Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
Job lost for opposing neutrality to intelligent design
worldnetdaily.com — A former official with the Texas Education Agency has sued the TEA in U.S. District Court, claiming she was forced out of her job for opposing intelligent design theory and that the TEA's dictate on neutrality toward ID violates a constitutional separation of church and state.
JimmySpaza- 25 diggs
- digg it
- JimmySpaza, on 07/09/2008, -24/+11Good. Anyone who employs censorship in education and wants to force students to accept only THEIR conclusions should be kicked out.
Intelligent design is based on the exact same science that evolutionary theory is. It's just that some people conclude that life on this planet could never have come about via natural processes...and thus look for an intelligent cause. Others shoe-horn fit a natural cause and process every step of the way. Teach them both...unless you have something to hide. Hmmm...- custal, on 07/09/2008, -7/+23> Intelligent design is based on the exact same science that evolutionary theory is.
No, it is not. ID is Creationism and therefor based on the exact same "science" as religion.- lookingforHim, on 07/09/2008, -18/+6Something to be considered;
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
There are different schools of thought in the philosophy of scientific method.
Methodological naturalism maintains that scientific investigation must adhere to empirical study and independent verification as a process for properly developing and evaluating natural explanations for observable phenomena. Methodological naturalism, therefore, rejects supernatural explanations, arguments from authority and biased observational studies. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Critical rationalism instead holds that unbiased observation is not possible and a demarcation between natural and supernatural explanations is arbitrary; it instead proposes falsifiability as the landmark of empirical theories and falsification as the universal empirical method. Critical rationalism argues for the ability of science to increase the scope of testable knowledge, but at the same time against its authority, by emphasizing its inherent fallibility. It proposes that science should be content with the rational elimination of errors in its theories, not in seeking for their verification (such as claiming certain or probable proof or disproof; both the proposal and falsification of a theory are only of methodological, conjectural, and tentative character in critical rationalism).
Instrumentalism rejects the concept of truth and emphasizes merely the utility of theories as instruments for explaining and predicting phenomena. - custal, on 07/09/2008, -4/+21Something to be considered -- from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:
"The unequivocal consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science, but rather pseudoscience."
And
"Pseudoscience is defined as a body of knowledge, methodology, belief, or practice that is claimed to be scientific or made to appear scientific, but does not adhere to the scientific method, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, or otherwise lacks scientific status." - SampleX, on 07/09/2008, -22/+6Congratulations, Custal... you just defined the two big secular scientific movements of the last century... evolutionism and 'man made global warming' mythology.
Thanks for proving the point...
Game on.
Such a shame when we make Wikipedia our authority on intelligent thought. - ashfish, on 07/09/2008, -4/+20@looking, You might want to take a look at Mr. Behe's testimony from the Dover trials. He has stated that there are experiments that can be done to falsify ID, he even wrote about them in one of his books, but he hasn't performed them. He doesn't think its his responsibility or job. Just a little out of sync with normal scientific procedure. As it stands, ID hasn't even identified the processes by which "design" takes place. ID rests solely on the "holes" (read: places that haven't fully been filled in but can be predicted by using the other thousands of examples of evolution in the fossil and genetics records), in evolutionary theory. Look up the wedge document if you think that proponents of ID actually have scientific aspirations, or really any other aspiration than putting religion back in schools, for this "theory." If that is your position, that you just want religion back in school then just say that. Don't hid behind fake science, you'll at least get a little more respect. As it stands, if someone had actually found evidence of modern human artifacts out of place in the geological column, or found evidence that the framework we have for transitional species is incorrect the theory of evolution would be turned upside down and would have to be totally reworked if not thrown out all together. However, everything that's been brought up to try and meet those requirements has been found to be either misconstrued of flat out falsified.
- ApokalypseNow, on 07/09/2008, -4/+20@SampleX
"does not adhere to the scientific method, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, or otherwise lacks scientific status"
Well, we know that evolution adheres to the scientific method (it passed the peer review process, which would have torn it to shreds had it not), it has a preponderance of supporting evidence (objective and empirical), and has achieved the "status" of Scientific Theory, as high on the scale of certainty as it gets in science.
Evolution fails to meet the definition for pseudoscience.
- lookingforHim, on 07/09/2008, -18/+6Something to be considered;
- Dimensio, on 07/09/2008, -6/+21"Intelligent design is based on the exact same science that evolutionary theory is."
Please describe the known extant physical processes or physical processes logically derived as a result of known extant physical processes acting in concert that "Intelligent design" incorporates as mechanisms that explain observations.
" It's just that some people conclude that life on this planet could never have come about via natural processes."
That alone is not evidence that such a conclusion is natural. Additionally, if life did not emerge via "natural processes", then science cannot address the means by which life did emerge. Claiming that "intelligent design" is a non-natural means by which life could emerge that is supported by science is inherently dishonest, as science can never conclude or hypothesize "non-natural" events. Either you do not understand science, or you are lying. Please explain which is the case. - Disgod, on 07/09/2008, -5/+14You can do experiments with evolution, hence the recent announcement that we have seen macro evolution in a lab (Creationists claim there is no such thing as macro evolution, but there is micro evolution, what's the difference between the two you ask? Time. Micro evolution + Time= Macro evolution). We can look through the fossil record, which is a lot more complete than most people realize. We almost have entire evolutionary lines shown in the fossil record of species we see today. There is no "missing link". Geologically, We can date rocks very accurately, using multiple methods that back each other up. Oh and the rock samples they date are studied in double blind experiments so the scientists who do the studies can't lie about the ages of the rocks, and they are generally done in multiple labs. Yet they all give the same ages. We can study the evolution of the entire planet.
What can Creationism/ID do experiments on? Their main source is the bible. The two theories are not the same, they are not equal in any sort of way. They make claims, but never give proof. They never do any experiments. They say no one who studies evolution, geology, cosmology was there to see these processes in action, but the same applies to their claim. Nobody currently alive was there to see the events of the bible occurring. The difference is that the bible was modified by men; while the geologic and fossil evidence hasn't been messed with by anything other than known geologic processes, like weathering, tectonic movement, and erosion, which scientists account for when they are looking a pieces of evidence. If it was scientists are able to spot the fakes.
The main arguments presented by creationists are actually just trying to attack science, they don't present their own ideas ever and if they do they are things that are completely impossible. Just go look on Youtube for potholer54, thunderf00t, cdk007, and AronRa. These guys do a pretty good job either describing evolution and the proof we have, or debunking creationist claims.
One final thing, just to show you how insane creationists ideas are. They have claimed that the ENTIRE Grand Canyon was created in 5 seconds, a 300 mile long, mile deep, sometimes miles across canyon was created in 5 seconds. That would require that (if this "event" started at one end of the canyon and worked it's way to the other end, which seems the logical way of doing it) the event would have traveled at 5 times the speed of sound. Faster than any plane we have, almost twice as fast as the SR71 Blackbird.- ROaks, on 07/09/2008, -17/+4To all of you, where is the proof of evolution? There is none. all you have is suppositions and consensus. Show us the proof of transition from what ever to human. Evolution is just as much a fairy tale as Creationism. AND I WANT IT KNOWN THAT I AM A BELIEVER OF CREATION. If evolution is real, then I fear for my life. Since evolution just happened. I may not be able to finish this post because I may start to evolve from human to WHAT!!!!!!!!!!!! I have more faith in creationism. I just can't get the faith needed to believe we came from amphibian of some sort to monkeys or chimpanzee to humans, probably with a few going to the gorilla line. Now that takes faith.
- ApokalypseNow, on 07/09/2008, -4/+18"To all of you, where is the proof of evolution? There is none. all you have is suppositions and consensus."
The only science in which there exists "proof" is math - all others are evidence based.
So, where is the evidence for evolution? Despite the fact that you have been provided such evidence before, here is some again:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foraminifera
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antibiotic_resistance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evo ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylonase
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palmaris_longus_muscl ...
(this article only mentions that the muscle is absent in some of the population, but not why - the reason is because we as humans don't routinely get from place to place by swinging from overhead branches anymore, so the muscle is no longer advantageous to have, and is thus being gradually phased out)
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endogenous_retrovirus
Once again, ROaks makes a willfully ignorant assertion about a subject he refuses to understand.
"Show us the proof of transition from what ever to human."
Evolution isn't about the transition from "what ever to human" - it is about the adaptation of populations to better fit and compete in their environments due to selection pressures acting upon heritable traits, and thus we have many species originating from common ancestors.
Regardless, there are more evidences for the fine transitions in hominid fossils here: http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC050.html
"Evolution is just as much a fairy tale as Creationism."
Evolution is observable and repeatable. It has evidence. Creationism is neither observable, nor repeatable, and has NO evidence. Creationism is a fairy tale, but evolution is demonstrably not so.
"Since evolution just happened. I may not be able to finish this post because I may start to evolve from human to WHAT!!!!!!!!!!!!"
Individuals don't evolve instantaneously - populations evolve over time. You have nothing to worry about.
"I have more faith in creationism. I just can't get the faith needed to believe we came from amphibian of some sort to monkeys or chimpanzee to humans, probably with a few going to the gorilla line. Now that takes faith."
No, just evidence - which it has. - ROaks, on 07/10/2008, -14/+3Yes, I am back, but just to say, you still have not convinced me. Individuals don't evolve at all. We might get smarter or dumber, but we will always be human just as we have been human from the beginning. We did not transition from anything, What you see is what God created. That is final.
- ApokalypseNow, on 07/10/2008, -2/+13"Individuals don't evolve at all."
Didn't I just say that?
"We did not transition from anything"
Did you even read the links I provided? Read
http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC050.html
again.
"What you see is what God created. That is final."
If it were "final" then there ought to be some evidence for it - there is not. You're certainly welcome to your unevidenced belief, however incorrect you may be, but if you're not going to try to take the difficult and painstaking steps of learning to live within the confines of evidence-based knowledge, then don't be surprised if those who actually know what they're talking about you put you in your place with that same knowledge you willfully ignore when you attempt to step into their arena.
This claim displays a great deal of arrogance, hubris, and closed-mindedness. It says that the final word on how the universe operates depends on one's personal decision of what to believe, as your bible can be interpreted in many different ways. If that were truly the case, then we would be living in a world full of rock stars, millionaires, and sexual virtuosos - but we don't, do we? - Dimensio, on 07/10/2008, -2/+13"Yes, I am back, but just to say, you still have not convinced me."
Your refusal to address evidence does not invalidate evidence.
