NationStates Jolt Archive

I predict this thread will fail, due to lack of creationists/IDers to argue with.

ID?
I'm guessing it's not about Identity cards right?

EDIT:ooooooh intelligent design argument. Yay funz for all.

ID is watered down creationism made to fool naive parents, whose parenting skills fit in a peti dish, and complacent administrators into think that their children are receiving the wholesome truth.

So, what does everything think about ID and creationism taught in schools? I was inspired by the threads about Kansas.

I personally think science and ideas that can be backed up with facts should be taught in science classes, as opposed to ideas based on a ficticious book.


I say if you want to learn about ID go to church. Im not there demanding evolution get equal time.

i don't think either belong in a science class from what you guys said becuase there is no substansive proof of either. They both require fiath because there is no specific evidence which proves either

http://www.afunnystuff.com/forumpics/notagain.jpg

There's no need to have a debate.

The IDers will continually fail to adapt to scientific reality and, as such, eventually go extinct.

So, what does everything think about ID and creationism taught in schools? I was inspired by the threads about Kansas.

I personally think science and ideas that can be backed up with facts should be taught in science classes, as opposed to ideas based on a ficticious book.


I say if you want to learn about ID go to church. Im not there demanding evolution get equal time.

Intelligent Design can be taught in schools; in theology classes where it belongs. It can't be taught in science classes because it isn't science.

i don't think either belong in a science class from what you guys said becuase there is no substansive proof of either. They both require fiath because there is no specific evidence which proves either

Thats so incorrect I dont know where to begin. Evolution has proof and doesnt require any "faith".


There is a massive difference between a scientific theory and a regular old every day theory.

Intelligent Design can be taught in schools; in theology classes where it belongs. It can't be taught in science classes because it isn't science.
The problem is that their teaching Evoloution in science classes despite it being an unproven theory. Heck, it's *Almost* a religion. I'm fine with them teaching evoloution, but teach it in a private school where it belongs. Unproven theories have no place in public schools.
Thats so incorrect I dont know where to begin. Evolution has proof and doesnt require any "faith".


There is a massive difference between a scientific theory and a regular old every day theory.

Show me the proof! The difference is that one type of theory tries to prove something in science, the other tries to prove something not related to science:p

i don't think either belong in a science class from what you guys said becuase there is no substansive proof of either. They both require fiath because there is no specific evidence which proves either

There are vast amounts of evidence that support the theory of evolution. That's why it's a theory. ID is barely even a hypothesis, and has pretty much no evidence supporting it.

The problem is that their teaching Evoloution in science classes despite it being an unproven theory. Heck, it's *Almost* a religion. I'm fine with them teaching evoloution, but teach it in a private school where it belongs. Unproven theories have no place in public schools.

Again, statements like this show a complete lack of knowledge of what a scientific theory is. A scientific theory is more or less fact, it just can be revised and tested.


Evolution is not anything like a religion, because it is grounded in fact and can be proven through testing.

ID?
I'm guessing it's not about Identity cards right?

you' know last weekend I was out with some of my friends old Maltese pals, apparently they never bring ID when they go out which just seems alien to me :confused:

also they seem amazed that we can walk around with Poppers :p

i don't think either belong in a science class from what you guys said becuase there is no substansive proof of either. They both require fiath because there is no specific evidence which proves either

fossils?

Again, statements like this show a complete lack of knowledge of what a scientific theory is. A scientific theory is more or less fact, it just can be revised and tested.

Fine, it's flexible, but it's still UNPROVEN!
Evolution is not anything like a religion, because it is grounded in fact and can be proven through testing.
The only part of evoloution that is grounded in fact is subevoloution, which has been proven.

Show me the proof! The difference is that one type of theory tries to prove something in science, the other tries to prove something not related to science:p



Im not a scientist, so my "proof" would not be doing it justice.

Wait for Bottle or someone else who knows their science better than I.

http://www.mala.bc.ca/~johnstoi/essays/courtenay1.htm


Thats the quickest, easiest thing I can provide as of now.

The problem is that their teaching Evoloution in science classes despite it being an unproven theory. Heck, it's *Almost* a religion. I'm fine with them teaching evoloution, but teach it in a private school where it belongs. Unproven theories have no place in public schools.

It is proven. We see proof every time a virus becomes drugs resistant. Because virus reproduce so quickly it is easy to see evolution happen. The Black plauge was orginally not human transferable, but it was brought over on fleas and they bit humans and a one in a million shot created a human tranferable version with distasterous results.

http://www.afunnystuff.com/forumpics/notagain.jpg

http://www.boomspeed.com/looonatic/dilbert1.gif

:D

The IDers will continually fail to adapt to scientific reality and, as such, eventually go extinct.
You'd think that, but you'd be wrong...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upyewL0oaWA

The problem is that their teaching Evoloution in science classes despite it being an unproven theory. Heck, it's *Almost* a religion. I'm fine with them teaching evoloution, but teach it in a private school where it belongs. Unproven theories have no place in public schools.

All theories are unproven. They're tested and retested constantly. They 'evolve'. Science searches for evidence that contradicts it's own theories and should it find some that doesn't fit those theories, scientists are the first to say so and thus begin searching for improved theories that may explain those contradictions. That's science. That belongs in the classroom.

Creationism starts with a conclusion and seeks to find evidence to support it. They don't search for evidence that contradicts their theories. They don't test and retest their theory. They simply refute any contradictory evidence that doesn't fit their conclusion. That isn't science. It doesn't belong in a science classroom.

This debate is over. *sets up a taco bar*

Free tacos. :)

http://www.boomspeed.com/looonatic/tacos.jpg

SNIP

what's odd about that photo is that the background appears to reflect absolutely no light...as if it happens to be near a black hole (a rather large one even if that makes physics cry?)

also how on Earth is that meat staying in the Taco?!

Oh fucking Jesus, no.

http://www.familylosangeles.com/blog/uploaded_images/358_box_348x490-770037.jpg

Why, man, why?

The problem is that their teaching Evoloution in science classes despite it being an unproven theory.
Stop right there. It's time for a quick and basic science lesson.

Scientific theories are not like theories in the layman's sense of the word. Scientific theories are the best existing explanation for an observed phenomenon, given the available evidence. Scientific theories are revised and updated as new evidence is discovered. And important thing to know about scientific theories is that they are never ever proven. That is, quite simply, not how science works. Science can only disprove theories.

Fine, it's flexible, but it's still UNPROVEN!
Just like the theory of gravitation, and the laws of thermodynamics. Should we stop teaching them?

The only part of evoloution that is grounded in fact
It's all grounded in fact. Your ignorance of facts does has no bearing on their existence.
is subevoloution, which has been proven.
Source?

All theories are unproven. They're tested and retested constantly. They 'evolve'. Science searches for evidence that contradicts it's own theories and should it find some that doesn't fit those theories, scientists are the first to say so and thus begin searching for improved theories that may explain those contradictions. That's science. That belongs in the classroom.

*Laughs maniacally* Evoloutionists? Looking for evidence aganst their theory? They're still looking for evidence to support it! Much of the evidence for evoloution has been proven to be fake over the years, and many people still regard it as fact!
Creationism starts with a conclusion and seeks to find evidence to support it. They don't search for evidence that contradicts their theories. They don't test and retest their theory. They simply refute any contradictory evidence that doesn't fit their conclusion. That isn't science. It doesn't belong in a science classroom.

I never said it did! I'm merely saying that evoloution does not belong in a science classroom!
This debate is over. *sets up a taco bar*

Free tacos.

You're not getting away from this debate that quickly, I still have more to...Wait, are those chocolate tacos?

You fail. Horribly and utterly. If you're going to debate the subject, get your terminology right.

No such concept as "subevolution" exists in the discourse of the scientific community. The word you are looking for is likely "microevolution," which again just shows your ignorance of the subject.
Forgive me oh kind and great master for not knowing the corrcet terminology correct. Is that the only reason you reject my argument? It's the only reason you give, so I'm waiting until you give a better reason then "You didn't use the right word so it's wrong!"

*Laughs maniacally* Evoloutionists? Looking for evidence aganst their theory? They're still looking for evidence to support it! Much of the evidence for evoloution has been proven to be fake over the years, and many people still regard it as fact!



NO! Much of the evidence for evolution has not been proven t be "fake"! Wtf are you talking about? Jesus man, where do you get your facts from, Church?

If anything about evolution was ever disproven it was simply something like how we evolve, and so the theory was revised to accomidate evidence.

Dont argue something when you have no idea what your talking about!

It's funny. If one were to compare the amount of consensus and backing of evolution and of quantum mechanics in the scientific community, one would find that QM, the exploration of which basically made computers possible among a hundred other technological advancements, actually has LESS consensus and support than evolution.

You wait till they find a long lost passage of the bible in which God mentions that he designed the universe such that Newtonian physics holds true.

Thou shalt not have cause without effect. Remember the laws of mass conservation and keep them holy.

Fine, it's flexible, but it's still UNPROVEN!

The only part of evoloution that is grounded in fact is subevoloution, which has been proven.

You fail. Horribly and utterly. If you're going to debate the subject, get your terminology right.

No such concept as "subevolution" exists in the discourse of the scientific community. The word you are looking for is likely "microevolution," which again just shows your ignorance of the subject.

http://www.boomspeed.com/looonatic/dilbert1.gif

:D

You just reminded me of a song.
Sometimes i feel like i'm beating a dead horse (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=zxGejqxN2WY).

Anyhoo, back to the bonny topic.
anyone heard of the ontological argument? well i'll tell you one version anyway, cos i'm mean.
P1) God is the greatest thing i can concieve
P2) But a God that exists is greater than a God that doesn't exist
C) God exists
In some ways, absolute rubbish, in others pure genius.
I know some flaws, but wondering what other folks think.

EDIT: Timewarped....again

*Laughs maniacally* Evoloutionists? Looking for evidence aganst their theory? They're still looking for evidence to support it! Much of the evidence for evoloution has been proven to be fake over the years, and many people still regard it as fact!

it has? source?

I never said it did! I'm merely saying that evoloution does not belong in a science classroom!

you don't believe that something accepted by the scientific community as fact should have a place in a science classroom?

though I approve of the concept of getting addition out of the maths :p

All theories are unproven. They're tested and retested constantly. They 'evolve'. Science searches for evidence that contradicts it's own theories and should it find some that doesn't fit those theories, scientists are the first to say so and thus begin searching for improved theories that may explain those contradictions. That's science. That belongs in the classroom.

Creationism starts with a conclusion and seeks to find evidence to support it. They don't search for evidence that contradicts their theories. They don't test and retest their theory. They simply refute any contradictory evidence that doesn't fit their conclusion. That isn't science. It doesn't belong in a science classroom.

This debate is over. *sets up a taco bar*

Free tacos. :)

http://www.boomspeed.com/looonatic/tacos.jpg

It's funny. If one were to compare the amount of consensus and backing of evolution and of quantum mechanics in the scientific community, one would find that QM, the exploration of which basically made computers possible among a hundred other technological advancements, actually has LESS consensus and support than evolution.

*Laughs maniacally* Evoloutionists? Looking for evidence aganst their theory? They're still looking for evidence to support it! Much of the evidence for evoloution has been proven to be fake over the years, and many people still regard it as fact!

I never said it did! I'm merely saying that evoloution does not belong in a science classroom!

You're not getting away from this debate that quickly, I still have more to...Wait, are those chocolate tacos?

http://www.tacojohns.com/images/food/desserts/3ChocoTaco.jpg

:)

*Laughs maniacally* Evoloutionists? Looking for evidence aganst their theory?
That's how science works.
They're still looking for evidence to support it!
That's also how science works. One can never have too much evidence when one is seeking to understand the entire universe.
Much of the evidence for evoloution has been proven to be fake over the years, and many people still regard it as fact!
Bullshit. Source or GTFO.

I never said it did! I'm merely saying that evoloution does not belong in a science classroom!
It quite clearly does. You'll simply have to trust those of us who are better acquainted with Lady Science than you until you get to know her yourself.

what's odd about that photo is that the background appears to reflect absolutely no light...as if it happens to be near a black hole (a rather large one even if that makes physics cry?)

also how on Earth is that meat staying in the Taco?!

Gravity....:D

Forgive me oh kind and great master for not knowing the corrcet terminology correct. Is that the only reason you reject my argument? It's the only reason you give, so I'm waiting until you give a better reason then "You didn't use the right word so it's wrong!"

Yes. That's the only reason. That's the reason why no one in this thread will debate you seriously. Why your repeated attempts at rhetoric have fallen flat.

You've displayed for everyone here that you know absolutely fuckall about what you're talking about. And you compound this foolishness by pretending that you actually do.

NO! Much of the evidence for evolution has not been proven t be "fake"! Wtf are you talking about? Jesus man, where do you get your facts from, Church?
If anything about evolution was ever disproven it was simply something like how we evolve, and so the theory was revised to accomidate evidence.


I never said evoloution was disproven, just some evidence for it. There is nothing to say that is true or false. Sorry if I came off as saying that evoloution has been disproven.

You wait till they find a long lost passage of the bible in which God mentions that he designed the universe such that Newtonian physics holds true.

I wouldn't be overly upset. Problems with diff-eqs aside, QM is significantly more of a pain in the ass than CM.

You just reminded me of a song.
Sometimes i feel like i'm beating a dead horse (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=zxGejqxN2WY).

