probably the same stuff that was there berfore God created the Universe.

What was here before God created the Universe, by the way? Surely intelligent design addresses this.

And, where did God come from? Has he always existed? And, if so, where did he reside before he created the Universe?

I expect complete and accurate answers to each of these questions, since intelligent design apparently has all the answers and covers all the bases.

[BlueEyedSon]

80. Ummm.... Steve here. Chill out dude!

:)

[ComerPerro]

84. You're not Steve

Steve told me to reject you and your sinful ideas.

;)

[BlueEyedSon]

111. We are ALL Steve. I know this to be true, a priori.

[Emboldened Chimp]

331. No, I'm Steve!

[BlueEyedSon]

75. Your understanding of cosmology AND religion are both poor.

[sans qualia]

85. Way to argue from incredulity

I look up into the billions upon billions of stars in the sky and I see the incalculable and immaculately perfect work of the laws of nature, not of God. That doesn't make the night sky any less magnificent.

[DrWeird]

121. I see the work of a moderator

in your profile.

[ProfessorGAC]

181. Unbrilliant

Why can't one be in wonder over the vastness of the universe and the multitude of stars just because they're there. What does God have to do with being in awe of the scope?
The Professor

[ultraist]

210. That's pretty much what Einstein said too. n/t

[Stuckinthebush]

192. That is sort of how my five year old looks at things too

Wow! It must be god 'cause I can't figure it out, Daddy!

[blondeatlast]

326. I can no longer see you, either, but I know you once "graced" DU.

But not for long...

[Book Lover]

2. Evolution is not *supposed to* explain the origin of the universe

Why on earth would it be otherwise?

[Klapaucius]

69. Exactly.....

Evolution does not bear any relation to the origin of the universe. That's cosmology, evolution is biology. I think what they're after is the concept of abiogenesis, which is another field that's being researched. I don't know much about it, so I will not presume to be an authority on the subject.

Most YEC's ( Young Earth Creationists) and ID ( Intelligent Design) folks take a line that essentially says that nothing living can come from something that's not living. I seem to recall reading in passing something about research being done with organic compounds being created in clay beds, as being a possible origin. What I have the biggest problem with is their application of the second law of thermodynamics. What they fail to see is that Earth is not a closed system, and it receives energy from the sun, so, there can be local reversals of entropy, possibly giving rise to life.

But hey, it's not my specialty. I'm just a computer nerd with a biologist brother.

K.

[Selteri]

107. So far in science

scientists have been able to make a living cell from nothing but the building blocks, they just coulnd't figure out how to make it do anything.

[Book Lover]

122. Link or article?

Sounds fascinating - do you recall where you head that?

[Justin54B20L]

156. Ever hear of Miller-Urey experiment?

http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiology/miller.html

[Book Lover]

Not labelled as such

Thanks for the link. I'll be reading this and more after work!

[mhr]

3. What Is Your Point - No One Ever Said That Evolution Explains

The origin of the universe.

[skjpm]

12. So, what's wrong with discussing Intelligent Design in school?

That's my point. I support discussing Intelligent Design as a vital part of education.

[datasuspect]

19. because it is religion

and has as much validity as teaching children that the world is flat.

and because it is not science.

[ultraist]

21. Well...because we have a Constitution

that forbids "nationalizing religion" and promotes "separation of church and state."

That's why we do not teach "Christian" beliefs as if they were Science. Why should we confound religion with Science? Would we dream of blurring the lines between math and religion?

[vi5]

38. If you mean in literature or philosophy class then fine...

..if you mean science class well then:
It's
Still
Not
Science

[Salviati]

40. What's wrong with it?

what's wrong with it is that it is not science. It belongs in the science classroom no more than astrology does.

[9119495]

42. It's not practical

There are THOUSANDS of creation stories. To teach a Christian ID while neglecting the others would be a joke. To research, understand, and evaluate all of them would be not possible in a school curriculum without excluding other more important and informative subjects.

[blondeatlast]

334. An EXCELLENT point. I oppose teaching ID, I'm a Christian,

and I'm sick to death of wingnut CHRISTIAN philosophy being foisted into the mainstream and down my son's (who is also the child of a lapsed Hindu--you want a creation story--it's far more interesting!) throat.

I don't want even mainstream Christianity foisted into the public arena, much less wingnut philosophy.

[BBradley]

45. Teaching Intelligent Design is a vital part of education?

Whatever. Do you think kids don't know that some people believe that God or an intelligent creator made the universe? You teach evolution because it's a theory that requires some explanation. You teach science because it requires explanation. You do not need to teach children that some people believe that the universe was created by a god. Do you also teach kids that some people believe that they don't need to go to the hospital because an Intelligent Creator will provide for them? It certainly is a theory.

How about this, we teach evolution because the idea that it is expressing is both agreed upon widely by experts in the field, and it requires explanation and example. Saying that God created everything doesn't require any explanation. It explains itself. If you spend anymore than 5 seconds lingering on the subject you cease to teach and you begin to preach.

[Just Me]

50. Are you advocating intertwining religion and government?

Why can't "Intelligent Design" be taught in church where it belongs?

Why push it onto a society that's supposed to be a melting pot of beliefs? Why not keep religious beliefs out of the shared pot and leave them unto their own space?

[Stirk]

67. Then send your kids to religious schools.

And read up on the scientific method while your at it. "Intelligent Design" is faith wrapped in jargon, and you know it. It has no place in a science class.

[RetroLounge]

76. Sure, discuss it in the appropriate class

Myth and Mythology 101

or

Wacky Fundy Propaganda 201

RL

[ComerPerro]

77. Everything

Intelligent Design is just like creationism.

Its completely baseless.

The only shred of "evidence" for either argument is the Bible.

And, that alone should tell you why Intelligent Design doesn't belong in schools.

[BlueEyedSon]

92. You can in a parochial school.

In fact, every religion can teach their own creation myth(s) in their parochial schools.

[Sinistrous]

108. Yes, ID should be discussed in schools,

as an object lesson on how religious superstition and dogma can and do hijack the language of science.

edit: grammar

[Selteri]

115. It isn't science, it's religion. If you want it taught, offer it in a

philosophy class.

I personally suspect that there are leaps of evolution that suggest a form of intelligent design, AKA the aliens altered our DNA, including making us believe in higher beings to make us easier to control.

The argument is that you can't force science to teach something without evidence. That's what all the other brainwashing classes are for like history, philosophy, english, psychology and such.

[datasuspect]

119. that's an insult to philosophy!

[Selteri]

137. What isn't it an insult to...

Philosophy or the other religions of the world that do not believe we came into being other than in a lush garden where people wore fig leaves.

[datasuspect]

147. philosophy ain't religion n/t

[Coastie for Truth]

141. ID is an admission, a statement of fear, and a statement of hope

ID is an admission that "I personally do not know everything that there is to know."

ID is a statement of fear that "There is so much to read and so much to learn and so much to discuss and so much to ponder, that I just throw my hands up."

In some way ID is a statement of hope, that maybe I may have the time to read, and learn, and discuss, and ponder.

ID is like an onion -- or a Faberge figurine. As you go through each layer you learn more -- and see that ID was like a lesson plan to study these questions of evolutionary biology and paleontology.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

it's mythology pure and simple. and I don't want my tax $$ paying for it.

The science and math scores of American children lag behind the rest of the civilized world, and adding myth to cloud science is a disservice. I'm from Massachusetts, and went to Catholic school. Religion is taught in religion class. Mythology is taught in Western Civilization or Classics classes. And Evolution is taught in biology classes.

[GiovanniC]

4. Evolution Doesn't Explain Where My Car Keys Are Either

And I cannot find them, therefore evolution is wrong and God created the world in six days, amen.

[RetroLounge]

82. ROTFLMAO

:hi:

RL

[skjpm]

117. it's fun to laugh at people you disagree with, isn't it?

I bet you love all those off-the-cuff remarks Bush makes about his opponents. They're so clever.

[RetroLounge]

221. Chill out Francis, it was a funny post...

If you're not careful god is going to give you an ulcer...

(You wanna post your myths, be prepared to be laughed at...)

RL

[GiovanniC]

240. Hey, I Was AGREEING With You

I think it's fairly evident that if evolution does not FULLY EXPLAIN every single thing in this entire universe, then it MUST be completely and totally FALSE, which then PROVES that Intelligent Design is correct, which then PROVES that there is a God, who created the world in six days. Amen.

I don't see how anyone can poke holes in this irrefutable logic, and I know you agree.

[ProfessorGAC]

274. That's Funny Stuff GiovanniC!

You really lightened up this otherwise tedious thread.

Thanks
The Professor

[Richardo]

5. That's all well and good - but don't teach ID as science...

...'cause it's not.

...and to my knowledge evolution is NOT taught as a theory of the origin of the unitverse. It better not be - it has nothing to do with cosmology.

PS: I'm a liberal Catholic who believes in the strength and integrity of the scientific method.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

6. "Intelligent Design" and "Creation" don't explain it either.

[unblock]

33. ding ding ding ding ding!

a MAJOR point i've long been making regarding such debates.
it's one thing to go into what the scientific theories do and do not explain.

it's another thing entirely to just throw up your hands and claim that "god did it" has ANY explanatory power whatsoever.

the claim that "god did it" answers any questions at all is, in fact, just another way of saying "shut up, quit asking questions, and be satisfied with not knowing."

now, if you want to say "god did it, and here's how", well then you've got something to talk about. but so-called intelligent design proponents (i.e., creationists) rarely if show any interest in such discussions.

[datasuspect]

55. that is a damn good point n/t

[skjpm]

109. No one is saying "God did it"

"the claim that "god did it" answers any questions at all is, in fact, just another way of saying "shut up, quit asking questions, and be satisfied with not knowing."

That's just a complete misrepresentation of Intelligent Design. I'm not talking about "God of the Gaps". Did Newton stop asking questions? Tillich? Tolkien?

[Zenlitened]

123. "That's just a complete misrepresentation of Intelligent Design."

Perhaps you could explain it to us then?

[skjpm]

171. Read the Upanishads. Read the Tao Te Ching. Read Emerson's Nature.

Read The Horse And His Boy by C. S. Lewis. Read the Silmarillion by Tolkien. Read the Principia by Newton. Read Ideas and Opinions by Einstein. Read The Fabric of the Cosmos by Brian Greene.

Then you'll have some idea about Intelligent Design.

[datasuspect]

176. and an idea about good LITERATURE

have you read these books or did you cop a bibliography from a right-wing ID site?

[Name removed]

196. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[datasuspect]

204. it's easy

when other people make it easy.

sorry.

i don't know if gannon did much "debating" as he did "whoring."

[Name removed]

207. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[datasuspect]

234. not clever

just truthful.

i don't get ann coulter, do you?

[Name removed]

243. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Walt Starr]

191. Like we've been saying, teach ID in literature or mythology classes

I've seen no objection to that. We simply object to teaching it as science.

[Zenlitened]

231. I've read several of these, and see beautiful poetry in some instances...

... thought-provoking allegory in others... and, in the case of The Principia and other books on the sciences, some informed and insightful essays by accomplished science.

But... nothing that suggests ID should be taught in science class.

Perhaps you could give me an example from one or more of these works that elevates ID beyond the level of musing on possibilities, and places it squarely in the realm of science?


(edited HTML)

[PROGRESSIVE1]

178. ding, ding, ding!

Right again unblock! :kick:

By saying "God made it!" is just another way of saying "shut up" is exactly right!

The reality is no one knows where the Universe came from. It is unknown.

[physioex]

7. This is the party of diversity of opinions....

I don't think anyone here wants to trample on anyones beliefs. As a matter of fact we encourage all different beliefs. Just don't try and force anything down anyone elses throat.

[vi5]

8. Intelligent design has no roots in science though....

to put it on the same level as something like evolution is absurd. One is an article of faith the other is an article of science. It's irellevent whether they both address the same point or not. One is a theory ecompass a set of irrefutable facts. The other is something that is completely taken on faith.

If you want to talk about intelligent design in philosophy or religion classes then that is fine (last I checked public schools steer away from that stuff).

