NationStates Jolt Archive

I was just reading Pharyngula blog the other day, and I realized that in the US, the Intelligent Design movement appears rather formidable. To a non-USAmerican like me the whole thing is laughable, but let's play what if.

Is the ID exportable to other parts of the World? Say Europe or Middle East or East Asia or somewhere. With people worshipping USAmerican pop culture like baseball or American Idol and what-nought it worries me that ID will catch on like wildfire elsewhere because if it's USAmerican it must be right.

I think it has already spread to the UK. There's also a small following in Germany, but it's nowhere near as big as in the US.

Maybe Will Wright's upcoming ID propaganda game "Spore" will make it more popular outside of the US.

I think it has already spread to the UK.

No, it actually hasn't at all. And it certainly isn't taught in schools as "science". We learn about different religions' views on where the world came from, but it stays in RE.

In science (and in RE as a counter-argument) we learn about evolution and the survival of the fittest etc. and we don't put religion into that.

Well, I don't think "ID" will spread any more than, say, the KKK has beyond our borders. Most of the world views our "ID" supporters as a bunch of raving twats. But then, I don't have an optimistic viewpoint concerning human intelligence. It wouldn't surprise me if - especially after winning a few battles here in the US and our education system - "ID" begins to infect even relatively well-educated countries like, all of Europe.

I was just reading Pharyngula blog the other day, and I realized that in the US, the Intelligent Design movement appears rather formidable. To a non-USAmerican like me the whole thing is laughable, but let's play what if.

Is the ID exportable to other parts of the World? Say Europe or Middle East or East Asia or somewhere. With people worshipping USAmerican pop culture like baseball or American Idol and what-nought it worries me that ID will catch on like wildfire elsewhere because if it's USAmerican it must be right.
I fucking hope not. Bad enough some of my fellow Americans are stupid enough to believe it(for a very, very short time I believed it too due to the second law of thermodynamics fallacy before looking it up). We don't need others in the world believing it too.

SCIENCE!

Does anybody else feel that ID is just the religious right getting desperate? They can't beat science with religion, so they make their religion a science. Right...

Well, I don't think "ID" will spread any more than, say, the KKK has beyond our borders. Most of the world views our "ID" supporters as a bunch of raving twats. But then, I don't have an optimistic viewpoint concerning human intelligence. It wouldn't surprise me if - especially after winning a few battles here in the US and our education system - "ID" begins to infect even relatively well-educated countries like, all of Europe.

Should I start to run screaming? What about East Asia? It looks like missionaries are aggressively trying to christianize China. ID could be become popular among the kids as a "oh. USA = freedom of religion = non-state endorsed Christianity = alternative to communist science = ID".

Sort of thing.

Does anybody else feel that ID is just the religious right getting desperate? They can't beat science with religion, so they make their religion a science. Right...
It wouldn't surprise me, to be honest. Frankly, I don't see why they have to push their agenda on us all the time. 'Course, they see people like you and me who don't want freedoms infringed and all that as pushing our agenda on them, which doesn't help matters.

No, because as we all know, the middle east and decent portions of Asia have no Muslim, Christian or Judaist populations. :rolleyes: Intelligent design is a fundamental part of all these belief systems, and hopefully they will get the same freedom to be taught alongside the THEORY of evolution that we SHOULD have here.

Should I start to run screaming? What about East Asia? It looks like missionaries are aggressively trying to christianize China. ID could be become popular among the kids as a "oh. USA = freedom of religion = non-state endorsed Christianity = alternative to communist science = ID".

Sort of thing.

Maybe!

And then when the Chinese start executing intelligent design rebels and we see video clips on google video, American IDers will raise the banner of martyrdom and march triumphantly to consolidate the US science education once and for all. Insidious!

No, because as we all know, the middle east and decent portions of Asia have no Muslim, Christian or Judaist populations. :rolleyes: Intelligent design is a fundamental part of all these belief systems, and hopefully they will get the same freedom to be taught alongside the THEORY of evolution that we SHOULD have here.

Congratulations on being the first ID-yot to post on this topic. I wish you were the last, because reason cannot defeat you and you annoy people.

No, because as we all know, the middle east and decent portions of Asia have no Muslim, Christian or Judaist populations. :rolleyes: Intelligent design is a fundamental part of all these belief systems, and hopefully they will get the same freedom to be taught alongside the THEORY of evolution that we SHOULD have here.
There is a difference between the laymans definition of theory and the technical definition. Under the technical definition, it is essentially a proof. Which it is. There is an enormous amount of proof of all sorts for evolution, and absolutely none for creationism or intelligent design. Perhaps you'd like to attack the "theory" of gravity, next? I'd love to see you try. Because you most assuredly know more than literally tens of thousands of scientists who have devoted their lives to researching various aspect of evolution.

Maybe!

And then when the Chinese start executing intelligent design rebels and we see video clips on google video, American IDers will raise the banner of martyrdom and march triumphantly to consolidate the US science education once and for all. Insidious!

It's been done. Fucking your own people using outside influence is a standard operating procedure in history.