" Individuals don't evolve at all. "
No one has claimed that individuals have evolved. You are attacking a "strawman". Are you incapable of addressing any actual arguements?
"What you see is what God created."
Please justify this assertion with evidence.
I have also noticed that, while I have responded to your inquiry regarding the mechanisms of evolution, you have not provided any mechanisms of "intelligent design". Why is this? - ashfish, on 07/10/2008, -1/+10What I see is what God created and that's final huh? Try telling that to the Cit+ E. Coli, which, by the fact that it evolved the trait to be able to metabolize citrate is a new species. Nylon eating bacteria is also a good example. Anti-biotic resistant bacteria are another example. Yeah, things are real stagnant on the evolution front.
- somnambulator, on 07/10/2008, -1/+11I thing ROaks has mistaken evolution for Mighty Morphin Power Rangers or Pokemon.
He is obviously very unsettled by the concept of transition, and is in real fear of turning into an X-Man.
He can't shake the 6000 year old world thing, so that must mean that if we did evolve, it happened before our eyes.
ROaks - evolution 101
If a population sits on its arse typing on the internet, then they reproduce. This goes on for generation after generation, typing and sitting, typing and sitting. Then gradually, each successive generation will have a better typing speed, and a much bigger arse until finally at some point in the future, the human race will have lightning fast fingers and an arse like a beanbag.
They will think that is normal. And probably argue that god made them that way and their vestigial withered legs are gods work and we aren't meant to know his plan. - kayala, on 07/11/2008, -0/+8PZ Myers said it best, and I'll paraphrase. Idiots like ROaks have a warped view of what a "transitional form" is supposed to be. They think that a "transitional form" would be a three-legged cow with a fourth leg evolving. That's not how evolution works and most educated folks know that, but the declaration is simply lost on people desperately clinging to their faith in the supernatural.
- Equinox2012, on 07/09/2008, -5/+14Where has god or Jesus shown up anywhere in evolution or in biology or anywhere in science. Please show if you are man enough.
Fossils or it didn't happen!- JimmySpaza, on 07/10/2008, -13/+3Abiogenesis. Specifically, the creation of the first DNA molecule. There is no way for nature to have done it on its own...randomly...without direction or guidance.
Check out the numbers involved:
OK. So far, we admit that we only have speculation concerning how abiogenesis occurred, with what processes, and with what materials.
Well, speculation isn't science. Now, if people want to infer
abiogenesis for lack of any other theory, then OK. But, let's admit that there is no scientific evidence.
Without any known process, we are left to infer RANDOM interactions of just the right materials in just the right way for just the right amount of time. And we don't know the materials, way, nor time.
So, randomness it is, but first assuming that a natural process is capable. By the way, scientifically speaking, you cannot assume a natural process is capable, since no one has witnessed it, been able to reproduce it, or otherwise obtain direct evidence that it actually happened. But, no matter. Let's assume for now.
Let conservatively assume that this first lifeform had a cell with 300 proteins. This is indeed conservative as the simplest known cell today, Mycoplasma hominis H39, has about 600 different proteins. This is actually a bad assumption as the theory of evolution stipulates that lifeforms do NOT
have to increase in complexity as it evolves. But, assuming 300 proteins assuages the evolutionist who says that the first
proto-bacteria COULD have been simpler.
Here come the numbers...
This proto-bacteria's copy mechanism, which must have been created in working condition (could not have existed non-functional then evolved into something that worked), needs all amino acids to be left-handed and all the nucleic acids to be right-handed. This is so in order to make all the pairing molecules line up on the same side of the chain.
This MUST be the case. Now, some people will mention how the DNA replication sequence might have been different (i.e. simpler) or used RNA instead of DNA. This is just a pure guess based not on science but on personal desire in order to make the numbers easier to swallow.
Don't think so? Then show me the scientific evidence that existing life forms can reproduce using something other than the present DNA system.
Anyway, if the molecule does not have constant stereochemistry (constant left or right-handedness), then it does not fold properly. Why do the numbers start going against abiogenesis? Because the percentage of left and right-handed nucleotides is always essentially 50%.
Let's look at a small protein length of just 100 units. The chance of getting constant left or right-handedness is 50% (left v. right) ^ (# of proteins x protein length) x 2 sides.
That is, with numbers, (1/2)^(300*100)*2=~1/10^9031.
THAT'S 0.0000000000000000000000000000000(+9000 more zeroes)1 %.
Now, that seems like essentially zero. But, let's talk about how many chemical reactions could have been taking place at the time. There must have been a lot of chances for this to occur.
How much time has elapsed since the Big Bang is thought to have occurred? (I know that abiogenesis is estimated to have occurred only 2-4 billion years ago. But, let's give abiogenesis some better odds in case the 2-4 billion number is in error.)
15 billion years * 360 days/year * 24 hours/day * 60 minutes/hour * 60 seconds/minutes = 466,560,000,000,000,000 seconds. That is 4.6656^17.
How many TOTAL atoms were thought to be in existence at the time? (Forget the fact that most atoms couldn't interact with other atoms, and forget the fact that it took very specific atoms interacting in very specific ways for even the precursors to life to form.)
Let's say 10^83 total atoms. We'll forget the whole amino acid and precursor thing for now.
So, 10^83 atoms interacting with each other for 4.6656^17 seconds until NOW. That gives us about 4.6656*10^100 or so chances for abiogenesis to occur. Pretty good chances...until you remember that 1/10^9031 chance that the DNA left/right-handedness chance.
And this assumes each atom is interacting PERFECTLY with each other atom. Now, we know that it takes amino acids, not atoms, to form proteins for the first proto-bacteria. Also, let's now throw into the equation how every amino acids will NOT interact perfectly with other amino acids.
Good gracious. Look at the numbers. You have a 10^100 chance saying that abiogenesis happened versus a 10^9031 chance that it didn't.
And that's just the left/right-handedness requirement. We haven't touched how such a DNA-creating mechanism itself (and with all of its precursors) came about. - ApokalypseNow, on 07/10/2008, -1/+21Ah, the bogus probability calculation - the best friend of the Creationist trying to convince the uneducated that "It's too improbable to have happened, GOD must have done it!"
Well, lets take a look at some probabilities for a moment shall we? Lets take a 10x10 grid and 100 specific objects to place in it - the probability of placing the first object in the first square is 1 in 100. The probability of placing the next object in the next specific location is 1 in 99, so the probability of placing the first and second objects in their specific locations is 1 in 9900. Similarly, the odds of placing the third object in the third specific location is 1 in 98, so the probability of placing the first 3 objects in the first 3 specific locations is 1 in 970200. Placing the next object in the next specific location is about 1 in 100 million. Continuing on, the probability of placing all 100 objects in their specific locations is about 1 in 10^157. That's pretty improbable, no?
Why do I mention all this? Take for example a random pebble. It contains about a billion, billion, billion atoms, each in a specific location. What's the probability of this happening through just "RANDOM interactions", as Spaza has said? To give you some perspective, merely to place the first atom in the first location, the odds of doing so are 1 in a billion billion billion, a chance so remote that if I were to give you a million chances per second, it would on average take you 3000 BILLION years just to get the first atom in the right place (that's about 100 times the age of the universe). That's just for the first atom, in the first specific location, in one random piece of gravel.
So what does all this show - that pebbles are so improbable that some supernatural entity must have created them? Well, no. Actually this is a field of chemistry known as Statistical Thermodynamics. Any configuration of matter is equally improbable, but ultimately, no matter how improbable any given configuration is, the system must exist in a state. In this sense, the Creationist probability calculation is utterly pointless. All you have done is calculate the probability of a single state. The populations of states explored by a system are not governed by chance, but by chemistry - essentially the Electromagnetic Force. This, too, is a fact that Creationists simply do not factor into their equations. It's like dropping a ball and asking "what are the odds of the ball falling randomly in a specific direction?" Again, it is trivial to show that the chances of a ball falling in any direction is essentially infinitely improbable - however, ultimately, the direction a ball falls in are not governed by chance or by accident, but by the Gravitational Force.
(argument and most verbiage taken from thunderf00t's video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPtBfjRCqfw&feature ... ) - ROaks, on 07/10/2008, -13/+3Thanks Jimmy for being there. You have a lot more going for you than I do. I can't wait for some of these know it all atheists to come back to you. I am just someone trying to get through this life as best as I can with God's guidance. I haven't got all that education behind me, but I still have enough brains to know that things like life and this universe just didn't happen. Thanks again.
- Equinox2012, on 07/10/2008, -1/+12I still read nothing of God or Christ in that long tired cut and paste list from you JimmySpazmatazoa. Your HooDoo list has been debunked thousands of times over. You are a One Trick Pony... I feel sorry for whatever you mate with.
By the way... Where did they get their numbers from to crunch that data? - eir574, on 07/10/2008, -1/+14"Actually this is a field of chemistry known as Statistical Thermodynamics. Any configuration of matter is equally improbable, but ultimately, no matter how improbable any given configuration is, the system must exist in a state."
You have just summarized pretty much everything I remember from my statistical mechanics course. :) - Phyraxus, on 07/10/2008, -1/+8Thunderf00t rocks the *****.
- Dimensio, on 07/10/2008, -1/+14"Abiogenesis. Specifically, the creation of the first DNA molecule. There is no way for nature to have done it on its own...randomly...without direction or guidance."
Please justify your assertion. Show that all of the calculations that you have provided are wholly justified. Demonstrate that the probabilities are accurate. - Dimensio, on 07/10/2008, -1/+13" I can't wait for some of these know it all atheists to come back to you. "
Please demonstrate that all who disagree with JimmySpaza are atheists. - Equinox2012, on 07/10/2008, -1/+16@ROaks
"I haven't got all that education behind me, but I still have enough brains to know that things like life and this universe just didn't happen."
So you are making an assumption that Jimmy is educated because you are not. You must think very little of yourself to make such a statement. You don't need fancy learnin' to pick up a book or 50 to learn that Jimmy is wrong. The research is out there you just have to put some effort into it. Jimmy doen't like science that disagrees with his party line. If the right had done the math for global warming he would be all for it. I can guarantee that the minute the Right jump sides for evolution, so will Jimmy.
- JimmySpaza, on 07/10/2008, -13/+3Abiogenesis. Specifically, the creation of the first DNA molecule. There is no way for nature to have done it on its own...randomly...without direction or guidance.
- kayala, on 07/11/2008, -1/+8"Intelligent design is based on the exact same science that evolutionary theory is."
Is that so? I'm afraid you're going to have to back that claim up.
"It's just that some people conclude that life on this planet could never have come about via natural processes...and thus look for an intelligent cause."