But I believe the position of the democratic party, progressives, and liberals is not that there is no god, or not that intelligent design doesn't exist, just that it's nowhere even near a scientific theory.

[LiberallyInclined]

and religion does not explain the origin of a god.

"he always was..." just doesn't cut it.

[democracyindanger]

10. evolution does not explain why Pringles are so damn good

[GodlessBiker]

20. "Better living through chemistry" explains that one.

[datasuspect]

11. just what the democratic party needs

you said: "my goal is to open up the Democratic party to a wider diversity of opinions."

i guess the Democratic party has been sorely lacking in christian fundamentalism lately.

boy we NEED more of that!

[skjpm]

18. Jefferson, founder of our party, wasn't a Fundamentalist

Intelligent Design is a way to discuss a wide variety of different approaches to questions science doesn't have the means to answer. So, why not teach it?

[datasuspect]

26. I.D. is a way

to proselytize and evangelize.

it is not about open mindedness, it is not about different approaches, it is not about diversity.

sorry, it is about fundamentalist christianity and the culture war and the attempts of the religious right to insinuate itself into every aspect of the american life.

sorry again, you don't get to hijack the language this time.

[skjpm]

54. So, I can't be a Democrat and support Intelligent Design?

And no matter how many historical figures I look at, I'm always a wacky fundamentalist? I don't want to be a member of a party where I am simply tolerated--I want to be welcomed, because my beliefs lead me to support traditionally Democratic causes, such as the environment.

[vi5]

59. Who said you can't be a democrat?

You can be a democrat and believe in whatever you want. But you can't not believe in separation of church and state.

And teaching a religious theory in the classroom is violating separation of church and state.

[datasuspect]

86. you can represent yourself as whatever

but when you advocate teaching the subterfuge of ID as an equivalent of good science (and under the rubric of public education), you infringe on my right to be free FROM RELIGION.

[DrWeird]

251. IMHO? No, not a good one.

Democrats are supposed to be intelligent, well read, and open minded.

But that's just my opinion.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

276. I'm a Democrat and homosexuality as a legitimate existance isn't taught

in the class room..should I pick up my jacks and leave too?

We teach fairy tales in literature class. We teach evolution in biology. We teach multiplication in math class.

If you want to support the arts in public schools again, I would gladly consider teaching Intelligent Design in FUNDAMENTALIST FOLKLORE CLASS

[Griffy]

127. Because its speculation! try to understand that.... fact vs faith!

with modern science like carbon dating we can gather FACTS that I'm sorry to say, go against what you were told.. the world IS round and it IS millions of years old we DID have ancestors like were like apes and we ARE very close to apes. (Gravity is a theory too) NOW.. if you go to a philosophy or theology class, were the student know that they are not dealing with fact, but ideas, thats great, its not the discussion we oppose.. it the "science" label that degrades REAL science. Its like Gannon and real journalism, if you cant see that difference you need more help than we can provide.

[DrWeird]

129. Jefferson raped his slaves.

And "Intelligent Design" is just a subset of "Scientific Creationism" and inherently dishonest.

If Jefferson were alive today he'd be calling it bullshit too.

[Selteri]

161. Look at Jefferson.

He taught that the lessons of the bible were good but didn't give a bit of credence to the miracles.

Now we have a huge argument on here because someone here posted they want ID in science class..


if that's the case, then I want them to also teach the beliefs of shintoists, dieists, bhuddists, alienists, Native American religions and every other one I didn't list. Hell, why teach science, they'll be learning so many other ways humans were made and developed without any nasty work and proof needed.

[ultraist]

34. DAMN those Democrats for respecting the Constitution!

[datasuspect]

44. yep - MORE JAYZUS!!!!!

all jayzus, all the time!

ask us about our language-hijacking special.

[skjpm]

65. Or Allah, or Krishna, or the Horned God, or Nirvana

These are all terms people use in the discussion of Intelligent Design.

[DrWeird]

263. No, people who support "Intelligent Design"

are pretty much only discussing the literal interpretation of the King James Version of the Bible.

And American, and protestant to boot.

[blondeatlast]

350. Yep, the Europeans with agendas just LOVE to whore out

ohter cultures to make their weak points.

Lots of Creation theories, which one do you want taught?

As if I can't guess--only one religion uses the phrase "intelligent design." :eyes:

[skjpm]

58. I don't see your point

I don't think the Constitution addresses the issue of teaching Intelligent Design, or the free discussion of both religious and scientific topics in the classroom--where do you see that?

[datasuspect]

91. UMMM - the first amendment

to the constitution of the united states?

[skjpm]

125. Exactly how does that apply to teaching Intelligent Design?

This country's education system was set up by Puritans, and the great schools started out as religious schools while the Consitution was in effect. I believe some of the writers of the Constitution went to public schools where religion was discussed. So, what's your point?

[datasuspect]

146. i can't believe i'm doing this

for the one millionth time:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

the first part is germane because the state can have no viewpoint, pro or con, as it concerns religion. although you are free to practice your version of religion free from governmental influence.

IT DOES NOT MEAN

that christian fundamentalism is the de facto state religion because some protestant whackjobs got kicked out of britain for being so damn obtuse.

regardless of precedent cultural and religious factors, the CONSTITUTION is the primary document that establishes the body of laws in this country.

what you present is anecdote and wishful thinking. an attempt to conform facts to your particular worldview and set of assumptions and presuppositions about the world.

IT STILL DOES NOT MAKE IT TRUE NO MATTER HOW FERVENTLY YOU BELIEVE IT, NOR DOES THAT MAKE IT LAW.

that's my point.

[Name removed]

213. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[datasuspect]

248. Dewey and J.S. Mill

have relatively little to do with the administration of the laws of this country.

and i have read them. they aren't really germane (maybe tangentially if you try to force reality into a narrow worldview) to the discussion of the first amendment protections against government sponsored religion.

[skjpm]

253. They are the geniuses of American Education

so I think their ideas are pretty darn germane. Toss in Mortimer Adler as well.

[datasuspect]

254. like i said . . .

don't parse much do you?

anyway, they can be germane in a tangential way with people who try to conform reality to their worldview.

does any of this register?

[Griffy]

145. as long as the school is public... then the government is involved..

and so no religion in the school... this doesnt make sense to you because you base your world on religion, not reality. The rest of us can see the world as it is and wonder and discuss the existance of god in whatever form.. but the FACTS of the world should do be DISTORTED by religous dogma! I dont want my children taught unproven junk science like the Grand Canyon was created by ANYTHING other than millions of years of erosion.. BECAUSE THATS WHAT HAPPENED, FACT!

[blondeatlast]

346. We're apparently lacking in the "diversity of opinions" department, too.

Yeah, DU certainly demonstrates that the Democrats march in lock step... :eyes:

[ultraist]

13. I don't credit fairy tales for everything Science has yet to discover

Thanks, but no thanks. If you choose to believe that a great "Father" in the sky who sits on a "white throne" at the pearly gates created humans and all life, go right ahead.

But, don't expect my tax dollars to fund teaching your religious beliefs in our public schools.

[skjpm]

27. Then you believe in "quarks" and "strange attractors"?

Sounds like the language of fairy tales to me. Why is a quark real and a dragon a myth? Both are words which attempt to talk about a reality not measurable, and not visible to the eye. Your myth works for you--but don't pretend it's somehow better.

[wug37]

57. Ummm... dragons don't exist

A quark is talking about the basic sub-atomic particles, something not visible to the naked eye. A dragon is a large mythical fire-breathing creature that doesn't exist. What are you talking about?

[skjpm]

74. Neither do quarks

Boy, you need to read up on your physics. There is no discrete object "quark"--it is a relationship of energies. That which the word "dragon" represents, does exist, as much as what the word "quark" represents. You need to study your semiotics as well.

[wug37]

95. I think you need to study up on quarks

From Stanford - 'Quarks are fundamental matter particles that are constituents of neutrons and protons and other hadrons. There are six different types of quarks. Each quark type is called a flavor.'
http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/theory/quarks.html

What does the word 'dragon' represent that exists?

[skjpm]

133. What is "fundamental matter?" What is "flavor"?

I thought that Einstein showed that matter doesn't exist. I'm pretty sure he did, in fact. I believe that "matter" is a word we use to describe the curvature of the universe, not any particular object.

[wug37]

Did you take any science classes?

'Matter' - Anything that takes up space or has a mass of any kind is matter. Everything you can touch is made of matter. If it is made of anything, that anything is matter.

http://www.chem4kids.com/files/matter_intro.html

Please show evidence of Einstein 'proving' that matter doesn't exist.

As far as 'What is Flavor', did you read my post? Did you click on the link?
'What is Fundamental Matter' - the basic parts of matter as defined above.

[skjpm]

165. Did you take any science classes?

Matter is the curvature of space. It doesn't "exist" as a separate thing.

[wug37]

172. Try reading the posts, and if that's not clear enough, click the link.

'Matter' - Anything that takes up space or has a mass of any kind is matter. Everything you can touch is made of matter. If it is made of anything, that anything is matter.

http://www.chem4kids.com/files/matter_intro.html

[skjpm]

203. Matter is energy, and space doesn't exist

Please study the Big Bang theory.

[wug37]

218. There is space between me and my computer monitor

does that not exist? Is my face accually up against the monitor? And how many times am I going to have to provide you with the link to the definition of matter before you read it?

http://www.chem4kids.com/files/matter_intro.html

[DrWeird]

225. Hey, skjpm.

Are you also open to random schizophrenics teach their theories about space and cosmos and antispace particles and the quadrilateral commission? Because what you're posting is basically new age mumbo jumbo that has nothing to do with science, and I'm wondering why your stuff in particular should be taught.

[BBradley]

232. You're confused.

Are you speaking of space as in volume? I don't think you're going to find Einstein arguing against a 3rd dimension, that's pretty obvious. I don't see how you can possibly say that space doesn't exist. So if there's no space is matter now 2 dimensional? How can we possibly recognize ideas like in and out without space?

You're really coming off like a street loony to me now, but maybe I'm just tired.

[chopper]

200. no...

gravity is the curvature of space, according to einstein. he also posited (correctly) that matter and energy are interchangeable, that is, that one may 'change phase' into another. but not once did he argue that matter didn't exist.

[BBradley]

209. I believe you are wrong

I think you might be mixing an inaccurate explanation of the formula E=MC^2 with an inaccurate explanation of relativity and this is where your misconception is coming from.


Matter is what causes the curvature in space-time. Gravity is how we observe/feel this 4 dimensional curve. I believe this is what Einstein says.

I think your misconception comes from E=MC^2. Basically a formula to convert matter to energy, and with some algebra, vice versa. It means that matter is a form of energy, not that matter doesn't exist.

[skjpm]

227. Read Hawking's description of a black hole

There is no matter--matter does not cause gravity--a black hole is a super-intense curvature of space. There is no matter there.

[DrWeird]

233. Maybe you should reread Hawking.

He's quite convinced that black holes have mass.

[skjpm]

249. Mass and matter are not the same thing

Mass is a measurement of the curvature of space. You reread Hawking

[DrWeird]

256. Apparently you're confusing mass with weight.

No big deal, a lot of people who haven't taken any physics can get them screwed up. Why should I be the one who reread's hawking, when I'm not the one who thinks Hawking believes black holes don't have mass?

I mean, Hawking's formula for the luminosity of a black hole's Hawking luminosity depends directly on the black hole's mass!

[skjpm]

272. No, you're confusing mass and weight

Mass is the measurement of the curvature of the universe--look it up in one your physics texts from all the classes you took--but make sure it's a class after, say, 1950.

[wug37]

278. But earlier in this post you said that was matter

Which is it?

[DrWeird]

281. Uh, OK.

Mass: A property of matter equal to the measure of an object's resistance to changes in either the speed or direction of its motion. The mass of an object is not dependent on gravity and therefore is different from but proportional to its weight.

Seems to fit fine with my understanding of mass and weight. Says nothing about the curvature of the universe.

What does it say in your physics text? What century are you from? Have you come back in time from the future?

[skjpm]

301. That was Newton's definition

Physics has advanced since then.

[DrWeird]

303. No, that's the definition in my physics book.

Copyright 1996.

