NationStates Jolt Archive

Yes, another thread about ID. I'm becoming very annoyed by this whole ET-ID debate because it has evolved (pun intended) into the kind of yes-no arguments 10 year olds have.

In my humble opinion ID has no scientific value, simply because you have to include design, and therefore a Designer, into your hypotheses, and you cannot 'prove' this Designer. However, a lot of people on this forum feel that ID is indeed science.

So I'm asking the ID proponents to substantiate their claims. Think of a simple, even hypothetical, problem, and devise an hypothesis that is testable and falsifiable. If you can do that you've proven to all of us evolutionary dogmatists that you were right and we were wrong.

3 topics on the same page is a little much, innit? Anyway, there was one of these last week. Gonna be interesting to see if they come thru this time :)

I'd like to make a supporting argument for the thread starter.

Here is how Hawking defined scientific theories:
A theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements. It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predicions about the results of future observations.
...
Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis: you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory. As philosopher of science Karl Popper has emphasized, a good theory is characterized by the fact that it makes a number of predictions that could in principle be disproved or falsified by observation. Each time new experiments are observed to agree with the predictions the theory survives and our confidence in it is increased; but if ever a new observation is found to disagre, we have to abandon or modify the theory.

Intelligent design does not make definite predictions about future observations. It contains one very large arbitrary element (a deity) and it cannot be tested.

If there is an intelligent designer, why do men have nipples? Why does my mother need glasses?

If there is an intelligent designer, why do men have nipples? Why does my mother need glasses?
just cos you don't know the answers.
maybe the designer is more intelligent than you. :eek:

Uhm.. Not trying to hijack, or anything.. But I'd like to add a question:

Do you ID'ers feel you have an adequate understanding of what the scientific method is?

just cos you don't know the answers.
maybe the designer is more intelligent than you. :eek:

Or maybe, just maybe, there is no designer. Maybe all the IDers should take off their Alex Chiu life rings and scrap this idea and get back to real science.

I can disprove Intelligent Design rather quickly.

All I have to do is bring my wife to a typical science class, where we will disrobe, and begin having sex at the front of the class for all to see.

After we finish, we will replay a video of the interesting faces we made, the hilarious positions we assumed, and the general mess.

I will then posit that no intelligent designer would have possibly come up with so ridiculous a means of reproduction.

If there is an intelligent designer, why do men have nipples? Why does my mother need glasses?

Hey that's not fair. All they said was there is intelligence behind the design. They never said he/she/it was competent

Hey that's not fair. All they said was there is intelligence behind the design. They never said he/she/it was competent
Yes. Intelligent design does not necessarily mean good design. For example, the design of...certain cerebral modern pieces is intelligent, but not with all that good results. :rolleyes:

I don't support ID. There's no evidence anywhere. I've never seen any. The omniverse is not too complex to have evolved naturally.

Hey that's not fair. All they said was there is intelligence behind the design. They never said he/she/it was competent

If you're using intelligent design as an end-run to establish that "God did it", you're going to have a problem with saying He was incompetent.

In any religion, whether Judeo-Christian or Islamic, God is infallible, perfect, complete, and utterly competent.

If there is an intelligent designer, why do men have nipples?

So that they are able to lactate and thus care for their young in extreme circumstances.

I can disprove Intelligent Design rather quickly.

All I have to do is bring my wife to a typical science class, where we will disrobe, and begin having sex at the front of the class for all to see.

After we finish, we will replay a video of the interesting faces we made, the hilarious positions we assumed, and the general mess.

I will then posit that no intelligent designer would have possibly come up with so ridiculous a means of reproduction.

maybe he/she/it has a sense of humour? or maybe he thought it would stop people having sex in public? the stupid faces and all?

Hey, let's stay on topic. All I'm asking is that a proponent of ID postulate a hypothesis here. It may be simple, it may be grand, but just postulate something.

So that they are able to lactate and thus care for their young in extreme circumstances.

I do belive men are devoid of mammary glands, thus they are unable to produce milk. Unless someone is talking about that milk...

Sorry, I had to say it before the trolls got it and used it with more insulting results.

GOD made the universe and everything. He then created earth and seeded it with life. Let's not delve into that too muc and just say a bit missed and now we have the milky way.
Life grew and prospered, and god and the animals were happy. This of course made the devil jealous, so like a bitch he wanted to break god new toy..... err creation by throwing things at it. Although he had shitty aim, he did manage to get at least one good shot in. This caused most life to be wiped out.
As you can imaging this annoyed GOD, and since he only had a couple of days to make new life he made Man. AND the reason men have nipples, etc is due to the fact that Toyota nor japan existed yet so he could not take advantage of just in time manufacturing techniques and had to rely instead on a bunch of fairies to help him. Since they don't like to get their hands dirty corners had to be cut.
And that is how life came about.
questions?

or maybe he thought it would stop people having sex in public? the stupid faces and all?
Why would s/he want that? Other animals do it fine in public.

GOD made the universe and everything. He then created earth and seeded it with life. Let's not delve into that too muc and just say a bit missed and now we have the milky way.
Life grew and prospered, and god and the animals were happy. This of course made the devil jealous, so like a bitch he wanted to break god new toy..... err creation by throwing things at it. Although he had shitty aim, he did manage to get at least one good shot in. This caused most life to be wiped out.
As you can imaging this annoyed GOD, and since he only had a couple of days to make new life he made Man. AND the reason men have nipples, etc is due to the fact that Toyota nor japan existed yet so he could not take advantage of just in time manufacturing techniques and had to rely instead on a bunch of fairies to help him. Since they don't like to get their hands dirty corners had to be cut.
And that is how life came about.
questions?So, do you have any paychecks that God gave the fairies as proof that he hired them?

GOD made the universe and everything. He then created earth and seeded it with life. Let's not delve into that too muc and just say a bit missed and now we have the milky way.
Life grew and prospered, and god and the animals were happy. This of course made the devil jealous, so like a bitch he wanted to break god new toy..... err creation by throwing things at it. Although he had shitty aim, he did manage to get at least one good shot in. This caused most life to be wiped out.
As you can imaging this annoyed GOD, and since he only had a couple of days to make new life he made Man. AND the reason men have nipples, etc is due to the fact that Toyota nor japan existed yet so he could not take advantage of just in time manufacturing techniques and had to rely instead on a bunch of fairies to help him. Since they don't like to get their hands dirty corners had to be cut.
And that is how life came about.
questions?

I have a question:

What in the name of spoons was that???

I have a question:

What in the name of spoons was that???
Sarcasm...I hope...

Sarcasm...I hope...

If you say it's sarcasm, it must be.

So, do you have any paychecks that God gave the fairies as proof that he hired them?

no unfortunately. As understand it, GOD being a bit of a dick did not pay them for the services. Money did not exist yet and he's GOD so being able to create it out of fin air...well image what inflation, etc. would be like.
Also as unions did not exist yet, the fairies could not organise and are still waiting on payment. That's why work on Mars isn't finished yet. They're striking!

I have a question:

What in the name of spoons was that???

ID no? :rolleyes:

Sarcasm...I hope...

no, don't like sarcasm, its a poor form of wit.

But people are waiting on an intelligent arguemtn regarding ID. I thought I'd at least keep you guys occupied, don't think hell's going to freeze over just yet

ID no? :rolleyes:

Well it has the Design part. Still waiting for the Intelligent...

Well it has the Design part. Still waiting for the Intelligent...You think the "I" stood for "Intelligent"? "Imaginative"... :D

Well it has the Design part. Still waiting for the Intelligent...

how about Idiotic Design? or ignorant design?

how about Idiotic Design? or ignorant design?

Idiotic Design would at least explain things like the appendix, the fact our breathing tubes and our food tubes are linked or Paris Hilton.

Come on people. It's easy to insult other people's convictions. The fact is: a lot of religious people really believe that ID is on par with ET. Stating that ID is idiotic will not convince them otherwise.

I'm still hoping someone will post an ID hypothesis, so we can discuss it and see if it has real scientific meaning.

Come on people. It's easy to insult other people's convictions. The fact is: a lot of religious people really believe that ID is on par with ET. Stating that ID is idiotic will not convince them otherwise.

I'm still hoping someone will post an ID hypothesis, so we can discuss it and see if it has real scientific meaning.

ET? Not the alien who set off the Video Game Crash of 1983?

Apart from that, I agree.

ET? Not the alien who set off the Video Game Crash of 1983?

Apart from that, I agree.

ET = Evolutionary Theory

Come on people. It's easy to insult other people's convictions. The fact is: a lot of religious people really believe that ID is on par with ET. Stating that ID is idiotic will not convince them otherwise.

I'm still hoping someone will post an ID hypothesis, so we can discuss it and see if it has real scientific meaning.

Sorry Kyott not trying to troll or anything.
Maybe there is a God, and maybe there is not. But as i understand evolution, it is a theory that is backed up to some degree by empirical evidence. That's what makes it a scientific theory. How can this be done with God/Gods/Godess?

ET = Evolutionary Theory
Evolutionary Theory != Theory of Evolution

Evolutionary Theory != Theory of Evolution

True, but what's your point?