Anyhoo, back to the bonny topic.
anyone heard of the ontological argument? well i'll tell you one version anyway, cos i'm mean.
P1) God is the greatest thing i can concieve
P2) But a God that exists is greater than a God that doesn't exist
C) God exists
In some ways, absolute rubbish, in others pure genius.
I know some flaws, but wondering what other folks think.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_Argument#Gaunilo.27s_island
Gaunilo invited his readers to think of the greatest, or most perfect, conceivable island. As a matter of fact, it is likely that no such island actually exists. However, his argument would then say that we aren't thinking of the greatest conceivable island, because the greatest conceivable island would exist, as well as having all those other desirable properties. Note that this is merely a direct application of Anselm's own premise that existence is a perfection (point 5 in the previous section). Since we can conceive of this greatest or most perfect conceivable island, then it must exist. While this argument seems absurd, Gaunilo claims that it is no more so than Anselm's.

It's funny. If one were to compare the amount of consensus and backing of evolution and of quantum mechanics in the scientific community, one would find that QM, the exploration of which basically made computers possible among a hundred other technological advancements, actually has LESS consensus and support than evolution.

Nor should it. Quantum Mechanics still has a lot of 'splainin to do. *nod*

Whereas most of the unanswered questions regarding evolution are questions of timing. I think paleontologists are only just beginning to realize how fucked up they were up until recently. :p

Forgive me oh kind and great master for not knowing the corrcet terminology correct. Is that the only reason you reject my argument? It's the only reason you give, so I'm waiting until you give a better reason then "You didn't use the right word so it's wrong!"

Your considerable ignorance of how science works seems as good a reason as any to dismiss your opinions on what should and shouldn't be in a science class.

Nor should it. Quantum Mechanics still has a lot of 'splainin to do. *nod*

Whereas most of the unanswered questions regarding evolution are questions of timing. I think paleontologists are only just beginning to realize how fucked up they were up until recently. :p

I think we'll be seeing a lot of head-scratching and "Umm...well"-ing if the Higgs Boson isn't found when the LHC goes active.

Yes. That's the only reason. That's the reason why no one in this thread will debate you seriously. Why your repeated attempts at rhetoric have fallen flat.

You've displayed for everyone here that you know absolutely fuckall about what you're talking about. And you compound this foolishness by pretending that you actually do.
I'm still waiting for your reasons. You seem to derive pleasure from insulting me, saying I know nothing about the subject at hand, and finally conviently "Forgetting" to give me the reason. Don't keep me waiting for the reason, it's getting boring here.
Whereas most of the unanswered questions regarding evolution are questions of timing. I think paleontologists are only just beginning to realize how fucked up they were up until recently.
They've answered the questions, but did they get them right?
Bullshit. Source or GTFO
http://www.uncommondescent.com/the-design-of-life/vestigial-organs-anyone-the-humble-appendix-begs-to-differ/
http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/embryology_02.html
http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/myht_of_homology_01.html

I think we'll be seeing a lot of head-scratching and "Umm...well"-ing if the Higgs Boson isn't found when the LHC goes active.

I can't decide if I'm hoping they detect some, or don't. :p

You have just argued for banning all science classes from public schools.

Nothing in science is proven. NOTHING. By definition. The scientific method dictates that it is impossible to prove anything true. Please, please, please try to educate yourself about the most essential facts of science before arguing about it?

Bah what has science done for us anyway?




Some time later..........




Ok, well apart from modern medicine, hygiene, electricity, computers, the internet, cars and machines in general, what has science done for us?




Some time later........





Oh fuck it, I give up.

I can't decide if I'm hoping they detect some, or don't. :p

My only concern is the amount of money they might dump into the NEXT big collidor if they don't find it or do find it but need bigger equipment to further experiment.

You know, money that could be going to my lab...<.< >.>

Nothing in science is proven. NOTHING. By definition. The scientific method dictates that it is impossible to prove anything true. Please, please, please try to educate yourself about the most essential facts of science before arguing about it?
science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge based on the scientific method, as well as to the organized body of knowledge gained through such research
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_laws_of_motion
Unless, of course you don't count Physics as a science.

The problem is that their teaching Evoloution in science classes despite it being an unproven theory. Heck, it's *Almost* a religion. I'm fine with them teaching evoloution, but teach it in a private school where it belongs. Unproven theories have no place in public schools.

You have just argued for banning all science classes from public schools.

Nothing in science is proven. NOTHING. By definition. The scientific method dictates that it is impossible to prove anything true. Please, please, please try to educate yourself about the most essential facts of science before arguing about it?

My only concern is the amount of money they might dump into the NEXT big collidor if they don't find it or do find it but need bigger equipment to further experiment.

You know, money that could be going to my lab...<.< >.>

Well there is always the remote chance that they will accidentally destroy the planet. So we may not have to worry about that. :)

Well there is always the remote chance that they will accidentally destroy the planet. So we may not have to worry about that. :)

True, though I think my boss will be more pissed than I about that. Mostly because of the sheer amount of time wasted in setting up the proposed 48 inch telescope we're...setting up, only to have the world go *boom*.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_Argument#Gaunilo.27s_island

Interesting.
P1) The creation of the world is the most marvelous achievement imaginable.
P2) The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic quality, and (b) the ability of its creator.
P3) The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more impressive the achievement.
P4) The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence.
P5) Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the product of an existent creator we can conceive a greater being — namely, one who created everything while not existing.
c)Therefore, God does not exist. from the Wiki source you gave.

hmmm, let's see what criticisms i can think of.
P1) debatable, in what way is the world a marvelous achievement? You could point to many genocides, diseases, nuclear weapons, and mankind in general and say this is not so.
Other than that, not bad
P2) so you don't need to accept the consequences of the creation of a product then? if the intrinsic quality, and ability of creator are all about the merit of a product, then the consequences are ignored.
E.g. Coal mines where a great idea at the time, intrinsically they created power for people, quite a feat for the inventors, but now they are pretty bad polluters of the environment.
P3) Impressive is a subjective term, and in this context used to describe an objective idea, so i could say it is weakened by this. Who judges what is a handicap and what isn't? For all we know non-existance could be an advantage to creating this world.
P4) This begs the question, how you can create something if you don't exist, that's like saying the greatest achievement of my imaginative friend is for him to create another world, doesn't seem to make alot of sense.
P5)I think this is a case of Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc, just because we can concieve of an existant creator does not mean there could be a non-existant creator, as the idea of the non-existant creator relies on the idea of an existant creator

C) can't think of anything at the moment.
Despite my ideas, not a bad argument at all. I hope some of my ideas aren't too hard to interpret.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_laws_of_motion
Unless, of course you don't count Physics as a science.

You do realized that Newtonian Physics was disproved by Quantum Mechanics (a theory), right? You don't? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
...HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

...Oh don't worry, I'm not laughing with you, I'm laughing at you.

The theory has adapted since the initial printings of Darwin, those sources however act as if evolution is the same theory as it was 100 years ago.
I was asked to show some disproven evidence so I did. I didn't show any evidence aganst evolution itself. Also, I would like you to tell that to my school, they're still teaching it.(It being the vestigial organs thing)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_laws_of_motion
Unless, of course you don't count Physics as a science.

ahh, there is some certain irony to this post. Notably that Newton was actually...wrong.

His theories and calculations on motion made for interesting and fairly accurate approximations, but approximations they were. The "laws of motion" are, quite simply, wrong.

It does amuse me though when highschoolers try to win an argument by something they learned in highschool.

I'm still waiting for your reasons. You seem to derive pleasure from insulting me, saying I know nothing about the subject at hand, and finally conviently "Forgetting" to give me the reason. Don't keep me waiting for the reason, it's getting boring here.

They've answered the questions, but did they get them right?

http://www.uncommondescent.com/the-design-of-life/vestigial-organs-anyone-the-humble-appendix-begs-to-differ/
http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/embryology_02.html
http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/myht_of_homology_01.html

The theory has adapted since the initial printings of Darwin, those sources however act as if evolution is the same theory as it was 100 years ago.

Um. I'm trying to figure out if you honestly think you've supported your argument by pointing to Newtonian physics, which not only was never proven, but has actually been largely disproven.

Damn you I just said the same thing. And double damn you DM by beatting me to it.

You do realized that Newtonian Physics was disproved by Quantum Mechanics (a theory), right? You don't? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
...HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

...Oh don't worry, I'm not laughing with you, I'm laughing at you.
What ever you say, I'm sure the happy men in white coats will come to get you any minute *Looks at watch* well, might as well continue the debate while we're waiting. I'd like a link showing me where you found that "Fact". Besides, you said that theorys change, so couldn't the theory of Quantum Mechanics change so that it was shown that it Didn't disprove the laws of physics?

Interesting.
from the Wiki source you gave.

hmmm, let's see what criticisms i can think of.
P1) debatable, in what way is the world a marvelous achievement? You could point to many genocides, diseases, nuclear weapons, and mankind in general and say this is not so.
Other than that, not bad
P2) so you don't need to accept the consequences of the creation of a product then? if the intrinsic quality, and ability of creator are all about the merit of a product, then the consequences are ignored.
E.g. Coal mines where a great idea at the time, intrinsically they created power for people, quite a feat for the inventors, but now they are pretty bad polluters of the environment.
P3) Impressive is a subjective term, and in this context used to describe an objective idea, so i could say it is weakened by this. Who judges what is a handicap and what isn't? For all we know non-existance could be an advantage to creating this world.
P4) This begs the question, how you can create something if you don't exist, that's like saying the greatest achievement of my imaginative friend is for him to create another world, doesn't seem to make alot of sense.
P5)I think this is a case of Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc, just because we can concieve of an existant creator does not mean there could be a non-existant creator, as the idea of the non-existant creator relies on the idea of an existant creator

C) can't think of anything at the moment.
Despite my ideas, not a bad argument at all. I hope some of my ideas aren't too hard to interpret.

I was referring to Gaunilo's argument. You're looking at the wrong section.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_laws_of_motion
Unless, of course you don't count Physics as a science.

Um. I'm trying to figure out if you honestly think you've supported your argument by pointing to Newtonian physics, which not only was never proven, but has actually been largely disproven.

Let me try saying this one more time: Nothing. In. Science. Can. Be. Proven. True. As long as you are alleging otherwise, you are simply demonstrating that you have no understanding whatsoever of the scientific method.

Um. I'm trying to figure out if you honestly think you've supported your argument by pointing to Newtonian physics, which not only was never proven, but has actually been largely disproven.

Source please. And no sites made by crackpots, I'm not that dumb.
ahh, there is some certain irony to this post. Notably that Newton was actually...wrong.

His theories and calculations on motion made for interesting and fairly accurate approximations, but approximations they were. The "laws of motion" are, quite simply, wrong.

Source, I'm not gonna take your word for it.

I was referring to Gaunilo's argument. You're looking at the wrong section.

One of the earliest recorded objections to Anselm's argument was raised by one of Anselm's contemporaries, Gaunilo of Marmoutiers. Gaunilo invited his readers to think of the greatest, or most perfect, conceivable island. As a matter of fact, it is likely that no such island actually exists. However, his argument would then say that we aren't thinking of the greatest conceivable island, because the greatest conceivable island would exist, as well as having all those other desirable properties. Note that this is merely a direct application of Anselm's own premise that existence is a perfection (point 5 in the previous section). Since we can conceive of this greatest or most perfect conceivable island, then it must exist. While this argument seems absurd, Gaunilo claims that it is no more so than Anselm's.

Is this the argument you want me to look at?

Damn you I just said the same thing. And double damn you DM by beatting me to it.

Hehe. I is quick with the typings, I is.

There is a certain great irony in someone trying to argue the definition of scientific theory who presents newtonian "law" as inviolatable "fact" of the universe, and refers to the like of Einstein as a "crackpot".

it is beyond all rational belief that someone so fundamentally ignorant in basic scientific principles like quantum mechanics and relativistic theory would presume to talk about the meaning of scientific theory.

Again, it's amazing how many children believe that what they learn in highschool is true.

I was asked to show some disproven evidence so I did. I didn't show any evidence aganst evolution itself. Also, I would like you to tell that to my school, they're still teaching it.(It being the vestigial organs thing)

You showed no current disproven evidence. I mean, sure you can disprove the old theory, it is just that, old.

....how about "any physics textbook written in the past several decades"?

Would you also like a source for the statement, "Water is wet"?

Water isn't actually very wet, in scientific terms...

What ever you say, I'm sure the happy men in white coats will come to get you any minute *Looks at watch* well, might as well continue the debate while we're waiting. I'd like a link showing me where you found that "Fact". Besides, you said that theorys change, so couldn't the theory of Quantum Mechanics change so that it was shown that it Didn't disprove the laws of physics?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correspondence_principle

Classical physics as a large-scale approximation of quantum mechanics.

And the second half of your post is absurd.

Is this the argument you want me to look at?

Yes. It's the argument I even quoted in that post, directly below the link.

Source please. And no sites made by crackpots, I'm not that dumb.

Source, I'm not gonna take your word for it.

....how about "any physics textbook written in the past several decades"?

Would you also like a source for the statement, "Water is wet"?

I'm still waiting for the source.
....how about "any physics textbook written in the past several decades"?

Would you also like a source for the statement, "Water is wet"?
If there's so many books with that information in it, surely you can give me a link to a website with it.
And the second half of your post is absurd.
How so? Evolution no longer supports the "vestigial organs" part, so why couldn't the theory of quantum mechanics change too? Oh, that's right, theories can only change if it suits your purpose.:rolleyes:

There is a certain great irony in someone trying to argue the definition of scientific theory who presents newtonian "law" as inviolatable "fact" of the universe, and refers to the like of Einstein as a "crackpot".

it is beyond all rational belief that someone so fundamentally ignorant in basic scientific principles like quantum mechanics and relativistic theory would presume to talk about the meaning of scientific theory.

Again, it's amazing how many children believe that what they learn in highschool is true.

To be fair, it's understandable. How many people, leaving high school, believe that an atom really looks like tiny little negatively charged balls spinning around a tiny, dense chunk of protons and neutrons?
Niels Bohr has a lot to answer for.