And it's the one used by scientists today.

[BBradley]

323. Can you tell me one actual physicist who has ever even flirted

with the idea of mass being the curvature of space-time(Which you keep errantly reffering to as space)? I'll make it easier for you.

http://www.google.com



Mass is the measurement of the matter that comprises an object.

Weight is the effect of gravity on mass.

Weight is seperate from, but proportional to mass.

You do not actually have weight, what you feel as weight is actually the forces exerted by the objects that touch you.

Those forces are explained by Einstein with a space-time continuum. If you imagine space-time as a sheet of paper and an orange as an object in space-time you will see how the object bends space-time thus creating the curvature that you are speaking of, and what we feel as gravity. While it is true that the larger the curvature the more massive the object, the object according to Einstein's model is stretching space-time and the way we perceive it is gravity.

You've been pretty inconsistent throughout this whole discussion so I'd like to ask you, where did you learn physics? I'm interested to know if maybe you're from a foreign country so maybe a language barrier exists, and the only thing we had a disagreement between was the word choices? I'd really like to know where you learned these things though because you have a few things mixed up I believe.

[BBradley]

290. I have a physics text book. I'll go read the definition of several terms

I'll use the definition they give of various terms. I assure you skjpm, that you're the one who's confused, but since you asked for a textbook I'll get mine. :eyes:

Mine is from 1995. It's by Merrill. The title is Physics: principles and problems.

This is what it says about mass and weight:

"The gravitational force exerted by a large body, usually Earth, is called weight."

"Mass and weight are not the same. Weight depends on the acceleration due to gravity, and thus may vary from location to location. A person weighs a very small amount less on top of a high mountain, even though he or she has the same mass."


Basically you keep insinuating that mass is the measurement of the curvature of the universe. Guess what? You've got it completely backwards, Force or Weight is the measurement of gravity's observable effects. Mass is what determines weight: more massive objects having stronger pulls. Gravity is the curvature of space-time, not mass.

[BBradley]

266. I think you're misreading Hawking

The matter most certainly is there and will, eventually, be spit out in an unrecognizable form. Hawking never tries to argue against matter existing either, so I don't know how you're trying to use Einstein and Hawking's views to promote this theory you seem to be expressing.

A black hole is an infinitely dense collapsed star (which I believe contains matter, yes, yes it does), that curves space-time, thus( and I want to express that this is not necessarily my view, I'm just trying to explain it to the best of my ability because skjpm so clearly has a misunderstanding of it.) creating gravity. For example. Black holes are named as such because light cannot escape their gravitational pull. This would be because light would "fall" into this infinite hole. Thus the curvature of space-time is Gravity, and what causes the curvature is matter. More massive objects have stronger gravitational pulls.

[skjpm]

277. mass is not matter, and it has no "weight"

There is no objective "thing" at the center of a black hole, what you seem to be calling "matter". There is only the intense curvature of space. And nothing "weighs" anything there--the curvature of space becomes practically circular so that it is bent inward on itself.

You can see how language is ineffective in describing things, and that all descriptions of the universe are ultimately myth.

[Zenlitened]

283. Have you ever seen a black hole?

Just wonderin'.

[AZCat]

286. I heard there's one in Calcutta...

Perhaps the poster in question could take a quick jaunt there?

[BBradley]

317. I'm fully aware of the difference between matter and mass,

but for the most part they are interchangable. Mass is the measurement of how much matter an object contains. Big difference, it doesn't make my argument any less valuable. I can also scold you for using terms that aren't completely accurate, what do you mean by center? A black hole should act like a bowling ball stretching a towel, going down into infinity. In 3 dimensions it looks like the object is stationary, but in 4 the object is "falling." There would be no "center" to a black hole

[chopper]

330. uh...

you're arguing that einstein said that there was no such thing as matter, and prove it by telling someone to read hawking?

seriously, you need to retake physics. besides, black hole mechanics is a red herring regarding matter, physics (especially einsteinian) breaks down inside the event horizon of a black hole.

[BBradley]

332. Are you replying to skjpm?

I was mostly using the example of a black hole to explain that gravity is the curvature of space-time, wheras skjpm is saying that "mass is the curvature of space."

[Selteri]

175. Quarks

Quarks are the smallest bits of matter known at the moment, so far as we have been able to figure out as human beings, there are likely things that make up the quarks, but we have not even found proof of them.

The proof for quarks existing is not solid enough to call it solid evidence...


Yet from what we can tell, every molecule is made up of protons, neutrons and electrons which we CAN SEE and those appear to be made up of smaller bits that we can't see clearly, we know they are there since we humans are REALLY REALLY REALLY good at breaking things, even neutrons.

[BBradley]

186. *edit* responded to the wrong person *edit*

[Griffy]

153. LOL @ study..this person only studies the bible.. no quarks in their!

how about gravity.. does this guy believe in that?

[datasuspect]

96. there's a guy further up

who knows a lot about quarks. i wonder why you haven't engaged him yet.

****crickets****

[BlueEyedSon]

99. How about electrons, you got a problem with them too?

:)

[immoderate]

390. There is no discrete object "quark"--

Does a tornado exist? It's also a relationship of energies. It cannot be removed from the atmosphere. Does a "cold front" exist?

--IMM

[Salviati]

79. Quarks are real in the sence that they are a part of one of the most

sucessful physical theories we have. Using the idea of quarks, we are able to make predictions of unprecented accuracy about the real world. But, when push comes to shove, any scientist worth their salt will tell you that the picture's not complete yet. There's still lots we don't know, but the ideas we develop in the future must encompass those we have deveolped in the past. Relativity didn't destroy newtonian physics, it just becomes a special case of a larger theory. Some theorys ARE better, because they actually work to provide useful information about the actual world, dragons don't do that.

Mind you, I DO believe that there is room for god in the universe, but not in the guise of ID. To me the idea of god mucking about making animals out of goo seems unbelivably crude and demeaning to one who is supposedly omnipotent. I guess I see gods hand more in the creation of universes, not cockroaches.

[sans qualia]

116. "Strange attractor" is the name given

to a certain kind of limit set of a dynamical system. Strange attractors no more or less real than the number seven. As for quarks, I'm no physicist, but I do know that they have been observed. Repeatedly. And even if the common conception of what a quark is is different from the rigorous definition, that has absolutely no bearing on whether or not they exist.

[Zenlitened]

143. Quarks are measurable. Fairy-tales are not.

And if we're only to "believe in" things visible to the naked eye... well, we're going to have to toss out a lot more than a few science books.

One doesn't "believe in" science. One examines the accumulation of data and either accepts it or rejects it as useful in explaining the world around us.

[ultraist]

199. Oh...Science is mythology, just like religion. OK!

We've heard that before...from the fundies.

Let's just stomp out all intellectualism while we are at it.

I think you are in the wrong forum if you think evangelisizing is going to win anyone here over.

[DARE to HOPE]

255. Some folks here have an all too narrow view of "intellectualism"

Read some of what the actual scientists are writing these days....

[0rganism]

396. So you've never seen a strange attractor, or you don't know what one is?

Strange attractors are a subset of observable behaviors in certain dynamic systems. They exist. I've documented them myself. I did the research, made predictions, and repeated the experiments that produced them.

That's what happens when you have a legitimate scientific theory: you can use it both to explain earlier observations and to predict future observations.

What, exactly, is it that "intelligent design" has ever predicted or explained?

[Canuckistanian]

14. Evolution doesn't try to explain the ORIGIN of life.

All it does is explain how life evolved AS WE OBSERVE IT.
Beyond that, it's all conjecture.
A higher being may have started the whole process after all, even guided it somehow. But until we see EVIDENCE of how life really started, it's anybody's guess. And science cannot make intelligent theories based on no evidence at all.

[Walt Starr]

17. ID can be taught in school, just not as science because it is not science

It is either literature, mythology, religion, or philosphy, but it IS NOT SCIENCE.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

29. Right on Walt Starr!

:)

:kick:

Evolution = Scientific Fact
Creation = Religious Doctrine
Intelligent Design = Mythology

:kick:

[Dr Ron]

154. Isn't it religious doctrine

I wouldn't separate intelligent design from creationism/religous doctrine in this manner. ID is just a back door attempt to support creationism while pretending to get away from religion. It's not as if we have separate groups supporting creationism versus ID as opposing viewpoints.

ID servies the goals of the religious right by giving a way to interfere with the teaching of evolution while attempting to avoid criticism on separation of chruch and state grounds. Of course, once you teach that evolution didn't occur and there was an intelligent creator, they expect this will lead to belief in their creation story. (It would be amusing to have a group of kids be taught the ID dogma, and then come up with some other beliefs of a designer/creator which is quite different from christianity.)

[PROGRESSIVE1]

173. True. That's why I ultimatly OPPOSE the teaching of "ID" in...S

school.

[papau]

I agree :-)

:-)

[Dr Ron]

24. As philosophy or literature, but not science

True, there are limits to what is explained by science. However, the fact that we do not currently have a scientific explanation does not mean that there isn't one.

Scientific explanations still need to have some demonstrable fact to them and be open to verification. Lack of a scientific explanation for something does not provide any evidence for intelligent design, which has no evidence and does not leave itself open to any form of objective verification.

There are many beliefs about things which science can and cannot explain. Teaching them as philosphy, or looking at the creation stories of a variety of cultures as literature, would be valid. However such teaching should not make any claims for the validity of these as a competing scientific theory, and should include the variety of cultural/religious views on matters such as creation. There actually could be some value in people seeing that there are a variety of creation stories, in order to reduce the temptation of seeing a choice simply between science and fundamentalist christian teachings.

[skjpm]

37. Where do you draw the line?

Kepler's Music of the Spheres--science or art? The Uncertainty Principle--science or philosophy?

[vi5]

47. Your kid can learn that stuff in sunday school or religious school..

Problem solved.

[skjpm]

83. I want it to be part of public education

I think that our students need a full context in which to make decisions--there's not a Sunday School reality and a High School reality--it is all one reality, and needs to be discussed that way.

[Walt Starr]

88. So you believe religion should be forced on students?

because that's sure as hell what you are advocating here

[skjpm]

102. No, a discussion of all points of view

It's called a "liberal education." Read Adler, Dewey, Mill, for further insight.

[datasuspect]

110. nope - give me my language back

the idea of a "liberal education" or classical education was to create "men of parts." the idea of liberal education predates christianity.

it wasn't about creating subterfuges and political chicanery to introduce fundamentalist christian religiosity into the body politic.

[DrWeird]

140. No, a discussion of all viewpoints...

would have holocaust denial taught in history class.

Nothing liberal about that.

And there's nothing educational about "Intelligent Design."

[Walt Starr]

149. Fine, put it in a literature class where it belongs

because it in no way represents science. ID is mythology, literature, or philosphy, not science.

[AZCat]

89. No, it is YOUR reality

And I don't think I am alone in resisting your campaign to force your version of reality on me and my progeny.

[Dr Ron]

134. The real issue is one of keeping out science

It is absurd to teach religious views lacking any scientific evidence as science. The religious right goes even beyond this. They typically don't want to just present their views as an alternative. They genearlly try to keep out evolution from being taught at all.

It is not only limited to evolution. They are attacking physics over the big bang. They are even attacking geology due to finding rocks which show the earth as being older than is claimed in the bible.

There is a clear difference here. Supporters of science would be willing to throw out evolution or the big bang if a new scientific paradign were found which had better evidence behind it. (True there would be some opposition as such issues are rarely 100% clear at first, but at least the debate would be centered on science).

In contrast, those who support intelligent design and creationism start with religious beliefs, and then try to get whatever facts to fit their religious beliefs, or come up with bogus reasons to dismiss fact which contradict their views.

[datasuspect]

93. well then keeping working on a right wing platform issue

and you might see it one day.

[vi5]

105. But what you are proposing is an alternate reality...

You are proposing teaching something for which there is no foundation other than an individual's faith. Should we be teaching karma in science class as well? Should we be teaching about Shiva the destroyer?

[JaneDoughnut]

131. No, it doesn't

Do we make room in history class for those who deny the Holocaust ever took place? While we are learning about dinosaurs, do we describe how each era of time corresponds to a day in the first week? No, because these, like Intelligent Design, are neither history nor science, they are ideology, and public schools have to walk that fine line between teaching and indoctrinating.