Congratulations on being the first ID-yot to post on this topic.
Thank you! Congratulations on the fact that I need sleep and have to leave for awhile!

I wish you were the last, because reason cannot defeat you and you annoy people.
Awww! I wish you were the last Hypocrite who wants to infringe on my freedom not to listen to your side's crap too! You're so sweet! :rolleyes:

Some stupid twats pressured to have it taught in Australia but the education minister put out a statement that basically said, "You are stupid twats, feck off," except more polite.

There is a difference between the laymans definition of theory and the technical definition. Under the technical definition, it is essentially a proof. Which it is. There is an enormous amount of proof of all sorts for evolution, and absolutely none for creationism or intelligent design. Perhaps you'd like to attack the "theory" of gravity, next? I'd love to see you try. Because you most assuredly know more than literally tens of thousands of scientists who have devoted their lives to researching various aspect of evolution.
Essentially a proof does not a proof make. I never said it was a good theory mind you, Relativity and Quantum mechanics come to mind, one of those two does not fit the other. ;) On another note, are you trivialising the literally tens of thousands who have devoted their lives to study (the ID) religion(s)? Not to mention the billions who have devoted their lives to religion? If you can trivialize them, I can do the same to the scientists you mention. (goodness 5:11AM)

Essentially a proof does not a proof make. I never said it was a good theory mind you, Relativity and Quantum mechanics come to mind, one of those two does not fit the other. ;) On another note, are you trivialising the literally tens of thousands who have devoted their lives to study (the ID) religion(s)? Not to mention the billions who have devoted their lives to religion? If you can trivialize them, I can do the same to the scientists you mention. (goodness 5:11AM)
I am not.

I, however, do not possess the necessary knowledge to truly argue this. As such, I shall bow to others on this forum who would happily debate your uninformed and uneducated viewpoint. This is a concession ONLY that I do not have the necessary information to argue against your points, not that anything you have said is right, so please do not misinterpret it.

*sigh* I live on the east coast of the USA. It's 5:16 AM. I haven't gone to sleep yet. The fact that you're stooping to these lowbrow tactics practically proves my point. If your theory was true, such inferior fodder would have been eliminated LONG ago.:headbang:
I deleted that post after realizing it was unnecessary. I too have been up for quite a while. I ask that you delete the quotation in your own post as well, for the sake of peace or what have you.

So please do not misinterpret it.
I will not. You are bowing out due to lack of the knowledge to defend your veiwpoint. I respect that. Nothing is worse then a person (be their beliefs justified or not) who drags down those around him. Thusly, I salute you, and hope that you make the correct choice. (Whatever it turns out to be...)

EDIT: Done and goodnight to you. :)

No, because as we all know, the middle east and decent portions of Asia have no Muslim, Christian or Judaist populations. :rolleyes: Intelligent design is a fundamental part of all these belief systems, and hopefully they will get the same freedom to be taught alongside the THEORY of evolution that we SHOULD have here.

You're using the old 'just a theory'-arguement, aren't you? Well, that gives me an excuse to repost this:

The big organising priciples of science are theories, coherent systems of thought that explain huge numbers of otherwise isolated facts, which have survived strenous testing deliberately designed to break them if they do not accord to reality. They have not been merely accepted as some act of scientiffic faith: instead, people have tried to falsify them - to prove them wrong - but have so far failed. These failures do not prove them true, because there are always new sources of potential discord. Isaac Newton's theory of gravitation, in conjunction with his laws of motion, was - and still is - good enough to explain the movements of planets, asteroids and other bodies of the solar system in intricate detail, with high accuracy. But in some contexts, such as black holes, it has now been replaces by Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity.

...

Most science is incremental, but some is more radical. Newton's theory was one of the great breakthroughs of science - not a shower of rain disturbing the surface of the lake, but an intellectual storm that released a raging torrent. [...] Darwin did for biology what Newton had done for physics, but in a very different way. Newton developed mathematical equations that let physicists calculate numbers and test them to many decimal places; it was a quantitive theory. Darwin's idea is expressed in words, not equations, and it describes a qualitative process, not numbers. Despite that, its influence has been at least as great as Newton's, possibly even greater. Darwin's torrent still rages today.

Evolution, then, is a theory, one of the most influential, far-reaching and important theories ever devised. In this context, it's worth pointing out that the word 'theory' is often used in a quite different sense, to mean an idea that is proposed in order to be tested. Strictly speaking, the word that should be used here is 'hypothesis', but that's such a fussy, pedantic-sounding word that people tend to avoid it. Even scientists, who should know better. 'I have a theory', they say. No, you have a hypothesis. It will take years, possibly centuries, of stringent tests, to turn it into a theory.

The theory of evolution was once a hypothesis. Now it is a theory. Detractors seize on the word and forget it's dual use. 'Only a theory', they say dismissively. But a true theory cannot be so easily dismissed, because it has survived so much rigorous testing. In this respect there is far more reason to take the theory of evolution seriously than any explanation of life that depends on, say religious faith, because falsification is not high on the religious agenda. Theories, in that sense, are the best established, most credible parts of science. They are, by and large, considerably more credible than most other products of the human mind. So what these people are thinking of when they chant their dismissive slogan should actually be 'only a hypothesis'.