ET = Evolutionary Theory

Thanks.

Yes, another thread about ID. I'm becoming very annoyed by this whole ET-ID debate because it has evolved (pun intended) into the kind of yes-no arguments 10 year olds have.

In my humble opinion ID has no scientific value, simply because you have to include design, and therefore a Designer, into your hypotheses, and you cannot 'prove' this Designer. However, a lot of people on this forum feel that ID is indeed science.

So I'm asking the ID proponents to substantiate their claims. Think of a simple, even hypothetical, problem, and devise an hypothesis that is testable and falsifiable. If you can do that you've proven to all of us evolutionary dogmatists that you were right and we were wrong.

I could not possibly agree with you more. ID does not belong in the science classroom. Science consists of theories and hypotheses...things which can be replicated or duplicated and studied in laboratory conditions, and thus proved, or proven false...and things which can be measured, or quantified in some way, though empirical scientific means. ID fails this test. ID is just the latest pretty packaging the religious zealots have put on their Creationism Theory, to try to penetrate our schools with their brand of brainwashing. Now, I don't have a problem with a class comparing the merits, and the implications of and the possible fallacies of both ET and ID, side-by-side, so long as the is NO SPECIFIC RELIGIOUS REFERENCE, and only as an elective course, and not given the same credit as science, since ID fails the science test.
That said...in reality, there may be a place for both ET and ID...perhaps ET is real, and there is an ID that is guiding, or guided ET. After all, if you were an ID...would you not, instead of starting from scratch every time...would you not, instead, follow a pattern of extrapolation from previous forms? But it is not science, because as you point out, there is no way to dupicate an Intelligent Designer, or the effects of an Intelligent Designer, and study that under laboratory conditions. It can't be done. So it is not science.

how about Idiotic Design? or ignorant design?
LOL! Yeah, whoever said the "I" in ID has to stand for "intelligent"?

actually i have a question.
If a scientist in a lab created life from inorganic material. say a single cell organism. Would that lend wait to the ET or ID argument?

Sorry Kyott not trying to troll or anything.
Maybe there is a God, and maybe there is not. But as i understand evolution, it is a theory that is backed up to some degree by empirical evidence. That's what makes it a scientific theory. How can this be done with God/Gods/Godess?
This is exactly Kyott's point...and mine, too. ID CAN'T be backed up by empirical evidence, and thus, it is not science, and should not be taught as such. How are you going to dupicate an Intelligent Designer to study under laboratory conditions?

In science, you start with a hypothesis. ID certainly qualifies as a hypothesis. For that matter...the notion that the entire Universe was, in fact, sneezed out of the nose of a being called The Great Green Arkleseizure, also qualifies as a hypothesis.
The problem is, then...to develop expirments designed to test the hypothesis. And thus you gather evidence to point in the direction that your hypothesis has merit or not. If it consistently shows to have merit, it can then be called a Theory.
If something cannot move beyond hypothesis, then it is not science. The point of hypothesis is to prove or disprove the hypothesis. With ID...this step cannot happen. It can be neither proven nor disproven. So there's no place in the science classroom for ID.

actually i have a question.
If a scientist in a lab created life from inorganic material. say a single cell organism. Would that lend wait to the ET or ID argument?

Did you actually read what you wrote? You contradicted your own self. A single-cell organism is still organic material, and loife already exists in it. so the scientitst would not have "created life from inorganic material."

Now, if a scientist COULD create life from inorganic material, then, yes, that might be an argument in favor of ID. Or, more specifically for Creationism. But you still cannot prove or disprove the existnce of a Designer...intelligent or otherwise. And even if you could...then who designed the Designer? Where did the Designer come from?

Did you actually read what you wrote? You contradicted your own self. A single-cell organism is still organic material, and loife already exists in it. so the scientitst would not have "created life from inorganic material."

Sorry Lyric, he didn't contradict himself. He said "created life from inorganic material. say a single cell organism."

Not the fullstop. Granted, the didn't use a cap next, but it doesn't change the context of his sentence which translates to "Create life from inorganic material for example, created a single cell organism"


Now, if a scientist COULD create life from inorganic material, then, yes, that might be an argument in favor of ID.

I think there was an experiment back around the 60s or 70s where it was already done. Not sure what kind of solution was used though. The ID'ers are real quite on that.

Where did the Designer come from?
Arizona?

So say sugar, an organic material, has some property called life does it? Even if it was built up using non-organic means? There is no seperate property called life it is simply the interaction of the appropriate chemicals.

Did you actually read what you wrote? You contradicted your own self. A single-cell organism is still organic material, and loife already exists in it. so the scientitst would not have "created life from inorganic material."

Now, if a scientist COULD create life from inorganic material, then, yes, that might be an argument in favor of ID. Or, more specifically for Creationism. But you still cannot prove or disprove the existnce of a Designer...intelligent or otherwise. And even if you could...then who designed the Designer? Where did the Designer come from?

The ID argument amounts to nothing more than "Turtles all the way down".

Bollocks, in my opinion.

Did you actually read what you wrote? You contradicted your own self. A single-cell organism is still organic material, and loife already exists in it. so the scientitst would not have "created life from inorganic material."

Now, if a scientist COULD create life from inorganic material, then, yes, that might be an argument in favor of ID. Or, more specifically for Creationism. But you still cannot prove or disprove the existnce of a Designer...intelligent or otherwise. And even if you could...then who designed the Designer? Where did the Designer come from?

How exactly did i contradict myself? i know a single celled organism is organic that why i said it. the single cell was refering to what was created.

Now, if a scientist COULD create life from inorganic material, then, yes, that might be an argument in favor of ID. Or, more specifically for Creationism. But you still cannot prove or disprove the existnce of a Designer...intelligent or otherwise. And even if you could...then who designed the Designer? Where did the Designer come from?

Why? I dont think it would count either way. You could interpret it as meaning since even humans can make life on their own without the need for an all powerful god figure to create all the life in the universe, that it would be possible to arise on its own when the right conditions appear.

Arizona?

dont' be silly! It's the MOON!!!! you can see HIM looking down at us when its full....

snip first bit....
I think there was an experiment back around the 60s or 70s where it was already done. Not sure what kind of solution was used though. The ID'ers are real quite on that.

does anyone have a source for this? I remember hearing about this, i think they created amino acids or something by introducing electricity into a controlled atmosphere meant to represent the earth once upon a time?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grampus
So that they are able to lactate and thus care for their young in extreme circumstances.


I do belive men are devoid of mammary glands, thus they are unable to produce milk. Unless someone is talking about that milk...

Sorry, I had to say it before the trolls got it and used it with more insulting results.

Actually...not quite. The truth is that, in most males...testosterone all but shuts off the development of mammary glands, and so most men do not develop them, and cannot lactate.
HOWEVER...if you were to shut off that supply of testosterone...mammary glands WOULD develop. Men do have them, but they do not develop in most cases. A condition called gynecomastia can occur in males where they DO in fact, have significant development in mammary glands...and some of them CAN lactate.
This can occur in a variety of circumstances.
1. Excessive pot smoking can reduce testosterone production enough to cause some breast development.
2. Certain anti-cancer drugs like Eulexin (for prostate cancer) certain blood-pressure medications like Spironolactone, and certain hair-replacement drugs like Propecia...all of which have a marked side-effect of reducing testosterone production...can cause breast development.
3. Male-to-female transsexuals grow their own breasts, though hormone therapy, combined with anti-androgen therapy, most commonly with spironolactone, and in some cases, Eulexin. I know, I was on both of those drugs during my own transition process.
4. No I am NOT talking about guys with so-called "fat tits." That is just stored fat collecting around the pecs, and giving an appearance of breast development...there is no actual mammary gland development in a male who has so-called "fat tits."

Actually, there is not much chemical difference between testosterone and estrogen, anyway. Excess estrogen in the female body is naturally converted into testosterone...it is, in fact, what fuels a woman's sex drive...and what also causes Italian women over 40 to begin to develop the Billy Dee Williams look with facial hair (I'm allowed to knock Italians, being as I am one.)

Anyway, it seems reasonable to assume that, under conditions of extremis, the process could reverse, and testosterone could be converted to estrogens, as well...and make an ordinary man develop the dormant mammary glands he already possesses, and even cause him to be able to lactate. It is possible that, in conditions of extremis, nature may accomodate for just such a thing....because I know of MTF transsexuals who can...and have demonstrated, the ability to lactate.

actually i have a question.
If a scientist in a lab created life from inorganic material. say a single cell organism. Would that lend wait to the ET or ID argument?
Neither. If the process /s/he used to make the cell was similar to something plausible to have happened 4 billion years ago, then it might lend weight to some theories of abiogenesis vs some other theories of the same process. Otherwise it'd just be interesting to medicine and not to the history of life.

Sorry Lyric, he didn't contradict himself. He said "created life from inorganic material. say a single cell organism."

Not the fullstop. Granted, the didn't use a cap next, but it doesn't change the context of his sentence which translates to "Create life from inorganic material for example, created a single cell organism"


Well, if he did not contradict himself, then his syntax sucks, because he failed to adequately convey the idea he was postulating.