[Walt Starr]

87. Before you can postulate about Intelligent Design

You need to provide some independently verifiable evidence to support the existance of the alleged intelligence behind the design.

Nobody has been capable of doing such, so as far as science goes, ID is putting the cart before the proverbial horse.

[sans qualia]

158. I draw the line where reason can no longer support one's conclusions

Strictly speaking, since the scientific method always produces inductive arguments, it can never absolutely prove anything to be true or false. It can, however, provide a sufficiently cogent inductive argument to be persuasive. Philosophy, contrary to popular belief, is no less rigorous; in fact it's similar to mathematics, in that both use systems of formal logic to make deductive inferences. If you want to get really pedantic about it, purely theoretical physics isn't science per se, as it uses rational rather than empirical methods to build upon what has already been observed and is therefore presumed to be true.

In other words, your dichotomy between science and "philosophy" (which I consider to mean "rational rather than empirical inquiry") is pretty much meaningless, even if it's not technically false.

[Vladimir]

28. Science cannot explain the orignin of the universe

because we cannot access data from before the Big Bang - but then science has always recognised these limitations. Science curricula should stick to teaching kids about refutable theories of nature based on concrete observations, and leave ID to Philosophy along with all other belief systems...

on edit: in fact its a bit worse than that, because however far we could go back, one could always ask 'what happened before X,Y,Z?'. The origin of the universe is not, IMO, a scientific problem.

[unblock]

53. well that's not exactly true

it's true that the big bang theories all commence with a singularity of massive energy. this compression makes it impossible to differentiate what came prior. technically, in the scientific lexicon, time itself came into being at that moment, and didn't exist prior.

but that doesn't mean we can't verify and refine the big bang theories themselves, leading to a clear understanding of how the universe progressed from that moment forward.

[physioex]

61. And if you think of the the universe as a sheet of paper....

And there are many universes. The big bang could have been caused by the collision of these sheets of paper.

[Vladimir]

66. I agree completely

we can certainly work on the Big Bang theories, and of course they get updated all the time...

[whistle]

31. Never was supposed to, Darwin took creation as a given....

...was interested in explaining how species of living things evolved over millions of years and came up with natural selection as the means of how species adapted to a changing environment and survived. Darwin never refuted any creation explanation, just left that up to others.

Creationists fear the truth so much that they have decided to attack all science, especially geology and astronomy and cosmology because these sciences do get into the question of how did the world and the universe come about.

[skjpm]

46. So, "creation" and "evolution" are different

So, what's the problem with "creationism" if "evolution" doesn't even refer to the same topic? By your definition, one could believe both in "creationism" and "evolution".

[vi5]

52. One is a scientific theory..the other is not...

Plenty of people believe in both. Only one has supporting facts to be tought in science class.

[whistle]

217. Why not, many world religions operate very nicely by taking....

...creation as a given and then applying science and mathematics and rational thought to finding a way to live and operate in the world that we find ourselves living in. Look at the various eastern religions such as Hinduism. Even the Arab poet and philosopher Rumi over a thousand years ago perhaps said, "...the eye goes blind when it asks the question why!" I interpret that to have meant the "all-seeing eye" of consciousness and reason that is in all of us. It was the poet's way of saying accept life as the gift that is, enjoy, make the most of it and do not question what some higher power's (in Rumi's case he called God the 'Beloved') reason might have been for providing such a blessed gift.

To use the science of evolution and natural selection, it matters very little why life came into existence in the first place. Want Darwin was concerned about was what allowed some species to survive and propagate while others vanished from existence. Unfortunately social Darwinists came along and interpreted Darin's evolutionary laws as a means to assure one class or race of human beings to survive or dominate all other classes, forgetting completely that race is NOT what comprises the species of mankind, but is merely a variation in the outside appearances of man (much like colors of feathers in birds or the build of certain mammals in the wild like the speed of the cheetah or the massive weight of the lion).

That which distinguishes human beings from the other species that we share this precious planet with is our inherited ability to think, reason, communicate, work with our hands, fashion tools and so forth. In addition, what seems to have assured the collective survival of the human species on this planet has been our ability to live and work in social communities without killing one another. In the last several hundred years, that trait has almost vanished from the human species and I really doubt if Creationism is addressing that aspect of the human struggle to survive.

[inchhigh]

48. The problem with allowing religion to fill the gaps in science

is that as science fills the gaps it leaves no room for God. Your faith shouldn't suffer each time science connects another dot.

[unblock]

62. well stated

i have far more respect for the devout scientists who learn more about evolution and cosmology and say, "ah, so THAT's how god did it!"

science enriches their faith and brings them closer to god, rather than putting knowledge at odds with god.

[HereSince1628]

104. Unfortunately, the shrinking domain of bibilical applicability

is exactly the problem for fundamentalists.

[blondeatlast]

364. That's another thread entirely, but precisely why we are even

discussing this madness in 2005. Sigh.

Excellent point.

[blondeatlast]

360. Thank you, and welcome to DU! My sentiments exactly.

:toast:

[More Than A Feeling]

51. This is just the same old creationism

in a new dress.

Once they get their foot in the door with "Intelligent Design", the creationists will eventually introduce full blown creationism.

You are quite welcome to believe that God created the universe. I believe that myself. But I did not need high school to teach me that, and I will show my children that myself, if at all. keep science in the high school, and leave religious indoctrination in the church and the home.

Don't ask the taxpayers to pay for someone's personal religious beliefs to be taught to children of families who may not share them.

[BlueEyedSon]

63. ID is not an opinion, it is a religious doctrine.

There is a wealth of scientific explanation regarding the origin of life on Earth and none of it relies on extraterrestrial intelligence. You should seek out this information (on the web, perhaps) before you suggest there is no explanation. Explanation of the origin of life may be beyond the boundaries of the high school "evolution curriculum", but it is not beyond the sciences of biology, chemistry and physics. Scientists have been making the building blocks of life by zapping "primordial soup" for decades.

Bringing god/gods/goddess into the picture to solve the discontinuity of the Big Bang does not "solve" anything. You replace one mystery with another one, but one which is almost certain to be untrue since it is entirely fabricated.

To be clear, are you suggesting that there is intelligence at work when negative and positive attract, when mass creates gravity, etc.....?

[porphyrian]

68. Intelligent design is an oxymoron.

What is intelligent about assuming that everything we can't explain or understand, which is the majority of things, given our limited resources and perceptions, is the intentional result of a single being? Oversimplify much?

[JaneDoughnut]

70. I have a better idea

Instead of teaching intelligent design beside evolution, how about we teach children that all scientific theories are open to change as we learn more about the universe, they should never accept anything without question, and science doesn't answer all of life's questions, which many people turn to religion to answer?

Then we can teach intelligent design in theology, Sunday school, or at home. Let's use public schools to teach critical thinking and generally accepted knowledge.

[blm]

72. So, now you're anti-choice AND a promoter of intelligent design?

Just as a matter of discussion?

Guess the next "discussion" will be about the marriage initiative.

[blondeatlast]

366. Bet he/she has some good talking points about covenant marriage, too.

It's tempting, but I haven't the nerve, even if I do know a "good" source for such talking points.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

78. Gravity is ony a theory. When you test that one by jumping off a cliff

I'll be more open to your scientific critiques of evolution.
That the ACTUAL origin of the universe is NOT universally agreed upon does NOT offer SUBSTANCE to your argument.

Your argument in essence is..since science has not yet demonstrated X to be true, why then can't I offer Y to be true no matter how far fetched it is?

[skjpm]

97. So, Native American thought is only worthy of a literature class

Thousands of years of culture, and they produced nothing worth discussing in a scientific classroom. That's pretty mean of you, don't you think?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

106. Where did you get that one from? Stay on topic. We aren't discussing

Native American folklore...we are discussing your notion of the conception of the universe.

How tricky of you to change the subject.

Again, I ask of you...GRAVITY is a theory. Why not test it by jumping off a cliff? (and I DON'T MEAN THAT as an insult, I MEAN it as asking YOU to HONESTLY inquire as to why you won't challenge ONE theory..obviously it suits you and your mortality NOT TO..but you will use psuedo science to challenge evolution..which by the way IS distinct from the subset of science called DARWINISM)

[Salviati]

124. Actually...

we aren't discussing their notion of the conception of the universe, we're discussing whether ID should be taught in school, which is an entirely different animal. People can believe whatever the heck they want to, but when they want to present in as a topic for public education, then their beliefs must pass a much higher bar of legitimacy.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

150. No..you aren't suggesting that at all. Evolution has indeed passed

scientific muster. No single THEORY of the universe's origin is taught in the school system..several are examined. The fact that several that MAY have validity based on what we do know are taught in no way sanctions FALSE information being taught. Just because science has NOT definitevely answered a question does not mean we should open the gates for every crack pot. If not, why then shouldn't we teach L. Ron Hubbard's Battlestar Gallactica theory?

[Salviati]

291. I agree entirely...

The point that I was making is that people are free to believe in ID or creationism if they want to, but teaching it in public schools is a horse of a different color.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

304. Yeah..I got that when I reread

:thumbsup:I concur

[Salviati]

374. Excellent....

Then we shall have to agree to agree on this topic...

:D

[charlie]

113. So how would you design a science curriculum

of NA thought? Observe, measure, predict, test, replicate... what?

[Lautremont]

120. No, it belongs in a history class.

Not in a science class presented as science.

[blondeatlast]

368. Excuse me, but you are the one who hijacked other culture's thought

to make your point, and I called you on it.

Strawman. I expect better than this on DU.

[Selteri]

81. you turn off the science channel, don't you? NT

[skjpm]

90. Just like Gallileo, Newton, Einstein, and Whitehead did nt

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

112. Um ..no..they didn't turn off the science channel..they CONDUCTED

scientific inquiry.

While they were busy trying to prove themselves WRONG in order to arrive at their conclusions, you are busy not PROVING anything wrong and desperately trying to prove yourself RIGHT absent scientific evidence.

[DrWeird]

132. It's so amazing that you cite Galileo.

A scientist who was almost executed for contradicting the Church.

[skjpm]

139. Where do you get that? That's not what happened.

Anyway, the point is that Gallileo believed in Intelligent Design.

[DrWeird]

152. It sure as hell is.

The short of it is, Galileo proved the earth revolves around the sun, the church didn't like that, so they hauled him up in front of the inquisition and damn near burned him at the stake.

Just like Darwin proved that all life on Earth evolved from a single ancestor, and the religious fundamentalists have been trying to deny it ever since.

As for Galileo believing in "Intelligent Design", you're being intellectually dishonest. Remember that commandment about giving false witness?

Galileo was a scientist, an astronomer, and a heretic, God bless him. If he were alive today he'd certainly believe in Evolution, and the Big Bang, and quarks, and he wouldn't bullshit about this "Intelligent Creationism" nonsense.

[skjpm]

230. No, that's not what the conflict was about

Again, you might want to check actual history.

[DrWeird]

245. Yes, that's pretty much what the conflict boils down too.

I'm quite familiar with the trial. If you've got anything pointing otherwise, I'll be glad to hear it.

You've said that basic same line everytime your arguments get debunked in this thread. Yet people go and read what you tell them to read, and then come back and show how it's proven you wrong, and you ignore it.

[AZCat]

246. When disagreeing with a post such as the one above...

Please provide some explanation of your understanding.

Otherwise I'm just going to assume that you don't know what you are talking about.

[blondeatlast]

373. Can you give us a bibliography?

I'm a librarian.

Seriously, I want to know what books we are "supposed" to be reading.

[ultraist]

238. Einstein was atheist

He thought Christianity was ridiculous and primitive.

[skjpm]

260. He was more of a Deist

Non-Christian doesn't mean athiest.

[blondeatlast]

370. ...

:wtf: books are you reading?!

On BOTH counts? Sheesh.

[ladjf]

94. Darwin didn't attempt to explain the origin of the Universe.

Who could or would? The "Intelligent Design" is simply a notion, with nothing backing it up. It's a faith based belief.