That was a defensible position in the early days of the theory of evolution, but today it is merely ignorant. If anything can be a fact, evolution is.

Thanks to Ian Stewart & Jack Cohen :)

Of course, when God intelligently designed the world, he didn't just intelligently design the USA, it was the whole world. So it won't spread outside the US it already encompasses the globe. God designed the whole world intelligently, not just the US - dah...:rolleyes:

Of course, when God intelligently designed the world, he didn't just intelligently design the USA, it was the whole world. So it won't spread outside the US it already encompasses the globe. God designed the whole world intelligently, not just the US - dah...:rolleyes:

Semantics. :D

Have you ever had anyone look at you funny and then later realize that you had about a kilo of earwax hanging from your ear?

Or sneeze in company and had a litre of bubbly mucous fly out of your nose?

Or touched a live wire with your hand that made you soil your pants?

Or tried to swollow something and nearly choke to death because it went down the wrong hole?

Or tried to make a baby without making a stupid face?


What I'm getting at is, I don't really see a lot of evidence for intelligent design.

Oh, and here was me thinking you were talking about ID cards. I much more pressing form of ID in the UK. I was thinking 'of course ID is easily exportable. Most governments seem quite happy to instate them. Or you could consider that they are easily forged and therefore exported to illegal immigrants to help them get into the country'

I'm pretty sure I haven't met anyone in Britain who believes sincerly in ID, expect maybe for a few of the Jehovah's witnesses and Evangelicals that I've met, but even they didn't seem like they truly believed what they were talking about.

I wonder if any ID advocates would support the teachings of the Flying Spaghetti Monster...
http://www.venganza.org/

Maybe Will Wright's upcoming ID propaganda game "Spore" will make it more popular outside of the US.
I think that's a bit harsh. I don't think 'god games' are actually intended to promote theist belief, any more than Quake is intended to promote belief in zombies, or SimCity is intended to promote government micromanagement.

No.
Maybe because exported are middle to high quality American stuff (fast food in general is not so bad at all, but I do not know what is American Idol, I think that baseball is stupid and ID is laughable).

I think the basement of that is because there are relatively much atheists (i think about 30%) and from those who are called christians not too much are really deep believers. And very few would be who would like to brainwash their own children with religious stuff.

No, because as we all know, the middle east and decent portions of Asia have no Muslim, Christian or Judaist populations. :rolleyes: Intelligent design is a fundamental part of all these belief systems, and hopefully they will get the same freedom to be taught alongside the THEORY of evolution that we SHOULD have here.

There exist literally thousands - if not millions - of different "theories" on how humanity came to be and how life on earth became so diverse. Unless you have no imagination at all making several dozens of them up yourself is a trivial exercise. Obviously, we cannot give teach them all alongside eachother - unless we find a way to make all humans immortal and have a vastly better memory. Nor do I personally think we should want to teach them all, since it is quite certain that the overwhelming majority of these theories has extremely little value.

This means we need to select "the best" 'theories' from this huge collection. The choosing method scientists have chosen is to stick with those that explain the known facts accurately and consistently, can be rigorously tested for validity and has practical use - for example when designing medicines. Currently, out of all those thousands of theories, only the theory of evolution meets these simple requirements. Maybe ID will also qualify somewhere in the future, but sofar it has *nothing* to show for itself.

To use a parallel: evolution is a succesfull and well established scientist, while intelligent design is a screaming 12 year old schoolkid that insists it knows better than "the poopiehead teacher".
Maybe it does, but as long as it doesn't grow up and learn that screaming is no substitute for actual content it does not deserve to be teaching in front of the class.

Well, it's just reactonary religion. Plenty of countries have elements of that in their society, so i'd say it's a gimme.

I don't think it will become the dominant theory in any nation that isn't already some sort of oppressive theocracy, though.

I think that's a bit harsh. I don't think 'god games' are actually intended to promote theist belief, any more than Quake is intended to promote belief in zombies, or SimCity is intended to promote government micromanagement.

Don't worry, that was just a joke. :)

Essentially a proof does not a proof make. I never said it was a good theory mind you, Relativity and Quantum mechanics come to mind, one of those two does not fit the other. ;) On another note, are you trivialising the literally tens of thousands who have devoted their lives to study (the ID) religion(s)? Not to mention the billions who have devoted their lives to religion? If you can trivialize them, I can do the same to the scientists you mention. (goodness 5:11AM)

The people who study religions trivialize themselves. They read a book, and make inferences about the nature of God from that book. then people read their work and infer still more things, but no one ever makes any effort to prove, or even support, the basic principles. Scientists perform endless studies trying to prove and disprove their theories, and modify them whenever required. No one who studies religion ever manages to prove anything, or find any evidence, or explain any of the contradictions and flaws. Until religions can be modified to fit the evidence, they will be worthless from a scientific standpoint.

I never said it was a good theory mind you, Relativity and Quantum mechanics come to mind, one of those two does not fit the other. ;)

Relativity and Quantum mechanics describe two completely different things. Please explain.