I do belive men are devoid of mammary glands, thus they are unable to produce milk.

Actually there have been instances of men that could lactate.....

How exactly did i contradict myself? i know a single celled organism is organic that why i said it. the single cell was refering to what was created.
Well, then...your syntax and sentence construction sucks...because you failed to adequately convey what you were postulating the first time around.

The way you constructed your original sentence, it appeared as though you were contradicting yourself. You failed to adequately articulate your proposition.

Well, then...your syntax and sentence construction sucks...because you failed to adequately convey what you were postulating the first time around.

The way you constructed your original sentence, it appeared as though you were contradicting yourself. You failed to adequately articulate your proposition.
Wow. That's the most convincing argument for ID I've seen yet. ;)

Why? I dont think it would count either way. You could interpret it as meaning since even humans can make life on their own with the need for an all powerful god figure to create all the life in the universe, that it would be possible to arise on its own when the right conditions appear.

Absolutely. That would be one interpretation...and a valid one, at that. Another valid interpretation would be that Creationism was real. I didn't say it would PROVE Creationism...merely that it would lend some badly-needed creedence to the concept of Creationism, such as to warrant further investigation.

But, again, we are then left with the questions of "Who or what is the Designer" and "Who or what created the Designer?" In other words..."Where did the Designer come from...or how did the Designer come to be?"

Wow. That's the most convincing argument for ID I've seen yet. ;)
funy you should say that. I'm neither arguing for or against ID, actually. Just against the validity of ID as SCIENCE.

dont' be silly! It's the MOON!!!! you can see HIM looking down at us when its full....
Sorry, my mistake. Just that that's where the moon landings were filmed, it must have thrown me off.

Absolutely. That would be one interpretation...and a valid one, at that. Another valid interpretation would be that Creationism was real. I didn't say it would PROVE Creationism...merely that it would lend some badly-needed creedence to the concept of Creationism, such as to warrant further investigation.

But, again, we are then left with the questions of "Who or what is the Designer" and "Who or what created the Designer?" In other words..."Where did the Designer come from...or how did the Designer come to be?"
Well, now, depends on how loosely you use the word "valid".

A valid scientific hypothesis is based on an extrapolation of observable evidence, i.e. evidence available to us here, today. What is a "valid" creation myth hypothesis based on?

-snip-

Really? Wow, that's something to think about. I've heard of gynecomastia, but I never knew the resulting "moobs" could actually lactate.

Makes you think again about the strap on breast in Meet the Fockers...

funy you should say that. I'm neither arguing for or against ID, actually. Just against the validity of ID as SCIENCE.
I'm sorry... excuse me...? Isn't arguing for the validity of something the same as arguing for it?

Well, then...your syntax and sentence construction sucks...because you failed to adequately convey what you were postulating the first time around.

The way you constructed your original sentence, it appeared as though you were contradicting yourself. You failed to adequately articulate your proposition.

It appear only to yourself as all other understood exactly what i was trying to say. Maybe you should read more carefully in the future.

I'll try to make myself easier to understand in the future. okidoki?

Sorry, my mistake. Just that that's where the moon landings were filmed, it must have thrown me off.

actually that was Arizona. think there's a wendy's or something in the bakcground :)

True, but what's your point?
What's yours? All you said with your sentence, "a lot of religious people really believe that ID is on par with ET," is that religious folk think ID is a theory that changes over time.

I'm sorry... excuse me...? Isn't arguing for the validity of something the same as arguing for it?

No. I am arguing that ID does not qualify as SCIENCE.
I'm not saying ID may or may not be real. that is not my argument.

What I am saying is that, if one were to take ID as a hypothesis...there is no means by which the hypothesis can be tested...proved or disproved in laboratory conditions, and thus ID does not qualify as science. And thus, ID should not be taught in science classrooms.

I am not saying, or arguing...either for or against the possibility of ID...merely pointing out that it has no place in science classrooms, since it cannot be proved or disproved...and the conditions required to study it cannot be duplicated in a laboratory environment.

No. I am arguing that ID does not qualify as SCIENCE.
I'm not saying ID may or may not be real. that is not my argument.

What I am saying is that, if one were to take ID as a hypothesis...there is no means by which the hypothesis can be tested...proved or disproved in laboratory conditions, and thus ID does not qualify as science. And thus, ID should not be taught in science classrooms.

I am not saying, or arguing...either for or against the possibility of ID...merely pointing out that it has no place in science classrooms, since it cannot be proved or disproved...and the conditions required to study it cannot be duplicated in a laboratory environment.

which is probably why no IDers are going to come on this thread and try and prove the theory is scientific.

Really? Wow, that's something to think about. I've heard of gynecomastia, but I never knew the resulting "moobs" could actually lactate.

Makes you think again about the strap on breast in Meet the Fockers...

Yes...the "moobs" as you call them...in some cases...can lactate - if enough development has occurred.
Personally, I was born with Kleinfelter Syndrome. This is one of the conditions that often causes gynecomastia. And, yes, I had gynecomastia, by the time I was 15 years old I could fill out a B-cup. and that was before hormones and transition. Yes, I'm also a transsexual. I changed teams. Not uncommon for Kleinfelter patients, incidentally.

Kleinfelter Syndrome is a condition in which one is born with an extra chromosome...and both the male and female sex chomosomes. It produces an outwardly male-appearing child at birth, there is no indication, outwardly, that the resulting infant is anything other than a normal male child...and it is only at puberty where things begin to change. Kleinfelter patients often develop secondary sex characteristics of both genders, for example, breast growth (gynecomastia) and facial hair growth.

A normal genetic male has a chromosomal makeup of 46XY. A normal genetic female, 46XX. A Kleinfelter's patient has a chromosome makeup of 47XXY.

There is also a parallel condition in women, known as Turner Syndrome, in which THEIR chromosome makeup is 45XO. They are devoid of a sex chromosome at all, and thus tend not to develop secondary sex characteristics at all, and often end up very masculine-appearing (because of the lack of development of normal female sex characteristics)

One in 30,000 live births are Kleinfelter....one in 100,000 live births are Turner.

Naturally, I learned a lot about this, because I was directly affected by it. But that is the long and short of it.

In my own case, I never actually developed the ability to lactate, until after I got on hormone replacement therapy concurrent with my sex-reassignment. But there are cases documented where Kleinfelter patients with more advanced gynecomastia than I had...actually did possess the ability to lactate.

Yes...the "moobs" as you call them...in some cases...can lactate - if enough development has occurred.
Personally, I was born with Kleinfelter Syndrome. This is one of the conditions that often causes gynecomastia. And, yes, I had gynecomastia, by the time I was 15 years old I could fill out a B-cup. and that was before hormones and transition. Yes, I'm also a transsexual. I changed teams. Not uncommon for Kleinfelter patients, incidentally.

Kleinfelter Syndrome is a condition in which one is born with an extra chromosome...and both the male and female sex chomosomes. It produces an outwardly male-appearing child at birth, there is no indication, outwardly, that the resulting infant is anything other than a normal male child...and it is only at puberty where things begin to change. Kleinfelter patients often develop secondary sex characteristics of both genders, for example, breast growth (gynecomastia) and facial hair growth.

A normal genetic male has a chromosomal makeup of 46XY. A normal genetic female, 46XX. A Kleinfelter's patient has a chromosome makeup of 47XXY.

There is also a parallel condition in women, known as Turner Syndrome, in which THEIR chromosome makeup is 45XO. They are devoid of a sex chromosome at all, and thus tend not to develop secondary sex characteristics at all, and often end up very masculine-appearing (because of the lack of development of normal female sex characteristics)

One in 30,000 live births are Kleinfelter....one in 100,000 live births are Turner.

Naturally, I learned a lot about this, because I was directly affected by it. But that is the long and short of it.

In my own case, I never actually developed the ability to lactate, until after I got on hormone replacement therapy concurrent with my sex-reassignment. But there are cases documented where Kleinfelter patients with more advanced gynecomastia than I had...actually did possess the ability to lactate.

Wow. Even more food for thought. I've learned a lot today. Thank you.

Wow. Even more food for thought. I've learned a lot today. Thank you.

yeah lyric, interesting info.

No. I am arguing that ID does not qualify as SCIENCE.
I'm not saying ID may or may not be real. that is not my argument.

What I am saying is that, if one were to take ID as a hypothesis...there is no means by which the hypothesis can be tested...proved or disproved in laboratory conditions, and thus ID does not qualify as science. And thus, ID should not be taught in science classrooms.

I am not saying, or arguing...either for or against the possibility of ID...merely pointing out that it has no place in science classrooms, since it cannot be proved or disproved...and the conditions required to study it cannot be duplicated in a laboratory environment.
My bad. I'm sorry.

does anyone have a source for this? I remember hearing about this, i think they created amino acids or something by introducing electricity into a controlled atmosphere meant to represent the earth once upon a time?