[skjpm]

100. Well, the Anthropic Principle, for one piece of evidence

I find the AP to be quite compelling as evidence of design. So do many other scientists.

[HereSince1628]

163. You see in the anthropic principle something different than me

As I understand it, although there are multiple (weak to strong), expressions of the anthropic principle. Those that are nearest the domain of science say that the potential for carbon based intelligent life (like us) is an inherent property of the universe.

Various cosmologists have invoked it to say that given time and sufficient opportunities (random trials if you like) for regions of the universe to reach the proper physical conditions, life will emerge.

That sort of a.p. doesn't require design, a designer, or a constructor. It's simply a matter probability and inherent properties in the stuff of life.

Some authors have proposed extreme a.p. ideas that suggest once intelligent life (like us) emerges it won't go extinct. It is pretty clear that THAT position goes beyond the ability of science to test.

[DrWeird]

190. The anthropic principle isn't science, it's just horrible logic.

Logic that's been debunked in numerous times and places.

[ladjf]

398. Anthropic Principle: Is no more evidence than creationism.

The idea that the Universe was designed exactly for our benifit is beyond belief.

http://blogs.salon.com/0001561/stories/2002/10/25/someCommentsOnTheAnthropicPrinciple.html

[Coastie for Truth]

114. Some reading --

"Evolution does not explain the origin of the universe; evolution does not explain how life comes from non-life; nor does it, title to the contrary, explain the origin of species."

To me "intelligent design" just means "it is beyond my skill set." Not ignorance - not stupidity ---> just "I haven't really delved into the fine points of organic chem and biochem and physiology to the same extent that I have delved into the knowledge set that I earn my living with."

Do some serious reading. I started with a series of seminars at Stanford Medical School (for non-biotechies) in Molecular Genetics/Biochem of Evolution. I had undergrad organic chem and "Biology for Engineers" (as in "Fourier Transforms for CAT Scans" and "LaPlace Transforms for Medical Instrumentation" - period)

Start with Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution by Kenneth R. Miller, then hit Molecular Biology Made Simple and Fun by David P. Clark, Lonnie Dee Russell, and then hit a good book on thermodynamics of amino acid reactions and thermodynamics of biochemical reactions; the best books would be in the biochemical engineering and pharmaceutical manufacturing area.

After you have read each of them through once -- go back and work out the thermodynamics and reaction pathways of the synthesis of some very simple amino acids from the primordial soup that we started with. Now, just look at Miller's discussion of this very point, and look at Clark & Russell's sketches of some single cell organisms.

Makes sense to me -- and I am not a biologist or biochemist.

(Both of my Grandfathers were Orthodox Rabbis - and I was very well schooled in Scripture and Maimonides)

[BlueEyedSon]

130. To me "intelligent design" just means "it is beyond my skill set."

No, it is much worse.... totally insidious. It is "in the absence of understanding and certainty, I will not seek them - but rather believe in fairy tales."

And the way ID is being used as a tool by the right is to inject Christianity into publicly-funded education.

[Coastie for Truth]

157. Sad to say - I think you are right.

Although I use ID as a challenge to research fine points of, say, the thermochemistry of amino acids -- or the genome of bacteria.

I don't do test tubes and Bunsen Burners research any more -- just Goggle and Chem Abs and Bio Abs and NIH Pub Med.

[SnowGoose]

128. I used to believe as you do.

It was a kind of waystation for me between being raised to aggressively defend the premise that the earth is 6,000 years old (the sun and moon and stars too), and where I am now (kinda on the opposite end of the spectrum).

I'm not saying that I "outgrew" those 'intelligent design' beliefs, or that because they served as a temporary belief system for me, that they would not be a satisfactory final destination for others.

There's nothing wrong with thinking that someone (something?) is responsible in some way for what we see around us, but until that kind of musing can offer up testable and disprovable hypotheses, it should remain philosophy, because that's what it is.

Science has clearly produced a great number of results that show it works for some kinds of questions. Did religion give us penicillin, electricity, an understanding of lightening? Of course not. But did science give us Bach? Did it give us the sermon on the mount, or the Tao Te Ching? Of course not - they're different animals entirely. One is knowledge, one is wisdom.

Always remember, the fact that science actually works to do things like figure out what stars are made out of, or how DNA works, or whether that chemical will poison you, is due to one reason - and one only. Scientists design their experiments specifically to disprove their hypotheses. That is why, after years of careful contemplation, I've come to disagree with your statement that "...Intelligent Design, as much as it is maligned, seems just as good a hypothesis for those things which evolution does not cover...".

It's not 'just as good'. In fact, it's far, far, far from being just as good, specifically because it doesn't have the *one* ingredient that is the very soul of science - a mechanism for showing that a cherished belief is just plain wrong.

If you want to learn facts about the physical universe, science is the tool you want on your side. As a final example, I ask: would you want to take a new drug that the FDA had certified as safe through careful study of the scriptures? I should hope not.

However, if you want to teach your children the value of compassion and true empathy, will you appeal to population dynamics, or theories of societal evolution? Hopefully not.

Dang, this got long.

But what I wanted to say mostly is just this: it's great that you're arriving at a place of caring and decency through your beliefs that someone ordered this place. At the risk of sounding less than brotherly, though, I must say it is *still* not science. Not until you can tell me how you could conceivably test it.

I don't mind my children being taught in public schools that there's a philosophy that says "hey, there's got to be *someone* in charge or responsible for what I see around me." I just want it to be taught as a philosophy, not as a science.

[katsy]

136. I respect your right...

to your opinions & beliefs.

That does not mean I want my tax dollars funding id in public schools when music, art, foreign language and physed programs are being cut.

I would not want my tax dollars funding id even if other important programs weren't being cut.

ID classes and funding belong, and rightly so, in churchs and their sunday school classes.

I view this big push to teach id in schools as a way for organized religions to shift the burden of the cost of their pet programs onto taxpayers. Churches are tax-exempt and should fund their own philosophical classes.

Taxpayer money has no business funding id classes, koran classes, buddhist classes or any such thing in publicly funded schools (general philosophy of religion curriculums exempted).

You have your right to your philosophy... but the government and already tax exempt churches do not have the right to take my tax dollars to support that philosophy.

As parents, we have the responsibility to raise our children in the the faith of our choice, or to shelter them from dogma. The government and tax dollars have no business pushing one religious belief over another.

[skjpm]

144. I want my tax dollars spent on "liberal education"

I want our public schools to allow the presentation of a wide variety of viewpoints, so I support the teaching of Intelligent Design. I believe that is what the goal of a liberal education is. I think all children have the right to a comprehensive look at the world they live in.

[DrWeird]

155. I want my tax dollars spend on real education.

Not this Creationism bullshit, or holocaust denial, or flat earth theory.

Feel free to homeschool.

[datasuspect]

162. then you have no concept of a liberal education

oy

[Name removed]

220. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

235. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[skjpm]

241. No, seriously, look up "liberal education" nt.

[datasuspect]

237. i had a liberal education

that's why i realize that google is not to be relied upon as a primary research source.

[datasuspect]

242. i'll look it up if you agree to stop trying to force reality to fit into

your worldview.

okay?

[Beetwasher]

166. Should "The Holocaust Never Happened" Be Taught In History?

If not, why not? Same thing w/ ID. It's NOT SCIENCE, just like Holocaust revisionism is NOT HISTORY. Get it?

Teach ID in comparative religion class NOT SCIENCE class.

[ComerPerro]

169. Where do you draw the line?

[katsy]

268. By extension of your logic...

our kids would spend all freaking day learning what? Comparative religion classes all day long? Do you think PUBLIC schools should present this "wide variety of viewpoints" all day long? To hell with history, math, science, math and every other discipline that help them meet the challenges of their world?

I'd rather my kids stick with math and science.

[blondeatlast]

378. So under which subject will you want ID taught?

And since you seem to think there are varying theories among different faiths about it, which one(s) can be taught?

Why aren't the Hindus and the Buddhists and the Jews and the Muslims pushing for ID?

[skids]

138. The problem with "Intelligent Design"

At the core of "Intelligent Design" is a very basic, very hard-core philosophical/metaphysical question. It is not a question that is specific to evolution nor to creation. It is a question that impacts every single aspect of the existance we experience and even that part of existance which we may not.

That question is whether what we perceive as "random" is, in fact, random. And there are shades of this question -- where and when exactly is "randomness" introduced into the world around us? How much of what goes on is a result of prior events, and how much is a result of "chance." Though physicists have dipped their toes into these questions, noone has proven the answer to these question one way or the other. I have my own doubts as to whether we ever will.

So the problem with the concept that the universe could be the results of "Intelligent Design" is not that it is theoretically unsound, given we do not know the answer to the above questions. The problem is that, instead of telling people that they are free to believe that it *could* be that way, instead Intelligent Design asserts that it *is* that way. The problem is not with the theoretical viability of ID itself but the way it is being used. It is not being used as a way to make science and religious belief independent of each other, it is being *abused* as a way to bring religious believe into scientific discourse where it has no place. The place to discuss ID is not in science class, but in philosophy class and perhaps, as an example for study, in statistics class.

The scientific method relies on us being able to determine what is and is not "essentially random". That is, we need to be able to know, or find out through testing, which processes of nature are either truly random or random for all immediate intents and purposes. Without that ability, the scientific process falls apart and is good for nearly nothing.

Oh, by the way, I'd work over the following phrasing:

"There is no evidence that after a certain amount of variations, a new species is born, that is, an offspring which cannot reproduce with relatives of its parents."

...as it tempts the "kissing cousins" nerve of those that might just want to taunt you.

[Selteri]

193. Flatly put - Just because you got the idea from a book

and choose to believe does not makeit right to shove your religiously based belief about the origin of mankind down anyone's throat.

PERIOD

If you want that taught, go to a religious school.

Or get god to come down an tell us in no uncertain terms that everything is exactly the way a black book that contradicts itself on many levels is exactly correct.

[Zenlitened]

168. Can you describe for us some of the sci. evidence supporting ID?

And by that, I don't mean a criticisms of evolution's shortcomings as a scientific theory.

I mean the evidence for ID as a theory capable of standing on its own two feet, if you'll forgive the pun.

Lay it out for us: What does the theory of "Intelligent Design" say?

[skjpm]

177. The Anthropic Principle, and the irreducible complexity of amino acids

These are both being discussed by a wide variety of scientists, pro and con, as evidence of design.

[Zenlitened]

215. Let's hear it then. How does the Anthropic Principle support ID?

And when you speak of "irreducible"... irreducible by whom?

[skjpm]

236. "Irreducible Complexity" is a common term used in science today

Maybe you should look it up--but it means any phenomena which cannot be reduced to a series of previous phenomena. Hence, it must have simply come into existance "as is". And the chances of something irreducibly complex as an amino acid simply popping into existance are simple beyond mathematics. Hence, the theory suggest that they were "made."

[Zenlitened]

258. No, it's a common term used by fundamentalists

And it is so subjective a term that it has virtually no meaning. Irreducible by whom? You? Me? An MIT professor? Someone living in the 15th century? Someone living in the 23rd century?

I have to say, your use of the word "hence" is a poor disguise for just the sort of weak thinking that others have pointed out: "I can't imagine how it works, hence it musta been god."

...it means any phenomena which cannot be reduced to a series of previous phenomena. Hence, it must have simply come into existance "as is". And the chances of something irreducibly complex as an amino acid simply popping into existance are simple beyond mathematics. Hence, the theory suggest that they were "made."

With your statement, you've basically admitted that there is no science behind ID.

Edited to add: Still waiting for your discussion of the anthropic principle, BTW.

[skjpm]

285. There are a number of unrelated phenomena which work together

to produce an environment conducive to the emergence of consciousness. The fact that so many unrelated phenomena could work together so perfectly for a single object suggests that they were made that way. I'm not saying it's true, I'm saying it's an idea worth discussing in American textbooks.

[Zenlitened]

293. Examples? And I hope you have something beyond...

... the "human eye is mighty complex" argument, as that's been debunked a million times over.

As for the idea that "intelligent design" should be discussed in classrooms and textbooks, let me ask the question that several others have posed, and not yet recieved an answer: Do you support teaching holocaust denial in history class?