To be honest, I'm more afraid of the irrational fear of ID being exported than of the ID movement itself. Most of us, I feel, acknowledge it as nothing more than a bunch of purely speculative philosophies, and that to consider it as anything else would be to empower it.

To be honest, I'm more afraid of the irrational fear of ID being exported than of the ID movement itself. Most of us, I feel, acknowledge it as nothing more than a bunch of purely speculative philosophies, and that to consider it as anything else would be to empower it.
Yeah I had a shock a while back when I saw a programme advertised dealing with a potential spread of ID ideas to Britain, actually debating whether it had merit. It's never going to fly in Britain- there just isn't te support for it, but all you need is some over officious education official to worry that it's un PC to deny religious groups their rights and before you know it an inoccuous phrase like 'there are several other theories to explain how life turned out the way it has etc. ' creeps onto a syllabus.

Relativity and Quantum mechanics describe two completely different things. Please explain.
So far there has been no way to integrate the theories together. An attempt was made with special relativity, but it still has a long way to go. :) (note: As it would take massive amounts of time to copy/paste the quotes from all these posts, I'm simply going to use the quote function in the editor. Your name will not be attached to your comments.)

This means we need to select "the best" 'theories' from this huge collection.

Alright, lets go through these one by one. The choosing method scientists have chosen is to stick with those that explain the known facts accurately and consistently,
Known facts. Many animals exist on place where there was once only simple chemicals. This can be explained by A. Those chemicals coming together randomly to produce life which then branched out into all the variety we see today or B. A supernatural being created all of them. (including those in that are now extinct.) Ever heard of Occam's razor? Evolution assumes that A those chemicals could randomly produce life. b. they did. c. that life survived. and d. it changed its form to produce all the variety we see today. ID assumes A. A super natural being exists (or existed). B. It could created life. C. It DID. D.That life survives to this day. They seem to be equally valid.can be rigorously tested for validityHow's that fish doing? Does it have legs yet? :rolleyes: and has practical use - for example when designing medicines. Practical use. Evolution does have a practical use. If you wait long enough. Assuming it's valid. ID also has practical use. If An intelligent being can create life, it's possible with enough knowledge we can bend it to our will. Tell me THAT'S not practical and useful. Currently, out of all those thousands of theories, only the theory of evolution meets these simple requirements. *looks at above list. How can we compare. :rolleyes: On to the next argument!

And very few would be who would like to brainwash their own children with religious stuff.
I'm so glad we have a person qualified to discern what is and what is not "Brainwashing" here.:rolleyes: I'm almost ashamed to put this in with the so far valid arguments on this page. NEXT!

You're using the old 'just a theory'-argument, aren't you? Well, that gives me an excuse to repost this: Please see my other post on theories. It was above yours. OK then, this is as far as the editor will let me see back. So I'm sorry if I missed your argument. I'll check back later in the day.

I would be all for exporting Intelligent Design outside of the United States, provided it involved taking ID'ers, strapping them to the outside of a Saturn V rocket and launching it out into open space.

(note: As it would take massive amounts of time to copy/paste the quotes from all these posts, I'm simply going to use the quote function in the editor. Your name will not be attached to your comments.)A quick hint. It's fairly easy to add attributes. When you surround with "{QUOTE}{/QUOTE}" (except with []s, of course) just add "=person'sname". in the appropriate spot. e.g.:I heard that if you eat a salamander, you die.

Anyway.

Known facts. Many animals exist on place where there was once only simple chemicals. This can be explained by A. Those chemicals coming together randomly to produce life which then branched out into all the variety we see today or B. A supernatural being created all of them. (including those in that are now extinct.) Ever heard of Occam's razor? Evolution assumes that A those chemicals could randomly produce life. b. they did. c. that life survived. and d. it changed its form to produce all the variety we see today. ID assumes A. A super natural being exists (or existed). B. It could created life. C. It DID. D.That life survives to this day. They seem to be equally valid.Try this instead:
Evolution says that it appears that what we see is due to reproducable/testable natural processes.
Intelligent Design says that it appears that what we see is due to reproducable/testable natural processes, but there's also a Designer who meddles witht he process.
Whilever there is no evidence for a designer (and there isn't any) the comparison is essentially "nature" vs "nature+designer" and Occam rules that the former is the simplest. They may be close to each other on the 'infinite scale of probability' (arguably, by some at least), but when directly and fairly compared the difference stands out a mile.

(Also note that evolution says nothing about "Those chemicals coming together randomly to produce life". There are comparable arguments about this process also occuring via a similar process, but that's another discussion.)

Please see my other post on theories. It was above yours.
That post didn't clarify your views.

to answer the original question no.

religious fundamentalists are treated with extreme suspicion in the rest of the west and dont have the clout that american evangalical types do.

we are just more secular and have removed education from the hands of nutjobs

Silly evolutionist people. When I drop a rock from my hand, it does not fall to earth; God is there, pushing it down.

That post didn't clarify your views.

