Arguing against those who think that Intelligent Design is science

[The Night Owl]

What did I learn from debating conservatives who are in favor ID conjecture being taught as science? I learned that conservatives don't care that an overwhelming majority of the scientific community is against the teaching of Intelligent Design conjecture as part of a science curriculum. According to conservatives, the scientific community just hasn't come around yet.

I've lost hope for America. Tell me we are not living in Hell right now.

[Birthmark]

1. In addition,

IDers are willing to use quotes out of context, misstate scientific information, and outright lie to try and sway people. They are genuinely frightened by the truth.

[Maestro]

2. Here is a nice place to start

http://www.csicop.org/creationwatch/

[FreedomAngel82]

11. Here's another good site

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

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/interpretations.html (This is interpentations of Genesis)

This is from the first link. I thought it was useful to use with religious people who want to ignore evoultion all together.

<Not always. Certainly it contradicts a literal interpretation of the first chapter of Genesis, but evolution is a scientific principle, like gravity or electricity. To scientifically test a religious belief one first must find some empirical test that gives different results depending on whether the belief is true or false. These results must be predicted before hand, not pointed to after the fact.>

< Some religious beliefs do make predictions. These predictions can be tested. If a religious belief fails a test, it is the test that contradicts that religious belief. The theory which makes the correct prediction should have nothing to say on the matter. This does not mean that scientists don't sometimes make the mistake of saying a theory contradicts something.>

The whole page has a lot of good information that can be used in debating with religious fundamentalists.

[Catholic Sensation]

3. tell them it's not a scientific theory

because a scientific theory is one that can be disproven through evidence. whether or not a deity created the earth and aided evolution is impossible for a human being to prove or disprove.

[The Night Owl]

5. I tried every conceivable angle.

[FreedomAngel82]

12. I know how you feel

There are some people who can be talked to and some people who are just impossible to talk to.

[Journeyman]

4. I'm a firm believer that there are only two things . . .

that can neutralize the religious whackjobs who are attempting to control our little corner of the planet: their own hubris, and ridicule from the rest of us. There's ample evidence they're overstepping their bounds and calling a whiplash upon themselves. Here's part of the whiplash:


These are excerpts from an incredibly funny web site: www.venganza.org/

You need to read the whole thing, but this'll give you a taste.



THE PROPOSAL:


OPEN LETTER TO KANSAS SCHOOL BOARD

I am writing you with much concern after having read of your hearing to decide whether the alternative theory of Intelligent Design should be taught along with the theory of Evolution. I think we can all agree that it is important for students to hear multiple viewpoints so they can choose for themselves the theory that makes the most sense to them. I am concerned, however, that students will only hear one theory of Intelligent Design.

Let us remember that there are multiple theories of Intelligent Design. I and many others around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. It was He who created all that we see and all that we feel. We feel strongly that the overwhelming scientific evidence pointing towards evolutionary processes is nothing but a coincidence, put in place by Him.

It is for this reason that I’m writing you today, to formally request that this alternative theory be taught in your schools, along with the other two theories. In fact, I will go so far as to say, if you do not agree to do this, we will be forced to proceed with legal action. I’m sure you see where we are coming from. If the Intelligent Design theory is not based on faith, but is instead another scientific theory, as is claimed, then you must also allow our theory to be taught, as it is also based on science, not on faith.

(Much more at the website.)




RESPONSES FROM THE KANSAS SCHOOL BOARD:



Response from Mrs. Janet Waugh - District 1 - Received 6/25/05

From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Jun 25, 2005 6:34 AM
Subject: Response from a member of the Kansas Board of Education

Thanks for your comments about the Flying Spaghetti Monster and all the supporters who have sent their support to members of the Kansas Board of Education. I am supporting the recommendations of the science committee and am currently in the minority. I think your theory is wonderful and possibly some of the majority members will be willing to support it.

Thanks again,

Janet Waugh
District 1

 


Response from Mrs. Sue Gamble - District 2 - Received 6/26/05

From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Jun 26, 2005 6:34 PM
Subject: Reply

Dear Mr. Henderson, Thanks for your message. Thanks for the laugh. Your web site is fascinating. I will add your theory to a long list of alternative theories I intend to introduce when it is appropriate. I am practicing how to do this with a straight face which is difficult since it's such a ridiculous subject; it is also very sad that we are even having the discussion.

I will be one of the four member minority who will be voting against the flawed science standards currently being proposed by the six member majority.

Sincerely,

Sue Gamble






SUPPORT FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES:


8/2/05 - President Bush supports Flying Spaghetti Monsterism. "I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought," Bush said. "You're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, the answer is yes."