Edited to add: Still waiting for your discussion of the anthropic principle, too.

[DrWeird]

287. No, it's not used by scientists.

It's used by religious fundamentalist quacks.

Oh, and if you read up on the Miller/Urey experiment of sixty some years ago, you'll see that they produced "ireducibly complex" amino acids from abiotic starting materials, i.e. they popped into existence.

Again, it's clear you really don't understand what you're talking about, and are just throwing terms together.

[skjpm]

292. Why is disrespect much of your response to me?

Wouldn't this be a better country if we didn't immediately leap into this sort of banter? Why can't you accept the possibility that an equally intelligent human being might disagree with you? And that our country and our party should have a place for both of us?

[DrWeird]

295. Nothing personal about it.

The only people who use the term "irreducibly complexity" are religous pseudoscientific quacks.

Plenty of intelligent people disagree with me.

That doesn't mean everybody who disagrees with me is intelligent.

Creationists, for example, are the paragon of ignorance.

Or did you mean the "amino acid" thing? Your post specifically says that amino acids just can't happen by chance.

Indeed, they can, and that was scientifically proven years ago. And in a very famous experiment, one already discussed on this thread.

I'm not saying you're dumb, or unintelligent. I'm saying your mistaken. And you've been mistaken numerous times in this thread. If you want to be taken seriously, and you want to have a say on what's taught in science class, you have to get your facts straight.

[Zenlitened]

345. "Maybe you should look it up"

Why must you be so disrespectful to me? :cry:

[blondeatlast]

383. Again, do tell. Who, exactly? nt

[blondeatlast]

381. How about a course syllabus with a complete bibliography?

DUers are intelligent, with a syllabus we can edumacate ourselves about ID...

With Google... :eyes:

[Bob3]

170. the whole problem here is that if you propose a designer

and you don't want the whole discussion to slide off into metaphysical gibberish you have root this in what we observe in the universe and on earth. For example, if there is a designer, it seems he is very fond of beetles - there being more types of beetles on this planet than any other form of life. How this squares with any supreme being is a bit of a poser.

In any event, when scientists talk about god, that god bears little relation to the god of the Judea-Christian tradition - the six day Noah's ark god that ID is being used as a Trojan horse (block that metaphor! Block that metaphor!) to carry the fundie god into public schools as part of political movement to control thought in this country - not to open debate.

There are deep and profound mysteries at the heart of cosmology the deepest being the constants of nature - the force of gravity, the binding forces, and the like - vary them even slightly and we don't exist. Is that evidence of a creator? Maybe, maybe not - there are other explanations (Multiple universes for one) but again this is so far removed from history of life on earth that it's not part of the discussion.

[ProfessorGAC]

174. Geez, You Need To Read More!

Of course it doesn't explain the origin of the universe. Evolution is a biological theory. Cosmology and it's associated theories (quantum mechanics, general realtivity) are within the discipline of the physical sciences, not biological ones.

Nobody has ever even attempted, until you just did, to suggest that evolution explains the origin of the universe. You are attempting to compare apples to aardvarks. There are two totally disconnected, and only tangentially related (since one must precede the other) concepts. Cosmology doesn't explain biology either.

This is a tautological point you're making here. Of course, evlution doesn't explain this. It's not supposed to. Whatever point you think you're making is awfully weak.
The Professor

Edited for typos.

[skjpm]

179. Wouldn't this be a great discussion to have in an American classroom?

I've had an entertaining, thought-provoking hour here--wouldn't it be great if our classrooms were free to have similar discussions? That's all I ask.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

194. Sure, if they discuss it under the title FOLKLORE..not SCIENCE

[JaneDoughnut]

197. You beat me to the Post Message button

n/t

:)

[Walt Starr]

It would be fine in a mythology class

where it belongs.

there was nothing of science in the postings promoting the mythology of ID, though.

[Walt Starr]

211. It would be fine in a mythology class

where it belongs.

there was nothing of science in the postings promoting the mythology of ID, though.

[DrWeird]

216. No.

I saw a small handful of people (including at least one freeper who's been banned) post a bunch of pseudoscientific crap, and everybody else debunk them. Now, it'd be great if all kids could debunk pseudoscience, but frankly I think there's better things they could be doing.

[AZCat]

226. It's the same in the classroom

As you observed, there is always a small group of ideological holdouts, whether on-line or in the classroom.

There can be no debate when one side is unwilling to listen or compromise.

[papau]

252. I agree - the topic is central to our being - but the problem is calling

it science -

science in the end reduces to reproducible experiments that suggest relationships that lead to more reproducible experiments that confirm those relationships.

Science is really not all that explaining of a great deal - but the process called science does not fit the discussion called Intel Design - or indeed any religion/creation discussion.

[JaneDoughnut]

180. What do you want from this discussion?

What exactly are you advocating? Do you think science teachers who cover evolution should be required to talk about intelligent design? How much are they required to say, and is it presented as science, or is it presented as religion?

I would not BAN teachers from mentioning intelligent design and using it to encourage critical thinking about both science and religion. But I would be very upset if this were presented to my child as fact.

On edit: It also seems unfair for the Christian version of creation to be the only one presented. Someone above mentioned Shiva - should we present this in science class as well?

[neverforget]

184. Scientists know nothing about science, religious people do!

At one time, it was taught that the Earth was flat and the Sun revolved around the Earth and we were the center of the Universe. I think science has disproven that. Science doesn't pretend to know everything, only relgion does.

[Griffy]

188. TELL ME THIS.. do you believe in gravity? how about a black hole?

Science is full of things we cant see.. it is the BELIEF in DATA.. like the statistics on the stolen election, we believe in data, facts...

Let me ask this, when lightning stikes a person.. what do you think it is? Zeus? did they sin? What if they were holding a metal pole up in a storm, would that change your reasoning?

I'm curious how you think of these events with all that modern science has discovered... unless its just that you didnt learn it, or it was not taught to you (we are fighting to teach all kids truth and intellectual curiousity.. sorry if we missed you) and are you insisting your right because you dont understand what we are saying?

:)

[Johonny]

206. sort of right I guess

Evolution does not explain the origin of the universe

True. Of course it's not meant to so what. Of course there are other theories that attempt to explain the origin of the universe. Or at least try to combine high energy physics with deep space astronomy.

evolution does not explain how life comes from non-life

True. But once again it's not suppose to. That's another branch of science altogether. Once again so what. Evolution doesn't explain the photo-electron effect... so what?

There is no evidence that after a certain amount of variations, a new species is born, that is, an offspring which cannot reproduce with relatives of its parents. The theory begins after the species has come into existance.

This is wrong. Two seperate species can actually reproduce with each other an still be seperate species. Also there is a lot of genetic data available to show how different seperate species are in variation. This is really a straw man arguement and not true at that.

Listing a bunch of scientist that were born before the theory of evolution is sort of silly. Einstein did not support intelligent design. He supported a basic underlining non-probablistic approach to quantum phisics. He was shown to be wrong on this. God really does play dice with the universe.

Sure one could teach intelligent design. I was the early believe of all naturalists. It fell out of favor only when the world did not show the intelligent design that they thought would exist. Instead they found overwhelming evidence for evolution in both geologic and biologic earth systems. If you want it taught that way I'm sure you;d be unhappy. Both that's what really happen!

[TWiley]

212. I can't sing ............ but I can float on my back.

Your argument makes as much sense. Biologic evolution on this little planet has nothing to do the origin of, or the expansion of, our universe.

When finished, would you care to explain how fried bread influences the phenomena at Bermuda Triangle?

[sendero]

219. Who needs...

.. an explanation of where the universe came from?

It's here.

[SheepyMcSheepster]

222. Intelligent Design Does Not Explain the Origin of God.

turtles all the way down.

[Zenlitened]

273. Shhhh... that's the question we're not supposed to ask!

"Who designed the designer?"

:shrug:

[UdoKier]

224. Sure, "intelligent design" is plausible.

Problem is that there is absolutely NO empirical evidence that it happened. Evolution is backed up by mountains of evidence. That's why it can't be taught - it's no more than speculation.

[Lexingtonian]

228. no, it doesn't- but ID doesn't either

While evolution is a credible scientific theory, it's range is limited, and some of the controversy about evolution is more about extending its range beyond its limits. Evolution does not explain the origin of the universe; evolution does not explain how life comes from non-life;

Evolution describes time-dependent change of things that can and do self-modify. By definition it doesn't describe singular events. Epistemologically there is no strict explanation possible for singular events. If I said Adolf Hitler created the Universe and Josef Stalin caused Life to form on Planet Earth and Ted Bundy made the Crab Nebula supernova occur in 1067, you are unable to prove me wrong by any method you can muster. You can only say that it's implausible to you.

nor does it, title to the contrary, explain the origin of species. All it says is that given an already existing species (that is, a group of animals that can reproduce with each other), some of the offspring will have variations which give them a better chance for survival. These offspring will then produce offspring with similar traits.

And the theory stops there.

There is no evidence that after a certain amount of variations, a new species is born, that is, an offspring which cannot reproduce with relatives of its parents. The theory begins after the species has come into existance.

Not true. In a sufficiently internally diverse population, not all members of the population can successfully breed with each other, even. Snake A can have offspring with Snake B but not with Snake C, but Snake B and Snake C can still breed successfully. Now the assume there are 100 Snake A's, 200 B's, and 100 C's, and A's and B's migrate to Florida while B's and C's migrate to Maine. After 1000 generations of snakes in Florida and Maine, the populations stop being able to breed with each other entirely and are then distinct species. (This particular example is a precis of things biologists actually seen in Nature all the time.) All offspring are slightly different from their parents, genetically, and the differences add up over time. It's called "genetic drift" in the technical lingo. Check out a Peterson's guide to North American bird species- there are several bird species that are forming subspecies, generally as geographical isolates from one another, and there are several species with two different looking variants where the two variants, originally imagined to be different species altogether, breed with each other in geographical overlap regions.

You're getting lost in a distinction between discrete events (individual organisms being created) and gradual incremental ones (germline mutations occurring). For an analogy: no individual rivet popping off a ship's hull will cause the ship to sink. It's the accumulation of a bunch being lost that causes a leak, and few more that causes a breach, a few more that allows a metal sheet to be bent by sea pressure. We see analogous phenomena in insects speciating- there is a hugh literature and genetics about interbreeding between two fruit fly species, D. melanogaster and D. similis, which partially yields viable offspring. I think the difference is known to involve less than a dozen genes, and that number varies even according to geographical breeds of the two.

Therefore, Intelligent Design, as much as it is maligned, seems just as good a hypothesis for those things which evolution does not cover--i.e., the origin of the universe, the origin of life, and, with the addition of the "anthropic principle," a phenomenon widely discussed by such authors as Paul Davies, the apparent calibration of the universe to produce consciousness.

No, Creationism/ID is pro forma a theology of an occultic variety, as are all pseudoscientific theories. All theories involving magical powers of 'consciousness', e.g. Sheldrake's, meet Constant's formal criteria for occultisms. I don't know Davies's, but it can hardly be otherwise.

I, a lifelong Democrat, liberal, and Christian, see Intelligent Design, as a basis for my most cherished values--because I believe the universe is created, I believe we are stewards of creation--therefore I oppose such things as drilling in Alaska, and I affirm environmental protection. My basis for these values may be different from my fellow Democrats, but there is no reason to malign me or my position, since I come out on your side.

You're an occultic believer, to appearances, and therefore your ability to sincerely hold Enlightenment values has to be held in doubt. You claim to be a Christian as well, which is a troubled position relative to Modern values.

Where we differ is that I don't mind the discussion of Intelligent Design as part of education--you can talk about Newton, Jefferson, Aristotle, Kant, Einstein, and any number of great thinkers who share this belief.

Darwin? Freud? Marx? Gauss? Schroedinger? Weinberg? Gould? Teller? Heidegger? Sartre?

I suspect that the Methodist Hillary Clinton believes in some form of Intelligent Design--so why be afraid of discussing it? It might be a way to talk about Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Native American beliefs, Wicca, as well as Christianity and how there are different approaches to the very philosophical question, "Why not nothing?"