Essentially a proof does not a proof make. I never said it was a good theory mind you...
These are my views. Just because something is accepted by the scientific community does not make it fact, I could compare the scientific community of today, to the church of years gone by, whatever they say is accepted as fact by large groups of people. Luckily, they haven't started killing people who disagree... yet. That help? :)

Try this instead:

* Evolution says that it appears that what we see is due to reproducable/testable natural processes.
* Intelligent Design says that it appears that what we see is due to reproducable/testable natural processes, but there's also a Designer who meddles with he process.
Obviously we are both clouded by our respective biases. I really wish someone more qualified then myself was here, I'll admit I don't know much about intelligent design, being a creationist. But I can tell you I would have been gritting my teeth alot less in biology if evolution hadn't been presented as an unchallenged fact. Anyway, obviously neither of us are going to be swayed, and this thread has gone off-topic anyway. I have voted, so I will take my leave. God bless, and congratulations on a formidable argument. :) I'd almost call you a zealot, but that term is reserved for us primitive religious types. :rolleyes: Bye.

How's that fish doing? Does it have legs yet? :rolleyes:

You've never even studied agriculture, have you?

If evolution were incorrect, the green revolution would not have been possible and many people would still be starving in Asia.

Anyway, to respond to the OP:
I don't really fear ID spreading to Europe, given that the european powers have "exported" their religious wackos and other fundamentalists to their respective colonies, most of them probably going to N and S america. The only one's left in Europe are "official" ones, like the pope's club, Luther's gang and such. And these don't like ID at all.

ID also has practical use. If An intelligent being can create life, it's possible with enough knowledge we can bend it to our will. Tell me THAT'S not practical and useful.
Now there's a frightening thought! Downright scary! :eek:

These are my views. Just because something is accepted by the scientific community does not make it fact, I could compare the scientific community of today, to the church of years gone by, whatever they say is accepted as fact by large groups of people. Luckily, they haven't started killing people who disagree... yet. That help? :)
Yes, it does. However, I'm wondering about your position on the theory of gravity? And electricity? And Newton's laws of motion?

Obviously we are both clouded by our respective biases. I really wish someone more qualified then myself was here, I'll admit I don't know much about intelligent design, being a creationist. But I can tell you I would have been gritting my teeth alot less in biology if evolution hadn't been presented as an unchallenged fact.
Should also the above mentioned theories be taught with such disclaimers? "Water boils at a temperature of 100 degrees Celsius, but this is just a theory"?

Permit me to include the last part of my first post again:

That was a defensible position in the early days of the theory of evolution, but today it is merely ignorant. If anything can be a fact, evolution is.

Obviously we are both clouded by our respective biases.If you're still around, just let me say that that, yes, I believe that Occam/Ockham is on 'my' side[1], but was essentially trying to show how your interpretation of the O-Meister essentially saying "there's no difference" is patently a matter of interpretation. As is my POV (though I think it's the most logical interpretation), and as is the POV that "Universe With God" needs less explanation than "Universe Without God" (which I happen to think is an illogical interpretation, but I know others who have a contrary opinion to myself).

i.e. I may be biased, but I feel I have backing for my conclusions. If the sticking point is that you cannot accept my backing, that I cannot accept your backing and that neither of us can accept the backing of, or have our backing accepted by, the hard-line theists taking up their positions, then at least let us all know all the possible options, in case any of us is following any opinion in ignorance of all other possible opinions.


Not that I hope to 'convert' anyone, but it would be remiss of me if I were not to try to offer the possibility of a mutual understanding.

[1] Well, I don't really have a side, because (apart from any strange Next-Tuesdayism beliefs) I'm open to the possibility of there being a deity/Creator/whatever, just see no evidence of one and thus generally treat the universe "as observed". If there's a deity they'll know that's how I am.

These are my views. Just because something is accepted by the scientific community does not make it fact, I could compare the scientific community of today, to the church of years gone by, whatever they say is accepted as fact by large groups of people. Luckily, they haven't started killing people who disagree... yet. That help? :)


Obviously we are both clouded by our respective biases. I really wish someone more qualified then myself was here, I'll admit I don't know much about intelligent design, being a creationist. But I can tell you I would have been gritting my teeth alot less in biology if evolution hadn't been presented as an unchallenged fact. Anyway, obviously neither of us are going to be swayed, and this thread has gone off-topic anyway. I have voted, so I will take my leave. God bless, and congratulations on a formidable argument. :) I'd almost call you a zealot, but that term is reserved for us primitive religious types. :rolleyes: Bye.

You obviously don't know much about SCIENCE either, yet you still feel like you can credibly argue against certain aspects of it. You have no credentials.

Unless you have ACTUALLY STUDIED Biology post high school, your criticisms of its principles are null and your arguments are merely the passing of gas.

The Intelligent Design movement is formidable? Must be the red states...

Here in California where I live it's generally laughed at.

Now there's a frightening thought! Downright scary! :eek:

I remember posting a while back about this. The concept that people want to know the mind of God, so that they can control God. All that silly dancing and singing and worshipping is just to distract from the real prize - Power. :)

The 'Theory' of Evolution became fact decades ago.

Intelligent Design isn't even a theory, as it is not a falsifiable hypothesis.

If the distinction eludes some people, that's because they don't know enough.