To be fair, it's understandable. How many people, leaving high school, believe that an atom really looks like tiny little negatively charged balls spinning around a tiny, dense chunk of protons and neutrons?
Niels Bohr has a lot to answer for.

Well true, the Bohr model of the atom makes a lot of "sense" conceptually, it's far easier to understand than probability fields, electron clouds and the like. Hell, the reason my physics minor stayed just a minor and not a major, and why I'm a lawyer today and not a physicist was that I "got" the law, I realized about half way through differential equations that I just couldn't wrap my head around the math.

But the idea is highschool, in general, is not meant to teach "truths". It's meant to impart a basic understanding of general concepts and provide people with an acceptable working knowledge of the world around them. Bohr and Newton do that fairly well. They fit in with what we conceptually imagine of an atom as a bunch of particles clumped together, and when you drop something, it falls.

It's wrong, but that's ok. It's not meant to be "right". It's meant to be a general understanding that's sufficient for day to day life. But at the same point, it behooves those in that system, or recently completed from it, that that's all that is.

To be fair, it's understandable. How many people, leaving high school, believe that an atom really looks like tiny little negatively charged balls spinning around a tiny, dense chunk of protons and neutrons?
Niels Bohr has a lot to answer for.

I dunno...personally, I think it's a rather sad statement on any high school if they haven't managed to teach their students very simple things like "nothing in science can be proven true" or "sometimes we use models and approximations, because they're useful for a whole lot of situations, but that still doesn't make them anything more than models and approximations."

But I may have been spoiled - my high school science teachers were rather exceptionally good. :)

...touche. :p

indeed, many "truths" are not. I heard once that roses are red and violets are blue..

But roses come in many different shades depending, not limited to red but including yellow, pink, white, and in rare cases black.

Violets, on the other hand, are, of course, violet.

The problem is that their teaching Evoloution in science classes despite it being an unproven theory. Heck, it's *Almost* a religion. I'm fine with them teaching evoloution, but teach it in a private school where it belongs. Unproven theories have no place in public schools.

Show me the proof! The difference is that one type of theory tries to prove something in science, the other tries to prove something not related to science:p

When you find yourself parroting arguments which even the cretins at Answers in Genesis (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp) admit are too stupid to use, you know you've hit a new low. You should be ashamed of yourself: you live in the information age, with tonnes of scientific information at your fingertips, and yet you still contrive to remain ignorant.

....how about "any physics textbook written in the past several decades"?

Would you also like a source for the statement, "Water is wet"?

Actually that's not a bad suggestion.

Hey, kid. See if you can find a copy of *pulls off shelf* Fundamentals of Physics 7th Edition by Halliday/Resnick/Walker. Here I'll even list the ISBN for the 4th and 5th parts of it.

Part 4: 0-471-42964-3
Part 5: 0-471-42965-1

These are undergraduate level physics textbooks, so you may have a little trouble understanding them. We'll be glad to help.

Yes. It's the argument I even quoted in that post, directly below the link.

Thanks does offer some good criticisms of the analogy.

Water isn't actually very wet, in scientific terms...

...touche. :p

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_laws_of_motion
Unless, of course you don't count Physics as a science.
You did not just hold up Newton's laws of motion as examples of something beinf proven by science? Please tell me you didn't do this. Oh no, you did. Oh god no, the levels of fail are reaching critical! She's gonna blow!
*dives behind a random console*
http://www.uncommondescent.com/the-design-of-life/vestigial-organs-anyone-the-humble-appendix-begs-to-differ/
The status of the appendix as vestigial or not doesn't have any bearing on the accuracy of the theory of evolution. Further, just because the appendix has a use doesn't mean it isn't vestigial. A vestigial organ is one which no longer retains its original use.
http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/embryology_02.html
First, strawman. The theory of evolution has changed greatly since Darwin's time. We discovered genes and DNA since then. I trust you realise the significance of this. Or rather, I hope.
Second, as I said above, just because an organ has a use doens't mean it isn't vestigial.
Third, humans aren't the only creatures with vestigial organs. The blind mole rat has tiny eyes which are covered by skin. How would an ID proponent explain this? Why include eyes in the design of an animal only to cover them with skin?
http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/myht_of_homology_01.html

Wings are one example. In addition to birds, we find wings on bats, which are mammals, and on insects and even on some dinosaurs, which are extinct reptiles. Not even evolutionists posit an evolutionary relationship or kinship among those four different groups of animals.
The wings on all those creatures are hugely different. Birds have feathered wings, bats have flaps of skin stretched between their fingers, insects have thin filmy wings. Apparently the people who run this site know as little about biology as they do about spelling.

How so? Evolution no longer supports the "vestigial organs" part, so why couldn't the theory of quantum mechanics change too? Oh, that's right, theories can only change if it suits your purpose.:rolleyes:

It is probably best for you to understand what you're talking about before you try to argue against it.

Theory of quantum mechanics can not "change" to demonstrate Newton right because they very fundamental underpinnings of quantum theory demonstrate it to be wrong.

Quantum mechanics can not incorporate newtonian theory because quantum mechanics is fundamentally at odds with newtonian theory

I dunno...personally, I think it's a rather sad statement on any high school if they haven't managed to teach their students very simple things like "nothing in science can be proven true" or "sometimes we use models and approximations, because they're useful for a whole lot of situations, but that still doesn't make them anything more than models and approximations."

But I may have been spoiled - my high school science teachers were rather exceptionally good. :)

Again, what a science teacher tries to impart and what a student walks away with tend to be vastly different things. My Physics teacher in high school had a doctorate in chemistry and physics, and did tell us that the Bohr model was inaccurate because of QM and the issues Bohr's model results in in terms of loss of momentum of the electron in a classical framework.

But I'd imagine most high school students didn't have that luxury.

one freaking well ought to have learned "science isn't about proving things true."

But remember, darwinism isn't science, it's religion! :rolleyes:

To be fair, it's understandable. How many people, leaving high school, believe that an atom really looks like tiny little negatively charged balls spinning around a tiny, dense chunk of protons and neutrons?
Niels Bohr has a lot to answer for.

Bohr was good at what he did - which was to create a model, an approximation... a convenience. Bohr isn't the problem - it's the fact that his approximation is (still) often taught as though it were 'real'.

Thanks does offer some good criticisms of the analogy.

Glad to have been of service. Sorry for being a tad unclear.

I swear, why is it that every single person who tries to argue for the teaching of creationism as on par with religion demonstrates such profound and total ignorance of how science works?

Oh...yeah...that's right. Only someone who is profoundly and totally ignorant of how science works would ever make such a statement.

Again, what a science teacher tries to impart and what a student walks away with tend to be vastly different things. My Physics teacher in high school had a doctorate in chemistry and physics, and did tell us that the Bohr model was inaccurate because of QM and the issues Bohr's model results in in terms of loss of momentum of the electron in a classical framework.

But I'd imagine most high school students didn't have that luxury.

Oh, sure.

I just figure that those are among the things that one really ought to emphasize very, very, very strongly. If one can manage to make it away from high school science classes knowing things like "A hydrogen atom has one proton," "kingdoms are bigger than phyla," or "the SI unit of electric current is the amp," one freaking well ought to have learned "science isn't about proving things true."

Tee hee. :p



Good grief, there are so many things wrong with that little "wings" passage you quoted that I don't even know where to begin. The ignorance, it buuuurns....

They have a picture showing the wings, and I was thinking to myself 'Of course nobody is suggesting these things are related, THOSE WINGS ALL LOOK COMPLETELY FUCKING DIFFERENT!'. And I don't even do biology these days.


But yeah, I really shouldn't have even bothered. The site is called Darwinism Refuted, they're a few hundred years behind the rest of us. Well, aside from having a website. Maybe once they discover DNA I'll look back in on them.

You did not just hold up Newton's laws of motion as examples of something beinf proven by science? Please tell me you didn't do this. Oh no, you did. Oh god no, the levels of fail are reaching critical! She's gonna blow!
*dives behind a random console*

Tee hee. :p

The wings on all those creatures are hugely different. Birds have feathered wings, bats have flaps of skin stretched between their fingers, insects have thin filmy wings. Apparently the people who run this site know as little about biology as they do about spelling.

Good grief, there are so many things wrong with that little "wings" passage you quoted that I don't even know where to begin. The ignorance, it buuuurns....

Bohr's actual mathematical analysis of his model is really the annoying part. He basically just created a bunch of plausible fudge factors so that the math for the hydrogen atom worked out.
Of course, once all of that was reapplied to other atoms, it failed utterly.

the term "equant" comes to mind

Fine, it's flexible, but it's still UNPROVEN!

Proof is for mathematics and alcohol. Nothing in science is ever proven, and you'd know that had you even the most basic grasp of scientific principles.

Bohr was good at what he did - which was to create a model, an approximation... a convenience. Bohr isn't the problem - it's the fact that his approximation is (still) often taught as though it were 'real'.

Bohr's actual mathematical analysis of his model is really the annoying part. He basically just created a bunch of plausible fudge factors so that the math for the hydrogen atom worked out.
Of course, once all of that was reapplied to other atoms, it failed utterly.

It is probably best for you to understand what you're talking about before you try to argue against it.

Yeah, but if he understood science he wouldn't be a Creationist would he?

The wings on all those creatures are hugely different. Birds have feathered wings, bats have flaps of skin stretched between their fingers, insects have thin filmy wings. Apparently the people who run this site know as little about biology as they do about spelling.
Actually, the only ones that are similar are those of birds and those of dinosaurs. Of course, since birds are dinosaurs and anyone who's paid any attention whatsoever to paleontology in the past 20 or so years would know that, well, you get the picture.

IIRC, he's 13. Which, at best, would put him in 8th grade. So he's not even in high school.

Really? Maybe tomorrow he'll ask a science teacher about all this.

Again, it's amazing how many children believe that what they learn in highschool is true.
IIRC, he's 13. Which, at best, would put him in 8th grade. So he's not even in high school.

I'm not sure whether to feel relieved because he has an excuse for not knowing anything whatsoever about science, or depressed because he thinks that someone who's never taken so much as a high school science class is an authority on the subject.

I generally get depressed at the quality of our educational system that would lead one to even conclude the possibility of the latter

Really? Maybe tomorrow he'll ask a science teacher about all this.

one can only hope....but then again, do we have too high expectations for someone who calls himself "conservative morality"?

Doublethink and the ability to shrug off cognitive dissonance is a necessary skill to maintain such an outlook in life.

To be honest, it's a pretty good comparison.

Yes, well that's...um...kinda why I said it :p

IIRC, he's 13. Which, at best, would put him in 8th grade. So he's not even in high school.

I'm not sure whether to feel relieved because he has an excuse for not knowing anything whatsoever about science, or depressed because he thinks that someone who's never taken so much as a high school science class is an authority on the subject.

I'm not sure whether to feel relieved because he has an excuse for not knowing anything whatsoever about science, or depressed because he thinks that someone who's never taken so much as a high school science class is an authority on the subject.

The term "sophomoric" comes to mind.

I got that part :)

Incidentally, have you checked Pen and Paper Online lately? You've got access to both the Marvel and D&D forums (Poli, you've got access to the D&D forum) and you'll find character creation info on both, though of course you'll have to get final approval from me (for the Marvel game) and Jocabia or myself (for the D&D game)

I checked it yesterday briefly, I saw it but didn't do anything with it.

the term "equant" comes to mind

To be honest, it's a pretty good comparison.

one can only hope....but then again, do we have too high expectations for someone who calls himself "conservative morality"?

Doublethink and the ability to shrug off cognitive dissonance is a necessary skill to maintain such an outlook in life.
Still, perhaps an actual figure of authority will carry more weight with him than us random internet folk.
You poor Irish kids have class on Sundays?

What?


Ah crap, it feels like Sunday. Why does it feel like Sunday on a Saturday?! Answer that science!

Really? Maybe tomorrow he'll ask a science teacher about all this.

You poor Irish kids have class on Sundays?

Yes, well that's...um...kinda why I said it :p

I got that part :)

Incidentally, have you checked Pen and Paper Online lately? You've got access to both the Marvel and D&D forums (Poli, you've got access to the D&D forum) and you'll find character creation info on both, though of course you'll have to get final approval from me (for the Marvel game) and Jocabia or myself (for the D&D game)

As the total n00bpants, I will probably need some help with a lot of the basics - my current D&D experience is limited to watching about an hour of one game, reading OOTS obsessively, and making jokes about Mountain Dew and Cheetos. Do you know of a website where I could read through how exactly one goes about creating a character, for a start? :)

Poli: I have PDFs of the general players handbook and can talk you through it if you want as well. Toss me a TG if you want a hand with it.

Speaking of which, DM, how are we handling stat rolls for character creation? or are we using the +/- system?

edit: i'm totally amused by the fact that the abbreviation of your name is "DM"

I checked it yesterday briefly, I saw it but didn't do anything with it.

Neat.

Poli, if you've got AIM, throw me a TG and I'll give you my AIM info and we can talk it over. I've also got a copy of the PHB, and this: http://www.d20srd.org is also a great resource for n00bs, as it's basically a compilation of all of the information onto a website (which I find easier to read than a .pdf).

That works too.

Hey DM toss me a TG with your IM name, maybe we can conference IM a "walk the n00b through" session :p

I got that part :)

Incidentally, have you checked Pen and Paper Online lately? You've got access to both the Marvel and D&D forums (Poli, you've got access to the D&D forum) and you'll find character creation info on both, though of course you'll have to get final approval from me (for the Marvel game) and Jocabia or myself (for the D&D game)

As the total n00bpants, I will probably need some help with a lot of the basics - my current D&D experience is limited to watching about an hour of one game, reading OOTS obsessively, and making jokes about Mountain Dew and Cheetos. Do you know of a website where I could read through how exactly one goes about creating a character, for a start? :)

It's on the forum, but ability scores are going to be handled on an 80 point buy, point-for-point system. There's a bit of variability depending on how balanced you want to be, but a typical stat spread is often 18, 16, 14, 12, 10, 10 for simplicity.