Let me know when they actually find one. So far it's all been speculation and hypothetical situations.
"Others shoe-horn fit a natural cause and process every step of the way."
What's irrational about that? A natural world having a natural cause is completely rational. Science assumes only that there are certain laws (thermodynamics, for instance) that govern the world, and from there on seeks the logical conclusion according to the evidence. Is that really so hard to understand, Spaz?
"Teach them both...unless you have something to hide. Hmmm..."
Something to hide? What do we have to hide? All the scientific literature on the subject is available to anyone with an Internet connection and the desire to actually learn something. It's not my fault you're too stupid to do fifteen minutes of research.- ApokalypseNow, on 07/11/2008, -1/+5Not to mention that "teach them both" sets up a false dichotomy of science and christianity - if christianity gets equal time, then I demand that the Pastafarian religion gets equal time too!
- kayala, on 07/11/2008, -0/+3Dammit, ApokalypseNow, I saw that there was a reply to my post and I almost thought for a second that the Spaz was going to respond.
- ssn697, on 07/11/2008, -1/+5Tell me more about Christians being persecuted, and being shut out? This is Christians, and Christians only, asking that their specific beliefs be taught as SCIENCE.
No other religious beliefs, just the Christian version. Yet, I still hear the whole "we poor christians are being ostracized".
Let's teach Islam as fact, Hinduism, Rastafarianism, Pastafarianism, Satanism, Wicka, Greek Gods and Goddesses, and on and on. They all should have JUST as much right to claim their religious beliefs are "science" if Christianity is going to try to make that claim. Hell, many of those have been around longer, so they should get MORE opportunity!
- custal, on 07/09/2008, -7/+23> Intelligent design is based on the exact same science that evolutionary theory is.
- rylege, on 07/09/2008, -6/+22Good for her! Science teachers finally fighting back the hooded Inquisitors of Christianity from hijacking science classrooms to teach Sunday School lessons. I hope all the teachers in Louisiana since that stupid bill was signed, all walk out in protest leaving the state in a world of hurt.
- SampleX, on 07/09/2008, -20/+5Ja. Ist gut to have ze schtate sanctioned teecherz teeching ze young childrens how zey must tink and how zey must regard zeir parents as ze crackpot crazed lunatics... Ve tried zat in Germany, and zey called it Nazi propaganda. Zen zay tried it in China and zey called it 'Commie Brainwashing.' Now ze self same thing ist happening in ze West, und ve call it 'Science und Edukation.'
Congratulations to all ze weak minded fools who ist, courtesy of our very clever schemes, incapable of thinking for zemselves und need to rally behind what ist certainly ze most flimsy und indeed impossible pseudo-scientifical notions ze vorld hast ever seen, simply because ze mind controllerz who promote zese ideas ist ze most prominently heard becauze zey scream and shout down anyone who thinks in anozer fashion...
Heil to ze Neus Weld Ordnung.- Dimensio, on 07/09/2008, -4/+15Do you have any rational argument to offer?
- rylege, on 07/09/2008, -4/+16You know what your problem is SampleX. You're an intellectual lightweight. Calling everyone Nazi's for not agreeing with you is sub-moronic and shows you have nothing to offer the discussion. But I challenge you this: What if they decided to teach Astrology as an alternative to Astronomy? Would you be in favor of that also? Or maybe Alchemy to balance the argument with Chemistry? You see some things should not be given equal time under the guise of Free Enquiry in a Free society, because some things are just junk, and don't qualify!
Think about it before you come back and call us Nazi's again. - greenfyre, on 07/09/2008, -2/+9You teach science or you don't. Creationism cannot pass the criteria for the definition of science, so they do not belong. Throw out the definition and you can teach anything - why ID? why not Harry Potter spells? or Taureg Shamanism? or Islam? They all have as much right to be in a science class as ID does.
- kayala, on 07/11/2008, -0/+5So, barring fools from teaching pseudoscience in an academic environment is Nazi-like?
- SampleX, on 07/13/2008, -1/+1"So, barring fools from teaching pseudoscience in an academic environment is Nazi-like?"
No... you've missed the point. When you step up and say 'barring fools' you make a judgement, and in that judgement you have taken the view that someone perfectly well educated, supported by other people who are perfectly well educated, who have made informed decisions to disagree with a practically unproven, assumptive, and wildly propagandised CONSENSUS should be excluded from 'academia' in order to 'streamline' the 'education' of children in such a fashion that free and intelligent thought provoking debate and difference are not only marginalised, but laughed out of the classroom.
YOU personally have never proven that Intelligent Design is a false or even flawed idea. Instead you have relied upon CONSENSUS... that is, that a group, however sizeable, for a wide variety of reasons, have conspired to agree that certain points of view must be invalidated and rejected irrespective of practical, scientific, or ACADEMIC process, and you have mindlessly accepted that exceptionally well qualified and sound academic people who have taken the opposing position can be conveniently made a mockery of, excluded, treated with persecutive prejudice, in order to 'streamline' and 'profile' the information being fed to the 'next generation.'
This is a tactic which falls under the category of 'propaganda' and was utilised extensively and to its most brutal outcome by the Nazis, and indeed latterly by Communists. It is a shame that you do not see the dangers of such blind adherence to information fed to you by those in institutions who have assured you and taught you to be satisified that they are sufficiently smart, and so much smarter than you, that you no longer need to think for yourself, and can accept what you are taught by superior intellects (all carefully chosen and promoted 'by' the agendists, within the context of the agenda, and to the exclusion of dissent no matter how compelling) and see just what a resemblence to the Third Reich it bears. I suggest you take the view that consensus, agenda-led science is not sufficient 'third hand' academia to make yourself an intelligent mind, and start learning history and human psychology also. You might find it revealing. - SampleX, on 07/13/2008, -1/+1"You teach science or you don't. Creationism cannot pass the criteria for the definition of science, so they do not belong."
If only your black and white notion of academic absolutes was worth the intellectual paper it is emblazoned, banner like, upon... If your notion of science strictly excluded, for example, the mythology of 'man made' global warming, or the mythology of 'evolutionary theory', then perhaps you would be better placed to make such stark assertions. Unfortunately for you, much of which passes, nowadays, for 'modern science' does not pass the 'criteria' for the definition of science, and genuine academics would point out that EVERYTHING within the scope of what we call 'science' has at some stage defied accepted belief and convention, and has pushed the envelope of our 'classification', because 'science' is so much bigger than us, and way beyond any of our comprehension, when we debate what should be 'science' and what should be excluded from being discussed as a part of 'science' we are simply applying petty, imagined and invented boundaries on a huge subject which would would like to imply we have mastery and authority over, but in reality have not.
To illustrate, evolutionary theory requires billions and billions of assertions which in themselves, individually and collectivised, defy and upend every observable law of 'science' that we have fixed and firm, and require gigantic leaps, without proof, without evidence, without observation, without predictability, without reproducibility, without thoroughness, in direct defiance of the 'scientific model' which so many evolutionists claim applies so legalistically in material terms. By contrast, 'creationism' as an idea (we'll get to Intelligent Design in a moment!) violates no observable scientific laws, because by nature science acknowledges that all things exist subject to the natural laws of science except when supernatural laws supercede or act upon the natural laws in unexpected, unnatural or unpredictable ways. This is utterly scientifically compatible in its essence, the problem comes when men and women who are devoted to the blind denial of the supernatural for philosophical reasons insist that their philosophical standpoint is an underpinning prerequisite and indeed dictate upon which 'science' must be based. Evolutionary theory is at complete dis-ease with observable science and scientific premise. Creationism is not. The only barrier to overcome between 'creationism' being a valid reckoning of scientific reality is a philosophical one - the question of whether a supreme creative intelligence can, or does, exist. The honest scientist must answer 'of course, it is always possible.' That something occurs which appears to be unnatural does not preclude it from occuring, nor does it give grounds for us to call it 'fraud'... it is utterly unnatural for men to sodomise each other. It is wholly and totally scientifically and biologically violative. Yet we can see it happening, and indeed we conform our formerly materialistic, rationalistic 'scientific' views of the existence of our species to accommodate it selectively, declaring that 'emotion', 'feelings', 'psychology', are higher ends to be served by a rational humanity than the cold objectivity of scientific materialism.
Your biggest problem, however, is that you are suffering from hysteria. You irrationally and unintelligently equate 'intelligent design theory' with 'creationism' and you prejudicially apply a specific religious xenophobia to your interpretation of 'creationism', without having properly evaluated the scientific and material content of the theory.
Interestingly enough, if the definition of a religious 'ism' is that it is devised by a theologian in his pursuit of understanding his chosen 'deity', then 'intelligent design' does not strictly fit the bill on account of how a significant number of its pioneering protagonists are/were at the time atheists or agnostics who were looking for rational answers to serious questions outside the domain of religious assertion, not because the Bible or the Quran needed satisfying, but because 'science' based on evolutionary theory is overwhelmingly fraudulent and dishonest, and fails to answer the questions it claims to solve by papering over cracks and filling in blanks on behalf of humanity, asking only that its students believe it and not seek proof. By contrast, evolutionary theory, beginning with Darwinism, was inspired by a man who was not a scientist (this 'theory' which makes massive claims about genetic science, microbiology and physics, was founded upon amateur naturalists, without precision equipment who were still studying from textbooks now long since disproven and vastly updated - yet we still proclaim these outdated ideas to be like a genius-level revelation of material truth) but rather a failed theologian who was drawn to certain questions based on what was nothing more, nor less, than a fringe, somewhat lunatic, very irrational view of 'God', and a train of thought which would be strictly reserved for theological dispute was spilled over into 'science' and proved the justification for humanism, as a religion, being taught in houses of education.
Intelligent Design is a rational, scientific approach to the problems thrown up by evolutionary theory which requires, under the philosophical dictates of its proponents, that all people in education the world over be taught that God does not exist, that no creative intelligence inspired nor formed our environment and the life we see around us, and that religion can be debunked by science as being 'mythology for the ignorant.' There's a problem with this 'evolutionist view' which is why Intelligent Design, as a varied set of ideas, even exists. First, for all its bluster, science has failed to disprove the existence of God, and has committed cardinal hypocrisy, since having insisted that being utterly distinct, 'religion' cannot have anything to say on the subject of 'science', it would seem odd that 'science' thinks it has anything to say on the subject of 'religion.' Second, science cannot disprove the existence of an intelligent creative power, and for all its efforts at portraying a history of our emergence in an ordered intelligent state from vast explosions of chaos, observational science has failed to witness such expressions of self-perpetuating systems of order and intelligence from chance random processes of disorder and chaos (the very premise violates all the known laws of the universe as we observe them) and instead observational science, and indeed daily life and the history of humanity witnesses a continually recurring theme - that intelligence begets intelligence, creativity begets creation, deliberacy achieves form and function - in short, that the world around us demonstrates daily 'intelligent design' in its improvement, its continued functioning, its development and its creativity, and does not demonstrate 'chance random process', devoid of intelligence and deliberacy yielding any of the same results. Thirdly, science glibly dismisses 'religion' as being debunked by science, yet science has actually failed to materially debunk the Bible, and instead simply reiterates the assertion, propaganda-like, that because devotedly atheistic scientists say the Bible is debunked and the universe is without a creator, therefore it must be so and the people can safely accept that conclusion.