I don't have a link to it, but I learned about it in one of my chemistry courses. A scientist synthesized urea (I think), an organic compund and a principle component of urine (surprise) by introducing lightning (electricity) into the carbon-dioxide and nitrogen rich atmosphere thought to have existed on Earth around 3.5 billion years ago. The electricity catalyzed the reaction of the carbon dioxide and nitrogen to form urea, which, like most organic molecules, is composed of carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, and hydrogen, thus displaying that organic compunds can be formed from inorganic components without pre-existing life.

I'd like to make a supporting argument for the thread starter.

Here is how Hawking defined scientific theories:


Intelligent design does not make definite predictions about future observations. It contains one very large arbitrary element (a deity) and it cannot be tested.
Excellent explaination, Dakini! (And I never say that in these Ev-ID discussions).

:)

Since you guys are discussing ID...

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b383/DrkHelmet/ID.jpg

Add this to your photo library.

I don't have a link to it, but I learned about it in one of my chemistry courses. A scientist synthesized urea (I think), an organic compund and a principle component of urine (surprise) by introducing lightning (electricity) into the carbon-dioxide and nitrogen rich atmosphere thought to have existed on Earth around 3.5 billion years ago. The electricity catalyzed the reaction of the carbon dioxide and nitrogen to form urea, which, like most organic molecules, is composed of carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, and hydrogen, thus displaying that organic compunds can be formed from inorganic components without pre-existing life.

Hmmm....that would seem to argue that so called "chance theory" (evolution) could quite well be correct, and all life startyed as the result of a cosmic accident, or lucky chance, as it were.

But I have to ask...was the resulting organic compound created by the expirment you mention...was that compund then possessed of LIFE??

If not, then you can disreagrd my first statement.

then, too...more food for thought...if an ordinary scientist could create LIFE, as you just described...why the need for a GOD...or any divine intervention whatsoever...why not simply a more advanced, intelligent civilzation than our own? Why not a mere lucky accident?

The expiriment raises more questions than answers. Then again, most good science does.

Hmmm....that would seem to argue that so called "chance theory" (evolution) could quite well be correct, and all life startyed as the result of a cosmic accident, or lucky chance, as it were.

But I have to ask...was the resulting organic compound created by the expirment you mention...was that compund then possessed of LIFE??

If not, then you can disreagrd my first statement.

then, too...more food for thought...if an ordinary scientist could create LIFE, as you just described...why the need for a GOD...or any divine intervention whatsoever...why not simply a more advanced, intelligent civilzation than our own? Why not a mere lucky accident?

The expiriment raises more questions than answers. Then again, most good science does.

What Myrcia has described is the Miller-Urey experiment, a classic example found in most biology text books. The hypothesis was that the conditions of early Earth could synthesize organic compounds out of inorganic ones. A week into the experiment, the scientists discovered simple organic molecules, including 13 of the 21 amino acids that are used to make proteins in living cells.

However, it should be made clear that the scientists did NOT create life. They managed to trigger chemical processes that lead to the development of compounds that are considered the building blocks of life. The steps between the free-floating amino acids in a test tube and fully functioning DNA has not yet been discovered.

It should also be noted that there has been considerable debate over the exact environmental conditions of early Earth, and that there may have been a different mixture of methane/water/ammonia/hydrogen in early Earth then what was used in the Miller-Urey experiment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey

Myrcia & Channapolis

thanks for the info.

What Myrcia has described is the Miller-Urey experiment, a classic example found in most biology text books. The hypothesis was that the conditions of early Earth could synthesize organic compounds out of inorganic ones. A week into the experiment, the scientists discovered simple organic molecules, including 13 of the 21 amino acids that are used to make proteins in living cells.

Also, no nucleotides, essential for life as we know it, were found. But keep in mind that the whole origin of life / abiogenesis issue is strictly speaking not a part of ET. ET is about how life evolves, not about how life came to be.

Also, no nucleotides, essential for life as we know it, were found. But keep in mind that the whole origin of life / abiogenesis issue is strictly speaking not a part of ET. ET is about how life evolves, not about how life came to be.

too true.
Isn't that the argument for ID? About how life came to be?

please correct me if i'm wrong, but ID does not seem to try to disprove evolution, only that is was god/alien/giantBunny/whatever that started it?

too true.
Isn't that the argument for ID? About how life came to be?

please correct me if i'm wrong, but ID does not seem to try to disprove evolution, only that is was god/alien/giantBunny/whatever that started it?

Not quite true. ID is about proving that life forms are evolving towards a preset design. What we see today is the result of a finely designed, teleological process. That conflicts with ET, where changing environment and stochastic processes change evolution's direction.

Many people forget that intellegent design and creationisim are not the same thing. Intellegent design was orrignally a non religious idea, examined by a series of professers looking into the proability problems behind evolution. Creationisim is a perspective based on scientific evidence which examines certian possible flaws in the evidence behind evolution (Eg Carbon dating inaccuracies, flaws in reptile/bird evolution etc) and thus using diffrent evidence to show how science can be seen to support the Bible. This area gets bad press because none of their articles ever get peer reviewed. But the reason for that arguably is that its naturally biased against mainstreem science. Much of the evidence is very much over-debated (IE given more examiniation than most other areas is to require acceptence) and there is a great deal of patronising given out by the scientific community to their ideas, in my opinion unfairly so. There are many valid questions people bring up in this field which scientists frequently dismiss with less than valid answers

Not quite true. ID is about proving that life forms are evolving towards a preset design. What we see today is the result of a finely designed, teleological process. That conflicts with ET, where changing environment and stochastic processes change evolution's direction.

ok, thanks for the correction. that actually makes ID seem like even more bullshit to me. :confused:

The first time i saw something written on Intelligent Design, I thought it was for a computer game. :p

Yes, another thread about ID. I'm becoming very annoyed by this whole ET-ID debate because it has evolved (pun intended) into the kind of yes-no arguments 10 year olds have.
Thats the way this forum works. you people need to get out more often and larger off topic sections

Yes, another thread about ID. I'm becoming very annoyed by this whole ET-ID debate because it has evolved (pun intended) into the kind of yes-no arguments 10 year olds have.

In my humble opinion ID has no scientific value, simply because you have to include design, and therefore a Designer, into your hypotheses, and you cannot 'prove' this Designer. However, a lot of people on this forum feel that ID is indeed science.

So I'm asking the ID proponents to substantiate their claims. Think of a simple, even hypothetical, problem, and devise an hypothesis that is testable and falsifiable. If you can do that you've proven to all of us evolutionary dogmatists that you were right and we were wrong.

Problem: Finding a vaccine for highly contagious, rapidly mutating virus that threatens the entire world.

Solution: To destroy the virus, scientists come up with the idea of building building billions of self-replicating nanobots. Each has an AI with guidelines to not break the Three Laws. However, the AI has no limits, therefore the nanobots could develop personalities and have thoughts and emotions. The nanobots are given a mission. Assist the human immune system. The virus becomes no more than a memory as the nanobots are spread through the world, and as a beneficial side effect, there is no more disease as well.

I am not sure I set up the hypothesis correctly. It has been a good 5 years since I set one up.

I'm not an ID advocate, but since no one will make an ID argument I will do my best to point out what I think they believe.

Firstly what I believe:
I believe in God, so I tend to think that he set up the process of evolution so that his creations could naturally adapt to changes. So in a way this is an intelligent design belife since I claim there is an intelligent designer, but my belief remains entirely consistent with evolution. This is not what Intelligent Design advocates seem to be advocating. Even so I admit that I don't have any evidence for God so don't believe it should be taught in a science class.

I guess there are different ideas of what ID means. Most of the ID supporters I know don't believe there have been changes in organisms over time. Most think the world is much younger then scientists predict and that mankind was created in its present form. Some accept evolution for other creatures, but most believe that all of them were created in their present form. They might argue that the differences in the fossil record are because different lifeforms were more prevalent at different times and some have even become extint, but no new lifeforms now exist.

I think this is how most become ID supporters:

They have a religious experience with the Christian God. They feel that they truely feel His presence. Because of this they believe that the Bible is true and infalliable. Because of this they take a literal interpretation of Genesis. They then reject evolution.

There is no convincing such a person that what they expeirenced wasn't true (in fact I think it probably is true). What one needs to do is convince them that the religous experience doesn't prove the Bible is true and infalliable. Plus even if the Bible is true and infalliable that doesn't mean its ment to be taken literally.

too true.
Isn't that the argument for ID? About how life came to be?

please correct me if i'm wrong, but ID does not seem to try to disprove evolution, only that is was god/alien/giantBunny/whatever that started it?
No, no, no, no, no!!
It was started by The Great Green Arkleseizure!! Here, I'll show you!!

In the beginning the Universe was created.

This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a
bad move.

Many races believe that it was created by some sort of God, though the
Jartravartid people of Viltvodle VI believe that the entire Universe
was in fact sneezed out of the nose a being called the Great Green
Arkleseizure.

The Jartravartids, who live in perpetual fear of the time they call the
coming of The Great White Handkerchief, are small blue creatures with more
than fifty arms each, who are therefore unique in being the only race in history to have invented the aerosol deodorant before the wheel.