80 point buy in from stat 0? I know another system that assumes base stat 10 and you get 18 points to up from there. Meaning you can have a 13 all around (average person), or some higher some lower.

Especially since 13 is a quite literal "average" but 80 point buyin leaves "average" scores of a 13.33, slightly above average.

But also works as a close approximation.

Poli: I have PDFs of the general players handbook and can talk you through it if you want as well. Toss me a TG if you want a hand with it.

Speaking of which, DM, how are we handling stat rolls for character creation? or are we using the +/- system?

It's on the forum, but ability scores are going to be handled on an 80 point buy, point-for-point system. There's a bit of variability depending on how balanced you want to be, but a typical stat spread is often 18, 16, 14, 12, 10, 10 for simplicity.

It takes the honor system issue out of rolling and the painful mathematical calculation out of a graduated point-buy system.

Poli, if you've got AIM, throw me a TG and I'll give you my AIM info and we can talk it over. I've also got a copy of the PHB, and this: http://www.d20srd.org is also a great resource for n00bs, as it's basically a compilation of all of the information onto a website (which I find easier to read than a .pdf).

I love where this thread has gone.

Poli: I have PDFs of the general players handbook and can talk you through it if you want as well. Toss me a TG if you want a hand with it.

Speaking of which, DM, how are we handling stat rolls for character creation? or are we using the +/- system?

edit: i'm totally amused by the fact that the abbreviation of your name is "DM"

It's been something of a running joke in my home group for years now. It's the sole reason why we never use the title "Game Master" for modern settings.

Edit: And by this, I mean that not only does "Deus Malum" abbreviate to DM, my real name also has the initials "DM."

That works too.

Hey DM toss me a TG with your IM name, maybe we can conference IM a "walk the n00b through" session :p

Done and done. I've TGed both of you my screen name.

Poli: I have PDFs of the general players handbook and can talk you through it if you want as well. Toss me a TG if you want a hand with it.

Speaking of which, DM, how are we handling stat rolls for character creation? or are we using the +/- system?

edit: i'm totally amused by the fact that the abbreviation of your name is "DM"


Poli, if you've got AIM, throw me a TG and I'll give you my AIM info and we can talk it over. I've also got a copy of the PHB, and this: http://www.d20srd.org is also a great resource for n00bs, as it's basically a compilation of all of the information onto a website (which I find easier to read than a .pdf).

Faboo! I'll probably be sending you both TGs and we can have an AIM explaining-party sometime soon. :)

(Also: note to demonstrate Poli's geekiness, even if it's not D&D geekiness - every time I read "DM," I think "Dire Maul" (from WoW), so it took me several seconds to get Neo Art's joke. :p )

I love where this thread has gone.

'tis the only useful thing to come of it.

(Also: note to demonstrate Poli's geekiness, even if it's not D&D geekiness - every time I read "DM," I think "Dire Maul" (from WoW), so it took me several seconds to get Neo Art's joke. :p )

damned WoW kiddies

Creationism - is the only tried and true basis, but not necisarily JudeoChristian Theological Creationism.

It is a simple fact that reality emerged from creation and that divinine intervention is the only basis that has a valid basis towards existence beyond existence. It is the question of whether individuals are aware of their purpose for being (self aware), or if they are subject to a self aware entity. Ethically only sentient creatures with a AO (alpha omega) paradox drive have full beingness and understanding.

Otherwise they are not fully cognicent.

While faith is the basis of self creation - or unity with faith, only creationism. Culturally though different opinions exist from culture to culture, be it Mayan, Hindu, Jewish, Zorastrian, Egyptian, Norse, Scientologist, Scientific, etc...

Intelligent Design of course also has basis especially in an age of genetics, and patented Intelligent Design. The question of at what point does creationism pass to intelligent design.

I think that a void of intelligence in purpose is largely inane - the universe exists because it exists is a solid foundation - the difference of cultural perspective leaves the rest in regard to ID and creationism as the Moot Point.

Frankly though ethically we should all be respectful of one anothers opinions towards creation and intelligent design.

It really is a no brainer of course reality was created by an intelligence - it continues to be so, as I am alive and sustaining of my existance. I shape my own reality and ethically we as united in God or diety and interaction, shape reality and create it. The question of physical forces, science atoms, energy subatomic particles and forces. Science only states they exist, not why they exist, it is up to us to state why they exist, and what they are used for.

Whehter on a omni present scale or micro scale it is all ongoing. Every small thing can effect the big picture - of course most just brush off their activities as sub-historical events that have no ongoing bearing - but really they are part of a larger maintenance of a status quo that extends beyond the normal to a pan cognicent superreality that we in faith ultimately have the choice to accept or deny or shape, should we exist at all and ethically we must. Thus creationism and intelligent design - is the only socially responsible view - but in reason of mutual respect and mindfulness of tranquility caused by common mindful purpose that would be united in any reasonable society. Simply dismissing the obvious for the tangible is removing social duty from common fact.

http://www.afunnystuff.com/forumpics/notagain.jpg

My thoughts exactly.

Creationism - is the only tried and true basis, but not necisarily JudeoChristian Theological Creationism.
wut

It is a simple fact that reality emerged from creation and that divinine intervention is the only basis that has a valid basis towards existence beyond existence. It is the question of whether individuals are aware of their purpose for being (self aware), or if they are subject to a self aware entity. Ethically only sentient creatures with a AO (alpha omega) paradox drive have full beingness and understanding.
This sounds like something from a self help seminar. Are we going to have to close our eyes and start doing visualisations? Cos I might fall asleep.

Otherwise they are not fully cognicent.
You mean cognisant?

While faith is the basis of self creation - or unity with faith, only creationism. Culturally though different opinions exist from culture to culture, be it Mayan, Hindu, Jewish, Zorastrian, Egyptian, Norse, Scientologist, Scientific, etc...
wut

Intelligent Design of course also has basis especially in an age of genetics, and patented Intelligent Design. The question of at what point does creationism pass to intelligent design.
Intelligent Design has no basis in reality. Some people simply refuse to acknowledge the possibility that they were not given special attention by their god.

I think that a void of intelligence in purpose is largely inane - the universe exists because it exists is a solid foundation - the difference of cultural perspective leaves the rest in regard to ID and creationism as the Moot Point.
You have lots of words, but little meaning. You should rememdy this.
Frankly though ethically we should all be respectful of one anothers opinions towards creation and intelligent design.
Respect has to be earned.
It really is a no brainer of course reality was created by an intelligence - it continues to be so, as I am alive and sustaining of my existance. I shape my own reality and ethically we as united in God or diety and interaction, shape reality and create it. The question of physical forces, science atoms, energy subatomic particles and forces. Science only states they exist, not why they exist, it is up to us to state why they exist, and what they are used for.
You think, therefore you created the universe? Dude, what the fuck are you on?

Whehter on a omni present scale or micro scale it is all ongoing. Every small thing can effect the big picture - of course most just brush off their activities as sub-historical events that have no ongoing bearing - but really they are part of a larger maintenance of a status quo that extends beyond the normal to a pan cognicent superreality that we in faith ultimately have the choice to accept or deny or shape, should we exist at all and ethically we must. Thus creationism and intelligent design - is the only socially responsible view - but in reason of mutual respect and mindfulness of tranquility caused by common mindful purpose that would be united in any reasonable society. Simply dismissing the obvious for the tangible is removing social duty from common fact.

All this shaping reality crap........I smell me a Scientologist.

So, what does everything think about ID and creationism taught in schools? I was inspired by the threads about Kansas.

I personally think science and ideas that can be backed up with facts should be taught in science classes, as opposed to ideas based on a ficticious book.


I say if you want to learn about ID go to church. Im not there demanding evolution get equal time.

i don't think either belong in a science class from what you guys said becuase there is no substansive proof of either. They both require fiath because there is no specific evidence which proves either

The problem is that their teaching Evoloution in science classes despite it being an unproven theory. Heck, it's *Almost* a religion. I'm fine with them teaching evoloution, but teach it in a private school where it belongs. Unproven theories have no place in public schools.

Show me the proof! The difference is that one type of theory tries to prove something in science, the other tries to prove something not related to science:p

Let's see what the National Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Medicine have to say:

Scientific Evidence Supporting Evolution Continues To Grow; Nonscientific Approaches Do Not Belong In Science Classrooms (http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=11876)


WASHINGTON -- The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and Institute of Medicine (IOM) today released SCIENCE, EVOLUTION, AND CREATIONISM, a book designed to give the public a comprehensive and up-to-date picture of the current scientific understanding of evolution and its importance in the science classroom. Recent advances in science and medicine, along with an abundance of observations and experiments over the past 150 years, have reinforced evolution's role as the central organizing principle of modern biology, said the committee that wrote the book.

"SCIENCE, EVOLUTION, AND CREATIONISM provides the public with coherent explanations and concrete examples of the science of evolution," said NAS President Ralph Cicerone. "The study of evolution remains one of the most active, robust, and useful fields in science."

"Understanding evolution is essential to identifying and treating disease," said Harvey Fineberg, president of IOM. "For example, the SARS virus evolved from an ancestor virus that was discovered by DNA sequencing. Learning about SARS' genetic similarities and mutations has helped scientists understand how the virus evolved. This kind of knowledge can help us anticipate and contain infections that emerge in the future."

DNA sequencing and molecular biology have provided a wealth of information about evolutionary relationships among species. As existing infectious agents evolve into new and more dangerous forms, scientists track the changes so they can detect, treat, and vaccinate to prevent the spread of disease.

Biological evolution refers to changes in the traits of populations of organisms, usually over multiple generations. One recent example highlighted in the book is the 2004 fossil discovery in Canada of fish with "intermediate" features -- four finlike legs -- that allowed the creature to pull itself through shallow water onto land. Scientists around the world cite this evidence as an important discovery in identifying the transition from ocean-dwelling creatures to land animals. By understanding and employing the principles of evolution, the discoverers of this fossil focused their search on layers of the Earth that are approximately 375 million years old and in a region that would have been much warmer during that period. Evolution not only best explains the biodiversity on Earth, it also helps scientists predict what they are likely to discover in the future.

Over very long periods of time, the same processes that enable evolution to occur within species also can result in the appearance of new species. The formation of a new species generally takes place when one subgroup within a species mates for an extended period largely within that subgroup, often following geographical separation from other members of the species. If such reproductive isolation continues, members of the subgroup may no longer respond to courtship from members of the original population. Eventually, genetic changes become so substantial that members of different subgroups can no longer produce viable offspring. In this way, new species can continually "bud off" of existing species.

Despite the overwhelming evidence supporting evolution, opponents have repeatedly tried to introduce nonscientific views into public school science classes through the teaching of various forms of creationism or intelligent design. In 2005, a federal judge in Dover, Pennsylvania, concluded that the teaching of intelligent design is unconstitutional because it is based on religious conviction, not science (Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District). NAS and IOM strongly maintain that only scientifically based explanations and evidence for the diversity of life should be included in public school science courses. "Teaching creationist ideas in science class confuses students about what constitutes science and what does not," the committee stated.

"As SCIENCE, EVOLUTION, AND CREATIONISM makes clear, the evidence for evolution can be fully compatible with religious faith. Science and religion are different ways of understanding the world. Needlessly placing them in opposition reduces the potential of each to contribute to a better future," the book says.

SCIENCE, EVOLUTION, AND CREATIONISM is the third edition of a publication first issued in 1984 and updated in 1999. The current book was published jointly by the National Academy of Sciences and Institute of Medicine, and written by a committee chaired by Francisco Ayala, Donald Bren Professor of Biological Sciences, department of ecology and evolutionary biology, University of California, Irvine, and author of several books on science and religion. A committee roster follows. (*snipped*)

The book was funded by the NAS, IOM, the Christian A. Johnson Endeavor Foundation, the Biotechnology Institute, and the Coalition of Scientific Societies.

Copies of SCIENCE, EVOLUTION, AND CREATIONISM (http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11876) will be available from the National Academies Press; tel. 202-334-3313 or 1-800-624-6242, or on the Internet at www.nap.edu/sec (http://www.nap.edu/sec), for $12.95; a PDF version is FREE. Reporters may obtain a copy from the Office of News and Public Information (contact listed above). In addition, a podcast of the public briefing held to release this publication is available at http://national-academies.org/podcast. The NAS' evolution resources Web page, http://national-academies.org/evolution, allows easy access to books, position statements, and additional resources on evolution education and research.

The National Academy of Sciences is an independent society of scientists, elected by their peers for outstanding contributions to their field, with a mandate from Congress since 1863 to advise the federal government on issues of science and technology. The Institute of Medicine was created in 1970 by the NAS to provide science-based advice on matters of biomedical science, medicine, and health

Here also is a short brochure (http://books.nap.edu/html/11876/SECbrochure.pdf) based on the book.

Poor CM...he tried to argue that Newtonian physics were...legit.


In his defense, maybe he just started physics, so his class started with Newton's theories and will gradually show how they were wrong?

And maybe he's never taken a biology course, so his knowledge all comes from Church.

I attack with my +5 Bastard Sword of ID-slaying!!

The problem is that their teaching Evoloution in science classes despite it being an unproven theory. ... Unproven theories have no place in public schools.

Show me the proof! The difference is that one type of theory tries to prove something in science, the other tries to prove something not related to science:p

http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u275/Gravlen/NSG/Theory01.jpg

We allready know where this thread will end up. I mean we do have Conservitive Morality this time around but really.