We prefer to talk about material realities on this discussion board, even when we're speculating.

I would prefer no flames. Again, my goal is to open up the Democratic party to a wider diversity of opinions.

Well, we prefer to be distinguishable from a lunatic asylum. And occultist proselyzing, while never going to cease, really serves only to hold back the world.

[DARE to HOPE]

297. So much ignorance on this thread, but this post takes the cake...

You sound like AMA doctors deriding Homeopathy.

I see a lot of damaged children here, grown into angry, arrogant adults--who are in such a hurry they cannot spell.

Makes me very sad.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

357. Once again, a great post

:toast:

[Spider Jerusalem]

229. You seem to have conflated evolution and astrophysics.

Two COMPLETELY DIFFERENT and UNRELATED fields. The Big Bang model, and all of the scientific explanations of how matter, stars, galaxies, and planets formed, are totally separate from the theory of evolution which deals specifically with how life formed and evolved. There's no connection.

I find the fact that you seem not to grasp this rather frightening.

[skjpm]

257. Wouldn't this be a great discussion to have in an American Classroom?

All I want is this sort of free interchange of ideas, with nothing off the table. Our children would be much better students and citizens if all points of view were open for discussion.

[DrWeird]

261. You already posted that.

And have ignored the responses.

[skjpm]

279. It's my main point, and no one has addressed it

Do you want American Classrooms limited to the discussion of one point of view? Or do you want them filled with conversations like this one?

[DrWeird]

284. You've ignored those responses too.

For example, would you like to discuss in history class holocaust denial?

I eagerly await your response.

[skjpm]

289. How about the Indian Wars? Or any number of unpleasant parts of history?

For many years, history was taught with an "Indian Wars denial"--no one said it ever happened, and if it did, it wasn't that bad. People asking difficult questions helped to change the textbooks so that hard parts of history could be looked at objectively.

Intelligent Design can be discussed with the writings of Jefferson, Emerson, Newton, etc. It has a rich heritage, and thus a place in education. Holocaust denial is pretty much limited to Mel Gibson's father--there aren't any reputable sources as there are for Intelligent Design.

[DrWeird]

294. LOL.

You're dodging the question.

1. There are plenty of people besides Mel Gibson's father who deny the holocaust happened. (although I bet the guy's a creationist too.)

2. The sources for holocaust denial are just as reputable as the sources for Creationism.

3. You said you wanted to teach all viewpoints, if holocaust denial is a viewpoint, don't you believe it should be taught.

[skjpm]

298. Intelligent Design is not Creationism

As much as you want to believe it is, it isn't. I don't believe in Creationism, for what it's worth. And there are many, many reputable thinkers who support the idea of an Intelligent Designer.

[DrWeird]

302. Yes, it basically is.

If by "reputable thinkers" you mean people like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, I guess you'd be right.

[skjpm]

306. No it isn't.

Believing that makes it easier for you to argue with, but it isn't.

[DrWeird]

308. I'm afraid it is.

The term "Intelligent Design" and the movement to have it "taught" in public schools is solely an effort by the "Creation Science" movement to remove Evolution from schools.

That's like saying the term "Pro-life" has nothing to do with the anti-abortion movement.

Honestly, who are you trying to kid?

[blondeatlast]

394. It's also supported by reputable educational organizations like

the Heritage Foundation, I suspect. :eyes:

Edit: note the terminology used...

[AZCat]

299. How have you missed any of the ~dozen posts on this?

We don't necessarily have a problem with discussing ID in the classroom, but place it in the correct one. It most definitely does not belong in a science classroom, because it isn't a scientific theory.

[Zenlitened]

300. And again... any examples of the scientific writings...

... of Jefferson, Emerson and Newton that support ID?

Not just writings BY a scientist. Writings outlining the science of ID.

:shrug:

[skjpm]

305. I like Paul Davies's writings nt.

[Zenlitened]

318. Can you cite something that supports your case here? - n/t

[Salviati]

310. Yes, I'd love it if the history classes talked about the indian wars...

because they actually happened. Now if you bring in Holocost Denial, or the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, under the guise of "a different viewpoint", then that's just crap, because they're bullshit. Why don't we study alchemy in chemestry class, Newton was a big proponent of alchemy, so let's include it in order to bring in diverse (but wrong) viewpoints.

The thing about science is that other viewpoints, when not supported by the evidence, are discarded (by pretty much everyone but the cranks, I mean you can still find people who want to deny relativity...). The Lumeniferous Ether and The steady state model of the universe are all viewpoints that have been expunged from the study of physics, save as examples of discarded models.

[blondeatlast]

392. No one's addressed it?

There's only one explanation for that response--that you've ignored the replies that were posted to your first post.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

267. This thread is like talking to prozac

Wouldn't it be great to take an issue such as creation, confuse it with Darwinism and evolution which does NOT profess to teach how the universe was created and of which the correct scientific answer is WE DON'T KNOW and teach it as though it is valid scientific theory even though not a single IOTA of Intelligent Design has been proven?

No...I want my scientists to mature in their profession using scientific inquiry...not religious hyperbole.

[blindpig]

262. it's not supposed to

Evolution explains the diversity of life on Earth, and does it to the satisfaction of the biologists and paleontologist concerned. I'm highly amused that most if not all supporters of ID are NOT biologists or paleontologists.

So what is your problem with evolution? Are you confused or are you fishing in troubled waters?

If confused I suggest Ernst Myer's "What Evolution Is". It is concise, nontechnical and irrefutable.

I suspect that you're just shopping a venue to hawk your metaphysics.

Ain't nothing but flamebait.

[rniel]

271. Yes but

It's how it put to the students that bothers me. There's a difference between saying there is a theory that there is some kind of intelligent design at work in the universe and saying Christianity is the absolute truth of everything and you'll go to hell if you don't believe in it.

[Zenlitened]

315. Thing is, ID is not a scientific theory.

That's where the whole discussion breaks down. All ID says is "I dunno -- somone must designed it."

That's not science. I'm not sure it's a very robust religion, either.

[Name removed]

280. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[WoodrowFan]

309. so they can learn bad science??? (NT)

[Name removed]

320. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[WoodrowFan]

324. then don't post it on a public board, sheesh

and it's still bad science whatever delusions you may treasure.

[Name removed]

335. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[WoodrowFan]

337. unGodly kooks?

what else are they getting "accurate info" on I wonder.

[Name removed]

340. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DrWeird]

344. Doesn't mean you've got a right to abusive them.

Is the denial of on honest education a form of abuse?

That's a good question.

[Name removed]

352. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[WoodrowFan]

353. yeah Dr Wierd

stop readng his posts on a public discussion board!! you perv!!!

[Zenlitened]

355. "You need to mind your own business"

That may be one of the funniest lines I've ever seen posted on a public Internet discussion board! :D

[WoodrowFan]

361. it's definitely up there isn't it! (NT)

[Name removed]

363. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DrWeird]

367. If somebody posted a message on a message board...

that they liked to burn their kids with cigarette butts because that's going to protect their kids from godless communists, they can probably expect people to "not mind their own business."

If people say on public message boards that they pulled their kids out of school and are teaching them white supremacy because they're sick and tired of how schools are teaching the scientifically illegitimate of racial equality, they can expect to get called on that too.

[Zenlitened]

369. Put down the stone tablets and take a few deep breaths, okay?

If you want to go on a discussion board and describe the educational choices you've made for your children, choices that may seem antithetical to progressive education, then expect criticism.

If you object to the terms in which that criticism is delivered, fine. But "MYOB" just doesn't cut it.

[datasuspect]

375. guanilon and the fool

and gaunilon told the fool: "god is that than which nothing greater can be conceived."

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

402. OMG..that is complete projection. For your info, MOST evolutionary

theory has borne out. Again people fail to distinguish Darwinism from other aspects of evolution which IS in fact demonstrable. Teaching creationism as if it were TANTAMOUNT to scientific fact is teaching your child not to think.

If you don't want you beliefs debated, then perhaps NOT POSTING them on a public message board would insulate you from controversy.

[DrWeird]

356. I'm not judging anybody.

I'm just saying that people who pull their kids out of school and deny them a real education and destroy their hope for opportunity later in life are abusive.

Wouldn't you agree?

[AZCat]

365. If you are this offended by interaction with the rest of us...

...then perhaps participating on a semi-public message board isn't for you.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

376. LMAO

don't post your personal business on a discussion board if you don't want the peanut gallery to comment on it. Your faux indignation is hilarious!

:7

[WoodrowFan]

347. because I come from a family of teachers

and I hate seeing kids raised in ignorance.

[DrWeird]

339. You may as well be teaching your kids the holocaust never happened.

I suppose you can teach your kids anything you want.

The problem is, they're eventually going to have to interact with real people.

And I, for one, don't particularly like to deal with "godly" kooks. Also, people who say they're christian but aren't really christian.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

371. Ungodly kooks? Who?

[DrWeird]

391. Scientists.

We're trying to steal his precious bodily fluids.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

403. Oh..those fucking godless commie bastards that cured polio?

[datasuspect]

325. you make it the world's business when you post it online . . .

just saying . . .

[DrWeird]

333. If I were on a college admission board...

I sure wouldn't be accepting kids that didn't have any real science background.

[Name removed]

336. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DrWeird]

342. Excellent.

I'm sure they'll find fine careers with their degrees from Liberty University.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

382. I think you mean Bob Jones University

I hear they teach Eugenics there too! :eyes:

[datasuspect]

384. i got me a Ph and D in race science

boy i tell ya what . . . ya gotta treat propane like a delicate lady!!

[AZCat]

343. We seem to have different understandings of the idea...

...of a better education in science.

Any "scientific" education that includes ID as part of its curriculum is not scientific, however much you might want it to be.

It is certainly your right to educate your children as you see fit, but don't expect the rest of the world to applaud your techniques.

[WoodrowFan]

338. I'm sure they can get into a nice "Christian" school

where the can learn 2+2=5 and call it "Science"


I wonder what YNGW means, "Why Not George W?"

[Name removed]

348. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[WoodrowFan]

351. hope they don't take science classes

hope they don't take science classes, cause good schools like that have REAL scientists and repeating ID nonsense will get them an F.



As for your name, excuse me for not reading your mind. :eyes: It isn't only these posts that made me wonder. (and we've had trolls with a lot higher post count that you).

[Name removed]

354. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[WoodrowFan]

358. BOL

maybe on day one they'll learn what "theory" means in science.

[datasuspect]

372. that was a head scratcher

i resisted the urge to respond to that, thanks for picking up the light saber of truth!

l'chaim!

[WoodrowFan]

377. you hear that old chestnut ALL the time

It's also the "theory" of gravity, but I'm waiting for the first creationist to jump off of a building to prove it's "just a theory."

A few words need to be said about the "theory of evolution," which most people take to mean the proposition that organisms have evolved from common ancestors. In everyday speech, "theory" often means a hypothesis or even a mere speculation. But in science, "theory" means "a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed." as the Oxford English Dictionary defines it. The theory of evolution is a body of interconnected statements about natural selection and the other processes that are thought to cause evolution, just as the atomic theory of chemistry and the Newtonian theory of mechanics are bodies of statements that describe causes of chemical and physical phenomena. In contrast, the statement that organisms have descended with modifications from common ancestors--the historical reality of evolution--is not a theory. It is a fact, as fully as the fact of the earth's revolution about the sun. Like the heliocentric solar system, evolution began as a hypothesis, and achieved "facthood" as the evidence in its favor became so strong that no knowledgeable and unbiased person could deny its reality. No biologist today would think of submitting a paper entitled "New evidence for evolution;" it simply has not been an issue for a century.

- Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology, 2nd ed., 1986, Sinauer Associates, p. 15

[datasuspect]

379. i always thought knowing what a theory is

was like life science 101.

did something change in the past 5 years? oh. yeah. something did.

i just can't shake the siege mentality feeling i get. or the feeling that i am living in the dark ages.

[DrWeird]

359. Not if the admission boards are aware of the Creationism.

Admission boards across the country have had to deny the science credits in various regions due to the influx of Creationism.

So, if kids who have been taught Creationism are getting into Harvard, they'd have to be sneaking in.