There is a difference between the laymans definition of theory and the technical definition. Under the technical definition, it is essentially a proof. Which it is. There is an enormous amount of proof of all sorts for evolution, and absolutely none for creationism or intelligent design. Perhaps you'd like to attack the "theory" of gravity, next? I'd love to see you try.

Well, I have a theory that what holds objects to other objects are different forces of strong and weak magnetism. The sun - as a larger object - exerts a stronger magnetism than the planets - which is why they don't vanish into the void - but the weaker magnetism of the same planets is nonetheless enough to stop them from falling into the sun. This 'gravity' nonsense is the invention of occult-worshipping Europeans like that Isaac Newton bloke, and I demand that my theory of strong and weak magnetism be taught in schools alongside the 'theory' of gravity so that people can decide for themselves which makes more sense....

I also have this theory that tides are caused by belching whales, but I'm still working on that one.

Well, I have a theory that what holds objects to other objects are different forces of strong and weak magnetism. The sun - as a larger object - exerts a stronger magnetism than the planets - which is why they don't vanish into the void - but the weaker magnetism of the same planets is nonetheless enough to stop them from falling into the sun. This 'gravity' nonsense is the invention of occult-worshipping Europeans like that Isaac Newton bloke, and I demand that my theory of strong and weak magnetism be taught in schools alongside the 'theory' of gravity so that people can decide for themselves which makes more sense....

I also have this theory that tides are caused by belching whales, but I'm still working on that one.

Nonsense. Tides are caused by Chuck Norris. Everyone except the flat-earthers know that. Fucking flat-earthers.

Just wondering (and hoping an IDer can answer)...

Suppose the theory of evolution only dealt with beetles, reptiles, birds etc etc and did not imply that humans evolved from anther lifeform; but that we (well.. you.. because I am but a simple rat) are special.

Would you then consider it acceptable ?

Headlines, gentlemen. Headlines. The ID people here are not that big, they are just that loud. They make a splash once in a while when they sponsor some legislation or some extremely small school district adopts a warning label on evolution books, but they always lose in court and you never see something like that coming from Los Angeles or New York or Chicago. It's always Quahog Indiana or something and then it goes to court and the IDers lose. As for exporting it, are you implying that, for example, the Middle East largely believes in evolution? You're kidding, right? ID is nothing more than a slick name for Christian fundamentalist. Muslims believe the exact same thing - even from the exact same God. In Asia they have their own, different beliefs that have nothing to do with monkeys or mutations or survival of the fittest and last I checked Christianity is still the biggest religion in Europe - though Islam is fast overtaking it - and any Bible believers there believe the same thing they probably just didn't hire a marketing firm to give them a new name for it.

Intelligent Design isn't even a theory, as it is not a falsifiable hypothesis.

I'd go further: it is not even a meaningful premise.

Evolution is useful because it explains how complexity can emerge from simplicity.

ID is utterly useless because it explains the existence of complexity by postulating an infinitely complex being who started it all off. In other words it doesn't just solve nothing, it actually pushes the problem back a stage for no very good reason.

It's all about publicly declaring that you're simply too lazy to use the crinkly grey stuff that's sitting just behind your eyes.

It's all about publicly declaring that you're simply too lazy to use the crinkly grey stuff that's sitting just behind your eyes.

No, to a great degree it is the exact opposite: it is a declaration that you are *only* willing to use the little grey cells. You "think up" how everything should be and devise a wonderful and detailed explanation using lots of imagination - but you refuse to verify if those ideas actually fit the facts.

No, to a great degree it is the exact opposite: it is a declaration that you are *only* willing to use the little grey cells. You "think up" how everything should be and devise a wonderful and detailed explanation using lots of imagination - but you refuse to verify if those ideas actually fit the facts.
And I disagree with you. I think it is not only a refusal to verify facts and theories and test them, it is teh refusal to use YOUR OWN gray matter in favor of the guy who makes a living from donation trays that stands at the podium on Sundays. If you just let him do the thinking for you, you can go through life on autopilot. It's very appealing, if you think about it.

No, to a great degree it is the exact opposite: it is a declaration that you are *only* willing to use the little grey cells. You "think up" how everything should be and devise a wonderful and detailed explanation using lots of imagination - but you refuse to verify if those ideas actually fit the facts.
I'll concede the point happily.

[QUOTE=Gravlen]
Should also the above mentioned theories be taught with such disclaimers? "Water boils at a temperature of 100 degrees Celsius, but this is just a theory"?
[QUOTE]

Just an aside: Water boils at 100 degrees C - at sea level.

HTH

[QUOTE=Gravlen]
Should also the above mentioned theories be taught with such disclaimers? "Water boils at a temperature of 100 degrees Celsius, but this is just a theory"?
[QUOTE]

Just an aside: Water boils at 100 degrees C - at sea level.

HTH

I think "at a paticular pressure" would be better.

The Intelligent Design movement is formidable? Must be the red states...

Here in California where I live it's generally laughed at.

Unfortunately, the creationist - er, ID movement is quite formidable in some of the red states, if my previous high school is any indication. Believe me, it got rather tiresome being the only person (openly) supporting evolution in a biology class with 25 students.