The only part of evoloution that is grounded in fact is subevoloution, which has been proven.

Umm theres fossil evidence, that fact that all early embryos look alike, and some tests with DNA, and chromosones and stuff that prove it.

Life on earth evolves normally, until aliens come and muck things up via genetic engineering.

It's evolution and ID put together! :D

i don't think either belong in a science class from what you guys said becuase there is no substansive proof of either. They both require fiath because there is no specific evidence which proves either

:confused:

You'd think that, but you'd be wrong...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upyewL0oaWA

lmao

*Laughs maniacally* Evoloutionists? Looking for evidence aganst their theory? They're still looking for evidence to support it! Much of the evidence for evoloution has been proven to be fake over the years, and many people still regard it as fact!
Care to back up that claim?
I never said it did! I'm merely saying that evoloution does not belong in a science classroom!
It is a scientific theory, so yes it does belong in science class.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/the-design-of-life/vestigial-organs-anyone-the-humble-appendix-begs-to-differ/
http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/embryology_02.html
http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/myht_of_homology_01.html

The notion of "vestigial organs" was first put forward a century ago. As evolutionists would have it, there existed in the bodies of some creatures a number of non-functional organs. These had been inherited from progenitors and had gradually become vestigial from lack of use.

Surprise, surprise an assumption made over a century ago has been proven wrong. This doesn't disprove the ToE, it just shows that science has advanced since Darwin's day (which should be pretty obvious anyways)

I was asked to show some disproven evidence so I did. I didn't show any evidence aganst evolution itself. Also, I would like you to tell that to my school, they're still teaching it.(It being the vestigial organs thing)

No you showed 'some' disproven assumptions.

I attack with my +5 Bastard Sword of ID-slaying!!

It won't do you any good: the IDiots have Earplugs of Fact Resistance +100 as standard issue.

It won't do you any good: the IDiots have Earplugs of Fact Resistance +100 as standard issue.

Nooooo!

*Rolls natural 20*

Wohoo!
http://www.ansemreport.com/neatchee/criticalhit1.png

Brrraaaaarrrrrrrggggggghhhhhhh!!!!!! (http://img216.imageshack.us/img216/9877/robertarkinislameex4.png)
Brrraaaaarrrrrrrggggggghhhhhhh!!!!!! (http://img216.imageshack.us/img216/9877/robertarkinislameex4.png)
Brrraaaaarrrrrrrggggggghhhhhhh!!!!!! (http://img216.imageshack.us/img216/9877/robertarkinislameex4.png)
Brrraaaaarrrrrrrggggggghhhhhhh!!!!!! (http://img216.imageshack.us/img216/9877/robertarkinislameex4.png)

I say if you want to learn about ID go to church. Im not there demanding evolution get equal time.
At risk of redundancy, i simply assess it's high fucking time that started happening (and i KNOW there's a few others here who feel the same). :)

Surprise, surprise an assumption made over a century ago has been proven wrong. This doesn't disprove the ToE, it just shows that science has advanced since Darwin's day (which should be pretty obvious anyways)

And vestigial doesn't mean "useless" anyways. It means "no longer serves its original use". Oh, and I'm willing to bet that the site brought up the appendix and its supposed immune function. It's either ignorant or lying to state that, as the increase in infections after an appendectomy is no higher than that of any other invasive abdominal surgery.

Let's see what the National Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Medicine have to say:

Scientific Evidence Supporting Evolution Continues To Grow; Nonscientific Approaches Do Not Belong In Science Classrooms (http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=11876)




Here also is a short brochure (http://books.nap.edu/html/11876/SECbrochure.pdf) based on the book.

Of course, this'll be perceived as bias. :p

Science begins with evidence, and looks for the conclusion that best fits that evidence.

ID, on the other hand, starts with a conclusion and looks for the evidence that supports it, to the exclusion of all else.

I know these forums were leftist controlled, but i didn't realize how willing you people are to abuse other beleif systems. I can why theres so few conservatives here, I've just about it with these forums. I'd rather spend time on a more balanced forum.

I'd rather spend time on a more balanced forum.

Oh, you want the Fox forum, run, of course, by Karl (sonofaNazi) Rove.
Toodles!

I know these forums were leftist controlled, but i didn't realize how willing you people are to abuse other beleif systems. I can why theres so few conservatives here, I've just about it with these forums. I'd rather spend time on a more balanced forum.

Oh, poor thing. We should embrace the teaching of religion as science so as not to hurt your feelings. No problem. ;)

This makes no sense.. what does 'leftist' have to do with it?

I suppose, of course, that being intolerant of those 'leftists' is a different sort of 'intolerant', to them being intolerant of other belief systems....

That's the thing ... all things equal, being belief systems and all ... one of them is obviously right and the rest are obviously wrong. :)

I know these forums were leftist controlled, but i didn't realize how willing you people are to abuse other beleif systems. I can why theres so few conservatives here, I've just about it with these forums. I'd rather spend time on a more balanced forum.

This makes no sense.. what does 'leftist' have to do with it?

I suppose, of course, that being intolerant of those 'leftists' is a different sort of 'intolerant', to them being intolerant of other belief systems....

Oh, poor thing. We should embrace the teaching of religion as science so as not to hurt your feelings. No problem. ;)

I never asked for your symapthy. Sarcastic post like the ones above, to reassure that democrats, especially the ones here, are intollerant to the point where they become jerks.

( I am willing to tolerate your beleifs, you can clearly tell i did not vote only creatism should be taught.)

I never asked for your symapthy. Not even implicitly? You can show that you've got a thick skin and sense about this, certainly.
Sarcastic post like the ones above, to reassure that democrats, especially the ones here, are intollerant to the point where they become jerks.As a demonstration of this "intollerance" you speak of, you're probably not entirely accurate in assuming everyone who knows that ID is bullshit is a "democrat". You're your own stumbling block there, for which someone might suggest removing the plank from thine eye.

Not even implicitly? You can show that you've got a thick skin and sense about this, certainly.
As a demonstration of this "intollerance" you speak of, you're probably not entirely accurate in assuming everyone who knows that ID is bullshit is a "democrat". You're your own stumbling block there, for which someone might suggest removing the plank from thine eye.


Ok, no one else needs to be a intollerant jerk, this guy already proved my point.

I know these forums were leftist controlled, but i didn't realize how willing you people are to abuse other beleif systems. I can why theres so few conservatives here, I've just about it with these forums. I'd rather spend time on a more balanced forum.

Out of curiosity, what belief systems do you think have been abused in this thread?

Unless I'm forgetting something, most of the discussion has consisted of correcting someone's factually inaccurate statements about the scientific method. Where was the belief system abuse part? :confused:

Well, I guess I'll just interject my opinion here. I'm particularly non-religious and I don't believe in intelligent design, but I believe that it should be taught in the schools alongside with evolution (though perhaps in another, mandatory class). So many Americans believe in it, that the ferverent persecution of the idea in the schools and throughout the nation borders on undemocratic.

Out of curiosity, what belief systems do you think have been abused in this thread?

Unless I'm forgetting something, most of the discussion has consisted of correcting someone's factually inaccurate statements about the scientific method. Where was the belief system abuse part? :confused:

Don't you understand, it's a matter of faith. After all the bible says pi = 3, and if you try to argue the "fact" that pi = approximatly 3.14159, then you are obviously abusing their right to believe something.

After all, we all know facts are a matter of faith, and they have just as much right to their own facts as you do

edit: and you suck at TGs :p

Well, I guess I'll just interject my opinion here. I'm particularly non-religious and I don't believe in intelligent design, but I believe that it should be taught in the schools alongside with evolution (though perhaps in another, mandatory class). So many Americans believe in it, that the ferverent persecution of the idea in the schools and throughout the nation borders on undemocratic.

Facts aren't democratic. The whole world could believe that pi equals precisely 3, and it would still be idiotic for us to teach that in math class.

Well, I guess I'll just interject my opinion here. I'm particularly non-religious and I don't believe in intelligent design, but I believe that it should be taught in the schools alongside with evolution (though perhaps in another, mandatory class). So many Americans believe in it, that the ferverent persecution of the idea in the schools and throughout the nation borders on undemocratic.

Truth is not a democracy; the scientific method is not subject to popular vote. Intelligent Design is not science, and it should therefore be kept out of science classrooms.

Don't you understand, it's a matter of faith. After all the bible says pi = 3, and if you try to argue the "fact" that pi = approximatly 3.14159, then you are obviously abusing their right to believe something.

After all, we all know facts are a matter of faith, and they have just as much right to their own facts as you do

Whoa, you totally invaded my brain there. Weeeeeeeeeird.

Ok, no one else needs to be a intollerant jerk, this guy already proved my point.
That i'm a democrat? YOU proved yourself wrong there.
Whether ID is bullshit or not doesn't have to do with the kind of tolerance you're hinting at. It has its place. Simply put, though, it doesn't belong in a scientific setting of any sort.
Further, this "bunch of leftists" would also do something to your assessment:
http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/060119_ap_vatican_id.html

Certainly there's places and times for things, and outside of those parameters, you should consider the idea of "intolerance" as compared to "appropriate" ... or even "accurate".
Any other examples you want to make?

So many Americans believe in it, that the ferverent persecution of the idea in the schools and throughout the nation borders on undemocratic.

fortunatly for science we do not decide truth on consensus.

Well, I guess I'll just interject my opinion here. I'm particularly non-religious and I don't believe in intelligent design, but I believe that it should be taught in the schools alongside with evolution (though perhaps in another, mandatory class). So many Americans believe in it, that the ferverent persecution of the idea in the schools and throughout the nation borders on undemocratic.

As the National Academy of Sciences explained only science should be taught as science. Intelligent design is not science. If you want to teach ID in a comparative religions course along with other religious beliefs, so be it.

And democracy doesn't override the First Amendment. These are not matters of mere popularity. West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/319/624.html ), 319 US 624, 638 (1943):

The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.

Well, I guess I'll just interject my opinion here. I'm particularly non-religious and I don't believe in intelligent design, but I believe that it should be taught in the schools alongside with evolution (though perhaps in another, mandatory class). So many Americans believe in it, that the ferverent persecution of the idea in the schools and throughout the nation borders on undemocratic.

Maybe, but I would never have it taught in science class, regardless of what people want. The fact is, it's not science, so it has no right to be taught alongside legitimate science. And if we're going to teach ID in some class, should we not also teach the creation stories of other cultures as well?

Whoa, you totally invaded my brain there. Weeeeeeeeeird.

that is weird.

And stop picturing me naked. Well, actually, I'm fine with that, but could you be a bit more....generous?

I know these forums were leftist controlled, but i didn't realize how willing you people are to abuse other beleif systems. I can why theres so few conservatives here, I've just about it with these forums. I'd rather spend time on a more balanced forum.


The point is that some things don't belong in a science class room. I'm a religious person (albeit not a Christian), however, I would not support teaching ID in a science classroom, ever. And if we do teach it in some class, I would say that it should be taught alongside the creation stories of other cultures. And also, these forums aren't controlled by leftists, but dominated by liberal posters. Generally people tend to better their views of the world here, so I hope you stay.

Ok, no one else needs to be a intollerant jerk, this guy already proved my point.

You have bad spelling, go home and Flagellate yourself.

Science is not something that can be voted on. We cannot all gather around a lump of lead and say "All in favor of turning this lead into gold, say 'Aye'."

A scientific theory is a theory that is capable of not only explaining observable events, it must also have some predictive power. The theory of evolution by natural selection is a powerful model that allows for explanations of observable phenomena and can predict the outcomes of controlled experiments. To hear someone say that it should be taught alongside a creation myth because the uneducated wish it to be so... it's mildly horrifying.

If we let religion have equal say with science, the sun might also orbit the earth, pi might equal 3, and the meteorologists might talk about some trapdoors in the sky being opened to let the rain fall.

Maybe, but I would never have it taught in science class, regardless of what people want. The fact is, it's not science, so it has no right to be taught alongside legitimate science. And if we're going to teach ID in some class, should we not also teach the creation stories of other cultures as well?

Well, so many people in the US are Christians and want this legislature to pass. The repeated bashing down by the US court system is almost as bad as the repression of Islam by the Turkish military (which I consider very undemocratic). I don't advocate that it be taught in a science class, just simply that it be taught somewhere in the school system.

And we do have classes that teach creation stories. Harkening back to my freshman year in high school, I learned every creation story in my World Civ class (including pre-Confucian Chinese), except the Judeo-Christian-presumed Islamic ones.

Well, so many people in the US are Christians and want this legislature to pass. The repeated bashing down by the US court system is almost as bad as the repression of Islam by the Turkish military (which I consider very undemocratic). I don't advocate that it be taught in a science class, just simply that it be taught somewhere in the school system.

Can you do me a favor and find me a single court case, just one where "the courts" (which courts by the way? State or federal? State law or federal law?) have overturned efforts to teach christian creationism in a comparative religion class?

Anything?

that is weird.

And stop picturing me naked. Well, actually, I'm fine with that, but could you be a bit more....generous?

Pssh. That's not you, that's Stephen Colbert.

Mmmmmm....Stephen.... :p

Pssh. That's not you, that's Stephen Colbert.

Mmmmmm....Stephen.... :p

You know, before I knew you were reading this thread, I thought of you with my whole "truth by consensus" comment and was tempted to add something about truthiness.

And read your damn TGs woman! :p

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/science.jpg

Proof is for mathematics and alcohol. Nothing in science is ever proven, and you'd know that had you even the most basic grasp of scientific principles.

Maths is the only thing that we can know is correct, because we defined it that way. Everything else is subject to inaccuracies due to lack of information, perceptual errors or one too many the night before (which counts as a perceptual error).