Intelligent Design is about rationalists, and atheists, who hear all that assertive bluster, and don't buy it, because they see the fraud in the science, and they see the violations of observable scientific laws required to make that position true, and they observe the universe around them, and conclude that it must have come from an origin which was in some way intelligent, and in turn bestowed intelligence. Information is neither created, nor destroyed, only its expressions become subject to 'temporal' state changes and the like, so therefore for information to have pre-existed our so-called 'big bang', intelligence must equally pre-exist the 'big bang.' Intelligent Design does not attempt to inject theology into the scientific discussion, it does not call out the name of a god, it does not attempt to paint a fresco of mythological beginnings.
Creationism to a great extent, does just that. It applies theology to the scientific model established by Intelligent Design theory. And while the two work well hand in hand, they are not inextricably interlinked and are mutually exclusive.
Instead this notion that 'Intelligent Design' is 'religious creationism' is a paranoid and propagandic, prejudicially inclined panic-mongering of the fearful proponents of Evolution who are attempting to mis-use 'secularisation' laws under xenophobic motivation, to falsely characterise, misrepresent, and effectively eliminate ANY presentation of ideas which challenge, or question, the consensus-promoted 'accepted' thinking on evolutionary theory and origins of life.
On that basis, attempts to do so are as monstrous and dangerous as any attempts by fascists and communists alike to burn books and burn ideas and by virtue vilify the proponents of those ideas as being treasonous, disloyal, antagonistic, revolutionary, outdated, extraneous, harmful or dangerous. These tactics have been employed from the Third Reich to Stalinism, from the Castro Revolution to the Cultural Revolution, and their outcome has unequivocally authoritarian and to the exclusion of freedom of thought. In true propaganda style, those who hold the 'consensus' view seem to physically and violently fear opening up their position to scrutiny and evaluation, and seem more interested in preventing challenge, rather than accepting challenge head-on and being prepared to fight it out. It rings very hollow when scientists supposedly so assured in their own ideas that they declare themselves to be unequivocally correct, cower away from engaging in a material debate using arguments like 'I'm a scientist, and any idea that disagrees with what I believe is religion and therefore I don't debate religion' or 'discussing anything with those who promote these alternative ideas is intellectually beneath me' or, as is more common, the endless stream of 'scientists' prepared to run screaming to politicians and courts squeaking 'oh, the horrible I.D. proponents are coming for us again... tell em off... ban them from the campus... they're religious lunatics you know...'
Your arguments are so painfully reminiscent of superstitious, terrified villagers massing at the town gates with pitchforks and burning torches because someone from outside has been seen heading toward the fortified little village... Running screaming to the authorities 'intelligent design is religion, intelligent design is religion' sounds so much like a mindless herd yelling to keep the Joos out of the camp lest there be an outbreak of pox. Its so irrational, so reactionary and so clearly typical of propaganda-led, hive mentality that it is frankly shocking that so many adhere to it, yet not surprising that those who take their confidence and their pride in a subject so variable, flimsy, fragile and down-right open to manipulation as 'science' completely overlook subjects like history, and psychology, to find humanity repeating its same arrogant, fearful mistakes over and over again. - SampleX, on 07/13/2008, -1/+1"You know what your problem is SampleX. You're an intellectual lightweight. Calling everyone Nazi's for not agreeing with you is sub-moronic and shows you have nothing to offer the discussion. But I challenge you this: What if they decided to teach Astrology as an alternative to Astronomy? Would you be in favor of that also? Or maybe Alchemy to balance the argument with Chemistry? You see some things should not be given equal time under the guise of Free Enquiry in a Free society, because some things are just junk, and don't qualify!
Think about it before you come back and call us Nazi's again."
First point, I didn't call anyone 'Nazi', YOU inferred that all on your lonesome. Perhaps it was the mock German accent. Perhaps it was because you saw yourself burning books in huge piles at Nuremberg, and reciting everything the ministry of information has taught you to say.
Second point, intelligent design theory as a set of ideas is non-religious. It is also not based in positive assumptions and assertions invented out of the unseen as a result of superstition, nor does it seek the guidance of the invisible to influence the material. Instead it seeks to look at material truth, and make sense of it in the context of a dialectical argument involving the assertions of those pushing the mythology of evolutionary theory and 'big bang' origins. It takes every macro-assertion made by evolutionists and big bang theoreticians, and having found observable science incompatible with asserted evolutionary theory and 'big bang', it seeks the only viable alternative, the only alternative that devoted evolutionists, atheists, humanists and big bang theoreticians refuse to consider, in spite of their inability to disprove it, and it finds that alternative explanation compelling because of how scientifically-compatible it is. Indeed, on the basis of the gaping flaws and impossibilities of BB and Evolutionary Theory, the ONLY responsible thing for intelligent scientific minds to do, is to examine the possibilities thrown up by the failure of this 'consensus' thinking, which has yielded Intelligent Design as a set of ideas, and to take them as seriously as any other alternative. Arthur Conan Doyle recognised the relationship between responsible and judicious exhaustive research transcending the conventions of 'plausibility' or indeed 'probability', and a kind of intelligent duty in the absence of being able to prove or demonstrate that a given conclusion is impossible.
I find it endlessly odd, that so many secularists and atheists and indeed evolutionists embrace evolutionary theory and big bang in large numbers solely on the basis that they have concluded that religious ideas that were taught to them formerly were filled with holes and contradictions. Equally, men and women taught evolutionary theory and big bang formerly have concluded that those ideas are full of holes and contradictions and by natural process of progression in the continual dialectic struggle that is 'gnostic advancement' have come to an alternative conclusion. Yet by your own testimony, it would seem that it is acceptable to reject ideas that you do not understand or have misinterpreted or misapplied, but it is not acceptable to take a mature step on from 'reaction' and the invention of a justifying antithesis ex nihilo, and come full circle and reconsider the former ideas having found them standing a test of time in no danger of being collapsed or crumbled by so-called 'gnosticism.' That is illogical. It is atypical merely of one philosophy attempting to prevail over another philosophy, and insisting on having the dominant position in order to do so by the invention, as has been accused conversely, of 'pseudo-science.'
Sadly for you, the situation is not so black and white as to compare 'astrology' and 'astronomy.'
It should be said from the outset that you are inventing objections based on disequal comparison. Astronomy is an observational science. Astrology is a philosophical superstition which attempts to derive supernatural or spiritual significance from astronomical observations. I can't imagine anyone having a desire to teach astrology INSTEAD OF astronomy, there is no logical link between the two. On the other hand, evolutionary theory, utterly unproven in its broad scope of assertions (and admittedly so, since objective evolutionists acknowledge the unrepeatable, unobservable nature of the events involved and readily accept that to all intents and purposes this unseen 'history' of past events is invisible, supernatural (it does not conform to current observable natural order) and therefore is as faith-based as any religious assertions about a creator, given legs not by material proof, but a mere will to believe) is not 'science' in itself, any more than it is a conclusion in itself, but rather is an interpretation of objective evidence and observation to postulate a conclusion. Both creationism and intelligent design theory are expressions of exactly the same mechanism, the application to objective raw data and observation of an optimistic framework of unseen events in order to draw a conclusion. These are rival conclusions drawn from identical evidence, and neither can honestly separate themselves from the philosophical leanings of the men and women engaged in study and the establishment of the conclusions in question. On that basis, intelligent design can, and WOULD be presented equally along side evolutionary theory because they are the same in nature and substance, merely drawing alternative conclusions. I say 'would' be presented equally, because on the basis of an argument of the presentation of ideas being equal-opportunities, it would be an undeniable right by virtue of the fact that the proponents of ID can make a very compelling evidential case for their argument using objective scientific data. But instead, emotional and fearful harpies for the evolutionary cause rush to ACLU-led court cases to squeak about flying spaghetti monsters (oh, those rational scientists are so proud of their churlish analogy) and rattle off endless misinterpretations and misapplications of secularising laws in order to burn the intellectual books in which ID is written, thus depriving their students of the opportunity to think for themselves.
You raise 'teaching alchemy instead of chemistry' without noting that before 'chemistry' was 'alchemy', and really your argument here is lost in semantics. Perhaps six hundred years ago you would be using as comparison the teaching of heliocentricity instead of geocentricity, and laughing along with the inquisition that Galileo, a philosophical lunatic and a consensus heretic, was pushing his alternative ideas which did not belong in intelligent circles.
It's all well and good saying 'some things are just junk' but such comments are mere rhetoric in the absence of being able to prove that they are junk. I could sit contemplating my navel all day, muttering 'E=MCsquared... it's all just junk', but until I can get up off my intellectual ass and take a hold of the subject and know WHY I believe that its junk, and know WHAT about it is junk, and be able to demonstrate how the evidence supports that view, then I have no authority, and I am guilty either of hollow rhetoric for the purposes of my own self importance, or I am guilty of being a mindless goon who simply recites everything he is taught by others as long as it is a pleasing philosophy. Once again, we come back to the comparison with the Third Reich's 'Ministry of Information' approach to propaganda, and all the 'good Germans' who went along with it and insisted that if their superiors were pushing it, it must be right, since the 'intellectuals' at the top must always know best.
The ID camp in general could give you probably several hundred very potent scientific reasons why Intelligent Design is as deserving of academic attention as far as a set of ideas go as any, while I strongly suspect that ultimately the evolutionist retort will still always rely on attempting to assert that ID is religion, and therefore secular academics are somehow legally prevented or exempted from accepting the challenge.
Perhaps you should have a rethink, and come back when you've got an intellectual pair, and we'll have this discussion again. - SampleX, on 07/13/2008, -1/+1"So, barring fools from teaching pseudoscience in an academic environment is Nazi-like?"