Even at my current school (which is heavily math- and science-oriented), I suspect that up to a third of the class consists of creationists and ID'ers.

Alright, lets go through these one by one.
Known facts. Many animals exist on place where there was once only simple chemicals. This can be explained by A. Those chemicals coming together randomly to produce life which then branched out into all the variety we see today or B. A supernatural being created all of them. (including those in that are now extinct.) Ever heard of Occam's razor? Evolution assumes that A those chemicals could randomly produce life. b. they did. c. that life survived. and d. it changed its form to produce all the variety we see today. ID assumes A. A super natural being exists (or existed). B. It could created life. C. It DID. D.That life survives to this day. They seem to be equally valid.How's that fish doing? Does it have legs yet? :rolleyes: Practical use. Evolution does have a practical use. If you wait long enough. Assuming it's valid. ID also has practical use. If An intelligent being can create life, it's possible with enough knowledge we can bend it to our will. Tell me THAT'S not practical and useful. *looks at above list. How can we compare. :rolleyes: On to the next argument!


Ever heard of evidence? Forget Occam's razor. Philosophising is no substitute for opening your eyes and looking at the actual evidence.

How's that fish doing, does it have legs yet? Hah. You obviously missed the news about fish/lizard thingy fossil sticking out of a cliff in Canada a coupla months back.

And have you ever heard of the mudskipper? If not, allow me to enlighten you. Not only has this fish got 'legs' of a kind, it's also got 'lungs' of a kind.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mudskipper.

Incidentally, ever wondered why, if a Deity created all the flora and fauna, that some of them would go extinct? What does the process of extinction tell you about the nature of the world?

Nonsense. Tides are caused by Chuck Norris. Everyone except the flat-earthers know that. Fucking flat-earthers.


Spot on. :D

Evolutionism has it's origins in Chuck Norris roundhouse-kicking creatures into a higher state of evolution. Fact.

And have you ever heard of the mudskipper? If not, allow me to enlighten you. Not only has this fish got 'legs' of a kind, it's also got 'lungs' of a kind.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mudskipper.

Mudskipper, eh? I was thinking Lungfish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lungfish)

After a little Abu-Ghraib, a man will probably accept ID as rational and scientific.

Ever heard of evidence? Forget Occam's razor. Philosophising is no substitute for opening your eyes and looking at the actual evidence.

How's that fish doing, does it have legs yet? Hah. You obviously missed the news about fish/lizard thingy fossil sticking out of a cliff in Canada a coupla months back.

And have you ever heard of the mudskipper? If not, allow me to enlighten you. Not only has this fish got 'legs' of a kind, it's also got 'lungs' of a kind.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mudskipper. And I'm sure a scientist observed it's ancestors slowly change into it's current form. What's that? No? Well then how do you know it wasn't always that way? I rest my case.

Incidentally, ever wondered why, if a Deity created all the flora and fauna, that some of them would go extinct? What does the process of extinction tell you about the nature of the world?
Because they outlived their purpose of course. As for the if it only applied to humans question, as a creationist I say no, but you'd really have to ask an IDer. Ok, I'm seriously not coming back next time. I hope.

And I'm sure a scientist observed it's ancestors slowly change into it's current form. What's that? No?

Behold, the power of organisms with generations measured in minutes.
http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm

I was just reading Pharyngula blog the other day, and I realized that in the US, the Intelligent Design movement appears rather formidable. To a non-USAmerican like me the whole thing is laughable, but let's play what if..
ID is quite laughable to most Americans as well, don't assume everyone here tolerates or believes that crap. The whole intelligent design issue is not as "formidable" as you put it as the religious freaks might have you believe.

Is the ID exportable to other parts of the World? Say Europe or Middle East or East Asia or somewhere. ..
Ony to the most ignorant and fanatical ones who want to use this issue to further their fundamentalist causes.

With people worshipping USAmerican pop culture like baseball or American Idol and what-nought it worries me that ID will catch on like wildfire elsewhere because if it's USAmerican it must be right.
Well thats a pretty stupid thing if I've ever heard one. Worshipping American culture, and assuming "its right because its American" is not our fault, but the fault of whatever culture takes that view. America is not perfect and although there are a lot of positive things our country has given to the world, I don't think our pop culture is anything to be emulated by others.

And By the way, the whole Idol crap talent contest was founded in the UK and exported here to the US.

Mudskipper, eh? I was thinking Lungfish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lungfish)

Im thinking Hagfish (http://oceanlink.island.net/oinfo/hagfish/hagfish.html)

And I'm sure a scientist observed it's ancestors slowly change into it's current form. What's that? No? Well then how do you know it wasn't always that way?

Quite simply: you do not. You can only attempt to devise a hypothesis that explains the facts as well as possible.

I rest my case.

Your case.. for what ? You just said "it could be so". Very few people dispute that - they just dispute that there is any evidence to support the creation hypothesis.