And I would like you to take note that I said is should be taught in a seperate, yet mandatory class. I never said in science class.

The problem you have there is if it's taught in a seperate, yet mandatory class, and is the only creationist myth that is taught, you run into some severe establishment clause problems.

Now, if you want it taught in tandem with other creationist stories, I have no problem with that, and I suspect the courts will not either...unless you can find a case to demonstrate otherwise.

I do have a problem making it mandatory, because ther eare more important things for children to learn, and not enough tim ein the day already to learn it in.

Well, so many people in the US are Christians and want this legislature to pass. The repeated bashing down by the US court system is almost as bad as the repression of Islam by the Turkish military (which I consider very undemocratic). I don't advocate that it be taught in a science class, just simply that it be taught somewhere in the school system.

And we do have classes that teach creation stories. Harkening back to my freshman year in high school, I learned every creation story in my World Civ class (including pre-Confucian Chinese), except the Judeo-Christian-presumed Islamic ones.

Well again, it can't be taught in a science class. If ID isn't placed above the creation stories of other cultures, then I don't mind it being taught in some class.

Generally people already know the general monotheistic creation story, but I do believe they teach these things in Mythology at my highschool, though I kind of wish we had a comparative religion class (we're not a small school either, so it's kind of disappointing we don't have one). But yeah, as long as one culture's story isn't placed above others or presumed true, I think it could be taught in a class.

Well, so many people in the US are Christians and want this legislature to pass. The repeated bashing down by the US court system is almost as bad as the repression of Islam by the Turkish military (which I consider very undemocratic).

This is a silly comparison.

And your facts about what people want aren't so solid. Alot depends on what and how people are asked. For example, these poll results (http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=2097):

The main findings of this study can be summed up as follows:

In science, emphasize Evolution:

The overwhelming majority of Americans (83%) want Evolution taught in public schools. While many Americans also support the in-school discussion of religious explanations of human origins, the majority do not want these religious explanations presented as “science”. They would like these Creationist ideas to be taught about in separate classes other than science (such as Philosophy) or taught as a “belief”. Only a minority of the public (fewer than 3 in 10) wants Creationism taught as science in public schools.

Evolution is compatible with a belief in God:

A substantial majority of Americans (about 7 in 10) believe the scientific Theory of Evolution is compatible with a belief in God – one does not preclude the other.

Need for a national approach:

According to most Americans (66%), the issue of whether or not to teach Evolution in the public schools is too important to leave to individual localities to decide. They endorse a national approach.

A majority of Americans disapprove of the 1999 Kansas B.O.E. decision:

A majority (60%) reject the 1999 Kansas State Board of Education decision to delete Evolution from its state science standards. Less than 3 in 10 (28%) support the move.

Science is not something that can be voted on. We cannot all gather around a lump of lead and say "All in favor of turning this lead into gold, say 'Aye'." Try as they might.

A scientific theory is a theory that is capable of not only explaining observable events, it must also have some predictive power. The theory of evolution by natural selection is a powerful model that allows for explanations of observable phenomena and can predict the outcomes of controlled experiments. Word.
To hear someone say that it should be taught alongside a creation myth because the uneducated wish it to be so... it's mildly horrifying.Be careful, someone might be afraid that you're being intolerant of uneducated people :eek: And, in U.S. history, that always resulted in a public defamation of all things scientific for sake of the so-called "common man". :(

If we let religion have equal say with science, the sun might also orbit the earth, pi might equal 3, and the meteorologists might talk about some trapdoors in the sky being opened to let the rain fall.That's the thing though ... there was a so-called "equal time" for a short consideration ... back in the days when the church was in charge of what was printed, spoken of, and even in some cases, peoples' lives and suffering ...
how much "tolerance" was in fair share?
Those days are gone, and none-too-soon. Out of the shadows, we're a-movin' on up.

A coincidental aside ... watching "Oz", season two, second episode ... kids in class, attempting to learn a vocabulary ("Isn't that disease?")

As the National Academy of Sciences explained only science should be taught as science. Intelligent design is not science. If you want to teach ID in a comparative religions course along with other religious beliefs, so be it.

And democracy doesn't override the First Amendment. These are not matters of mere popularity. West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/319/624.html ), 319 US 624, 638 (1943):

The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.

Well, that might be a valid point, if teaching ID in the classroom actually violated the First Amendment. However, Intelligent Design in the school system doesn't threaten anyone's right to free speech, worship, assembly, or anything else. If it were to outlaw all other opinions except Christianity, I'd have a different opinion, but this is the right for Christians, being the majority in a large section of the nation, to have their beliefs taught in the schools they fund with their taxes, provided by a government they vote into power. If there is a large Hindu minority in the county, then the county should take those views into consideration. Or if there are Muslims as a majority, then those views should be taken into consideration as well.

And I would like you to take note that I said is should be taught in a seperate, yet mandatory class. I never said in science class.

Well, I said originally that it should be taught in a separate, yet mandatory class. However, a single comp. relig. class wouldn't do any faith justice. I like what they did in Germany. Each child must take either a Catholic class, a protestant class, or a secular ethics class. We could do the same in the US, and extend it to more faiths.

the problem there is time, cost, need for teachers etc. I was the only jew in my small rural upstate NY highschool. Would I be able to get a "jewish" class and force the school to hire a teacher to teach just me?

How about we do it the simple way. Leave school for the established subjects, and if a student, or his/her parents want him to receive a religious education, he/she can attend religious instruction at his local church/mosque/synagogue/what have you.

Well again, it can't be taught in a science class. If ID isn't placed above the creation stories of other cultures, then I don't mind it being taught in some class.

Generally people already know the general monotheistic creation story, but I do believe they teach these things in Mythology at my highschool, though I kind of wish we had a comparative religion class (we're not a small school either, so it's kind of disappointing we don't have one). But yeah, as long as one culture's story isn't placed above others or presumed true, I think it could be taught in a class.

Well, I said originally that it should be taught in a separate, yet mandatory class. However, a single comp. relig. class wouldn't do any faith justice. I like what they did in Germany. Each child must take either a Catholic class, a protestant class, or a secular ethics class. We could do the same in the US, and extend it to more faiths.

Fuck it, Im going to church with my cousin next sunday and Im going to ask the preacher to talk about evolution and demand equal time.http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13460056&postcount=132
*bows*
For what it's worth, you have my sincere blessing.

And I would like you to take note that I said is should be taught in a seperate, yet mandatory class. I never said in science class.



Ill be damned before I let a school force my kids to take a religion class.


I hear about teaching creationism in another class all the time. Fine. As long as its not mandatory. Dont make athiests learn Christian myths. If Christians want to learn their stories, they can choose to take the class as an elective, or go to Sunday School.


Fuck it, Im going to church with my cousin next sunday and Im going to ask the preacher to talk about evolution and demand equal time.

Well, that might be a valid point, if teaching ID in the classroom actually violated the First Amendment. However, Intelligent Design in the school system doesn't threaten anyone's right to free speech, worship, assembly, or anything else.
It is the promotion of a religious belief by the government. That violates the establishment clause.

Well, that might be a valid point, if teaching ID in the classroom actually violated the First Amendment. However, Intelligent Design in the school system doesn't threaten anyone's right to free speech, worship, assembly, or anything else. If it were to outlaw all other opinions except Christianity, I'd have a different opinion, but this is the right for Christians, being the majority in a large section of the nation, to have their beliefs taught in the schools they fund with their taxes, provided by a government they vote into power. If there is a large Hindu minority in the county, then the county should take those views into consideration. Or if there are Muslims as a majority, then those views should be taken into consideration as well.

And I would like you to take note that I said is should be taught in a seperate, yet mandatory class. I never said in science class.

You should try reading the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Teaching creationism or Intelligent Design as scientific truth and/or the equivalent of evolution is an establishment of religion. See, e.g., Edwards v. Aguillard (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/482/578.html), 482 U.S. 578 (1987); Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf), 400 F. Supp. 2d 707 (M.D. Pa. 2005)(pdf).

It is the promotion of a religious belief by the government. That violates the establishment clause.

Not quite. Only Congress is forbidden to make declarations about religion. However, seeing as the states control education...

Ill be damned before I let a school force my kids to take a religion class.


I hear about teaching creationism in another class all the time. Fine. As long as its not mandatory. Dont make athiests learn Christian myths. If Christians want to learn their stories, they can choose to take the class as an elective, or go to Sunday School.


Fuck it, Im going to church with my cousin next sunday and Im going to ask the preacher to talk about evolution and demand equal time.

Oh certainly, but would you have objections about your child attending a secular ethics class?

Not quite. Only Congress is forbidden to make declarations about religion. However, seeing as the states control education...

I suggest you scope out the 14th amendment.

Then you could opt out, the way one opts out of FLE. I grew up in Catholic schools (although I am no longer Catholic, or even religious), and these institutions are very much strapped for money, even though they have a lot of support. Religious schools cost a shitload of money.

then it's hardly mandatory is it?

Evolution is the only credible idea and it has been well-documented and proven. ID and Creationism have little documentation and no proof.

I think everyone should learn ethics in a secular framework. It means so much more to do what is right because you know that it is the right thing to do... not just because your imaginary friend told you that it is what you have to do, or else burn in hell forever.

You should never have a problem when a child is taught something that is grounded in reality. When they start bringing in the fairy tales - that's when your kids are in trouble.

Nicely put.
*bows*
Welcome to NSG, btw, if such felicitations haven't already been extended.

the problem there is time, cost, need for teachers etc. I was the only jew in my small rural upstate NY highschool. Would I be able to get a "jewish" class and force the school to hire a teacher to teach just me?

How about we do it the simple way. Leave school for the established subjects, and if a student, or his/her parents want him to receive a religious education, he/she can attend religious instruction at his local church/mosque/synagogue/what have you.

Then you could opt out, the way one opts out of FLE. I grew up in Catholic schools (although I am no longer Catholic, or even religious), and these institutions are very much strapped for money, even though they have a lot of support. Religious schools cost a shitload of money.

I think everyone should learn ethics in a secular framework. It means so much more to do what is right because you know that it is the right thing to do... not just because your imaginary friend told you that it is what you have to do, or else burn in hell forever.

You should never have a problem when a child is taught something that is grounded in reality. When they start bringing in the fairy tales - that's when your kids are in trouble.

Not quite. Only Congress is forbidden to make declarations about religion. However, seeing as the states control education...

14th Amendment.

Not quite. Only Congress is forbidden to make declarations about religion. However, seeing as the states control education...

*sigh*

The Fourteenth Amendment makes the Establishment Clause apply to state and local governments through incorporation. linky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_(Bill_of_Rights))

Also, to quote West Virginia State Board of Ed. v. Barnette (http://laws.findlaw.com/US/319/624.html), 319 U.S. 624 (1943) again:

The Fourteenth Amendment, as now applied to the States, protects the citizen against the State itself and all of its creatures--Boards of Education not excepted. These have, of course, important, delicate, and highly discretionary functions, but none that they may not perform within the limits of the Bill of Rights. That they are educating the young for citizenship is reason for scrupulous protection of Constitutional freedoms of the individual, if we are not to strangle the free mind at its source and teach youth to discount important principles of our government as mere platitudes.

I'm generally loathe to post youtube clips, but I so enjoy the parody of an especially ridiculous belief:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=N7xgtAWfSWM

I particularly disagree with that interpretation, which is why I'm arguing against it. Allowing a religious belief to be taught in school to doesn't constitute establishing a religion, and regardless, it's not Congress which is doing the establishing, it's the state and local governments. Establishing a religion is outlawing other religious beliefs, oppressing them, or barring them to certain rights. And other religious creeds should certainly be allowed the same rights as Christians in the school system. What I disagree with is a belief being held by a majority of people to be so completely downsized against the will of the taxpayers and voters, and to be treated with such hostility by a minority of the population.

The problem you're missing is the whole "it's the states" argument goes away with the 14th. it's just not a valid argument.

And the second thing you're missing is that "teaching a religious belief" is not establishment, and nobody is arguing that it is, in and of itself.

Teaching a relgious belief as true is most certainly an establishment. In addition, teaching a religious belief as a belief but not giving equal time to ther religious beliefs can be considered promoting that belief (IE using state funds to make students aware of only one faith).

There is absolutly nothing wrong, legally, with teaching religion. you just can't teach it as true, or favor one religion over another.

You should try reading the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Teaching creationism or Intelligent Design as scientific truth and/or the equivalent of evolution is an establishment of religion. See, e.g., Edwards v. Aguillard (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/482/578.html), 482 U.S. 578 (1987); Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf), 400 F. Supp. 2d 707 (M.D. Pa. 2005)(pdf).

I particularly disagree with that interpretation, which is why I'm arguing against it. Allowing a religious belief to be taught in school to doesn't constitute establishing a religion, and regardless, it's not Congress which is doing the establishing, it's the state and local governments. Establishing a religion is outlawing other religious beliefs, oppressing them, or barring them to certain rights. And other religious creeds should certainly be allowed the same rights as Christians in the school system. What I disagree with is a belief being held by a majority of people to be so completely downsized against the will of the taxpayers and voters, and to be treated with such hostility by a minority of the population.

But I suppose I can't agree with the 14 Amendment. I'm going to eat some popcorn.

I particularly disagree with that interpretation, which is why I'm arguing against it. Allowing a religious belief to be taught in school to doesn't constitute establishing a religion, and regardless, it's not Congress which is doing the establishing, it's the state and local governments. Establishing a religion is outlawing other religious beliefs, oppressing them, or barring them to certain rights. And other religious creeds should certainly be allowed the same rights as Christians in the school system. What I disagree with is a belief being held by a majority of people to be so completely downsized against the will of the taxpayers and voters, and to be treated with such hostility by a minority of the population.