Actually, the classification of perfectly qualified scientists as 'fools' because they draw a conclusion which is not acceptable to a philosophically dictated consensus and placing restrictions on them discussing their ideas in an academic environment is profoundly arrogant, and utterly 'Nazi-like.'
I quote the Bible when I say 'only a fool would stake his life on there being no God.' If you don't understand the tricky ground you're on when you try to build views based on absolutes formed out of negative belief or denial rather than positive proof and affirmation, then perhaps you're not as intelligent as you think you are, and certainly not as intellectual. The genuine intellectual would have to confess that 'all things are possible' and nothing can be ruled out until the evidence positively proves that it is safe to do so. No evidence has yet been presented which proves that it is safe to make assumptions either academic or philosophical which begin and end with the denial of the supernatural and the non-existence of God. What was supernatural yesterday is science today, and what is supernatural today will be science tomorrow. Only a fool would hold 'science' in such high reverence and regard that he would place such a fragile and ever-changing set of concepts as being supercedent and precedential to all else and having supreme authority. Never forget that 'science' is just one supernatural event away from being totally rewritten. If you don't think that's an academically fragile position, then clearly you've never read the history of 'science' and clearly you've never really thought about what you believe and why.
- ROaks, on 07/09/2008, -13/+4Dimensio, you wouldn't understand a rational argument. Your evolution theory is no more valid than the creation theory. God made the animals and they went off and done what ever animals do and they are still doing what ever animals do. In another words God made horses and they went on to the present as horses, He made deers and they went on to the present as deer, He made dogs and they went on to the present as dogs. Then He made man(meaning male and female) and they went on to the present as man.
You people want us to believe that at some point baaaaaaaaaack in time that something and it just don't matter what, Oh, wait it couldn't be something because there is nothing. Things just started to happen and we ended up where we are at. The funny thing is you say it is observable, sooooooo evolution is still happening? If not when did it stop or if it hasn't just how do I observe this miracle. Help me I want to be a believer.- Dimensio, on 07/09/2008, -4/+14" Your evolution theory is no more valid than the creation theory."
Please justify your assertion that creation is a "theory". State the specific scope of observations that it purports to explain, and describe the physical processes known to occur or deduced to occur as a result of known processes acting in concern that the claim employs to explain the observations. Please demonstrate that the creation "theory" is as valid as the theory of evolution.
"In another words God made horses and they went on to the present as horses, He made deers and they went on to the present as deer, He made dogs and they went on to the present as dogs. Then He made man(meaning male and female) and they went on to the present as man."
Please describe the specific physical processes involved in the "creation" events that you allege occurred. Additionally, define the entity that you have termed "God" and demonstrate the existence of this entity.
"You people want us to believe that at some point baaaaaaaaaack in time that something and it just don't matter what, Oh, wait it couldn't be something because there is nothing."
Please explain and justify this assertion. Demonstrate that I desire you to "believe" this.
"The funny thing is you say it is observable, sooooooo evolution is still happening?"
Yes, it is.
"If not when did it stop or if it hasn't just how do I observe this miracle."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.htm ...
"Help me I want to be a believer."
Then why do you ignore responses to your inquiries? - johnnick, on 07/10/2008, -4/+8ROaks -
Not only do you ignore all of the responses to your inquiries (as Dimensio pointed out and which probably makes this response futile), but you seem to be biased in favor of a particular answer. You've said that you don't have the education to evaluate this issue properly, but you've decided that JimmySpaza's arguments are correct despite the vast quantity of evidence cited by those saying he's wrong.
So, apparently, you have no interest in actually learning about the issue. JimmySpaza's position has been debunked repeatedly both here and in other places, and the argument that creationsim/ID should be taught in the _SCIENCE_ classroom was most thoroughly debunked in the Dover School Board trial.
No one would argue that creationism/ID should not be taught in a theology, comparative religion or other course studying the Bible or other creation myths. It's just not science. - Nannybell, on 07/10/2008, -10/+3So, if there is a super-intelligent, super-powerful *being* or *entity* who devised and brought us into existence, you will only give that a thought if we are able to bring him here to meet you or furnish you with his cell number? I don't get the kind of reasoning that says such a being does not exist because we can't see him. It forces people into the myopic conclusion that only that which IS can ever be or ever was, i.e., our material existence. It doesn't allow for another form of existence. Here we are in this weird universe, with no idea where it itself actually is, no idea how it got here -- but we are brazen enough to say, "Nope! Only strictly physical explanations are so." Considering the possible existence of the sort of being I'm talking about and believing in the God of the Bible are two different concepts, but too many atheists have their mental gears stuck in the one position of believing those ideas are one and the same. It really makes for boring conversations with them. Frankly, I am waiting for some far more interesting scientists than the ones we currently have, who hopefully will be willing to consider and pursue research into possibilities to reality besides the stagnant ideas currently contemplated in *science.* Evolution is so stupid in so many ways, and I can't wait for the theory that will blow it out of the water. Hopefully it's around the corner.
- Dimensio, on 07/10/2008, -2/+12"Evolution is so stupid in so many ways,"
Please substantiate this assertion with evidence.
"and I can't wait for the theory that will blow it out of the water. Hopefully it's around the corner."
Predictions regarding an alleged imminent demise of the theory of evolution have been made since the theory was first published. Thus far, no such prediction has come to fruition. There is no reason to believe that your prediction is any more likely to be accurate than previous predictions. - kayala, on 07/11/2008, -1/+9Oh, Nanny. Here we go again.
"I don't get the kind of reasoning that says such a being does not exist because we can't see him."
It's not just that we cannot see such a being. It's that we cannot see, touch, smell, hear or taste such a being, and there is no way to detect or measure such a being. The being does not actually exist, in any sense of the word, because there is no method of determining whether it exists or not.
"It forces people into the myopic conclusion that only that which IS can ever be or ever was, i.e., our material existence. It doesn't allow for another form of existence."
Then you'd better not rule out the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the Invisible Pink Unicorns. You know, logic and all that.
"Evolution is so stupid in so many ways"
Such as? Do give us explanations that speak to the weakness of evolution, not the weakness of your own mind. All the ones I've gotten so far ("there aren't any transitional forms! no almost-horses or almost-dogs!" "evolution leads to nazism" "at some point, something non-human had to give birth to a human") only show ignorance and an inability to think rationally. - kayala, on 07/11/2008, -1/+9Oh, and ROaks:
"God made horses and they went on to the present as horses, He made deers and they went on to the present as deer, He made dogs and they went on to the present as dogs. Then He made man(meaning male and female) and they went on to the present as man."
If this is true, then we should expect to find the exact same fossils in all the strata. (Hint: we don't.)
"The funny thing is you say it is observable, sooooooo evolution is still happening? If not when did it stop or if it hasn't just how do I observe this miracle. Help me I want to be a believer."
Who ever said that evolution has "stopped"? I certainly hope you're not looking at humans as the "finished product", because we're not. Evolution has no more "stopped" than gravity has "stopped". It's a natural result of certain phenomena (in evolution's case, selective pressures) that doesn't just suddenly halt and call it a day. If you want to see observable evolution, see Dr. Lenski's research on cit+ bacteria. - Phyraxus, on 07/11/2008, -1/+7"I can't wait for the theory that will blow it out of the water."
Yeah, that would be a great day for everyone, just make sure you thank the scientist(s) who proposed it.
Although, the other theory would probably be a lot like evolution, I do know that naturalistic theories and conclusions aren't what your looking for. You already have your conclusion, you just need to find the evidence for it. HAHA, scientists have it so easy, formulating their conclusions from the evidence, they are SOOO lucky. - eir574, on 07/11/2008, -1/+9@ROaks
"He made dogs and they went on to the present as dogs."
You don't even accept that humans domesticated wolves? - SampleX, on 07/13/2008, -2/+1"you seem to be biased in favor of a particular answer"
I think you'd find it hard to argue that you were the bastion of objectivity when it came to science. If you were, you could not possibly accept evolutionary theory and big bang verbatim, since they are themselves formulated solely as the answer to the question 'can the universe exist and be explained apart from God?'
"Please demonstrate that the creation "theory" is as valid as the theory of evolution."
Arguments rooted in semantic play don't get the 'intelligent' answers so often demanded. But to take this further, the fact that 'intelligent design' as a set of ideas does not violate any of the observable laws of science, and indeed exists primarily as a response to the fact that evolutionary theory by nature violates significantly large numbers of observable laws of science billions of times over in order to have formed the complexities of the universe and biological life from trillions upon trillions of incalculably 'convenient' supposedly entirely random processes does nothing if not open the door to granting the ideas some academic credence, because they are scientifically more compatible with proven science.
"Please describe the specific physical processes involved in the "creation" events that you allege occurred."
Irrelevent in the discussion of 'alternative' conclusions and their plausibility. Evolutionists cannot describe the specific physical processes involved in the formation of the universe or indeed life. They cannot specify them, describe them, in much the same way that they cannot predict them and reproduce them, instead they guess at them and in teaching these things in 'science class', they boil the ideas down from trillions of minute complexities occurring simultaneously to create the universe's greatest and most productive collision of proliferate coincidences, into a handful of key points and tell their students that this view of 'evolution lite' is all they need to know in order to progress onward. In much the same way Creationists and supernaturalists accept that a supernatural intelligence transcending all scientific laws and all known dimensionality could quite easily combine trillions of complex scientific happenings into some very simple moves summarised as 'God did it.' You can't expect someone else's faith in the unseen to be more technical, more specific, more 'materialistic' than your own...
"Yes, it is." (in response to the challenge 'is evolution still happening.')
Can you be more specific instead of semantically playing with the term 'evolution' and using misnomers like 'inherent variation and adaption' as an example of 'evolution' in order to imply the macro-concepts of 'evolutionary theory' which assert that one type of animal gained information and changed its genetic form for no explicable reason in order to become another type of animal, a so-called 'scientific' phenomenon that defies observable science, has never been witnessed, and save for the mythology of 'evolutionary origins', to all intents and purposes cannot be proven to have ever happened, its proponents instead relying solely on the foundational insistance that it HAS happened irrespective of proof or implausibility.
This kind of argument is deceptive and dishonest.