INTERESTING OBSERVATION BY FSM PROPONENT:



7/7/05 - I have received over 1000 emails now, and here is what I've learned: No one supports the teaching of faith-based theories in science classroom, NOT EVEN the very religious -- at least the ones who have contacted me. It makes sense, I suppose... why would they want their beliefs taught by an unenthusiastic science teacher who is begrudgingly explaining a theory that he, himself, does not believe?

So... to the majority members of the Kansas School Board: Why are you so hell-bent on this? Where are your supporters? Have them contact me, because I have yet to hear a single explanation of why faith-based theories should be taught in science classroom.



The website seems to be overloaded with hits at the moment. It may take you awhile to get to it.

[FreedomAngel82]

13. I don't get it either with Kansas

I also have talked with people about this and for the most part nobody wants religion in schools and they understand how you can't prove God exists and you can't prove He doesn't exist. Who will teach it? Will it be strictly Biblical or will the teacher give their view points of it? And if so who will it be? A Catholic? A Baptist? What? There are many interpentations out there.

[Son of California]

6. I personally am very interested in the idea of Intelligent Design

It occured to me all of its own in my highschool science classes.
I didn't need someone to tell me.
I mean, look the infinite detail put into every living form, and it IS tempting to wonder if it is proof that all this has to be a product of a great "Intelligence."

That being said, these are personal feelings, basic more on emotion and a personal hunch than anything else and have no business being taught in a school paid for with our tax dollars.

[TahitiNut]

7. (Hmmm.) Does God get old?

Where did Time itself come from? Is it part of Creation? If so, then isn't God independent of Time? If God created Time itself, then isn't Creation (including Time) an Alpha-Omega thing? In other words, isn't ALL of existence, from Beginning to (supposedly) End created at once? If so, then isn't it essentially a non-issue whether evolution is "random"?

FWIW, I tire of the simple-minded talk of Creation as a "then" thing.

[FreedomAngel82]

8. I've also been told

that scientists recognize ID. I have asked for proof but so far haven't seen anything except their words. :eyes: I'm sure there are scientists who are religious but you can't prove God or an Intelligent Designer. That's like when you're little and Santa Claus.

[ray of light]

9. Check this thread

http://www.democracycellproject.net/blog/archives/2005/08/render_unto_sci_1.html#comments

[Union Thug]

10. Turn it around with Malloy's fabulous...

...talking snake theory of human evolution.

When you take it literally, you can't help but have a good ole' fashioned barf-o-rama. And to think, some people believe this stuff. Oy!

There was a book that came out probably 20 years ago now that took on the Creationists head on. It was called "The Monkey Business"... and I can't remember the subtitle nor can I remember the author's name... Hopefully he's updated it to take on today's slimier, more pathetic born agains... Now I'm going to have to check into it....


on edit:
here's the book...doesn't appear at first glance to have been updated, so I'm not sure how it stands up since 1984. I remember it was a great primer for the debate... Anyone know of a more recent book(s) that address this head on?

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0671531417/qid=1123457173/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/104-3537286-2428765?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

[punpirate]

14. It's more or less impossible...

... because of a fairly simple reason. The people who favor ID (or its real manifestation, creationism), don't want to, or can't, view it in scientific terms. Science can only be explained from the point of view of science.

Most of the people in favor of it never had enough scientific training (out of disinterest or religious bias) to understand basic scientific method. That's why they seize the term "theory" as exposing evolution for what they think it is. They don't have the training to understand what the word means in science, but they're all for using its colloquial meaning, rather than its specific meaning, because it suits their purposes.

The argument then devolves down to trying to explain two dissimilar things with a set of terms inappropriate to explain one of them. Such people simply don't want to, are unable to, defend ID on the basis of science, because it can't be defended by scientific logic, period. So, the terms they choose are those that are comfortable to them, not to the person who understands science.

Without a common context and a common set of terms for discussion, there can be no mutual agreement.

Beyond that, the people supporting ID have a religious basis for doing so--which violates perhaps the first tenet of science--that evidence doesn't derive from theory. The theory is derived from the evidence.

If they can't get beyond that, they don't have the training or the honesty to approach the subject with scientific method. Hence, an impasse.

One just has to keep one thing in mind. Belief is a very powerful force, but knowledge is greater, for this reason. When a person's belief is shattered, for whatever reason, his reason for being is called into question. When one's knowledge is found to be wrong, the better answer only increases one's knowledge. We're never diminished by more knowledge. :)

Use some of that on `em. :P