But I suppose I can't agree with the 14 Amendment. I'm going to eat some popcorn.

:D

I've already addressed the fact of the 14th Amendment and questioned whether you are right about the belief held by the taxpayers.

As for what the Establishment Clause means, see Everson v. Board of Education (http://www.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=330&invol=1#16), 330 U.S. 1, 15-16 (1947):

The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.'

Oh certainly, but would you have objections about your child attending a secular ethics class?

No, but they wouldnt teach such fairy tales as ID and creationism in a secular ethics class, would they?


I also think such a class would be a waste of time. Most parents teach their kids ethics.

All that can be said about a belief that is held by a majority of the population is that the belief is popular. When it is untestable and irrelevant, why waste the time and energy to teach such ideas in the public school system? We should be focusing on the topics that will train future generations of teachers, scientists, doctors, lawyers... citizens. The American education system is lacking in all areas: math, science, history, and reading comprehension. Perhaps if we spent more time on educating our children and less time letting the religious right feel like their opinion matters, things would turn around for our country.

Not quite. Only Congress is forbidden to make declarations about religion. However, seeing as the states control education...

Actually that's not entirely true. In fact, government in any form is not allowed to make declarations about religion or to violate separation of church and state.

That was, if I'm not mistaken, the stated reasoning behind the ruling in Kitzmiller v. Dover School District.

Edit: Damn you, TCT and Neo, for beating me to it.

Actually that's not entirely true. In fact, government in any form is not allowed to make declarations about religion or to violate separation of church and state.

That was, if I'm not mistaken, the stated reasoning behind the ruling in Kitzmiller v. Dover School District.

Edit: Damn you, TCT and Neo, for beating me to it.

And me!

Here is my belief on the whole issue. I find it to be the best answer of all, no bias whatsoever. Here it is:



MEH.

Haven't read the whole issue since a lack of time :( but i do think both theories should be thought to everyone... The Evolution theory in biology class (or even better when learning about genetics) and the ID together with all other theological views in a religious class...

These thinking issues won't be bad to discuss in those religious classes as well since it is a great thinking exercise why one thinks a theory is better then an other...

By the way, if there are actually people whom think that the evolution theory is still a theory with no prove at all, then just go to basic microbiology investigations from which it is really obvious that evolution exists. It doesn't exclude that there was some kind of a ID that started to evolute once it was created however... Although that ID should have been some kind of a prokaryote in that case...

:rolls up sleeves:

Let's do this.

Ok guys, try this idea: What if ID could be looked at and/or taught from a NON-religious perspective.

Preposterous? At first glance, yes... But bear with me for a moment.

Suppose the data could support ID as an origin theory, completely apart from religion as such. if ID could be demonstrated it wouldn't be a Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu etc concept but rather, the logical conclusion of a series of observations.

2 questions for your consideration. First, would that necessarily constitute a violation of church and state if it were to be taught and second, would it necessarily have to violate an atheist's worldview?

Take a second to think about those two questions. Can you think of a set of conditions that might make the answer 'no' in each case?

:rolls up sleeves:

Let's do this.

Ok guys, try this idea: What if ID could be looked at and/or taught from a NON-religious perspective.

Preposterous? At first glance, yes... But bear with me for a moment.

Suppose the data could support ID as an origin theory, completely apart from religion as such. if ID could be demonstrated it wouldn't be a Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu etc concept but rather, the logical conclusion of a series of observations.

2 questions for your consideration. First, would that necessarily constitute a violation of church and state if it were to be taught and second, would it necessarily have to violate an atheist's worldview?

Take a second to think about those two questions. Can you think of a set of conditions that might make the answer 'no' in each case?

It still wouldn't be science, though.

In order for any hypothesis to be considered scientific, it must meet certain minimum criteria. It must be testable and falsifiable. That is, it must be testable, and in being able to perform tests of the theory, conditions must be possible where the theory is proven wrong.

This is impossible with a supernatural theory of creation. You can't test the supernatural, nor can you prove or disprove the possibility of supernatural interference. This is why science (with the exception of fridge and pseudo sciences) does not concern itself with the supernatural in the first place.

Next, it must be fruitful. You must be able to derive some utility from the theory in its ability to explain other phenomena. Unfortunately, ID fails here as well, as it offers no insight into the problem, but rather constitutes something of a thought-ending cliche.

Suppose the data could support ID as an origin theory, completely apart from religion as such. if ID could be demonstrated it wouldn't be a Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu etc concept but rather, the logical conclusion of a series of observations.

In that case it most definitely would belong in a science class, along with the many other hypotheses/theories on the diversity of life that are already taught.

Pity the ID crowd cannot produce such data.

That i'm a democrat? YOU proved yourself wrong there.
Whether ID is bullshit or not doesn't have to do with the kind of tolerance you're hinting at. It has its place. Simply put, though, it doesn't belong in a scientific setting of any sort.
Further, this "bunch of leftists" would also do something to your assessment:
http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/060119_ap_vatican_id.html


I see your Pope and throw in an Archbishop: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/03/21/archbishop_backs_evolution/

So that's the heads (albeit losely in the AofCs case) of two of the 3 biggest christian denominations... that should be telling.

Well, I guess I'll just interject my opinion here. I'm particularly non-religious and I don't believe in intelligent design, but I believe that it should be taught in the schools alongside with evolution (though perhaps in another, mandatory class). So many Americans believe in it, that the ferverent persecution of the idea in the schools and throughout the nation borders on undemocratic.

Science is not a democracy, it is a meritocracy. Creationism is without merit, and therefore it should not be taught except in comparitive mythology.

Well, I said originally that it should be taught in a separate, yet mandatory class. However, a single comp. relig. class wouldn't do any faith justice. I like what they did in Germany. Each child must take either a Catholic class, a protestant class, or a secular ethics class. We could do the same in the US, and extend it to more faiths.

They do it in Belgium too, the main options are Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, Jewish or 'Morale' (secular ethics). Interestingly you got a lot of kids, even if they were catholic (Belgium being a catholic country) attending the secular ethics class for a variety of reasons. In theory irrespective of your religion you could ask for it to be taught. Generally the religion teachers taught at multiple schools in area, thus reducing the costs to hire a single teach for a class of 4, for example (the Morale teacher was our social sciences teacher).

However, even with this, we didn't get taught creationism as such and I was in the protestant religion class. We mostly looked at moral issues from a religious viewpoint, as well as considering the history of religion. The main discussion on evolution was on it's compatability with the bible on a metaphorical view-point, as the various views of different denominations on this. The idea of creationism was raised and discussed, but we dismissed it as being unscientific :D

So yes, having seperate religion classes can be good to allow a debate of various issues in relation to your individual religion, but it should be a forum for discussion not indoctrination.

Fuck it, Im going to church with my cousin next sunday and Im going to ask the preacher to talk about evolution and demand equal time.

Ask him to give The God Delusion equal time with the Bible too: they're both books afterall.

:rolls up sleeves:

Let's do this.

Ok guys, try this idea: What if ID could be looked at and/or taught from a NON-religious perspective.

Preposterous? At first glance, yes... But bear with me for a moment.

Suppose the data could support ID as an origin theory, completely apart from religion as such. if ID could be demonstrated it wouldn't be a Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu etc concept but rather, the logical conclusion of a series of observations.

2 questions for your consideration. First, would that necessarily constitute a violation of church and state if it were to be taught and second, would it necessarily have to violate an atheist's worldview?

Take a second to think about those two questions. Can you think of a set of conditions that might make the answer 'no' in each case?

If you remove the concept of God from ID-Creationism then its already pathetic arguments fall apart completely: you can only claim to recogise design if you already know about the designer, and if you dispense with an anthropic god then the entire framework comes tumbling down.

That said, I do agree with Scalia's opinion from the original supreme court ruling against Creationism: it isn't the religious intent behind Creationism which should exclude it from schools, it's the lack of any scientific evidence.

In order to make sure I'm on the same page with you guys, I have some questions. (Not a set-up.)

It still wouldn't be science, though.

In order for any hypothesis to be considered scientific, it must meet certain minimum criteria. It must be testable and falsifiable. That is, it must be testable, and in being able to perform tests of the theory, conditions must be possible where the theory is proven wrong.

I think I understand. With that being the case, what are those conditions in the case of the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection?


This is impossible with a supernatural theory of creation. You can't test the supernatural, nor can you prove or disprove the possibility of supernatural interference. This is why science (with the exception of fridge and pseudo sciences) does not concern itself with the supernatural in the first place.


I'd like to note here that there are areas of science that have historically been believed to be supernatural in nature until sufficient knowledge was gained about them to bring them out of the supernatural category.


Next, it must be fruitful. You must be able to derive some utility from the theory in its ability to explain other phenomena. Unfortunately, ID fails here as well, as it offers no insight into the problem, but rather constitutes something of a thought-ending cliche.

I'm not sure I understand what this means. Do you mean that for a theory to be valid, it must produce answers to questions other than that which is the subject of the study?

If you remove the concept of God from ID-Creationism then its already pathetic arguments fall apart completely: you can only claim to recogise design if you already know about the designer, and if you dispense with an anthropic god then the entire framework comes tumbling down.


What about the old Sherlock Holmes motto where if you eliminate all other possibilities then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth? How would that fit into this?

:rolls up sleeves:

Let's do this.

Ok guys, try this idea: What if ID could be looked at and/or taught from a NON-religious perspective.

Preposterous? At first glance, yes... But bear with me for a moment.

Suppose the data could support ID as an origin theory, completely apart from religion as such. if ID could be demonstrated it wouldn't be a Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu etc concept but rather, the logical conclusion of a series of observations.

2 questions for your consideration. First, would that necessarily constitute a violation of church and state if it were to be taught and second, would it necessarily have to violate an atheist's worldview?

Take a second to think about those two questions. Can you think of a set of conditions that might make the answer 'no' in each case?


ID opperates on the premis that something beyond this world is guiding our development.

So, what might that something be?

It doesnt matter what God we're talking about, no god belongs in a science class.

What about the old Sherlock Holmes motto where if you eliminate all other possibilities then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth? How would that fit into this?

Quite well.
Of course, there are about 37 million explanations more likely than Biblical creationism. So eliminating all the other possibilities will take the fans some time... especially since they only seem to be focussing their efforts on a single opponent now.

ID opperates on the premis that something beyond this world is guiding our development.

So, what might that something be?

It doesnt matter what God we're talking about, no god belongs in a science class.

Even if, hypothetically, God (or something like a god) fit into the scientific explanation? (Provably)

Quite well.
Of course, there are about 37 million explanations more likely than Biblical creationism. So eliminating all the other possibilities will take the fans some time... especially since they only seem to be focussing their efforts on a single opponent now.

But remember I'm not talking about Biblical Creationism. I'm talking about the idea of ID generally. What if we did narrow the possible explanations down to the conclusion that only an intelligent designer (in whatever form) is responsible for the species of animals on Earth?

Even if, hypothetically, God (or something like a god) fit into the scientific explanation? (Provably)


I dont know how an unknowable god would ever fit into a scientific explaination, however. God by his nature cannot be tested or confirmed, science relies on the ability to do just that.


This is why whenever someone trolls and demands proof of a god I scoff at them and tell them that even if a god does exist he still wouldnt be able to be proven because that defies the nature of said god.

I dont know how an unknowable god would ever fit into a scientific explaination, however. God by his nature cannot be tested or confirmed, science relies on the ability to do just that.


This is why whenever someone trolls and demands proof of a god I scoff at them and tell them that even if a god does exist he still wouldnt be able to be proven because that defies the nature of said god.

I see what you're saying, but I think you're making an assumption that goes beyond the scope of my hypothetical. I don't believe in a God who is, by His nature, unknowable. So I discard that concept when I debate this issue anyway, but for the sake of this discussion I'm trying to be as generic as possible. Suppose by ID we're not talking about the Biblical God but rather, a version of God who is much more 'down to earth' or perhaps an alien civilization. Doesn't matter for the purpose of this.

What I'm trying to do is get a sense for what people would require in terms of proof of concept before they would consider the idea of ID as scientifically possible.

But remember I'm not talking about Biblical Creationism. I'm talking about the idea of ID generally. What if we did narrow the possible explanations down to the conclusion that only an intelligent designer (in whatever form) is responsible for the species of animals on Earth?

That is still pretty low on the list - but if you get there I see no reasons not to allow it as "the best we can do".

Still - how would you arrive at such a conclusion ? Even theoretically ?
The very bright and extremely motivated ID crowd sofar has only been able to come up with Irreducible Complexity and Design Inference: both concepts that they promised would make your scenario at least possible - but in reality merely examples of flawed reasoning.

What I'm trying to do is get a sense for what people would require in terms of proof of concept before they would consider the idea of ID as scientifically possible.

at the very least, real explanatory power over a wide range of data, testable predictions, and not being already demonstrated to be false.

What about the old Sherlock Holmes motto where if you eliminate all other possibilities then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth? How would that fit into this?

If you're referring to Dembski's 'Explanatory Filter' then you should be aware that it has yet to be applied to any real life situation, even ones where it should hypothetically be useful.

What I'm trying to do is get a sense for what people would require in terms of proof of concept before they would consider the idea of ID as scientifically possible.

Falsifiable predictions would be nice: Evolution makes tonnes of them, but the Creationists don't seem to have the knack.

That is still pretty low on the list - but if you get there I see no reasons not to allow it as "the best we can do".

Still - how would you arrive at such a conclusion ? Even theoretically ?
The very bright and extremely motivated ID crowd sofar has only been able to come up with Irreducible Complexity and Design Inference: both concepts that they promised would make your scenario at least possible - but in reality merely examples of flawed reasoning.

I know what Irreducible Complexity is but I don't know that I'm familiar with the term Design Inference. (Although I may know it by another name.) What is that?