I note that you have referenced arguments about 'speciation' to justify this claim. Silly, really, since 'speciation' is ostensibly merely classification based on minute differences observed within the human frame of reference and is not required to make reference to family, class, phylum or kingdom. On the level of 'species', we can observe and invent new 'species' to our heart's content. This in itself proves little. Creationism has plenty of room for inherent variation, and indeed inherent variation (adaptability) would be a predicted trait both of life created by an intelligent designer, and indeed of genetic corruption and deviation. Inherent variation does not remotely justify conclusions drawn about common ancestry between animal types. Two hundred species of mice are still mice. Two hundred species of dog are still dogs. Black people, white people, tall people, short people, fat people, thin people, hairy people, smooth people - they're all people. There are no indications that mice, dogs or humans are about to become anything else, and absolutely no sound evidence whatsoever that they were anything else prior to being mice, dogs or humans.
To equate 'inherent variation' with the broader implications of 'evolution' as the term is used today is intellectually dishonest and deceptive, it is a tactic designed to answer specific questions with specific answers on an entirely different topic and riding on the coat-tails of 'association' because of the over-use of an implausibly broad generic concept which fraudulently 'hijacks' a multiplicity of ideas and combines (also fraudulently) the observable science of inherent variation with the unobservable mythology of inter-species evolution in order to mask fragility and feign credibility.
"JimmySpaza's position has been debunked repeatedly both here and in other places"
I don't know JimmySpaza or his position, but I'll objectively add that ideas are not 'debunked repeatedly', they are debunked once and for all. The idea that such can be 'debunked repeatedly' seems to bear more association to the process of repetitiously denouncing or denying a concept than it does to any authoritative grasp on how and why the same concept HAS BEEN debunked. In other words, no one is coming on Digg and repeatedly debunking anyone else's assertions unless they themselves personally have conducted the debunking research and had the results validated beyond all shadow of doubt. I'll assume that JimmySpaza's position is 'creationist' (or else why would there be a contention amongst the evolutionist hordes (or was that whores?) and as such I'll point out that anyone who claims that a Creationist argument has been 'debunked' is kidding themselves or an idiot. You cannot debunk a supernatural claim until you can demonstrate the material dissection of the claim and provide conclusive opposing evidence. All you can do is argue your point, while he argues his, both are going to be equally tenacious expressions of personal opinion, and neither are going to 'debunk' the other on that basis.
"and the argument that creationsim/ID should be taught in the _SCIENCE_ classroom was most thoroughly debunked in the Dover School Board trial. "
'And the argument that Nazi War Criminals should be put on trial was most thoroughly debunked at the Convention of National Socialists in Argentina.' Until you can rule out bias, agenda, propaganda, and the like, nothing has been 'debunked', only agendised decisions have been made. Evolutionists all think that Dover is cut and dried. They don't like to publicise the fact that specifically the validity of ID was not on trial, only the particular expression of ID in that particular instance, nor do they like to admit that what one court would rule in one district on one day is not necessarily the same verdict that another court would rule in another district on another day.
The most famous example of this 'approach' by gleeful 'consensus rule' occurred fairly recently in the UK. A plaintiff who wanted to sue his bank for the unlawful application of penalty charges mis-stated his arguments and filed his complaint in the wrong court, thus losing his case by judicial ruling. The banks began to claim that this was a precedent, in spite of the fact that the particular court in question, and the nature of the case, did not qualify as being a precedent-setting ruling. The banks claimed it nonetheless, and so sure were they that after years of settling such claims out of court before a hearing occurred, one bank decided to start letting the claims get to a hearing, and found a judge in one particular district who was prepared to base his opinions on the 'precedent' and who declared, prejudicially, that based on the initial reading of the first in the list of claims, he would be throwing out subsequent claims and finding in favour of the banks. This, of course, didn't sit well with some in the legal profession who actually had ethics, and so a group of barristers from London met with the first of these plaintiffs to evaluate their legal brief, and they rewrote the claim in order to generalise it, depersonalise it, and to actually challenge legal arguments instead of dealing in a currency of he said, she said, personalities, personal appeals, and rhetoric... Once the proper arguments were submitted, instead of the triviality that was being presented before, the court was forced into the position where it had to accept the merits of the case and rule that the case would be heard. This in turn prompted a much broader and far reaching case to be brought with our Office of Fair Trading now also taking the banks through the high courts to establish that there are grounds to fight the banks with fairness laws. The banks, again arrogantly, assumed that the high court would hold their hearing and find on the banks behalf. They did not, and instead ruled that the OFT could bring in its legal big dogs and compile a case to be heard in the high court. As always, the banks plead their right for moratorium pending ruling, and for a right of appeal and the like, but most agree that they are fighting a losing, precedent-setting battle. Different fields of law, but the moral of the story is that on a legal issue such as 'what is allowed', circumstance and the wording of the case, the nature and origin of the case, can have massive sway on the outcome. A judge called to rule on a specific issue in one case may uncover a wealth of evidence which opens up a whole other set of issues, but he must still be called only to rule on that which he was called to rule upon. That doesn't mean to say that the same case, or a similar case, brought to court framed differently, or from a slightly different viewpoint will not yield a wholly different result. One example would be OJ Simpson, tried for criminal homicide and acquitted, but then tried on the same crimes in a civil court and being found liable. Tried for the same crime ostensibly, OJ was found both guilty and not-guilty. The verdicts were just as absolute, but the outcome was different because the liability in the cases was different and the avenues of prosecution were different. Did OJ do it? Yes, and no, according to the courts. Can ID be taught as a valid interpretation of scientific data in science classes... Time will reveal that different courts will rule both yes, and no, depending on the nature of the arguments.
And here's a doozy...
Global warming mythology is still being taught the world over without presenting the antithetical argument... Yet a judge in the UK ruled that 'An Inconvenient Truth' could not be shown in a school without parental permission because it was propaganda, and because in his court credible experts demonstrated that the claims made in that film were without virtue, were fraudulent, were inaccurate, were deceptive and were false. Are evolutionists and 'global warming' hysterics accepting the court ruling and re-adapting their thinking because the legal verdict has been made?
"No one would argue that creationism/ID should not be taught in a theology, comparative religion or other course studying the Bible or other creation myths. It's just not science."
Stop committing intellectual fraud by insisting that creationism and Intelligent Design are the same thing. They are not. They can be associated but they are independent of each other, and your churlish association denies the right of atheists who do not believe in God to find Intelligent Design a more scientifically plausible idea than Evolutionary Theory. Why, therefore, would ID be taught in theology class, since it makes no assertion about theology. It makes assertions about science which is why, however contentious those ideas may be, you need to stop being intellectually xenophobic, terrified of ideas, and instead debate these ideas based on scientific evidence, not on fraudulent categorisation of the nature of the argument.
Additionally, how much longer will you continue to make yourself look stupid by insisting that the Bible is, in content, a 'myth', when neither you, nor your contemporaries, nor indeed all the anti-Biblical academics of the last two thousand years, have been able to conclusively and evidentially prove it as such, and instead spend huge amounts of time waxing lyrical and spouting rhetoric while genuine researches marvel at how historically tangible and real these 'myths' appear to be. One would imagine that 'mythology' would be without historical evidence, and would not correspond perfectly to a framework of tangible, documented, relict events, people, places, with corroboration. Else one would imagine that it is what it appears to be: history. - SampleX, on 07/13/2008, -2/+2"HAHA, scientists have it so easy, formulating their conclusions from the evidence, they are SOOO lucky."
It's so sad to see so many people pay so much reverence to the infallibility and near-divine honest of 'scientists' and the 'scientific world'... You're clearly unaware of the creaking floorboards of the scientific ethics councils who are constantly being called upon to rule on the questionable motives, questionable methods, and questionable findings of scientists who are, clearly, far from infallible and far from honest.
And you clearly know nothing about 'science' if you think that all these scientists formulate their ideas from good old fashioned stumbling onto solid evidence. Assumption, arrogance, assertion, self-interest, highest bidder... those are the core values of 'modern science' today. You have too much faith in your religion.
"Evolution has no more "stopped" than gravity has "stopped""
Poor comparison. Gravity is observable, it is real-time, it can be interacted with, it can be superceded and overcome, it can be tested to form a rule. Evolution in the context in which you are applying it cannot. It is not a constant which governs the planet, it cannot be 'observed' nor interacted with, cannot therefore be superceded and overcome, and it cannot be tested to form a rule. Further, 'gravity' is an observed and relatively invariable 'constant state' save for counteractive actions through the feats of physics. 'Evolution' on the other hand cannot be an invariable 'constant state' since it can neither be measured nor observed, and depends heavily upon random and scientifically impossible violations of observable scientific law in order to even be assumed to have occurred.
"It's that we cannot see, touch, smell, hear or taste such a being, and there is no way to detect or measure such a being."
You depend too heavily on sophomoric notions of sensory interaction in order to form your conclusions about possibility and the existence of the unseen. You cannot see, touch, smell, hear or taste a quantum particle, but you can be fairly confident that it exists because it is evidenced in other ways which do not satisfy the 'sensory staples' of materialist subjective determination. You cannot see, touch, smell, hear or taste love, but that does not make it any less real an experience. You cannot see, touch, smell, hear or taste beyond the three dimensions in which you exist, but you can be assured that other dimensions do exist and that you have some state of existence within them, therefore you cannot rule out the possibility that in those other dimensions exist other beings which are not conventionally evidenced within the three dimensions to which you find your senses bound.
"Then you'd better not rule out the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the Invisible Pink Unicorns. You know, logic and all that."
There's no logic to that at all. The Flying Spaghetti Monster and the Invisible Pink Unicorn are admitted products of antagonistic minds who choose to characterise persistent ancient histories involving supernatural beings as 'ridiculous fantasy', and as such they themselves do not carry the weight of longstanding historical persistence, eyewitness testimony and corroborated historical events within the same framework. You have very serious intellectual problems if you think that the answer to the question of the accuracy of the Bible, for example, is to raise the churlish spectre of the 'Flying Spaghetti Monster.' Doing so simply reveals that you have no sense of the nature of compelling, historically based arguments, and in fact no sense of reality, let alone a sense of responsible research and a mature approach to dealing with philosophically problematic subjects.
For future record you will not do well attempting to debunk the existence of a supernatural being which millions of people claim, historically, to have seen evidence of and/or interacted with, by wafting around a purposely antagonistic figment of a devotedly antagonistic denier of the supernatural as a plausible comparison, you simply show ignorance of the historical evidence, which still stands, and still needs to be evaluated, considered, and explained in ways which cannot be satisfied by the 'Flying Spaghetti Monster', and it seems even more irresponsible for you to do so as such a regular proponent of the idea that the complexities of physics in the universe and the existence of life on earth came about from a 'Magical Mystery Explosion' with a psychadelic swirl in cosmic time. Talk about unproven, implausible convenient fairy-storyesque myths...
"Do give us explanations that speak to the weakness of evolution, not the weakness of your own mind."