Compare it with a mudertrial: the prosecution claims that mr E. Volution, who was found with a bloody knife in his hands, yelling "take that you BASTARD", next to the victim, who was indeed stabbed to death, is the guilty party.
The defense however points out that noone has actually observed Mr E. perform the stabbing, and that it is therefor also possible that someone else did it. This is a quite valid claim; equivalent to what you said, but without other suspects the jury will probably still find Mr E. guilty.

Therefor the defense goes further, and points at the black Mr IDea, accusing him. Not that the defense has any evidence, but that does not seem to matter to some members of the jury - since they are Ku Klux Klan members and vastly prefer to believe in the guilt of the "dirty n..." than in the guilt of the white mr E.

I was just reading Pharyngula blog the other day, and I realized that in the US, the Intelligent Design movement appears rather formidable. To a non-USAmerican like me the whole thing is laughable, but let's play what if.

Is the ID exportable to other parts of the World? Say Europe or Middle East or East Asia or somewhere. With people worshipping USAmerican pop culture like baseball or American Idol and what-nought it worries me that ID will catch on like wildfire elsewhere because if it's USAmerican it must be right.
.... only if you can get it through customs.

Headlines, gentlemen. Headlines. The ID people here are not that big, they are just that loud. They make a splash once in a while when they sponsor some legislation or some extremely small school district adopts a warning label on evolution books, but they always lose in court and you never see something like that coming from Los Angeles or New York or Chicago. It's always Quahog Indiana or something and then it goes to court and the IDers lose. As for exporting it, are you implying that, for example, the Middle East largely believes in evolution? You're kidding, right? ID is nothing more than a slick name for Christian fundamentalist. Muslims believe the exact same thing - even from the exact same God. In Asia they have their own, different beliefs that have nothing to do with monkeys or mutations or survival of the fittest and last I checked Christianity is still the biggest religion in Europe - though Islam is fast overtaking it - and any Bible believers there believe the same thing they probably just didn't hire a marketing firm to give them a new name for it.

Are you saying in the middle east that Muslims would be supportive of USAmerican-styled ID? I thought the real reason they never made much noise is because they are generally ignorant of science anyway. I am concerned about some ID-like movement in Turkey, the bridge between Europe and the middle east.

Also I don't think you can say that any Bible believer would be supportive of ID. I think Europe as of now is overwhelmingly supportive of evolution.

I rest my case.


Please do. It is very tired.

ID is quite laughable to most Americans as well, don't assume everyone here tolerates or believes that crap. The whole intelligent design issue is not as "formidable" as you put it as the religious freaks might have you believe.

If a college biology professor at the Pharyngula blog has to spend substantial time answering criticisms about evolution from the ID movement, if educators and scientists have to keep responding, litigating, whatever, spending precious effort away from their professional duties, I do regard the ID movement quite formidable.

Ony to the most ignorant and fanatical ones who want to use this issue to further their fundamentalist causes.

Indeed so. Are there any indications that there are some numbers of these people? Any international strategies for the ID movement?


Well thats a pretty stupid thing if I've ever heard one. Worshipping American culture, and assuming "its right because its American" is not our fault, but the fault of whatever culture takes that view. America is not perfect and although there are a lot of positive things our country has given to the world, I don't think our pop culture is anything to be emulated by others.

And By the way, the whole Idol crap talent contest was founded in the UK and exported here to the US.

Ah perceptive! The first poster to have noticed my thinly-veiled attack on American pop culture in the poll. You earn a cookie... :)

...unfortunately it's a cookie that just popped into existence, intelligently designed. :D

If a college biology professor at the Pharyngula blog has to spend substantial time answering criticisms about evolution from the ID movement, if educators and scientists have to keep responding, litigating, whatever, spending precious effort away from their professional duties, I do regard the ID movement quite formidable.
Just because one imbecil continually wasted others time arguing a pointless theory based on religious dogma does not make it "formidable" as you put it. Thats ridiculous.:rolleyes:


Indeed so. Are there any indications that there are some numbers of these people? Any international strategies for the ID movement?
Un the US at the moment, not really. Most Evangelical Christians (born again loons) subscribe to it but all movement to force it onto school curriculums have been steadily opposed and defeated. Contrary to popular belief ID is nothing more than Creationism wrapped in scientific theory.


Ah perceptive! The first poster to have noticed my thinly-veiled attack on American pop culture in the poll. You earn a cookie... :)
I'm quite suprised everyone else failed to see it, I thought it was quite obvious...:rolleyes: Just take Intelligent Design as another form of idiotic American pop culture and toss it in the garbage with your Baywatch and Star Trek DVDs...

...unfortunately it's a cookie that just popped into existence, intelligently designed. :D
Well my friend, if it is so "intelligently designed" how come the "designer" failed to make it a white chocolate macadamia cookie??? Eh???? It seems an intellignet creator would know what my favorite cookie is! Bogus!!!:cool:

*Snip*Well my friend, if it is so "intelligently designed" how come the "designer" failed to make it a white chocolate macadamia cookie??? Eh???? It seems an intellignet creator would know what my favorite cookie is! Bogus!!!:cool:

You're right, I envisioned a Chocolate Pecan by Famous Amos. Another legendary USAmerican export. ;)

.... only if you can get it through customs.

...and pay the import tax.