However, the Great Green Arkleseizure theory is not widely accepted
outside Viltvodle VI and so, the Universe being the puzzling place it is, other
explanations are constantly being sought.

For instance, a race of hyperintelligent pan-dimensional beings once
built themselves a gigantic supercomputer called Deep Thought to calculate
once and for all the Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe
and Everything.

For seven and a half million years, Deep Thought computed and
calculated, and in the end announced that the answer was in fact Forty-Two - and so another, even bigger, computer had to be built to find out what the actual question was.

And this computer, which was called Earth, was so large that it was
frequently mistaken for a planet - especially bythe strange ape-like beings who roamed its surface, totally unaware that they were simply part of a gigantic computer program. And this is very odd, because without that fairly simple and obvious piece of knowledge, nothing that ever happened on the Earth could possibly make the slightest bit of sense.

Yes, another thread about ID. I'm becoming very annoyed by this whole ET-ID debate because it has evolved (pun intended) into the kind of yes-no arguments 10 year olds have.

That is because most Americans are emotionally stunted, and failed to develop beyond the ten-year old level. We are emotionally-stunted, stimulus addicts.

Just look at our TV shows, and what passes for news in this country, and you will see that I'm right.

I'm not an ID advocate, but since no one will make an ID argument I will do my best to point out what I think they believe.

Firstly what I believe:
I believe in God, so I tend to think that he set up the process of evolution so that his creations could naturally adapt to changes. So in a way this is an intelligent design belife since I claim there is an intelligent designer, but my belief remains entirely consistent with evolution. This is not what Intelligent Design advocates seem to be advocating. Even so I admit that I don't have any evidence for God so don't believe it should be taught in a science class.

I guess there are different ideas of what ID means. Most of the ID supporters I know don't believe there have been changes in organisms over time. Most think the world is much younger then scientists predict and that mankind was created in its present form. Some accept evolution for other creatures, but most believe that all of them were created in their present form. They might argue that the differences in the fossil record are because different lifeforms were more prevalent at different times and some have even become extint, but no new lifeforms now exist.

I think this is how most become ID supporters:

They have a religious experience with the Christian God. They feel that they truely feel His presence. Because of this they believe that the Bible is true and infalliable. Because of this they take a literal interpretation of Genesis. They then reject evolution.

There is no convincing such a person that what they expeirenced wasn't true (in fact I think it probably is true). What one needs to do is convince them that the religous experience doesn't prove the Bible is true and infalliable. Plus even if the Bible is true and infalliable that doesn't mean its ment to be taken literally.


Ok, here's MY compromise to the ID proponents:

Find me a scientist who can turn water into wine, and we will talk about putting ID into the science classroom. Until then, keep your church out of our science classroms! We don't seek to impose our science on your church, we expect the same respect from you. and yes, I am a Unitarian Christian. I am NOT, however, a fundamentalist whackjob, like the ID proponents are!

They know damn well that ID is just the latest pretty package they have come up with for selling Creationism Theory as legitimate science. It's not, for the simple reason that there is no way to set up any expiriment that would either prove it's veracity, or falsify the theory. It cannot be duplicate or replicated, thus it cannot be studied under laboratory conditions.

That is why it is not science...and that is why I say, when you find me a scientist who can spontaneously turn water into wine, we'll talk. Until then, ID proponents can take their latest shit sandwich back to their own church.

If there is an intelligent designer, why do men have nipples? Why does my mother need glasses?

Men's nipples - A serious explanation:
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a1_093.html

Men's nipples - An almost ID explanation:
http://www.poee.org/documents/Pope_Max_Flax_Beeblewax/The_Myth_of_The_Nipples.htm

Originally Posted by Lyric
That is why it is not science...and that is why I say, when you find me a scientist who can spontaneously turn water into wine, we'll talk. Until then, ID proponents can take their latest shit sandwich back to their own church.

I don't think you should just bash someone elses ideas like that. I'm in a class right now that is all about defining science, and if there's one thing we've learned so far it's that science is not an absolute.

I'm not saying ID is right or even a science (it probably isn't a science). I don't know, but I'm just saying that 2000 years ago, sending a message almost instantly around the world would have seemed like just as much of a miracle as turning water into wine.

I think the main idea from ID is that Evolution is not neccessarily a "correct theory" just because that is the paradigm of this era.

Think outside the box, think for yourself. It's really amazing and scary when you realize how much of what you believe is just something somebody told you once.

I think the main idea from ID is that Evolution is not neccessarily a "correct theory" just because that is the paradigm of this era.

Think outside the box, think for yourself. It's really amazing and scary when you realize how much of what you believe is just something somebody told you once.


Two observations. First, as a scientist, you constantly need to look out of the box. There isn't one dogmatic ET, it's a very diverse set of principles and theorems. Evolutionary biologists are constantly looking out of the box, exploring new fields and striving for new insights. There are very few areas within ET that say 90% of all evolutionary biologists agree upon. Even the central theorem "evolution is selection and variation" has lost strength when Nei introduced his concept of neutral evolution. But that's okay. That is constantly looking outside the box.

Second, there is nothing wrong with introducing radically new hypotheses. You think you have a better theory on how the world works? Fine, let's hear it. Let's look outside the box. ID, however, is a different case. I don't care how you want to spin it, ID is dressed-up creationism. There is nothing wrong with creationism, but it just ain't science. Why? Because we cannot prove nor disprove God/Allah/Shiva/Manitou. Instead of looking outside the box, and finding answers, you close the box: what we see is a Design from an undefined intelligence. Case closed. Compare it with the theory of Panspermia (life originated somewhere else). It is an unorthodox hypothesis, but also an empty one: we need to find life elsewhere, and each time we find life we could make the case that that life too originated somewhere else. The only explanation that made sense within Panspermia is that life cannot be anything else than eternal. And with that it died, because we would never be able to explain that. ID is similar: what we see and don't understand we ascribe to the Designer, and all the hard questions disappear.

Design calls for a Designer, but also for a directed process (you evolve into the Design we see). All the steps toward the ultimate Design we see should also all have been Designed for optimality. So there is no natural selection, but rather the forms we see today were Designed to survive. This is the central theorem of ID. The argument is extremely teleological (the process follows a predetermined path), a cardinal sin in science.

ID has one big positive side 'though. If the Designer is there, and the life forms we see are how it wanted them to evolve, then we are destroying a complicated Design when we destroy a habitat, drive a species into extinction etc. etc. Everything needs to have a place with the Grand Design, and we should be careful with it. So, as a philosophy, I see possibilities for ID. But not as a look-outside-the box unorthodox scientific theory. Because it's not science.

I'd like to repeat what I said in my first post. Postulate one simple theory, centered around a testable, falsifiabe hypothesis, and you will have convinced a lot of ID-sceptics of the fact that ID is science. Yet so far people have not come farther than philospohical arguments...

If there is an intelligent designer, why do men have nipples? Why does my mother need glasses?

You are assuming with this question "intelligent" necessarily equates to "not having a perverse sense of humour".

There's a quote from "Good Omens" by Pratchett and Gaiman which goes something along the lines of "Good doesn't play dice with the universe. Instead, he plays a complex card game of his own devising, in which the stakes are infinite, the rules are not explained to the other players (ie, everyone else), whilst smiling all the time"

I've misquoted, but you get the general gist.

I don't believe in any god, but if i did, thats the one i'd believe in. The ineffable one. The mysterious one. Not the one which most religious people believe in, which is basically, themselves in god clothes.

If there is an intelligent designer, why do men have nipples? Why does my mother need glasses?

I have a few words that disprove ID:

Little Richard...
The Kennedy family...
Pamela Anderson...
Ingrid Newkirk...


Nuff said.

I have a few words that disprove ID:

Little Richard...
The Kennedy family...
Pamela Anderson...
Ingrid Newkirk...


Nuff said.

Don't DISS LITTLE RICHARD!

God, young people today.

I have a few words that disprove ID:

Little Richard...
The Kennedy family...
Pamela Anderson...
Ingrid Newkirk...


Nuff said.

Or maybe that is proof of Satan. :eek: :)

Originally Posted by Lyric
That is why it is not science...and that is why I say, when you find me a scientist who can spontaneously turn water into wine, we'll talk. Until then, ID proponents can take their latest shit sandwich back to their own church.

I don't think you should just bash someone elses ideas like that. I'm in a class right now that is all about defining science, and if there's one thing we've learned so far it's that science is not an absolute.

I'm not saying ID is right or even a science (it probably isn't a science). I don't know, but I'm just saying that 2000 years ago, sending a message almost instantly around the world would have seemed like just as much of a miracle as turning water into wine.

I think the main idea from ID is that Evolution is not neccessarily a "correct theory" just because that is the paradigm of this era.

Think outside the box, think for yourself. It's really amazing and scary when you realize how much of what you believe is just something somebody told you once.