You can't cast too many aspersions on fragile assertions that have been unable to clearly, profoundly and undeniably demonstrate their own validity. You may have heard the 'there are no transitional fossils' argument before, but the fact remains that you cannot plausibly counter it. The standard rebuttal to that claim is to wheel out a relative handful of species which evolutionists insist are 'transitional' because, they claim, these long-extinct animals (which are therefore impossible to observe and are therefore subject only to assumptive assertion about their nature and identity) have enigmatic features which make them in distinct ways similar to two different species, but again the authority of this accounting for these species depends upon the listener suspending intelligent thought and simply believing what they are told, instead of considering for example that the bones they are looking at are simply the bones of a long-dead distinct species which was neither transitional, nor recently 'evolved' and which was unique in its own right, and rare, and now extinct. And given the distinct lack of overwhelming volumes of such fossils, they also have to suspend the possibility that the creature was the result of a genetic mutation and then died out, which would explain the shortage of fossils. The fact remains that none of these fossils are found with a tag marker 'this is a transitionary creature'... the conclusion that it is transitionary is drawn by evolutionists who anticipate finding transitionary species, and it comes as no surprise that they find exactly what they are looking for, and the truth is that the fossil can be interpreted (badly) to be 'transitionary', or interpreted as being a distinct species in its own right, which actually fits the scientific model much better. As for non-humans giving birth to humans, there is no plausible answer to this, because the answer always involves a pre-human creature which is fractionally not human giving birth to a creature that is fractionally not pre-human, with absolutely no evidence whatsoever that one type of animal gains genetic information spontaneously and becomes another type of animal. This is the mystery of the constantly morphing DNA. Unseen, unwitnessed, unevidenced, but assumed to have happened.
"If this is true, then we should expect to find the exact same fossils in all the strata. (Hint: we don't.)"
Hint. We do. More often than evolutionists would like to admit. And there's a basic scientific premise... a scientific 'law' cannot stand in the light of an abundance of exceptions. But there's another flawed assumption... that rock strata and geology represent the same constant process of vast spans of geological time that evolutionists require for their theory to work. The earth's geology is not, however, a testament to these smooth, gradual processes, but rather to catastrophic and cataclysmic events punctuating an unmeasurable history and having an untold impact as catalyst and causation and interaction in the events which have shaped the planet. Fossilisation itself depends on the sudden burial of specimen in a preservative environment, which would not occur over thousands of years of layering of sediment during which bacteria and other animals would act upon a body, not to mention erosion and the action of acids and alkali. The distinct absence of massive numbers of fossils which could reasonable be expected to be found in proliferation in the rock layers is a very telling sign that this fossilised history of earth is not what evolutionists and evolutionary-thinking geologists claim it to be.
"If you want to see observable evolution, see Dr. Lenski's research on cit+ bacteria."
Correction. If you want to see 'inherent variation' at work and 'speciation', then the examples are plentiful. If you want to observe the kind of evolution required for evolutionary theory to explain the diversity of life on earth, you can't, because it does not exist and cannot thus be seen, since an animal type does not suddenly 'gain' advantageous genetic information and become another type of animal. Bacteria adapting to become a different type of bacteria, reorganising and restructuring its own DNA or the manifestation of its DNA is not now, nor will ever be, remotely equatable to an ape-like creature becoming a human, or a dog becoming a horse, or a dinosaur becoming a bird, or an amoeba becoming a fish, or a fish becoming a lizard...
"You don't even accept that humans domesticated wolves?"
Are you saying that the wolf is genetically a different type of animal to the dog. The speciation is irrelevent in much the same way that 'domestication' in itself has no discernible impact on the genetic nature of the dog. In Moscow a few years ago a boy was found who had been abandoned in a forest and had lived with wolves, and he displayed wolf-like learned behaviour, was wild and uncontrollable, and ostensibly dangerous. There is, however, no evidence that the genetics of the wolf had crossed over to the boy. Behavioural and psychological traits are not the same as genetic traits. I trust that you, as a person professing some authority in scientific matters, already know this.
- Dimensio, on 07/09/2008, -4/+14" Your evolution theory is no more valid than the creation theory."
- SampleX, on 07/09/2008, -20/+5Ja. Ist gut to have ze schtate sanctioned teecherz teeching ze young childrens how zey must tink and how zey must regard zeir parents as ze crackpot crazed lunatics... Ve tried zat in Germany, and zey called it Nazi propaganda. Zen zay tried it in China and zey called it 'Commie Brainwashing.' Now ze self same thing ist happening in ze West, und ve call it 'Science und Edukation.'
- Dimensio, on 07/09/2008, -5/+22The article labels "intelligent design" as "theory", yet no justification of the label is given.
I have asked, on multiple occasions, for advocates of "intelligent design" to describe the explanatory mechanism incorporated by "intelligent design", yet none have offered an explanation. In fact, some advocates have even suggested that it is unreasonable to request such an explanation, in stark defiance of rationality and reason. While "Intelligent design" advocates argue that evidence exists that existing biodiversity could not have emerged unless "designed" by an intelligent agency, they offer no explanation of the physical processes involved in the implementation of the alleged "design". Without such an explanation, their claims of "design" cannot be meaningfully evaluated; it is irrational and dishonest to assert that an observation lends evidence to the past occurrence of an event when the event is wholly undefined. If an event is not defined, there is no means to deduce the observations that would result from that event from occurring, and, because of that, no observation can rationally be claimed to be evidence of that event.- ROaks, on 07/09/2008, -10/+4Dimensio, please describe the explanatory mechanism Incorporated by evolution. Explain the physical processes involved in the implementation of the alleged evolution. It is irrational and dishonest to assert that an observation lends evidence to the past occurrence of an event when the event is wholly undefined. So, what event defines the claim of evolution?
- lydecker, on 07/09/2008, -4/+15Mutations. Mutations are changes to the nucleotide sequence of the genetic material of an organism. Mutations can be caused by copying errors in the genetic material during cell division, by exposure to ultraviolet or ionizing radiation, chemical mutagens, or viruses, or can occur deliberately under cellular control during processes such as hypermutation. In multicellular organisms, mutations can be subdivided into germ line mutations, which can be passed on to descendants, and somatic mutations, which are not transmitted to descendants in animals. Plants sometimes can transmit somatic mutations to their descendants asexually or sexually (in case when flower buds develop in somatically mutated part of plant). A new mutation that was not inherited from either parent is called a de novo mutation. The source of the mutation is unrelated to the consequence, although the consequences are related to which cells are affected.
Mutations create variations in the gene pool. Less favorable (or deleterious) mutations can be reduced in frequency in the gene pool by natural selection, while more favorable (beneficial or advantageous) mutations may accumulate and result in adaptive evolutionary changes. For example, a butterfly may produce offspring with new mutations. The majority of these mutations will have no effect; but one might change the color of one of the butterfly's offspring, making it harder (or easier) for predators to see. If this color change is advantageous, the chance of this butterfly surviving and producing its own offspring are a little better, and over time the number of butterflies with this mutation may form a larger percentage of the population.
Natural selection is the process by which favorable heritable traits become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable heritable traits become less common, due to differential reproduction of genotypes. The concept of natural selection was originally developed in the absence of a valid theory of inheritance; at the time of Darwin's writing, nothing was known of modern genetics. The union of traditional Darwinian evolution with subsequent discoveries in classical and molecular genetics is termed the modern evolutionary synthesis. Although other mechanisms of molecular evolution, such as the neutral theory advanced by Motoo Kimura, have been identified as important causes of genetic diversity, natural selection remains the single primary explanation for adaptive evolution.
---
Now, since we've done our work about a thousand times, here's your turn. Describe the explanatory mechanism incorporated by "intelligent design", yet none have offered an explanation. Refute all you want about evolution too, but first, please describe what's behind intelligent design. - Dimensio, on 07/09/2008, -4/+14"Dimensio, please describe the explanatory mechanism Incorporated by evolution. Explain the physical processes involved in the implementation of the alleged evolution. It is irrational and dishonest to assert that an observation lends evidence to the past occurrence of an event when the event is wholly undefined. So, what event defines the claim of evolution?"
Evolution incorporates the processes of mutation and reproductive pressures limiting reproductive success based upon heriditable traits relative to environmental conditions. Both of these processes are known to occur, as they have been observed extensively.
As I have now addressed your inquiry, please address mine: please describe the explanatory mechanism or mechanisms incorporated by "Intelligent Design". - Nannybell, on 07/10/2008, -5/+3Lydecker,
"please describe what's behind intelligent design"
Perhaps a super-intelligent, super-powerful being who created things for His own reasons using a method unknown to us and probably beyond our capacity to comprehend. And furthermore, not too many scientists currently display much interest in contemplating such very reasonable possibilities. It's not politically correct. Political correctness stifles unbiased inquiry.
So you don't believe that God designed/created anything? Why does a professed Christian not believe that God created anything? I have to think that you believe that God was involved at some point along the way. If so, what was the mechanism he used? That's the question these atheists and yourself are asking. Can you answer it? - eir574, on 07/10/2008, -2/+10"And furthermore, not too many scientists currently display much interest in contemplating such very reasonable possibilities. "
That's because the existence of such a deity is beyond the realm of science and because science seeks to uncover natural laws. That's not at all incompatible with the existence of deities. If a deity created a universe that operates according to natural law, then from the point of view of science, it doesn't matter that the deity exists. All we seek to uncover in science are the natural laws. If a deity's existence could be proven through natural means, then it would be part of the natural world and would be reachable through scientific observations. Most people describe god as an entity that exists outside of the physical realm, which excludes it from scientific observation. In order to observe such a deity, it would have to in some way impact the physical world. You can't simultaneously say that naturalism is insufficient to understand god *and* that scientists should attempt to use scientific methods (i.e. natural methods) to understand god.
Even if a literal interpretation of the biblical account of creation is correct, that doesn't mean that the relationships among species can't be understood through evolutionary theory. For instance, the theory that we share a common ancestor with other primates helps us understand how our biology relates to that of other primates regardless of whether the common ancestry is literally true. In the end, it's just a model. - lydecker, on 07/10/2008, -2/+11So Nannybell agrees that intelligent design isn't scientific, because there's no scientific explanatory mechanism. Instead, something she can't explain. Maybe someone else who DOES think intelligent design is science and has an explanatory mechanism for it can chime in instead.
"So you don't believe that God designed/created anything?"