Kind of like GW.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

385. You don't get that far here while posting "undercover".

*whistles and walks away*

[datasuspect]

388. internet 007s

coffee klatch in the rubber room at 0900. bring your du surveillance results so rimjob can give you some brownie points and gold stars.

[blondeatlast]

400. If your kids are in private school, why do YOU care what is being taught

in public school?

I've read all the talking points regarding private schools and vouchers on the Heritage Foundation site and I know a good progressive wouldn't parrot that stuff anyway.

[Shadoobie]

282. ID is not science and not Christian

I am also a lifelong liberal, Democrat, and Christian. I am also a scientist. For me, science is the means of understanding God's creation.

Evolution does not make claims on the origin of the universe or the origins of life. Those issues can be addressed with other theories (Big Bang, etc). The important consideration in testing the theory is whether or not it is falsifiable. What evidence would you lokk for to prove that the theory is false. For evolution, it is easy. If evolution was false, the fossil record would show evidence of life forms that are exactly the same over long time periods. It does not.

To supplant evolution as a more viable theory, ID must be able to explain the evidence of evolution, and explain issue evolution cannot. The theory must also be falsifiable. What evidence must there be to disprove ID? The basis for ID is that life is too complex to have been created randomly. A intelligent designer must have created life and guided it's development. Do you look for life forms in a particular region that have developed differently than other life forms (See Madagascar and Australia)? Do you demonstrate that some cellular processes cannot be accomplished chemically? Do you try to create new unique life forms from non living material? Any argument you make to try to disprove intelligent design can be countered with: "The intelligent designer must not have wanted that to happen." ID is not falsifiable. As a scientist, this make ID an affront to science.

As a scientist, I recognize that we will never know everything. As a Christian, I believe the challenge of humanity is to understand and appreciate God's gift to us. We may decide the Universe was created in one big bang. But what existed before? We may believe that univers is expanding. But against what? No matter what we learn, there will always be questions left unanswered, impossible to answer. Only God knows everything. It is at this level that I believe God created everything.

As a Christian, I believe that Jesus was sent to remind us that we have free will. I believe this is has been true since the beginning of time. To think that God is constantly affecting our development is an affront to my Christianity. God would like us to love him because we choose to love him not that we have been "guided" in that direction. Of course, this is my opinion/belief. You are welcome to yours but don't try to imply that ID should be taught in a science class as a theory superior to evolution.

Peace,

Greg

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

288. This post should be it's own thread. It will only be wasted in the morass

of this thread.

I'm not sure where I stand on the nature of believing, but I certainly can IMMENSELY respect YOUR beliefs when expressed in such an unassuming manner.

Thanks for that.

[skjpm]

296. Where did I say any of that?

Please look at my original post. Did I say ID was Christian? Did I say it was superior? And, incidentally, there are a lot of species in the fossil record which stay exactly the same over time, and appear to have no predecessor--heard of cockroaches?

[Zenlitened]

311. You threw away your credibility with the first words you wrote

By criticizing evolution because it fails to explain the origin of the universe, you showed you have no real understanding of what evolution is all about.

You went on to toss out one tired old creationist canard after another -- "irreducible" complexity, fossil record gaps, etc.

You seem thoroughly immune to any of the scientific facts various posters have provided in support of evolution theory.

You refuse to explain how ID works as science, appropriate for discussion in science class.

And you cloak yourself in the mantle of liberalism and progressivism while you're at it.

Some gall.

[HereSince1628]

314. Cockroaches have no predecessor? Well, that's just not right

The evolution of the "orthopteroid assemblage" is reasonably well known. Indeed, for the cockroaches and their close kin, Gullan and Cranston go so far as to say that the Dictyoptera is one of the best examples of a monophyletic grouping among the insects!

Where did you get the idea that cockroaches have no known predecessors?

[Zenlitened]

322. Imagine that! An ID proponent presenting lies as truth.

Guess they don't "believe in" Google, either! :D

Unlike the trilobite that has left a prodigious fossil record, the preservation of insects in sedimentary matrix is relatively rare, and essentially limited to the Laggerstat sites. The reason for the scarcity of insect fossil is the poor preservation potential of the insect's exoskeleton. Like other Arthropods, insects have an external skeleton called an exoskeleton. Unlike the thick and calcified trilobite exoskeleton, the insect exoskeleton is made of a thin, plastic-like material called chitin, along with a tough protein. This thin, waterproof covering simple does not preserve well in most oxygenated environments, making insect fossils sparse despite the tremendous number that could have been preserved. The exception is in fossil resinite (amber, by street name), where it is possible for even the minutest details to be preserved. Despite their huge strength to weight ratio, insects were often to small to escape the sticky resin exuded by trees, and which later became a fossil itself, with physical properties akin to modern polymerized plastics.

Insect evolution is a powerful illustration of decent with modification. The earliest known insects are tiny wingless forms from the early and middle Devonian. Insect flight developed with suddenness resembling the Cambrian explosion during the middle Carboniferous, apparently the result of the significant survival advantage that was accrued. By the end of the Carboniferous, the subphylum insecta had evolved into a large number of distinct orders. During the Permian, new insects forms appeared. Blattoid and Orthopteroid orders attained their greatest diversity, and new groups like the Psocoptera, homopteran Hemiptera, Mecoptera and Coleoptera became ubiquitous and diverse. The Permian extinction wiped out nine orders of insects, and more orders disappeared in the Triassic or the early Jurassic. However, surviving orders such as Neuroptera, Mecoptera, and Diptera, and Coleoptera underwent further adaptive radiation establishing many families extant in modern times. So exquisite is insect design that most groups were well formed by the Cretaceous and remain largely unchanged in appearance during modern times.

Insect evolution has led to prodigious diversity of this animal group comapred with other members of Domain Eucarya. For example, there are believed to be three times as many Dipetran species (fllies) as there are vertebrate species, and ten times as many Coliopteran species (beetles) as vertebrate species.

Taxonomic research on fossil insects has always been relegated to a subordinate role when compared to that of living species. There are large numbers of undetermined fossil insects in many collections throughout the world awaiting descriptions, but only a small fraction of systematic research has ever been devoted to these fossils.

Source:
http://www.fossilmuseum.net/Tree_of_Life/Phylum%20Arthropoda/Subphylum_insecta/subphylum_insecta_fossils.htm

(emphasis added)

[WoodrowFan]

327. one thought

Greg, I loved your note. I try to be a Christian (not very good at it yet, alas) and there's something about ID (or creation "science") that I've noticed. They IDers depend on LYING. They have to, or they'd have no argument at all. Whether it's false claims about the fossle record, or fake footprints in a riverbed in Texas, they spin one untruth after another. How, I wonder, can something so based on lies be Godly in any way?

I've always thought that creationism is a way to shrink God to man's size, and to make man the center of all creation. That seems rather blasphemous to me.

[blondeatlast]

397. Excellent post. Thanks. nt

[idlisambar]

312. Observed Instances of Speciation

"Evolution does not explain the origin of the universe; evolution does not explain how life comes from non-life; nor does it, title to the contrary, explain the origin of species."

There are many examples of speciation through various mechanisms in the literature...

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

[independentchristian]

328. The Bible says...

...that the voice of God is like "thunder."

How does thunder sound?

Booooooom!!! Bang!!!

The Bible says that in the beginning God said let there be light.

Booooooom!!! Bang!!!

If God created the heavens and the earth by speaking and his voice is like "thunder", think that could be a "Bang" that set the wheels of the universe into motion?

Of course some of you don't, but I think that people on both sides who think that it has to be either creationism or the Big Bang Theory, and it's impossible for it to be both, are shortsighted in the very least and at most, completely ignorant.

Like my signature line says, "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

How can you separate the two? Science doesn't disprove God just because science can be studied. Everything is not tangible, everything is not examinable. That doesn't mean it's "impossible" for it to exist.

And any Christian who dismisses science is a fool, just like anyone who dismisses God just because they can't see Him or touch him. Even if you believe that God created the heavens and the earth, science is necessary to study "His creation." You believe that He created "man", okay, doctors study "that" creation, duh. No difference with the universe (astronomers) or anything else.

It's not either the Big Bang Theory or Creationism. Is it possible that they are one in the same?

"Let there be", BANG!

As for evolution. It's possible. Doesn't disprove anything. Just like certain animals go extinct, new animals can pop up over time. After all, the Bible says that on the "7th day" He rested. It didn't say that He stopped completely, it says that He rested.

Just food for thought.

[GOPBasher]

329. Big Bang and Biblical creation go pretty well together,

as long as you don't take the latter as a word-for-word literal account.

[independentchristian]

380. It cannot be fully taken that way because...

...you have to have an overall understanding of more scriptures than just the one that you are looking at at the time to understand what is actually being said. The "carnal mind" cannot understand the spiritual.

In this scripture, if you apply the word "day" as literally meaning "24 hours," then you are starting off on the wrong leg from the beginning and not taking other scriptures into account.

The Bible says that "a day to the Lord is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day."

Now, first off, a "literalist" will say that one day to God equals 1,000 years or 365,000 days, so a 6 day creation must be equal to 6,000 years or 2,190,000 days, based on that scripture, but they overlook the main words in that scripture, that being "is as".

"Is as" is not a statement of the "definite." That scripture is saying that "God's time is not like ours."

Okay, now when you apply that to the scripture in Genesis about a 6 day creation, you understand that it's not talking about 144 hours (6 days in our time), although most "Christians" don't even understand that because most people are "literalists."

So, if God's time is not like ours, then how long did it really take for God to "create" the universe? I don't know, a day to him "is as" a thousand years because He is independent of the way we define time. I'd also ask evolutionists how long did it take for humans to "evolve" to their present form and how long will it take for them to evolve to whatever else they are evolving into?

One can only "guesstimate."

[datasuspect]

387. boy that clears things up!

it was carnal mind all along!

what does christianity NOT think of!

how can i gauge the appropriate level of godliness necessary to read scripture WITHOUT a carnal mind?

[independentchristian]

389. "Clears things up"?

Are most things in life "clear"?

It's the carnal mind that is only looking to "disprove" in the beginning, along with the fact that most people lack critical thinking abilities.

Like I said, even most "Christians" are literalists, and not all Christians are "spiritual minded," either.

They don't think about the scriptures in detail either. They just take it as is, with no research or examination done at all, duh.

[datasuspect]

395. let me wipe the drool from my lips

it seems i am in the presence of greatness.

[GOPBasher]

401. Nice to find someone of like mind.

It seems like so many people are all about Religion VS Science, or Religion OR Science, as if they're mutually exclusive. I like to think in terms of Religion AND Science.

[Butler]

341. ok

NOW I GET IT

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

349. Shifting the burden of proof. Teach this thread in public schools.

It is a textbook example of one shifting the burden of proof away from their fallatious argument.

[independentchristian]

386. Most Christians don't want the Bible taught in schools, duh!

I suppose most Iraqis enjoy the U.S. presence in Iraq just because Allawi does? Okay then, if a handful of Christians are vocal about "creationism" being taught in school that doesn't mean that all of them do.

The usual comeback: "Okay then, why don't they say that then"?

Pat Robertson himself said that, John Wallis has said it, plenty of Christian vocalists have said it, but "you" want to believe otherwise, so you drown it out.

I suppose you could ask the same about the Iraqis.

If they want us to leave, then why don't we hear more of them saying it?

My answer: The same reason we don't hear about peak oil on a daily basis in our news media, although it's dominating our foreign policy.

[SoCalDem]

362. Some things will always defy explanation..

Adults just have to understand that.

Cooks know it.. You can follow your Grandmother's recipe to the letter, and yet "it never tastes as good".

Perhaps EVERYTHING need not be understood:)

[Misunderestimator]

393. LOL... How has this thread gotten this many posts?!?

Wow... intelligent design... LOL... Very well-packaged though, and apparently provocative. :eyes:

[Salviati]

399. It is good fun though...

keeps the mind sharp!

[Ediacara]

404. IDers are creationists

Creationists are professional liars. Period.

[Moderator]

406. Please continue the discussion over here!

This thread has gotten too large.

Continue the discussion over here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3167266