I know what Irreducible Complexity is but I don't know that I'm familiar with the term Design Inference. (Although I may know it by another name.) What is that?

You might know it as the "explanatory filter".
Wikipedias article on it is decent: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_Inference

You might know it as the "explanatory filter".
Wikipedias article on it is decent: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_Inference

Thanks.

I don't think I've run across that as such. It sounds similar to some of the things I've read but not quite the same.

I personally think science and ideas that can be backed up with facts should be taught in science classes, as opposed to ideas based on a ficticious book.

You're completely right, and it's a good thing that everyone considers the Bible a ficticious book.

Oh wait, no they don't.

You fail on account of always assuming that the only possible rational belief is whatever one you currently hold.

Q did it.

:D

Q did it.

You're completely right, and it's a good thing that everyone considers the Bible a ficticious book.

Oh wait, no they don't.

You fail on account of always assuming that the only possible rational belief is whatever one you currently hold.




Since the Bible has no evidence to be anything BUT fiction from sources outside the Bible, that is why it has no basis in a science class.


You can believe that Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy is not a myth, but that doestnt mean that they belong in a course dedicated to an academic search for the truth any more than the Bible does.

ID is watered down creationism made to fool naive parents, whose parenting skills fit in a peti dish, and complacent administrators into think that their children are receiving the wholesome truth.

Believing in Intelligent Design has nothing whatever to do with one's ability to raise a child.

Believing in Intelligent Design has nothing whatever to do with one's ability to raise a child.

Depends how far one takes the belief. After all, all those nice medicines one can give sick kids did not have their basis in ID. Ergo.. why give them ?

You're completely right, and it's a good thing that everyone considers the Bible a ficticious book.

Oh wait, no they don't.

You fail on account of always assuming that the only possible rational belief is whatever one you currently hold.

are you honestly proposing we adopt a social constructivist theory of fiction?

Depends how far one takes the belief. After all, all those nice medicines one can give sick kids did not have their basis in ID. Ergo.. why give them ?

Valid point. However, this is not the norm for most adults who believe in ID over evolution.

Since the Bible has no evidence to be anything BUT fiction from sources outside the Bible, that is why it has no basis in a science class.


You can believe that Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy is not a myth, but that doestnt mean that they belong in a course dedicated to an academic search for the truth any more than the Bible does.

The trouble with using the Bible as an example of a narrative of ID is that unless you disconnect it from that process, it can never be taught in a secular school because as such, it would be inherently religious.

To have a useful discussion on whether ID merits a place in scientific theory one must first disassociate it from specific religious sources.

This is also true if one is trying to prove ID as a general reality, without going into the details of the intelligence itself. Some may object to that on th ebasis that without defining the 'Intelligence' yuo can't prove ID, but I'd venture to say that same argument could be used to try and disprove the existence of black holes, which we do know exist even though we can't be sure of the nature of what lies below the Event Horizon.

To have a useful discussion on whether ID merits a place in scientific theory one must first disassociate it from specific religious sources.

of course, that would require inventing a new idea altogether, what with it being easily shown that ID is just the newest in a string of cheap suits creationists have attempted to dress up their idiocy in.

religious or not, it's still false, and that is what really matters. if it were true and we had real justification for believing it to be true, then it would be mind-bogglingly stupid to not teach it as such.

Believing in Intelligent Design has nothing whatever to do with one's ability to raise a child.

except for being a good indicator of a willingness to believe utter nonsense when told by illegitimate 'authority figures', a basic lack of critical thinking, a devaluation of truth and reality, and (coincidentally, i'm sure) harmful reactionary social views.

of course, that would require inventing a new idea altogether, what with it being easily shown that ID is just the newest in a string of cheap suits creationists have attempted to dress up their idiocy in.

Isn't that exactly what the evolutionist side has been demanding? "Argue this on our terms and don't bring your religion into it!"

ID is a broader concept than that. It isn't religion in secular clothing. (I know to some it is, but it needn't necessarily be so.)


religious or not, it's still false, and that is what really matters. if it were true and we had real justification for believing it to be true, then it would be mind-bogglingly stupid to not teach it as such.

Assuming, of course, that those in a position to either accept it or reject it have no vested interest one way or the other...

I think it's exactly the inability on many people's part to separate the generic idea of ID from a specific religious context that makes it so difficult for them to discuss it reasonably. (And yes, that can apply to both sides of the issue.)

Just a thought.

Why teach either ID or evolution?

Why not tell kids to Google what they don't know?

As a matter of fact, why do we need an education system?

!Viva la Revolucion!

;)

Valid point. However, this is not the norm for most adults who believe in ID over evolution.

True. But I still prefer a world where we can feel good about using our cleverness to interfere in and improve upon natural selection instead of a world where we should feel bad about messing with the design of something vastly more intelligent.

True. But I still prefer a world where we can feel good about using our cleverness to interfere in and improve upon natural selection instead of a world where we should feel bad about messing with the design of something vastly more intelligent.

That's a damn(ed?) good idea.

Shame we don't use much of those these days...

The probability that Q did it is possibly greater than the probability that Yhvh did it. :p

Based on our knowledge of the universe accidental or "finger snapping" design is indeed more likely than intelligent well-thought-out design.

Which of course does not rule it out ;)

:rolls up sleeves:

Let's do this.

Ok guys, try this idea: What if ID could be looked at and/or taught from a NON-religious perspective.

Preposterous? At first glance, yes... But bear with me for a moment.

Suppose the data could support ID as an origin theory, completely apart from religion as such. if ID could be demonstrated it wouldn't be a Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu etc concept but rather, the logical conclusion of a series of observations.

2 questions for your consideration. First, would that necessarily constitute a violation of church and state if it were to be taught and second, would it necessarily have to violate an atheist's worldview?

Take a second to think about those two questions. Can you think of a set of conditions that might make the answer 'no' in each case?

You might as well ask us if the moon were made of green cheese, could we use it as chip dip.

As the court explained in Kitzmiller (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover_decision.html):

After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's; and (3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. As we will discuss in more detail below, it is additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research.

....

The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board's ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.

:DThe probability that Q did it is possibly greater than the probability that Yhvh did it. :p

ID is a broader concept than that. It isn't religion in secular clothing. (I know to some it is, but it needn't necessarily be so.)

as a pure matter of historical and social fact, yes, it really really is. ID only exists because of the failure of 'scientific creationism', which only exists because of the failure of creationism without the prefix. without the social foundations provided by biblical literalism there is literally no reason at all to propose ID. none. in places lacking the necessary creationist infrastructure, ID is unheard of. the people who came up with the damn idea, and who promote it, and who accept it are all creationists of one sort or another, and are quite explicit about it all.

Thats so incorrect I dont know where to begin. Evolution has proof and doesnt require any "faith".


There is a massive difference between a scientific theory and a regular old every day theory.

Science does have an element of faith involved: One must assume that the scientist has done due diligence in his studies and not allowed him/herself to be swayed by politics.

That still requires a heck of a lot of faith as we all know people, even smart people, are prone to that.

Science does have an element of faith involved: One must assume that the scientist has done due diligence in his studies and not allowed him/herself to be swayed by politics.

That still requires a heck of a lot of faith as we all know people, even smart people, are prone to that.

except that science has this neat self-correcting mechanism, in which other people get to check your work. brilliant stuff, this new learning.

Actually science assumes the exact opposite: that's why we have peer review. All ideas are expected to be carefully scrutinised by independent experts before they're accepted.

Don't mind, I'm just playing devil's advocate. :p

You still have to have faith that those involved in said peer review have followed only their conscience and not politics, nor the $$$.

Science does have an element of faith involved: One must assume that the scientist has done due diligence in his studies and not allowed him/herself to be swayed by politics.

That still requires a heck of a lot of faith as we all know people, even smart people, are prone to that.

Actually science assumes the exact opposite: that's why we have peer review. All ideas are expected to be carefully scrutinised by independent experts before they're accepted.

Don't mind, I'm just playing devil's advocate. :p

You still have to have faith that those involved in said peer review have followed only their conscience and not politics, nor the $$$.

Nope - still not. Because once something is published others who are impartial or would benefit from disproving the claims made will do their utmost best to do so ;)

Don't mind, I'm just playing devil's advocate. :p

Ah, ok. :D

You still have to have faith that those involved in said peer review have followed only their conscience and not politics, nor the $$$.

But even if they did do that they'd still get picked up by the wider scientific community: quack journals like Rivista di Biologia are quickly spotted and spurned. Unless one was to believe that the overwhelming majority of scientists were corrupt, the 'faith' concept doesn't apply.

And, of course, you always have the option of learning sufficient science to be able to analyse the evidence for yourself (that's what I was supposed to be doing now before I got drawn into this thread ;)).

You might as well ask us if the moon were made of green cheese, could we use it as chip dip.

As the court explained in Kitzmiller (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover_decision.html):


Okay, great. So a court decision explains how it ruled and why. But that's not what I asked. I asked what YOU think. :)

as a pure matter of historical and social fact, yes, it really really is. ID only exists because of the failure of 'scientific creationism', which only exists because of the failure of creationism without the prefix. without the social foundations provided by biblical literalism there is literally no reason at all to propose ID. none. in places lacking the necessary creationist infrastructure, ID is unheard of. the people who came up with the damn idea, and who promote it, and who accept it are all creationists of one sort or another, and are quite explicit about it all.

Historical and social? So you're suggesting that because most people have historically linked ID with a specific religious mythos, then it must necessarily always continue to be so for all people?


Science does have an element of faith involved: One must assume that the scientist has done due diligence in his studies and not allowed him/herself to be swayed by politics.

That still requires a heck of a lot of faith as we all know people, even smart people, are prone to that.

Agreed. It takes a helluva lot more faith in a human-generated system than I'm personally capable of.

Agreed. It takes a helluva lot more faith in a human-generated system than I'm personally capable of.

And religion doesnt?

And religion doesnt?

Sure. At least then I don't have to pretend that a guy somewhere with large student loans and an ambition to get published couldn't POSSIBLY be influenced by money or fame. :D

Neo Bretonnia doesn't know how scientific journals work. Somehow, this doesn't surprise me.

Neo Bretonnia doesn't know how scientific journals work. Somehow, this doesn't surprise me.

Hey wow thanks for an insightful and intelligent post. Where would this dicussion be without you?

Historical and social? So you're suggesting that because most people have historically linked ID with a specific religious mythos, then it must necessarily always continue to be so for all people?

no, i'm saying that there ain't no such thing as non-religious ID. there is barely even such a thing as non-christian ID. if you want such a thing to exist, you are going to have to create it from scratch. and, quite frankly, it won't be successful.

Agreed. It takes a helluva lot more faith in a human-generated system than I'm personally capable of.

hahahahahaha

Sure. At least then I don't have to pretend that a guy somewhere with large student loans and an ambition to get published couldn't POSSIBLY be influenced by money or fame. :D

i'll give you fame - nothing short of a revolutionary scientific breakthrough gets you more famous in science than being exposed as a fraud. and i'll also give you money, as all the best money in science is to be found in not doing science while on the payroll of various big corporations trying to muddy the waters. but neither of these seem to be what you have in mind, so i have to wonder how much familiarity you have with science at all and peer reviewed journals in particular.

Sure. At least then I don't have to pretend that a guy somewhere with large student loans and an ambition to get published couldn't POSSIBLY be influenced by money or fame. :D

You don't know many scientists, do you? Even the suspicion that a scientist has faked the results of an experiment can be enough to end their career. Deliberately distort results and you'll never work anywhere more prestigious than a lobbying group again.

You also seem to be completely unaware of the concept of 'peer-review': to keep scientists honest, their work is scrutinised by other scientists before it's published. One of the best ways to make your name in science is to disprove something which was previously thought to be true, so even if the reviewers were all crooked too (and we're straining credulity here...) the paper would still get savaged by ambitious grad-students and assistant professors.

Finally, as I've already pointed out, quack journals tend to get spotted quickly. No scientist who published in Rivista di Biologia would expect to be taken seriously by real scientists.

You seem to think that scientists are easily swayed by fame and fortune, but haven't you noticed that very few people become rich or famous by defending the scientific status quo? Defenders of evolution like Ken Miller or Barbara Forrest are hardly household names, and their academic positions do not pay well, whereas Dembski and Behe have gained international notoriety and lucrative royalty deals for their quack books.

If you want to make money, become a quack and aim for the Templeton Prize. If you care about truth and integrity, become a scientist.

Sure. At least then I don't have to pretend that a guy somewhere with large student loans and an ambition to get published couldn't POSSIBLY be influenced by money or fame. :D

Every person that I have ever met who holds a Masters degree or higher in one of the sciences has one thing in common: they sincerely love the subject to which they are devoting their lives. People never go into research for fortune or glamour; much of the research done today is quite controversial and the majority of the public doesn't understand it. The fame that they would seek is to make a meaningful contribution to their field of study and be remembered for the work that they did. If they forged that, they would become an instant pariah and would probably never fully recover professionally.

i'll give you fame - nothing short of a revolutionary scientific breakthrough gets you more famous in science than being exposed as a fraud. and i'll also give you money, as all the best money in science is to be found in not doing science while on the payroll of various big corporations trying to muddy the waters. but neither of these seem to be what you have in mind, so i have to wonder how much familiarity you have with science at all and peer reviewed journals in particular.

To be fair to Creation-scientists, it's hard for them to find a group of their intellectual-peers who're willing to review their work: the pre-schoolers laughed them out of the kindergarten and the monkeys thought it would be beneath their dignity to associate with the likes of Bill Dembski and Jonathan Wells.

Every person that I have ever met who holds a Masters degree or higher in one of the sciences has one thing in common: they sincerely love the subject to which they are devoting their lives.

^^What he said.