Incorrect. I'm not sure where you think I said that. I believe God created the universe. But it's a belief, not scientific. I can't answer it, therefore it's not a theory, and it shouldn't be considered or taught as science. Unscientific thoughts stifle meaningful scientific inquiry. - Cate320, on 07/10/2008, -1/+9@Nannybell
I personally believe that (if God does exist) He created the entire universe and simply set all of nature's laws in motion and let them run free of his interference. Science cannot, will not ever try to disprove or prove this, as it is beyond the scope of the natural, observable world. Therefore, even scientists are free to believe what they wish about a God, and even religious people are free to practice science.
Even if you do accept this belief, it still should not be taught in science class. It would be quite redundant to do so really. Science never formally questions the existence of God and science students are never discouraged from believing. As it stands now, evolution is taught based purely on an observable process and it is left up to the students themselves to decide whether or not to accept the explanation above. There is no need for the clarification "God *might* have done it". - Phyraxus, on 07/10/2008, -1/+5"Perhaps a super-intelligent, super-powerful being who created things for His own reasons"
You're making ***** up again, how can you not tell? - kayala, on 07/11/2008, -0/+5Nanny, your ignorance makes me sad.
"Perhaps a super-intelligent, super-powerful being who created things for His own reasons using a method unknown to us and probably beyond our capacity to comprehend."
That's interesting. What evidence gave you that idea?
"And furthermore, not too many scientists currently display much interest in contemplating such very reasonable possibilities. It's not politically correct. Political correctness stifles unbiased inquiry."
No, scientists reject your idea because it smacks of religious ***** and science has no time to waste on thinly veiled Christian dogma.
I've asked a great many people questions on their darling ID, and I haven't yet gotten any satisfactory answers. Now I'll pose the same questions to you, and I expect a response from you that answers all the questions succinctly and satisfactorily. I expect your response to not contain any bellyaching about the mean old liberals making fun of you; this is your chance to gain some credibility!
1. What, exactly, is the "creator" that you propose?
2. Does it have a name, a body, a location?
3. What is its nature?
4. Why did it create us?
5. When did it create us?
6. How did it create us?
7. Why has it not corresponded with us, its creation, since the original act of creation itself?
8. Where did the "creator" come from?
9. Is the "creator" the only of its kind, or are there more?
10. What scientific evidence do you have to support these claims? If there is no scientific evidence, why should we take you seriously? - Phyraxus, on 07/11/2008, -0/+7@ kayala: Number ten should be asked first to save time from reading the responses from the rest of the numbers.
- kayala, on 07/11/2008, -0/+7You're right, Phyraxus, but I really am curious to hear the answers. I've asked these questions to various people, and none have given me any satisfactory answers (that is, answers that actually address the question, rather than whining about the liberal atheist homosexual agenda). I don't think that these questions are unfair or inappropriate, but rather stem from the fact that everyone who's tried to explain ID to me thus far has put it in extremely vague terms. "Something created life on earth, an intelligent designer. We can't possibly understand anything about this designer, but we know that it exists... ignoring the fact that we can't know anything about it." That's not a very solid concept to begin with; it sounds to me like even the folks in the ID/creationist crowd don't understand ID/creationism. If that's the case, then why the hell would we teach it to anyone?
- lydecker, on 07/09/2008, -4/+15Mutations. Mutations are changes to the nucleotide sequence of the genetic material of an organism. Mutations can be caused by copying errors in the genetic material during cell division, by exposure to ultraviolet or ionizing radiation, chemical mutagens, or viruses, or can occur deliberately under cellular control during processes such as hypermutation. In multicellular organisms, mutations can be subdivided into germ line mutations, which can be passed on to descendants, and somatic mutations, which are not transmitted to descendants in animals. Plants sometimes can transmit somatic mutations to their descendants asexually or sexually (in case when flower buds develop in somatically mutated part of plant). A new mutation that was not inherited from either parent is called a de novo mutation. The source of the mutation is unrelated to the consequence, although the consequences are related to which cells are affected.
- ROaks, on 07/09/2008, -10/+4Dimensio, please describe the explanatory mechanism Incorporated by evolution. Explain the physical processes involved in the implementation of the alleged evolution. It is irrational and dishonest to assert that an observation lends evidence to the past occurrence of an event when the event is wholly undefined. So, what event defines the claim of evolution?
- Phyraxus, on 07/09/2008, -6/+12"Job lost for opposing neutrality to intelligent design"
Ahem, that should read "Job lost for promoting a speech critical of ID because it violated neutrality between ID and evolution."
But yeah, the spin is expected considering they don't even bother explaining exactly how she lost her job.
"ID theory asserts that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not a random, undirected force such as natural selection, which is part of the foundational faith of evolutionists."
Straw manning evolution and making it look like "faith" of "evolutionists." That really is a pathetic tactic because they have absolutely no way they can win the argument they go ahead and say, "Well, we can at least drag them down to our level."- ROaks, on 07/09/2008, -8/+2 SHE RESIGNED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!. Now she is suing to get her job back. That is the kind of educators we have today. She doesn't like the policy speaks out, get a communication from her superiors and she doesn't like it so she RESIGNS. She was not fired.
- cpsteinmetz, on 07/12/2008, -0/+1No, the headline should have read: "Job lost for opposing neutrality to teaching a flat earth."
Puts the situation into the correct perspective.
- sexydarin, on 07/09/2008, -21/+5It's not straw manning at all. You either believe everything has a creator(normal). Or everything does not have a creator(stupidity).
- Phyraxus, on 07/09/2008, -4/+15LMAO
- Dimensio, on 07/09/2008, -4/+19Do you have any rational statements to offer?
- Evilena, on 07/09/2008, -2/+22Click on sexydarin's name and read some of her comments on other threads. You will see that the answer is no. Did you know that Google is run by Communists and all of the worlds problems are caused by ***** and leftsts? sexydarin does!
- ROaks, on 07/09/2008, -14/+4Dimensio, you would not know a rational statement if it jumped up and bit you. I know, I know, Do you have any rational statement to offer. You wouldn't know it if I did,
- Dimensio, on 07/09/2008, -3/+13"Dimensio, you would not know a rational statement if it jumped up and bit you. "
Please justify your assertion with evidence. - ashfish, on 07/09/2008, -3/+10ROaks, do you have any idea how to debate? Your arguments have no substance and only serve to distract. Please, go and research a little bit about evolution from some place other than AiG and the Discovery Institute then come back with some real questions.
- kayala, on 07/11/2008, -1/+4ROaks, you've been a belligerent little pest as of late. Why so bitter?
- Evilena, on 07/09/2008, -4/+19If everything does have a creator then who created God?
Richard Dawkins has made this point several times. You can't claim that everything in the Universe was created by something more intelligent without the whole system breaking down in the end.- ROaks, on 07/09/2008, -12/+4God may have had a creator. I don't know, you don't know. But, you know what? It doesn't much matter because the one we have to worry about is the one that created us. He (God) has to worry about the one that created Him, we don't. You see, it is the same as you and I were born to a set of parents, they are the ones we have to worry about, they are the ones we have to answer to not their parents that caused them to be born, or the ones that caused the grandparents to be born, just the ones that caused us to be born. So I don't care who created God, The fact remains there is a God and He wants us to be a certain way and it is up to us to either obey or disobey. As for me and my house we are going to obey as much as this one knows how to obey. So there, God will take care of the who created Him part. When our time is over here on this plane we will know all the rest. Some will know it in Heaven in bliss. So will know it in hell in torment. Heed, Now is the time for Salvation.
- lydecker, on 07/09/2008, -3/+13So, ROaks, you admit logically that God does not necessarily have a creator, meaning everything that exists does not need to have a creator. Thanks for disproving sexydarin's premise, because it's obvious that in order for everything to need a creator, nothing could have existed to create the first thing.
- SQLDigger, on 07/09/2008, -5/+5Dawkin's was wrong because he assumed "intelligence" was a quantifiable parameter that is an extension of this universe, which he assumes to 100% knowable. It's the classical mistake of assuming God is just a projection of human consciousness, and then going on to smugly prove the point they've already asserted. There doesn't need to be a more intelligent creator than the one creator if said creator and His intelligence IS the fundamental ordering principle of the universe. There is absolutely nothing logically inconsistent about believing there is a single Creator; and there is no logical necessity for a stack of turtles to back up such an assertion. Whether it can be conclusively proven absent divine revelation, I seriously doubt, or better minds than mine would have written such proof. I'll stick to the eyewitness testimony I've read. But it's no more illogical for someone to believe in God than it is for a child to believe his grandmother whom he has never met lives in Tulsa, because his mother told him so.
- Dimensio, on 07/09/2008, -4/+12"The fact remains there is a God and He wants us to be a certain way and it is up to us to either obey or disobey."
Please justify this assertion. - Dimensio, on 07/09/2008, -4/+13"But it's no more illogical for someone to believe in God than it is for a child to believe his grandmother whom he has never met lives in Tulsa, because his mother told him so."
Please justify this assertion. A claim of a grandmother living in Tulsa can be established as reasonable even if not demonstrated outright by first showing that a location named "Tulsa" may exist and then by showing that individuals may exist within the hypothetical location. In this way, it can be shown that the claim of a grandmother living in Tulsa is consistent with demonstrable conditions in reality. Please state and describe the demonstrable conditions in reality that are consistent with the claim of the existence of a "God". - lydecker, on 07/09/2008, -4/+14"There is absolutely nothing logically inconsistent about believing there is a single Creator"
No there isn't. But the reasoning sexydarin stated was logically inconsistent, and that's what we're refuting. He said that "everything has a creator" is a normal belief, and not believing that is stupidity. This logical statement is logically inconsistent, because it would require that single Creator in your theory to have been created. Your belief that a single creator doesn't need a creator would be, by his stated logic, stupidity. - Equinox2012, on 07/10/2008, -2/+12God did have a creator.... MAN!
- SQLDigger, on 07/10/2008, -5/+2Lydecker, methinks you and Evilena are both extrapolating too much from SD's statement. I don't think he meant to say God had a creator, and to try to infer that meaning from a statement you could just as easily have ignored strikes me as simple pedantry, or argumentiveness at worst (lol, I know, pot, kettle, and all that).
Dimension, showing a child a place named Tulsa on a "map" and showing him pictures of people who live there isn't going to mean as much to him as his mother's word. What stimulates the child's consciousness is the hope that one day he may get to go to this place called "Tulsa" and meet his grandmother face to face. He doesn't need the sharp implements of constructionist rationalism to approach truth. He has a simple intuitive grasp of it. That's what I love about him. Not that there's anything wrong with rational thinking, certainly, as long as it's kept in proper perspective.