Maybe it is a bit harsh, but I am getting sick and tired of these fundamentalists zealots who refuse to take NO for an answer, and keep coming back, trying to shove their hateful, vengeful, bigoted, mean-spirited "God" down other people's throats!
I'm a Unitarian Christian. I believe in the God of LOVE, MERCY, TOLERANCE, ACCEPTANCE, FORGIVENESS, JOY, MERCY...you know...that God. These fundamentalists believe in a different God than I do, and I don't want THEIR God being taught as truth...and especially not in a science classroom.
The only reason the fundies have to force their God on other people is because no reasonable person would want anything to do with such a hateful, vengeful, wrathful God.

How long does it really take to go over the ID Hypothesis? Can't Church Leaders take five minutes and go over it on Sundays?

Intelligent design does not make definite predictions about future observations. It contains one very large arbitrary element (a deity) and it cannot be tested.
Don't you always find the Deux Ex Machina angle of explaining away the amazingly amazing continuum in which we dwell is just so - I dunno, trite? Deeply unsatisfying from where I sit, anyway. Particularly as much and all as others venerate Faith, I venerate Doubt; To doubt is to seek - and in searching you learn about the world, about other people, about you, and whether or not there's a God.

This is a deeply personal thing and should always remain so. Rather than teaching I.D. in schools. time should be given over in-class to allow students to meditate instead. A little introspection does wonders.

The foundational elements of "Intelligent Design" are simple and obviously falacious. They generally go by names like "the law of irreducible complexity" which goes as follows: I can't think of any way for the eye to be less complex yet still functional enough to provide benefit for an evolving species... Ergo, it must have been created, in situ and as is.

I can't understand how anyone could cleve to this point of view, because eyes exist in various evolutionary states right now... there are even barely photoreceptive eyespots in evidence in nature today.

So... Why doesn't someone capable of accepting the idea of irreducable complexity point at... say... the NEC barcode scanner as proof of intelligent design? The damn thing has parts no natural eye in existence could see and relies on the uncertainty of quantum physics to work... Surely they can't conceive of those kinds of inner workings, either.

Maybe it is a bit harsh, but I am getting sick and tired of these fundamentalists zealots who refuse to take NO for an answer, and keep coming back, trying to shove their hateful, vengeful, bigoted, mean-spirited "God" down other people's throats!
I'm a Unitarian Christian. I believe in the God of LOVE, MERCY, TOLERANCE, ACCEPTANCE, FORGIVENESS, JOY, MERCY...you know...that God. These fundamentalists believe in a different God than I do, and I don't want THEIR God being taught as truth...and especially not in a science classroom.
The only reason the fundies have to force their God on other people is because no reasonable person would want anything to do with such a hateful, vengeful, wrathful God.

Interesting point. Where do the non-fundamental, 'left-wing' Christians stand in this debate? Do they also feel that ID is a viable alternative for ET?

how about Idiotic Design? or ignorant design?

How about it's called Creationism and not Intelligent Design

How about it's called Creationism and not Intelligent Design

how about not harping on about the same mistaken idea over and over again?

The worst part of ID is when its (layman) proponents fall back on the argument that "science is too limiting." They feel that science should not be limited to ...science in order to be ....science.

"Perhaps the most significant shift would be in the very definition of science: Instead of "seeking natural explanations for what we observe around us," the new standards would describe it as "continuing investigation that uses observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena." ~San Francisco Chronicle (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/05/06/MNGL1CKUQ21.DTL)

How long does it really take to go over the ID Hypothesis? Can't Church Leaders take five minutes and go over it on Sundays?

But that isn't the point, or the actual goal of these people!! They want access to YOUR kids...who do NOT go to their church...so that they can pound their drivel into YOUR kids head! Don't you understand? They want to take and force their drivel into YOUR kids head during a time when you are not able to decide for your kid what you want them exposed to or not.

They already KNOW you're a "heathen" after all, you don't go to THEIR church...so they are going to do their level best to "save" your child from you and your "heathen" ways and teachings!! Now do you get it?

Interesting point. Where do the non-fundamental, 'left-wing' Christians stand in this debate? Do they also feel that ID is a viable alternative for ET?

Not at all. It isn't science. While I cannot speak for the whole cabal of "left-wing Christians," I can speak for myself, and for what I believe.

I believe there is room within THE TRUTH for elements of both ID and ET. However, the science classroom is NOT the correct forum for teaching ID, because there is no way to duplicate or replicate the Designer, so that it can be studied in a laboratory environment. ID presupposes a Designer, whose existence cannot be proved or disproved.

Now, we of faith...well, we believe because we have faith. BUT, unlike my contemporaries on the other side of the aisle, I am able to differentiate between my own belief and ACTUAL, PROVABLE KNOWLEDGE. There is a difference. We would not call it FAITH if it were provable!

Also, unlike my contemporaries on the other side of the aisle...I feel no need to force my belief structure onto unwilling recipients. I feel that those who hear of the God I worship...the one of peace, mercy, love, forgiveness, hope, compassion...that they will want to know more. That they will WANT to worship that God.

God wants us to "come boldly." Well, now, if you see God merely as an auditor before whom your books never balance...as a teacher whose class you dread...as a parent who abuses you but never affrims you - you are not likely to "come boldly," in fact, it is more likely that you won't come at all!!

The fundamentalists understand this, too. They know no one would come willingly to the God they espouse, the hateful, vengeful, wrathful, unforgiving God of complex rules and regulations, with no forgiveness for you...the God written of in countless Nathaniel Hawthorne novels...they KNOW that their God is not only unappealing but downright REPULSIVE!! Therefore, they feel the need to shove it at people, and force it on people, because no one wants it willingly....at least, not reasonable people!

The main reason I am against religion in schools is because I do not feel a need to force my beliefs onto others who may not share them...I feel they will come of their own accord, when they are ready...and they have seen the hope, mercy, love, and compassion of the God I worship. And I fear that it is not MY God..the TRUE God...that will be taught in schools. I fear it is THEIR God who will be taught of in schools...and it will serve to drive people away from God and Jesus.

I personally believe that the right-wing fundamentalists are actually servants of Satan who have been decieved into believing that they are servants of God. Certainly, they are doing Satan's work when they turn people off...and away....from God.

And that is what I believe.

Not at all. It isn't science. While I cannot speak for the whole cabal of "left-wing Christians," I can speak for myself, and for what I believe.

I believe there is room within THE TRUTH for elements of both ID and ET. However, the science classroom is NOT the correct forum for teaching ID, because there is no way to duplicate or replicate the Designer, so that it can be studied in a laboratory environment. ID presupposes a Designer, whose existence cannot be proved or disproved.

Now, we of faith...well, we believe because we have faith. BUT, unlike my contemporaries on the other side of the aisle, I am able to differentiate between my own belief and ACTUAL, PROVABLE KNOWLEDGE. There is a difference. We would not call it FAITH if it were provable!

Also, unlike my contemporaries on the other side of the aisle...I feel no need to force my belief structure onto unwilling recipients. I feel that those who hear of the God I worship...the one of peace, mercy, love, forgiveness, hope, compassion...that they will want to know more. That they will WANT to worship that God.

God wants us to "come boldly." Well, now, if you see God merely as an auditor before whom your books never balance...as a teacher whose class you dread...as a parent who abuses you but never affrims you - you are not likely to "come boldly," in fact, it is more likely that you won't come at all!!

The fundamentalists understand this, too. They know no one would come willingly to the God they espouse, the hateful, vengeful, wrathful, unforgiving God of complex rules and regulations, with no forgiveness for you...the God written of in countless Nathaniel Hawthorne novels...they KNOW that their God is not only unappealing but downright REPULSIVE!! Therefore, they feel the need to shove it at people, and force it on people, because no one wants it willingly....at least, not reasonable people!

The main reason I am against religion in schools is because I do not feel a need to force my beliefs onto others who may not share them...I feel they will come of their own accord, when they are ready...and they have seen the hope, mercy, love, and compassion of the God I worship. And I fear that it is not MY God..the TRUE God...that will be taught in schools. I fear it is THEIR God who will be taught of in schools...and it will serve to drive people away from God and Jesus.

I personally believe that the right-wing fundamentalists are actually servants of Satan who have been decieved into believing that they are servants of God. Certainly, they are doing Satan's work when they turn people off...and away....from God.

And that is what I believe.

I'm probably one of those right-wing Christians you are refering to, but I actually agree with you. I think seperation of church and state is important. I think Christianity should stand on it's own merits and shouldn't have to force itself on anyone. Most importantly I believe that the Christian God is the God of Love and forgiveness, and I recognize that many on my side of the isle (though I would argue many on your side of the isle as well) have forgotten this.

As a side note, because its a pet pev of mine: Faith means complete trust. It doesn't mean "belief with no evidence" or "belief without reason." To believe something without reason is idiotic. One is said to have faith in God when they trust Him enough to give themselves completly over to Him.

I'm probably one of those right-wing Christians you are refering to, but I actually agree with you. I think seperation of church and state is important. I think Christianity should stand on it's own merits and shouldn't have to force itself on anyone. Most importantly I believe that the Christian God is the God of Love and forgiveness, and I recognize that many on my side of the isle (though I would argue many on your side of the isle as well) have forgotten this.

As a side note, because its a pet pev of mine: Faith means complete trust. It doesn't mean "belief with no evidence" or "belief without reason." To believe something without reason is idiotic. One is said to have faith in God when they trust Him enough to give themselves completly over to Him.
Well said. And, no...if you TRULY believe in the god who has love AND FORGIVENESS FOR ALL even those that you might not want forgiven (i.e. homosexuals) then you are NOT one of those right-wing Christians I am speaking of.

But that isn't the point, or the actual goal of these people!! They want access to YOUR kids...who do NOT go to their church...so that they can pound their drivel into YOUR kids head! Don't you understand? They want to take and force their drivel into YOUR kids head during a time when you are not able to decide for your kid what you want them exposed to or not.

They already KNOW you're a "heathen" after all, you don't go to THEIR church...so they are going to do their level best to "save" your child from you and your "heathen" ways and teachings!! Now do you get it?
Runs away.

(I was just being sarcastic... ID Hypothesis takes about 12 seconds to fully explain.)

What I don't understand is why ID has such an appeal on creationists. If you believe that God created life, why then feel the need to justify that belief by setting up a quasi-scientific theory? ID is neither science nor faith, it's the worst of both worlds...

What I don't understand is why ID has such an appeal on creationists. If you believe that God created life, why then feel the need to justify that belief by setting up a quasi-scientific theory? ID is neither science nor faith, it's the worst of both worlds...

think of it like pornograhpers trying to get their merchandize in schools by calling it sex education. Ha :p not ID but DI (dirty intercourse!)

What I don't understand is why ID has such an appeal on creationists. If you believe that God created life, why then feel the need to justify that belief by setting up a quasi-scientific theory? ID is neither science nor faith, it's the worst of both worlds...

seriously though.
Really it boils down to what lyric said in a previous post. it's a way of getting your message the widest audience possible. What better way than through school? It would also be convenient for religious schools. they will finally be able to use a 'scientific theory' that they like.

Faith means complete trust. It doesn't mean "belief with no evidence" or "belief without reason." Actually, that's exactly what it means.Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. There is no way to gain logical proof or material evidence that supports the existence of a god. Hence people must just have faith that he/she/it/they are actually there.To believe something without reason is idiotic. Hence why am not religious, and have a low opinion of people who are.

What I don't understand is why ID has such an appeal on creationists. If you believe that God created life, why then feel the need to justify that belief by setting up a quasi-scientific theory? ID is neither science nor faith, it's the worst of both worlds...It's called pseudoscience. Irrationality, pretending to be scientific. In my opinion, worse even than religion. At least religion doesn't pretend that they can prove what they claim to be true.

One obvious fallacy with intelligent design is that; if life is 'irreducibly complex', such that some intelligent being must have designed it. Then surely the designer is equally, if not more complex. And therefore also must have been designed, by something even more complex. And so on ad infinitum.

Hitch Hiker Guide to the Galaxy Reference[/i]

Ha :p . Seems more likely than ID!

it's sad that you guys have one-sided opinions when there is eveidence for both sides.
it's sadder that the guys here who're sticking up for ID don't always have the right answers.

for example, why do men have nipples? for sexual forelplay, and because girls and guys have genetic similarities.
and anyway, so what if guys have nipples? are you trying to say that men evolved from women?

You want evidence against evolution? Try this: it's against the proved laws of thermodynamics (the second law, to be exact).
Science has proved that everything degenerates over time. energy always tends to go to its most basic form. things breakdown, whether it be stars, a car, or life.
Evolution directly contradicts this. It sais that over time, life improves, you could say in an upward spiral. But proved science says everything goes in a downward spiral.
Now, evolution has a big stumbling block in its way, doesn't it? There is plenty of other evidence against evolution (for example, lack of mutations which cause genetic information to be gained), too.

And even if evolution and the big bang were true, there still had to be a Designer before all of that.
Science has proven that time itself, right back before the universe began, did not exist. So, where did time (along with everything else) come from? The most likely (pretty much the only possible) answer is a designer.

fairly simple, isn't it?

So, where did time (along with everything else) come from? The most likely (pretty much the only possible) answer is a designer.

fairly simple, isn't it?
Allow me to propose an experiment. Take a match and light it. You now have fire, right? Where did the fire come from? No matter how closely one examines the match, one is not going to find any fire in it, but the fire had to come from somewhere, right? So you could examine the air and see if there's any fire there. No? Well, since you made the fire, how about examining one's own thoughts and see if the fire is there? No? Well, that is a problem, isn't it?

So, how about giving up on the idea that the fire came from anywhere? What about saying that the fire already existed as a possibility and it just required certain conditions before it could become manifest?

The problem with wrestling with dependent origination is that it takes at least two things to be present to create a third thing. If one starts off with nothing, it's difficult to come up with one thing, let alone two. Maybe it's just a matter of rethinking what "nothing" is. Rather than view nothing as, er, well, nothing, why not consider nothing as full of infinite possibility? In that way, one can have any number of possibilities interacting to manifest a universe.

You want evidence against evolution? Try this: it's against the proved laws of thermodynamics (the second law, to be exact).
Science has proved that everything degenerates over time. energy always tends to go to its most basic form. things breakdown, whether it be stars, a car, or life.
Evolution directly contradicts this. It sais that over time, life improves, you could say in an upward spiral. But proved science says everything goes in a downward spiral.
Now, evolution has a big stumbling block in its way, doesn't it? There is plenty of other evidence against evolution (for example, lack of mutations which cause genetic information to be gained), too.

If you're going to try to disprove evolution, at least try to use something that hasnt come up 100 times before.

2nd Law of thermodynamics: Entropy (disorder) increases with time IN A CLOSED SYSTEM.

The earth is not a closed system, the sun constantly provides us with energy and therefore the total entropy (disorder) of the earth can decrease. That is no stumbling block at all. And incidentally, why do you assume that the physical law is better than the biological one? There's no point to this question, i'm just interested.

If you're going to try to disprove evolution, at least try to use something that hasnt come up 100 times before.

2nd Law of thermodynamics: Entropy (disorder) increases with time IN A CLOSED SYSTEM.

The earth is not a closed system, the sun constantly provides us with energy and therefore the total entropy (disorder) of the earth can decrease. That is no stumbling block at all. And incidentally, why do you assume that the physical law is better than the biological one? There's no point to this question, i'm just interested.

What do you think the universe is? A CLOSED SYSTEM. The Only thing that slows down this degeneration is God, an outside source. If God did nothing, we'd be a lot worse off.
And, in answer to your question, biology is part of the physical world. Physical Laws determine what happens in the biological world. So physical law is obviously above biological law, it governs biological law.

Btw, what's with you, PasturePastry? Whatever you said about fire was not what I was trying to say.
Everything you were saying was in the confines of this universe. Probability itself had to come from somewhere. The Laws which govern the universe, including probability, were created by God.

What do you think the universe is? A CLOSED SYSTEM. The Only thing that slows down this degeneration is God, an outside source. If God did nothing, we'd be a lot worse off.
And, in answer to your question, biology is part of the physical world. Physical Laws determine what happens in the biological world. So physical law is obviously above biological law, it governs biological law.

Btw, what's with you, PasturePastry? Whatever you said about fire was not what I was trying to say.
Everything you were saying was in the confines of this universe. Probability itself had to come from somewhere. The Laws which govern the universe, including probability, were created by God.

Who says God is slowing down entropy in the universe? I don't think science has shown that entropy is somehow mysterously being slowed. The universe can "decay" into disorder for quite a long time before it becomes incapable for us humans to live in it.

Just in case you didn't get the memo that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics doesn't contradict evolution... (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001.html)
More on how the universe isn't a closed system... (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001_2.html)

it's sad that you guys have one-sided opinions when there is eveidence for both sides.
it's sadder that the guys here who're sticking up for ID don't always have the right answers.

for example, why do men have nipples? for sexual forelplay, and because girls and guys have genetic similarities.
and anyway, so what if guys have nipples? are you trying to say that men evolved from women?

You want evidence against evolution? Try this: it's against the proved laws of thermodynamics (the second law, to be exact).
Science has proved that everything degenerates over time. energy always tends to go to its most basic form. things breakdown, whether it be stars, a car, or life.
Evolution directly contradicts this. It sais that over time, life improves, you could say in an upward spiral. But proved science says everything goes in a downward spiral.
Now, evolution has a big stumbling block in its way, doesn't it? There is plenty of other evidence against evolution (for example, lack of mutations which cause genetic information to be gained), too.

And even if evolution and the big bang were true, there still had to be a Designer before all of that.
Science has proven that time itself, right back before the universe began, did not exist. So, where did time (along with everything else) come from? The most likely (pretty much the only possible) answer is a designer.

fairly simple, isn't it?

I'm not sure where to start. Well since you claim there is good evidence for intelligent design please post it. In light of overwhelming evidence for evolution and no credible evidence being presented for a competing theory I'll have to go with evolution.

I disagree with your "evidence against evolution" genetic information can be gained through mutations. Examples are duplications and polyploidy (the duplication of chromosomes). When entire genes get duplicated they are free to be mutated to perform other functions (because you allready have the copies you need). Moreover, since these genes allready had a function to begin with, it is not the same as getting something useful from nothing. The new genes might be mutated to do something very similar, but at the same time different.

Btw, what's with you, PasturePastry? Whatever you said about fire was not what I was trying to say.
Everything you were saying was in the confines of this universe. Probability itself had to come from somewhere. The Laws which govern the universe, including probability, were created by God.

That was the point, actually. Everything I was saying was in the confines of the universe and it explains how it can come into being without outside influence. I would say that probability is an inherent property of emptiness. If you can conceive emptiness that doesn't even contain probability, Zen masters will be coming to you for guidance. ;)

1 - Channapolis, just because the universe is expanding doesn't mean everything will magically stop breaking down.
2 - Dre, i was talking about things like miracles.
3 - as to gained genetic information, Dre:http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re2/chapter5.asp
4- How can there possible not be a designer? Most evolutionists say that the big bang created everything, including the four dimesions. They say that probability created the universe. But, WHAT (OR WHO) CREATED PROBABILITY?

1 - Channapolis, just because the universe is expanding doesn't mean everything will magically stop breaking down.
2 - Dre, i was talking about things like miracles.
3 - as to gained genetic information, Dre:http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re2/chapter5.asp
4- How can there possible not be a designer? Most evolutionists say that the big bang created everything, including the four dimesions. They say that probability created the universe. But, WHAT (OR WHO) CREATED PROBABILITY?

#4
I had thought about mentioning this earlier, but decided against it, but now I should bring it up. The question "WHAT (OR WHO) CREATED PROBABILITY?" is a complex question, because in order to answer it, one has to agree that there exists a what (or who). It's like asking someone "Have you stopped beating your wife?"

In this case, I would say that there is no what (or who) that created probability. It exists as an inherent property of space.

1 - Channapolis, just because the universe is expanding doesn't mean everything will magically stop breaking down.
2 - Dre, i was talking about things like miracles.
3 - as to gained genetic information, Dre:http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re2/chapter5.asp
4- How can there possible not be a designer? Most evolutionists say that the big bang created everything, including the four dimesions. They say that probability created the universe. But, WHAT (OR WHO) CREATED PROBABILITY?

Okay, they keep making a point of observing changes that cause entirely new traits. I admit I can't think of any instances where this has been observed. This isn't evidence against evolution. It's only pointing out a place where the evidence is deficient. But does this really mean the whole theory should be thrown out?

Lets say someone said it was raining outside. I looked out the window and saw rain. I walked outside and I felt the rain. But I didn't drink the rain. Drinking the rain would be one more piece of evidence that the rain exists. Well, the weather report said it wouldn't rain and without drinking the rain I can't really be certain it was rain can I? I'll just deny it because I have no reason to think the weather report is wrong (or that I missunderstood it).

I think most of the ID supporters won't believe in evolution no matter how great the evidence for it is. I bet they will be more willing to accept Biblical arguments for a non-literal interpretation of Genesis. It is the literal interpretation of Genesis that is blocking their ability to believe in it, not any shortcoming of science. If Genesis said "And God made the Moon out of cheese, and God saw this was good" they would all believe the moon was made of cheese even if you took them up there and showed them otherwise.

Maybe Genesis is just symbolic like a lot of the parables and other stories in the Bible. One can believe in Genesis and believe in evolution as long as their interpretation of Genesis isn't literal.

3 - as to gained genetic information, Dre:http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re2/chapter5.asp

The argument used here is not correct. New traits (in contrast to existing traits) can be created. Point mutations, recombination, inversion etc etc.

4- How can there possible not be a designer? Most evolutionists say that the big bang created everything, including the four dimesions. They say that probability created the universe. But, WHAT (OR WHO) CREATED PROBABILITY?

Please. One more time: although an individual evolutionary biologist may 'believe' in the Big Bang, it is absolutely NO PART of ET. ET has nothing to do with astrophysics.

I think most of the ID supporters won't believe in evolution no matter how great the evidence for it is. I bet they will be more willing to accept Biblical arguments for a non-literal interpretation of Genesis. It is the literal interpretation of Genesis that is blocking their ability to believe in it, not any shortcoming of science. If Genesis said "And God made the Moon out of cheese, and God saw this was good" they would all believe the moon was made of cheese even if you took them up there and showed them otherwise.
And I think, sir, that you have hit the nail on the head!

Too many "Christians" in my experience, have God and Jesus in their HEAD...but not in their HEART.

And so they are all hung up on the rules and regulations...and on literal translations...and they never get around to the parts about being non-judgemental, about loving your neighbor, about forgiveness, compassion, and mercy.
Which is why I differentiate myself, by referring to myself as a Unitarian Christian.

Hey, let's stay on topic. All I'm asking is that a proponent of ID postulate a hypothesis here. It may be simple, it may be grand, but just postulate something.

I think you're approaching the whole thing the wrong way (or maybe I am, I don't know). I'm no expert, but I would think that Intelligent Design doesn't preclude science. It simply states that their is a designer responsible for science working the way it does. Again, though, I'm not familiar with the ID people and don't know their specific beliefs, but that's the way I view the relationship between God and science.

I think you're approaching the whole thing the wrong way (or maybe I am, I don't know). I'm no expert, but I would think that Intelligent Design doesn't preclude science. It simply states that their is a designer responsible for science working the way it does. Again, though, I'm not familiar with the ID people and don't know their specific beliefs, but that's the way I view the relationship between God and science.

I think the name is confusing. They call it intelligent design, which makes the belief sound broader then what it actually is. The truth is, that they are trying to push for the teaching of the literal genesis creation story (or as close to that as they can get). Being a Christian I'm very familure with those advocating ID and that's exactly what they are thinking when they do so.

ID is also a dirrect assult on evolution. Those proposing ID propose it not as a complimentary theory but as an opposing theory. If it where just the belief in an intelligent designer and not the more defined belief that God made the creatures in there present form then there would be no more reason to bring up ID in biology class than in physics class.

I think you're approaching the whole thing the wrong way (or maybe I am, I don't know). I'm no expert, but I would think that Intelligent Design doesn't preclude science. It simply states that their is a designer responsible for science working the way it does. Again, though, I'm not familiar with the ID people and don't know their specific beliefs, but that's the way I view the relationship between God and science.

I don't think I am. The problem with ID is, well, there are A LOT of problems with ID. The major problem with ID is that it assumes there is a Designer. Although strictly speaking this Designer need not be God, for creationists they are one and the same. The eternal problem with God, or anything supernatural, is that you cannot explain it, define it, or test for it in a scientific way. Whenever you try to do science but invoke the supernatural you end with bad science. Why? Because science operates on the falsification principle. You make observations, and you come up with a hypothesis that can explain the observations that were done. Then you test the hypothesis by doing experiments. The more outcomes you get that don't conflict with your hypothesis, the greater the value of your hypothesis. Yet an outcome that conflicts with your hypothesis renders your hypothesis worthless. Your hypothesis has been falsified. The problem with ID is that a priori your hypothesis will be without value, because one (implicit) assumption within the hypothesis cannot be falsified: the existence of the Designer.

Now, proponents of ID recognize that problem, of course. The ID argument is that you CAN test for the existence of a Designer. ID searches for "irreducible complexity". The argument is that living systems are too complex to have arisen by selection and mutation. In essence this is an old creationist point, known as Paley's Eye. Paley, I believe a religious naturalist, argued that the eye was too complex to have evolved. His argument was: "what good is half an eye?" If you simplify the design of the eye you get a worthless organ. This argument, however, has been refuted time and again: half an eye is better than no eye at all. In other areas it has been shown that systems that are greatly complex result from quite simple processes.

But there is another conflict between ID and ET. ET assumes a 'blind watchmaker'. There is no arrow of chance in ET. ID, however, has direction. It must have, because systems are evolving towards the said "irreducible complexity". Therefore ID is teleological, directed towards a goal, THE cardinal sin in evolutionary biology.

So, ID and ET cannot coexist. They are mutually exclusive. It is not always easy to see that: ID and ET can predict the same result in an experiment. Ha, thus ID is an alternative to ET, many people say. But although they may appear indistinguishable they are not, as one of them is implicitly infalsifiable.

Now, I do not want to belittle religion. Religion can be a great thing. I myself am an eternal agnostic. But religion is at least one thing NOT: science. That's okay, science and religion just answer different questions.

. The major problem with ID is that it assumes there is a Designer. Although strictly speaking this Designer need not be God, for creationists they are one and the same. The eternal problem with God, or anything supernatural, is that you cannot explain it, define it, or test for it in a scientific way. .

Yes, the ID theory does presuppose the existence of a god or gods. There is no need to explain the supernatural scientifically, as it is, after all, by definition outside of the natural way ("super") that things operate. The existence of a supernatural supreme being or beings in no way conflicts with the way science operates, it only provides the motivation for science operating the way it does. Can science still operate without a supreme being(s) guiding it? Probably, but to me it seems highly improbable that the universe and all life within it just sprang up by accident or coincidence. To my way of thinking, that's a lot more improbable than the existence of a god or gods.